Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 more minutes.

Mr. SANDERS. Oh, there it is.

Mr. SANDERS. Reclaiming my time. Let me quote you, Senator Rubio, and tell me if this is right. This is a quote that you just made yesterday, and if I am wrong, I apologize. But as I understand it, you spoke to a group of Wall Street lobbyists, and this is what you said: Many argue that you can't cut taxes because it will drive up the deficit. But we have to do two things. We have to generate economic growth which generates revenue, while reducing spending. That will mean instituting structural changes to Social Security and Medicare for the future. Let me help define what my Republican colleagues mean when they talk about structural changes to Social Security and Medicare. It will mean that at a time when senior citizens are splitting their pills in half, Republicans will go forward with massive cuts to Medicare. Maybe their idea will be to raise the retirement age to 70, forcing older workers in terms of Social Security to work more before they can get their benefits. Maybe it will be privatizing Medicare and giving people a voucher. When my Republican friends talk about saving Social Security and Medicare, what they are talking about is cutting it.

Mr. SANDERS. I will yield.

Mr. SANDERS. I will yield 1 minute.

Mr. SANDERS. Yes.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I do not ask for the unanimous consent, but I would like to speak on an amendment that I will be offering later. Mr. President, the President of the United States, Donald Trump, and the Republican leadership are busy every day telling the American people how this piece of tax legislation is going to help the middle class and how it was written for the middle class. We see President Trump going to Missouri and saying: This bill is not going to help me, who is a billionaire; it is really designed for the middle class. I trust that I will not shock too many people when I suggest that what President Trump is saying is not accurate, is not truthful. This legislation, according to numerous independent studies, will provide 62 percent of the tax benefits to the top 1 percent. So 62 percent of the benefits go to the top 1 percent, while it increases taxes on 87 million middle-class households by the end of the decade. Here we are, as every American knows, living at a time of massive income and wealth inequality. The middle class is shrinking, millions of people are working longer hours for lower wages, and 40 million people are living in poverty. But over the last 40 years, the people on the top have been doing phenomenally well, and today we have more income and wealth inequality than at any time since the late 1920s. Given that reality, who in their right mind believes that it makes sense to give huge tax breaks for the people on top, while raising taxes for the middle class? Do you know what? My Republican colleagues here may think that makes sense. That is not what the American people believe. Poll after poll after poll suggests--as it did with their disastrous healthcare legislation--that the American people do not want this legislation. If you can believe it, the Joint Committee on Taxation told us just last night that by the year 2027, 150 million households in America making $200,000 a year or less will see their taxes go up, not down, under this disastrous bill. Why? Because the tax cuts for middle-class families expire by the end of 2025, while--surprise of all surprises-- the tax breaks for large corporations are made permanent. The benefits for the middle class expire. They are temporary. The benefits for the corporate world are permanent. The leadership of the Republican Party is telling the American people that trickle-down economics--giving huge tax breaks to the wealthy and large corporations--will expand the economy, will create new jobs, and will bring in so much revenue that, magically, it will pay for itself. Just give tax breaks for billionaires and large corporations, and those tax breaks will pay for themselves. But here is the reality. The reality is that trickle-down economics is a fraudulent theory. When Ronald Reagan slashed taxes for the rich in 1981, economic growth went down by 1.9 percent the following year, and the unemployment rate increased from 7.5 percent to 10.8 percent. The 1981 tax cut was so successful that Reagan had to increase taxes eleven times after that. After President George W. Bush cut taxes for the wealthy and large corporations, we lost nearly 500,000 private sector jobs, the national debt almost doubled, poverty increased, and median income went down. After the rightwing Republican leadership in Kansas--the last example of the theory of trickle-down economics--cut taxes for the wealthy, revenue declined so much that they had to make savage cuts in education, healthcare, transportation, and infrastructure. Trickle-down economics did not work under Reagan, did not work under George W. Bush, and did not work in the State of Kansas. It is a fraudulent theory cooked up by think tanks funded by billionaires and the wealthy. Every independent expert who has taken a look at this tax bill has said that it will substantially increase the deficit even after accounting for economic growth. The Joint Committee on Taxation has told us that this bill will increase the deficit by $1.4 trillion over the next decade. I want to make this point because it has not been made enough. Mark my words. If this legislation is passed, if the deficit goes up by $1.4 trillion, I believe without any doubt, that the Republican Party will come down here to the Senate and go to the House and say: My goodness, we have raised the deficit, and in order to deal with that, we have to cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, nutrition, education, affordable housing, and every program that is important.

Mr. SANDERS. Thank you. I will wind it up, actually, in less than 3 minutes. Here is the bottom line. The bill that these Republicans are going to vote on would create massive tax breaks for the rich, raising taxes for the middle class, raising the deficit by $1.4 trillion, creating a situation where 13 million lose their health insurance and premiums go up by 10 percent. That is only half of the story. The other half of the story is that they are going to come back, and they are going to pay for the tax breaks for the rich and large corporations by slashing Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. This legislation is an assault on the middle class and working families of this country. It must be defeated. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1720, and ask unanimous consent that Senators Franken, Wyden, and Nelson be added as cosponsors.

Mr. SANDERS. Absolutely, but it is not just an idea I have. It is not just a theory I have. These numbers were put right into the budget passed by the Senate, which called for a trillion-dollar cut in Medicaid, then a $470 billion cut in Medicare, and massive cuts to other programs. Let's not even talk about the budget of several months ago. Let's just talk about what our colleague Senator Marco Rubio yesterday-- yesterday--told a group of Wall Street lobbyists. Let me quote Senator Rubio. He said: Many argue that you can't cut taxes because it will drive up the deficit. But we have to do two things. We have to generate economic growth which generates revenue, while reducing spending. That will mean instituting structural changes to Social Security and Medicare for the future. That was what Senator Rubio said yesterday. Well, let me translate what Senator Rubio said yesterday and what Speaker Paul Ryan has been saying. It is not theoretical. What they are saying is exactly what will happen. I hope that the senior citizens all over this country, people who are trying to get by on $13,000 a year on Social Security, people who are trying to get by on disability, people who are dependent on Medicaid for their insurance to help them stay alive when they combat life-threatening diseases like cancer or heart disease, people in America who are struggling today to put food on the table, and working families who are trying to figure out how possibly they might be able to send their kids to college will listen up because they are virtually admitting--they are telling us--that they are going to come back and cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Yesterday, I made a challenge. I said to my Republican colleagues: If I am wrong, and it is not your intention to come back here and cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and education, please come down to the floor and tell me I am wrong. Tell me you have no intention to do that. I will apologize to you. Well, we have not heard any Senators come down to the floor to tell us they will not cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs. In fact, off the floor Senator Rubio indicated that that is exactly what they intend to do. Let's be clear. We are not just talking here about a tax bill. That is a disaster unto itself. That is a massive--

Mr. SANDERS. I am reclaiming my time--reclaiming my time.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I am so happy that my colleague, my friend from Pennsylvania, is concerned about fairness, which, no doubt, is why 62 percent of the benefits in this tax proposal are going to go to the top 1 percent, and after 10 years we are going to see over 80 million middle-class families pay more in taxes while the richest people in this country get huge tax breaks. If that is the definition of fairness, then I don't quite know what unfairness is about. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Blumenthal, Merkley, and Warren be added as cosponsors to amendment No. 1720, which I am offering.

Mr. SANDERS. I would yield time--good. I would yield time to my friend from Pennsylvania to assure--now, I see Senator Rubio down here as well. He just the other day--correct me if I am wrong, Senator Rubio. I know you have just walked in, and I have gotten you into this debate. But correct me if I am wrong, if you did not say yesterday that the Senate would now proceed to an ``entitlement reform,'' which, in fact, will mean cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. I will yield to my friend from Florida to tell me whether I am accurately portraying what he said just the other day.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, the amendment I am offering with Senators Leahy, Brown, Harris, Baldwin, Udall, Reed, Markey, Heinrich, and Hirono is very simple and straightforward, and I am glad that a number of my Republican colleagues are on the floor because they can help me as we go forward on this amendment. What my amendment would do is establish a point of order to prevent cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits, which could be waived only by two-thirds of the Senate. In other words, what we are trying to do here is make it harder for there to be cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. I want everyone in America to know that this tax proposal is more than a tax proposal. It is my absolute belief that as soon as this tax proposal is completed and drives the deficit up by $1.4 trillion--I have zero doubt that my Republican colleagues are going to come back to the floor of the Senate and suddenly say: Oh, my goodness, the deficit has gone up. We have to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. I happen to see my friend from Pennsylvania here on the floor--a friend. I say to him, and I say to the leader of the Senate, Mr. McConnell: I will withdraw this amendment if you can assure the American people tonight that you are not going to come back to the Senate and cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Can I have that assurance?

Mr. SANDERS. OK, and I did not say the words do appear. What I did say is that when this legislation is passed and you add $1.4 trillion to the deficit, then you are going to come back and cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. So is my friend from Pennsylvania now--and that is interesting--are you guaranteeing the American people that you will not be cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid? Don't use the word ``save'' because what ``save'' means is a cut. Will you guarantee the American people now that there will be zero cuts to benefits in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and that you are not--excuse me. It is my time. I will yield to you. I will yield to you, but let me finish. I yielded to you before. Will you guarantee the people of this country that after this bill passes, you will not come back, raise the retirement age, voucherize Medicare, raise the retirement age for Medicare, or cut cost-of-living increases by instituting a so-called Chained CPI? Do I have your word on that?

Mr. SANDERS. I know that.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, this is what I asked: I am very concerned that if you succeed in passing tax legislation that significantly adds to our national debt, you will then move aggressively to balance the budget on the backs of working families, the elderly, the children, the sick, and the poor. In other words, in order to pay for tax breaks for the rich and large corporations, you will make massive cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, nutrition, environmental protection, and every other program designed to protect the needs of the middle class and working families of our country. Before the Senate votes on tax legislation that adds over $1.4 trillion to the deficit, you owe the American people a specific and detailed explanation as to how the Republican Congress will achieve its commitment of balancing the budget over the next decade. Will you schedule a vote to raise the eligibility age of Medicare from 65 to 67 as called for in the House Budget Resolution? Will you attempt to end Medicare as we know it by giving seniors vouchers to purchase private health insurance, something long supported by Speaker Ryan? How much will you cut Social Security? Will you try to increase the retirement age to 70, cut cost-of-living adjustments for senior citizens and disabled veterans, and/or privatize Social Security? Will you support legislation to cut Medicaid by $1 trillion over the next decade, kicking 15 million Americans off of health insurance? As you know, this was a provision included in the Republican Budget Resolution that was passed earlier this year. How much do you plan on cutting affordable housing, Pell Grants, WIC, and Head Start to pay for a permanent tax break for profitable corporations? That is what I wrote to the majority leader. My challenge right now to my Republican colleagues is--and I ask you--to come down to the floor of the Senate and tell me I am wrong. Come down here and tell the American people, if this legislation--this disastrous tax bill--passes, that you will not be coming back to cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, nutrition, education, and other programs. Maybe I am wrong. If Republicans come down here and say: Bernie, you are wrong. We have no intention of cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, I will come here, and I will apologize. So here is my challenge right now to my Republican colleagues: Come down here. Tell me and tell the American people I am wrong. Tell us all that you are not going to cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and education in order to deal with the $1.4 trillion deficit you will bring about in this disastrous tax bill. Tell the American people you are not going to cut programs that the elderly, the children, the sick, and the poor desperately need in order to give huge tax breaks to the wealthy and large corporations. That is my challenge, and I will be listening eagerly to see if there are any Republicans who are going to come down and tell me what I am suggesting is wrong. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, President Trump and the Republican leadership are on television every day telling the American people how this tax bill is going to help the middle class, how it was written for the middle class. Unfortunately, I will not shock too many people by suggesting what President Trump is saying is not truthful. This legislation, according to independent studies, will provide 60 percent of the benefits to the top 1 percent. We are living in a moment in American history where we have massive levels of income and wealth inequality, where the top one-tenth of 1 percent now owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent, where three people--three of the wealthiest people in this country own more wealth than the bottom half of the American population. Yet my Republican colleagues believe this is a moment when 60 percent of the benefits of the so-called tax reform bill should go to the 1 percent. Meanwhile, millions of middle-class families will end up paying more in taxes. So we have a situation in which the wealthy, who need tax breaks the least, will benefit the most, and many millions of struggling working-class and middle-class families will end up paying more in taxes at the end of 10 years. The President of the United States and my Republican colleagues tell the American people that trickle-down economics--giving huge tax breaks to the wealthy and large corporations--will expand the economy, will create new jobs, and will pay for the deficit that this legislation brings about. The simple truth is, trickle-down economics is a fraudulent theory. It has failed miserably in Kansas, where it has been most recently put into effect. It failed under the Reagan administration, and it failed under the administration of George W. Bush. What interests me the most is, my Republican colleagues will not tell the American people how they are going to be paying for the $1.4 trillion increase in deficits that this bill creates. You have a $1.4 trillion increase in deficits. How is that going to be paid for? My view is that, without doubt, as soon as this legislation is passed, the Republicans will come back, and they will suddenly rediscover their religion about deficits. They will go before the American people and say we need ``entitlement reform'' or we need ``welfare reform.'' Let me translate for you what ``entitlement reform'' means. It means that when millions of older workers have nothing in the bank saved up for retirement, they are going to propose massive cuts to Social Security. We do not know exactly the form it will take. Maybe they will want to raise the retirement age, forcing older workers to work more before they can get their Social Security benefits. Maybe they will cut back on cost-of-living increases through a so-called chained CPI, which means lower benefits. They are going to go after Medicare. Maybe their idea will be to privatize Medicare, convert it into a voucher program, and say to older Americans: Here is a check for $8,000. You go out and find the private insurance that you can, and good luck to you with your $8,000 check if you are dealing with heart disease or cancer. They will, no doubt, come back to slash Medicaid. Now, these are not just wild ideas that I have been thinking about. This is pretty much what was in the budget the Republicans voted for right on the floor of the Senate. They already voted for a $1 trillion cut over a 10-year period to Medicaid, and that means massive reductions in help not only for lower income Americans, not only for children but for people in nursing homes. They have already voted in the budget, over a 10-year period, to cut Medicare by $470 billion, and in the House they are working hard to figure out ways to cut Social Security. The Republicans will also make massive cuts to education, to nutrition, and to environmental protection. The other day, I sent a letter to the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, and to the Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan. What I asked of them was to be honest with the American people. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, whether one is a progressive, a Democrat, a conservative, a Republican, or somewhere in between, there is a deep understanding in this country that we are living in a rigged economy, and people are increasingly angry and frustrated about the growing inequality and unfairness they see all about them. It is hard to believe, but in the United States of America today, the top one-tenth of 1 percent now owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent--one-tenth of 1 percent, bottom 90 percent. A study came out fairly recently indicating that in the United States of America today, the three wealthiest people in our country--Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and Warren Buffett--now own more wealth than the bottom half of the American people. Three people own more wealth than the bottom half of the American people. Meanwhile, while the very, very rich get richer, some 40 million Americans are living in poverty. These are people who are struggling today to figure out how they put food on the table for their kids, how they put gas in the car in order to go to work, how they pay their electric bills, how they deal with childcare. There are 40 million people living in poverty. The middle class is disappearing. People are working two or three jobs. For the first time in the modern history of this country, young people may well have a standard of living lower than their parents'. On top of all of that, we remain the only major country on Earth that doesn't guarantee healthcare to all of our people. Twenty-eight million people today have no health insurance. Many more are underinsured. And if our Republican colleagues get their way, they are going to throw another 20 or 30 million people off of their health insurance. It is not only the reality of grotesque levels of inequality that is making the American people despondent and angry; it is the reality that the people on top, with their wealth and power, can access lawyers and accountants who are able to manipulate the system to benefit themselves at the expense of everyone else. That is the essence of what a rigged economy is about and what I want to say a few words about today. In my view, one of the great crises facing our world--and we are in a world of many crises--is the rapid movement toward international oligarchy in which a handful of billionaires own and control not just a significant part of the American economy but a significant part of the world economy. Needless to say, this is an issue that does not get a whole lot of discussion because, in general, the more important the issues are, the less discussion they get within the corporate media or within the political world that we live in here in the Congress. Let me reiterate. One of the great crises that we face is that a handful of billionaires are moving this entire planet toward an oligarchic society in which the people on top not only have incredible wealth but incredible political power as well. This last Sunday, a group of investigative journalists released over 13 million files known as the Paradise Papers exposing just how horrific this situation has become. These papers show how a handful of oligarchs in the United States and throughout the world get richer by hiding their wealth and their profits offshore to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. The list of individuals implicated in the Paradise Papers include billionaires such as the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, Carl Icahn, and Robert Mercer. It includes large financial institutions such as Wells Fargo, Citigroup, and Bank of America. It includes large multinational corporations such as Apple, Nike, and ExxonMobil. It includes members of the Trump administration, such as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, chief economic adviser Gary Cohn, and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin. Let's be clear. Offshore tax evasion is a major problem not just for the United States but for governments throughout the world. This is really quite unbelievable. In the year 2012, the Tax Justice Network estimated that at least $21 trillion--$21 trillion, a number almost beyond comprehension--is being stashed in offshore tax havens around the world. Imagine that. There is $21 trillion flowing into tax havens in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, Luxembourg--all these places around the world where the billionaire class and large corporations are stashing their money not only to avoid taxes in the United States but to avoid taxes in Great Britain, France, Germany, et cetera. There is a funny thing about these guys. All of these billionaires love veterans, and they love the military. They want to see us rebuild the infrastructure, and they want to see our kids get a good education. But you know what, they don't want to pay taxes to make that happen. They want ordinary people to pay the taxes. Republicans here want to increase military spending by $50, $60 billion. It is not the billionaires who are going to pay the taxes on that--they have their money in the Cayman Islands. It is the working class, the middle class, upper middle class who will pay, not the billionaires. They love America--except when it comes to accepting their fair share to make sure that we continue to provide the services our men, women, and children need. The situation has become so absurd--and this is really how crazy it is--that one five-story office building in the Cayman Islands is now the home of nearly 20,000 corporations. This particular building in the Cayman Islands is called the Ugland House. It is five stories. I know that you can squeeze people into a building--sometimes three or four people live in a room--but I think it is a little bit hard to understand how 20,000 corporations function in a five-story building. Of course the answer is that 20,000 corporations do not function in this five-story building. It is all a fraud. It is simply a mailbox address for 20,000 corporations that are in this building in order to avoid paying their taxes. They are stashing their profits and their wealth in corporations that use this building as a mailing address. I know we are busy talking about so-called tax reform here, but in the United States alone, offshore tax evasion costs our government about $166 billion in lost revenue each and every year. That is a lot of money that could be used to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure-- our roads, our bridges, our water systems. One trillion dollars--that is 8 or 9 years of that $166 billion--could create up to 15 million good-paying jobs. That is money that could be used to provide universal pre-K for our children so that when kids get ready to go to school, they will be prepared to do the work there. But instead of cracking down on offshore tax schemes, President Trump and my Republican colleagues in Congress are working overtime to pass legislation that would make this absurd situation even worse. At a time when corporations are making recordbreaking profits, my Republican colleagues want to slash taxes for companies that are shifting American jobs to China and American profits to the Cayman Islands. At a time of massive wealth and income inequality, President Trump and the Republicans in Congress want to cut taxes for billionaires by repealing the estate tax on families who inherit over $5.5 million. I think the American people grasp the unfairness and the absurdity of the Republican tax proposal. The top one-tenth of 1 percent own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. The very, very rich are getting richer while the middle class is shrinking, and the Republican response is to give massive tax breaks to the top two-tenths of 1 percent--two-tenths of 1 percent. These are families like the Walton family, the wealthiest family in America, who owns Walmart, who would get up to a $50 billion tax break; and the Koch brothers, who have enough money to spend hundreds of millions of dollars trying to elect rightwing candidates to Congress. There are massive tax breaks for billionaires and at the same time, an effort to throw up to 30 million people off of the health insurance they have, massive cuts in education, in nutrition, and in the programs that working families desperately need. Instead of providing even more tax breaks to very profitable corporations and to billionaires and President Trump's Cabinet, maybe-- just maybe--it might be a good idea to close offshore tax loopholes and demand a fair, transparent, and progressive tax system. I hope the American people are catching on--as I believe they are--to what a fraud the Republican tax proposal is. Today, one out of five major, profitable corporations already pays zero in Federal income tax. You can't do much better than paying zero in Federal income tax and be a profitable corporation, but that is what is going on. Republicans want to make that even worse, and then they want millions of middle- class people, by the end of the decade, to be paying more in taxes. That is absurd, and I hope the American people stand up and demand that we do not go forward with that proposal.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, the United States today faces a major healthcare crisis. I think we all understand that. In the midst of that healthcare crisis, we face an even greater crisis in primary healthcare, and that means that there are many, many millions of people, not just people who don't have any insurance, not just people who are underinsured, but people even with decent insurance, who cannot get to a doctor's office when they need to because there is not a sufficient number of primary care physicians in their area. This is a major crisis today, but unless Congress acts immediately, that crisis is going to become much, much worse. Millions of Americans are at risk of losing their access to healthcare because Congress has still not renewed funding for the Community Health Center Program, which expired on September 30. So we hear a whole lot of discussion about a whole lot of serious healthcare problems. This is one that we do not hear very much about, and that is that Congress has still not renewed funding for the Community Health Center Program, which expired on September 30. Unless we renew that funding immediately, some 70 percent of funding will be lost. Seventy percent of funding for community health centers will be lost. The doors of 2,800 service sites will close and 9 million patients will lose access to the healthcare they currently have. Nine million people will find that when they go to a community health center, that center will no longer be able to treat them. Clearly, this is unacceptable. Our Nation's community health centers provide affordable, high- quality healthcare to more than 27 million Americans in every State in this country. This includes, by the way, in terms of community health centers, not only primary healthcare but also dental care, which is a major crisis in this country. It is very hard in many parts of America to find affordable dental care. It also includes mental health counseling, which is another major issue, especially within the context of the opioid and heroin epidemic we face. In addition to all of that, community health centers provide low-cost prescription drugs at a time when many Americans cannot afford the medicine they need. They play a vital role in community after community, State after State, in providing healthcare to some 27 million Americans. For the 13 million rural patients served, community health centers often are the only healthcare provider for hundreds of miles in rural America. There are deserts in which Americans cannot access a doctor, and community health centers are the oasis in that desert. In addition to all of that, community health centers often provide a lot of good jobs in underserved communities that need them the most. Community health centers not only save lives, but they also save money. Every dollar we invest in strong primary healthcare saves us dollars in the long run. Instead of people ending up in expensive emergency room care--and emergency room care is the most expensive primary care in the country--or ending up in the hospital because they can't and do not go to the doctor when they should, community health centers provide the primary care people need at a fraction of the cost of an emergency room. Medicaid, in many cases, will spend one-tenth as much per patient for a community health center visit compared to an emergency room visit. So it is an opportunity not only to provide good quality care but to save substantial sums of money. Compared to other providers, community health centers save, on average, $2,371 per Medicaid patient and up to $1,210 for Medicare patients. What is more, community health centers have played a pivotal role in generating more than $49 billion in savings to the entire healthcare system. They provide quality primary healthcare. They save money by keeping people out of emergency rooms or keeping them out of the hospitals. Not only do we have to renew funding of the Community Health Center Program, we must also improve and expand the National Health Service Corps, which is a program that provides debt forgiveness for young doctors, nurses, dentists, mental health providers, and pharmacists who are prepared to work in our Nation's most underserved areas. Without debt forgiveness, without telling young graduates of medical school who often leave school $200,000, $300,000, and $400,000 in debt--without giving them the opportunity to get those very large debts forgiven, it will be very hard to attract physicians and nurses and psychologists to rural areas or urban areas, where we have a significant ``underserving'' in terms of medical care. So we need to fund not only community health centers but the National Health Service Corps. We currently have 1,100 National Health Service Corps members who are in school or in residency programs who will not be able to complete their training and become primary care professionals. We need to provide the workforce for community health centers and other underserved areas in this country. Here is the very good news: The truth is, for many years, our community health centers, which are playing a vital role all over this country--urban areas and rural areas--have received bipartisan support. I know a lot of the bipartisan efforts of the past have kind of disappeared in the current political climate, but I am very happy to say there is a very strong piece of legislation introduced by Senator Roy Blunt, a Republican from Missouri, which has a number of Republican cosponsors on it. My own view is, I think every Member of the Democratic caucus would sponsor it, but I think there is a whole lot of Republican support for this community health center bill. So not only is Mr. Blunt the sponsor of the bill, we have Senator Capito, Senator Gardner, Senator Collins, Senator Wicker, Senator Fischer, Senator Boozman, Senator Murkowski, and Senator Cochran--who are all Republicans-- onboard this legislation. I believe, if that bill came to the floor today as a stand-alone bill, it would pass overwhelmingly because people in rural America, people in urban America--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents-- understand the very important role community health centers are playing. What this bill is about, significantly, is funding for 5 years not quite at the level I would like to see but at about 4 percent a year which, in terms of medical inflation, really means level funding. Now, that is in contrast to a bill that is being discussed in the House, which is simply not satisfactory. The House bill is talking about 2 years of funding, which means it is level-funded, which means it is a significant decline in real dollars for community health centers. Also, there are pay-fors for the bill which are totally unsatisfactory. It is a question of taking money from Peter to pay Paul and taking money from very important healthcare programs to put money into this important program. It is widely acknowledged that we currently have the most wasteful, inefficient, and expensive healthcare system in the world, despite spending almost $10,000 per capita on healthcare, which is twice as much as any other country. I just returned from Canada the other day. They spend about 50 percent per capita of what we spend of guaranteed healthcare to all of their people, and many of their healthcare outcomes are, in fact, better than they are in the United States. So we spend a whole lot of money, and we are not getting particularly good value. One of the areas where we are getting good value is in the area of community health centers. We need to not allow a bad situation to get worse. We have a very serious crisis in this country with primary healthcare, dental care, and certainly, mental health counseling. We are in deep trouble. If we do not immediately fund the Community Health Center Program, the National Health Service Corps, and the other workforce programs, a very bad situation will become tragically worse. We cannot tell millions of low-income and working people in every State in this country that they will no longer be able to access the healthcare, dental care, mental health counseling, and low-cost prescription drugs they desperately need. We cannot tell pregnant women they will not be able to get the necessary prenatal care they require in order to deliver healthy babies. We cannot tell the tragic number of people who are struggling today with opioid or heroin addiction that there is simply no treatment available to them because community health centers do a lot of that treatment. We cannot tell chronically ill senior citizens they will have to survive without the prescription drugs they have used for years. We cannot force community health centers--which provide some of the most cost-effective healthcare in this country--to lay off doctors, nurses, dentists, and administrators who keep these centers going. Historically, the Community Health Center Program has enjoyed widespread bipartisan support, and I am glad to say that for this program, that support continues. What I am asking today is for strong support for the Blunt legislation. Let's get it onto the floor of the Senate as quickly as we can. Let's pass it. Let's demand that the House work with us to pass strong legislation. The time for delay is over. Congress must act immediately to fully fund the Community Health Center Program, the National Health Service Corps, and the Teaching Health Centers Program today. We know these programs work. We know they save money and lives. These programs must be funded for 5 years, which is what the Blunt bill does. We should not continue to ignore this very serious problem for another day. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me begin by pointing out an op-ed that appeared in the Boston Globe today. It is an op-ed that I wrote. It is called ``The health care crisis no one is talking about.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this op-ed be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, today I would like to recognize retired Fire Chief Robert ``Bob'' Jenkins for 55 years of exemplary service to his community and to Vermont. We are fortunate to have such a dedicated public servant as Chief Jenkins in our State, and I sincerely thank him and his family for everything they have done for the people of Vermont. Bob Jenkins joined the Vergennes Fire Department in 1962, following in the footsteps of his father, George Jenkins. After serving for 5 years in Vergennes, Bob helped establish the New Haven Volunteer Fire Department in 1967, which became part of the Addison County Firefighters Association Mutual Aid system the following year. For five decades, Bob continued to work with the New Haven Fire Department with training and guidance, whenever needed. On May 6, 2017, at the department's 50th anniversary, Bob was presented with an honorary membership. This follows the honorary membership he received from the Vergennes Fire Department in 1982. Bob joined the Ferrisburgh Volunteer Fire Department in 1968, where he was soon promoted to the rank of captain. In 1970, recognizing his dedication and leadership, the department elected him chief, a position he held for 19 years. Bob remained very active after stepping down as chief, spending countless hours working with successive chiefs, passing on knowledge and expertise to help maintain a professional and highly trained department with well-maintained equipment. His service was deservedly recognized this past summer, when the Ferrisburgh Fire Department took delivery of a brand-new frontline engine and dedicated it in honor of Chief Jenkins. Bob has been a mentor to many other chiefs and firefighters throughout Addison County, as well as the State of Vermont. He served on numerous committees of the Addison County Firefighters Association, including Sergeant at Arms at the annual business meeting and awards banquet. He was presented with life membership to the association in 1993. He also served for many years as an instructor for the annual Addison County Regional Fire School, which draws firefighters from around Vermont, New York, and Canada. In 1994, the 24th Annual Regional Fire School was dedicated to Bob for his commitment to the training program. Bob also served as an instructor for the Vermont State Firefighters' Association and is a charter member of the Vermont Fire Academy training center in Pittsford. He is passionate about teaching young firefighters all aspects of the fire service, from today's firefighting skills to department history. His expertise in building construction has been particularly important during training and has helped keep many Vermont firefighters safe during fire calls. He also teaches respect for what firefighters do, for fellow members, for leadership, and for our communities. In return, he has gained the respect of his fellow firefighters for his willingness to share his time and knowledge. Bob's community service does not stop with firefighting. He has served the town of Ferrisburgh in many different ways, including overseeing construction of a new firestation in 1993, overseeing the construction of a new town highway facility in 2015 to 2016, and serving on the town select board, as well as projects for the North Ferrisburgh Methodist Church. The bottom line is that Bob Jenkins has unselfishly protected and served his community for 55 years. He is a model for what leadership is about. We must keep in mind that Bob did not do this alone. He had the commitment and understanding of his wife of 52 years, Mary Jane; his daughter, Robin; his son, Chris; and his stepsons, Tim, Mark, and Ricky--even when Bob spent time away from home, missing family dinners, family outings, birthdays, holidays, and school events. I will finish with some words from New Haven Assistant Chief Dean Gilmore: ``If you add Bob's love for his family, his love for his community, and his love for his fellow firefighters; his family's love for him, and his fellow firefighters; his fellow firefighters' love for him and his family; his community's love for him, his family, and his fellow firefighters; we have one powerful feeling in our hearts that is everlasting.''

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, to commemorate Public Service Recognition Week, the Vermont Federal Executive Association recognized Federal employees with Excellence in Government awards. Vermont is fortunate to have thousands of Federal employees working across the State, and I am proud of the good work they do for their fellow citizens. I would like to offer special congratulations to the 2017 award winners, who have truly exemplified the very best in government. The recipients of the Excellence in Management and Program Support Award are the Vermont Service Center Employee Services Team, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, St. Albans, including Steffan Defeo, supervisory operational support specialist; Julie Kuhn, supervisory operational support specialist; Angelina Bucio, operational support specialist; Joreen Hatin, supervisory immigration services officer; Michael Kane, supervisory immigration services officer; Forest Glodgett, operational support specialist; Ann Gratton, operational support specialist; Lee Ann Jette, operational support specialist; Lisa Kline, operational support specialist; and Sarah Sherman, operational support specialist. The recipients of the Professional Award are the Vermont Service Center Phase 1--Strategic Plan Team, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, St. Albans, including Judith Hochberg, section chief; Kyle Davis, supervisory immigration services officer; Joreen Hatin, supervisory immigration services officer; Michael Kane, supervisory immigration services officer; Michael Hoeflich, supervisory immigration services analyst; Paul Novak III, supervisory immigration services analyst; Elizabeth Chester, management and program analyst; Forest Glodgett, operational support specialist; Miranda Baltzell, immigration services officer; Luke Fairman, immigration services officer; Lisa Labarge, immigration services officer; Janet Marantz, immigration services officer; Ryan Marlow, immigration services officer; Nathan Matusick, immigration services officer; Sara Rutanhira, immigration services officer; Susan Sheehan, immigration services officer; Danielle Spooner, immigration services officer; Shelly Walters, immigration services officer; and Brian Woods, immigration services officer. The recipient of the Leadership Award is Michael Parascando, supervisory special agent, Homeland Security Investigations Tip Line, Office of Intelligence, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Williston. The recipient of the Public Safety Award is John Marquissee, Border Patrol agent, U.S. Border Patrol, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Derby. The recipient of the Community Service Award is Julia Hoefel, immigration services analyst, Northeast Regional Office, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, South Burlington. The recipients of the Collaboration and Partnership Award are Linette Boyse and Erin Hakey, immigration services analysts, Process Improvement and Efficiency Team, Vermont Service Center, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, St. Albans. The recipient of the Valor Award is Christopher Whipple, U.S. Customs and Border Protection officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Highgate Springs. And finally, the recipient of the Vermont Federal Employee of the Year Award is Amelia Palmer human resource specialist, Recruitment and Placement Branch, Human Resources Operations Center, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, South Burlington. Once again, I congratulate these Vermont Federal employees.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the Paul amendment. This amendment includes reconciliation instructions to cut nearly $100 billion in programs that are vital to working families in this country, including education, healthcare, nutrition, affordable housing, and many, many other programs. This amendment paves the way to make it easier to cut Medicare by over $400 billion and Medicaid by over $1 trillion over the next decade in order to provide almost $2 trillion in tax cuts to the top 1 percent. This amendment should be defeated.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the Paul amendment. In the budget we are debating today, my Republican colleagues have required the Finance Committee to increase the deficit by $1.5 trillion over the next decade. This budget would pave the way for massive cuts to Medicare and Medicaid in order to provide the wealthiest people in this country with incredibly large tax breaks. Senator Paul thinks that doesn't go far enough. His amendment would allow the Senate to increase the deficit by $2.5 trillion, allowing for even greater cuts to Medicare, to Medicaid, and even bigger tax breaks for the Koch brothers and their friends. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.