Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I rise to say a few words in congratulating Senator Leahy, not just for his 15,000th vote but on his many years of service serving the people of the State of Vermont. Vermont is very proud of all of the work Pat Leahy has done. As we all know, Senator Leahy has been a champion on agriculture issues, on protecting family farmers, especially in dairy and organics. He has been a champion in fighting for civil liberties in this country. He has been a champion on environmental issues, making sure the planet we leave our kids is a clean and healthy planet. He has been a champion on women's issues, and on so many other issues. Senator Leahy, on behalf of the people of Vermont, I want to thank you so much for your years of service. (Applause, Senators rising.)

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I wish to recognize Dr. Frank Fiermonte, a physician from Orleans, VT, who cared for the people of Vermont's North Country with distinction for many years. As Vermont's Northland Journal prepares to publish the final installment of a series on Dr. Fiermonte, I want to join in recognizing his service to Vermont. Dr. Fiermonte was a true ``country doctor'' who was willing to travel long distances to see his patients at all hours and in all seasons. I have heard Frank tell many an anecdote about how, after a home visit to a rural area, family and friends of the patient had to help him get his car unstuck during mud season or dug out from a snow bank in the winter. Like many country doctors, he served a vast area, encompassing not just his hometown of Derby, but also a wide swath of Orleans and Essex Counties and even across the border into Quebec. Yet he intimately knew all of the families he served, which sometimes spanned several generations. The stories from North Country residents in the Northland Journal make it clear that Dr. Fiermonte made a tremendous impact on the community. This quote from a former Derby resident stands out in particular: ``Dr. Fiermonte was a godsend to the Derby area. He was always available day or night.'' What always strikes me most about Frank is how personal the practice of medicine was for him. In today's modern world, health care can sometimes be a very impersonal experience. In fact, there is much discussion in Vermont and Washington about returning to a more patient- centered system. We would do well to learn from people like Dr. Frank Fiermonte and his contemporaries, who are the embodiment of that ideal. Motivated by the desire to serve his community and deliver the best care possible, for Dr. Fiermonte, it was all about the patient. Dr. Frank Fiermonte has earned my deepest respect, and I thank him for his years of service to the North Country.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise to discuss one of the major crises facing our health care system today, and that is that the pharmaceutical industry itself has become a major health hazard to the American people. The pharmaceutical industry in this country is charging the American people by far the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. The result is that one out of five Americans, including patients suffering from cancer who get a prescription from a doctor, is unable to afford to fill that prescription. This is totally absurd. The result is that Americans who are unable to buy the drugs that were prescribed to them become much sicker than they should have been, and in some cases they die. The result is also that people will end up in the emergency room or in the hospital at great expense to themselves and to the system because they were unable to afford the drugs that would have improved their health. As Dr. Marcia Angell, a senior lecturer in social medicine at Harvard Medical School and a former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, recently wrote in the Washington Post: Why do drug companies charge so much? Because they can. Simple truth. There is not a rational economic reason for that. They charge outrageously high prices because nobody is stopping them in this country. The United States is the only major country on Earth--the only one-- that does not in one form or another regulate prescription drug prices. What that means is you could walk into the drugstore and the pharmacy tomorrow, and you could find that the price you are paying for a drug you have been using for many years has doubled, tripled, or gone up 10 times, and the United States has chosen to be the only major country on Earth that does not address this issue. Let me give a few examples, some of which have received a good deal of attention recently. In the United States, Daraprim, a prescription drug used to treat patients diagnosed with cancer and AIDS, shot up in price from $18 a pill to $750 a pill, literally overnight, after this drug was acquired by a former hedge fund manager by the name of Martin Shkreli, who is quickly becoming the poster child for pharmaceutical greed. This same exact drug sells for 66 cents a pill in Britain, and Mr. Shkreli is charging the American people $750 for a drug used to treat patients with cancer and AIDS. That makes no sense to me, and it makes no sense to the American people. Last week Congressman Elijah Cummings and I sent a letter to Mr. Shkreli asking him to explain why the price of this drug has skyrocketed by over 4,000 percent. Now the good news--or it appears to be the good news--is that Mr. Shkreli recently said he would lower the price of this lifesaving drug, although he has not yet indicated what the new price will be. But let's be very clear--this is just one of many examples of price gouging within the pharmaceutical industry. I wish to give another example. In the United States the prescription drug Sovaldi, which is used to treat a very serious and widespread disease, Hepatitis C, costs $1,000 a pill--a thousand bucks a pill. In Europe, the same exact drug, made by the same exact company, costs $555 a pill. In Egypt and India, the same drug costs $11 a pill. The cost of this drug has become so expensive that Medicaid and the Veterans' Administration--and many veterans are suffering with Hepatitis C--both Medicaid and the VA are rationing access to Sovaldi and other blockbuster Hepatitis C drugs to only the sickest patients. In other words, people in the United States are dying and suffering because they or the government programs they rely on--Medicaid or the VA--are simply unable to afford the outrageous prices this company is charging. According to a recent article in the Atlantic magazine, despite rationing Sovaldi, the State of New Mexico--and I am just using New Mexico as one example; this is taking place all across the country--the State of New Mexico will spend an estimated $140 million this year on that drug alone. I should tell you this issue first came to my attention as the former chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee when the VA requested an additional $1.3 billion for that particular drug--$1.3 billion for one drug. This is unacceptable and it has to change. Last year, the pharmaceutical industry--shock of all shocks; I know the American people will be very surprised to hear this--the pharmaceutical industry spent $250 million on lobbying and campaign contributions, and they employed some 1,400 lobbyists. Well, that is what you get when you spend one-quarter of a billion dollars and you have 1,400 lobbyists on Capitol Hill. What you get is the ability to rip off the American people, to charge our people prices far higher than the people of any other country on Earth pay. And you have the three largest drug companies in this country making $45 billion in profit last year. So that is not a bad investment. Hey, just spread the money around on Capitol Hill--$250 million--throw in some campaign contributions, and the three largest drug companies make $45 billion in a year. Meanwhile, all over this country, one out of five Americans cannot afford to fill their prescriptions. People die. People become sick. State governments spend huge sums of money on these drugs because they are so expensive. The time has come to say loudly and clearly: Yes, the drug companies make a lot of campaign contributions, but maybe, just maybe, Congress might have the radical idea that it is more important for us to represent our constituents than the people who throw all kinds of money at us in Congress. It is unacceptable that total spending on medicine in the United States has gone up by more than 90 percent since 2002. It is unacceptable that the monthly cost of cancer drugs has more than doubled over the last 10 years to $9,900 a month. In the United States of America, you should not be forced into bankruptcy because you are diagnosed with cancer. It is time--in fact, the time is long overdue--for our country and our Congress to join the rest of the industrialized world by implementing prescription drug policies that work for everybody and not just the owners in the pharmaceutical industry. That is why I recently introduced legislation to lower the cost of prescription drugs in America. That legislation is cosponsored by Senator Al Franken of Minnesota and was introduced in the House by Congressman Elijah Cummings. Specifically, this is what the bill would do: No. 1, it requires Medicare to use its bargaining power to negotiate with the prescription drug companies for better prices--a practice that was banned by the Bush administration several years ago. No. 2, this bill would allow individuals, pharmacists, and wholesalers to import prescription drugs from licensed Canadian pharmacies, where drug prices are significantly lower than they are in the United States. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a comparison of the prices of some drugs in the United States with Canada be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANDERS. I will give a few examples. We have a drug called Crestor that deals with high cholesterol. Here in the United States, we pay $608 for a 90-day supply; in Canada $160--74 percent less in Canada. Premarin for estrogen therapy is $324 in the United States and $90 in Canada. Nexium is $782 in the United States and $228 in Canada. Synthroid is $878 in the United States and $212 in Canada. It is the same product, the same company. It is not generic. These are the same exact brand name products. Celebrex--a widely used drug for arthritis-- is $878 in the United States and $212 in Canada. What this bill would do, in addition to having Medicare negotiate drug prices with the pharmaceutical industry--which would substantially lower the prices Medicare pays--this bill would allow individuals, pharmacists, and wholesalers to import prescription drugs from licensed Canadian pharmacies, where drug prices are substantially lower than they are in the United States. I live 100 miles away from the Canadian border. In 1999, I took a busload of Vermonters--mostly women, many of them dealing with breast cancer--over the Canadian border into Montreal. As long as I live, I will never forget the looks on their faces when they bought the same medicine they were buying in Vermont, in the U.S.A., for one-tenth of the price--one-tenth of the price. These were working-class women who were struggling with breast cancer and who didn't have a whole lot of money. They were able to purchase the exact same medicine for 10 percent of the price in Montreal. That makes no sense to me, and it only speaks to the power of the pharmaceutical industry over the Congress that we have Members here who vote for all kinds of free-trade agreements--they just love free trade. We can bring in any product we want from China. We can have lettuce and tomatoes coming in from farms in Mexico. But for some strange reason we cannot bring in brand name drugs from Canada. We just can't do it. We can't figure out how to do it. And everybody here knows what the reason is--it is the power of the pharmaceutical industry, their campaign donations, and their lobbying efforts. Our bill does a lot more than that. We cannot in good conscience tell people in our States that they must continue to pay outrageously high prices for prescription drugs when year after year drug companies make billions of dollars in profit and year after year people in our country get sicker and in some cases die because they can't afford the medicine they need. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I am delighted that Pope Francis will be addressing a joint session of Congress on Thursday. The Pope has played, in my view, an extraordinary role since he assumed his position in speaking out with courage and brilliance about some of the most important issues facing our world. From the moment he was elected, he immediately let it be known that he would be a different kind of Pope, a different kind of religious leader. In choosing his Papal name--Francis--he said: Francis of Assisi. For me, he is the man of poverty, the man of peace, the man who loves and protects creation. What I want to do in a short period of time is read some of the very profound and important statements Pope Francis has made over the last several years. They are incisive, they are courageous, and they speak to a world in trouble that needs the kind of leadership that he is providing. Let me quote from a number of the statements he has made. Quote: While the income of a minority is increasing exponentially, that of the majority is crumbling. This imbalance results from ideologies which uphold the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation, and thus deny the right of control to States, which are themselves charged with providing for the common good. Obviously, he is not talking about the United States; he is talking about the global economy. But certainly in our country, when he talks about the income of the minority increasing exponentially and that of the majority crumbling, he is, of course, right. We have right now in our country the top one-tenth of 1 percent owning almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. We have about 58 percent of all new income being created now going to the top 1 percent. In the last several years, we have seen the 14 wealthiest people in America increase their wealth by $156 billion, and that increase in wealth is more wealth than is owned by the bottom 40 percent of the American people. As the Pope points out, this is not by any means just an American issue; this is a global issue. We are moving toward a period where very shortly the top 1 percent of the people on the planet will own more wealth than the bottom 99 percent. To me, that is immoral, that is wrong, that is unsustainable, and I am glad the Pope has raised that issue. He talks about another issue which is even more profound. It is one thing to talk about income and wealth inequality, and it is another thing to talk about poverty. Here, he says: We have created new idols. The worship of the golden calf of old has found a new and heartless image in the cult of money and the dictatorship of an economy which is faceless and lacking any truly humane goal. ``The worship of the golden calf of old has found a new and heartless image in the cult of money.'' What does that mean? Well, I take it to mean that we are living in a society which turns its back on people who work hard, decent people, people who are good parents, but yet we worship those people who for whatever reason--sometimes honestly and with creativity, sometimes dishonestly and illegally--have become millionaires and billionaires. Those are the people we worship. The more money they make, the more they get worshipped. I think the Pope is right in saying that is not something we should be doing. In another statement, which is certainly relevant for a lot of the discussions we have here on the floor of the Senate, he said: In this context, some people continue to defend trickle- down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. What is he talking about? He is talking about a lot of what has gone on here in this country for many decades. There is a theory, which the Pope is right in saying has never been confirmed by the facts--quite the contrary--that if we give huge tax breaks to billionaires and large corporations, somehow that money will trickle down to the middle class and working class. Well, that theory has not proved to be true. Under trickle-down economics, the rich get richer and virtually everybody else gets poorer. I think the Pope is quite right in making that point. Let me again quote the Pope. This is what he said: Man is not in charge today, money is in charge. Money rules. Money rules. Well, 5 years ago the U.S. Supreme Court by a 5-to-4 decision passed the disastrous Citizens United decision which basically said to the wealthiest people in this country: You already own much of the economy; now we are going to give you the opportunity to buy the United States Government. And that is exactly what they are now attempting to do. Money rules. You have one family--the Koch brothers-- who will spend $900 million in this election cycle to elect candidates who will protect the wealthy and powerful. That is more money than will be spent by either the Democratic or Republican Party. When one family is spending more money than either of the two major political parties, I think it is an example of what the Pope is talking about when he says ``money rules.'' Money does rule, and that is why, in my view, we have to overturn Citizens United and move to the public funding of elections--so the wealthy and the powerful will not be able to buy elections. He also said something very interesting about the media. This is what he said: These things become the norm: that some homeless people die of cold on the streets is not news. In contrast, a ten point drop on the stock markets of some cities is a tragedy. Well, what is news? Is he right? We talk about the stock market going up, the stock market going up. It is big news. The 45 million Americans living in poverty--I don't hear much discussion about that. There are thousands of people dying every single year because they don't have health insurance and can't get to a doctor when they need to. That ain't big news--not big news at all. I think it is an interesting point about what constitutes news, and I think the Pope makes a very good point in that regard. Let me give another quote: It is a well-known fact that current levels of production are sufficient, yet millions of people are still suffering and dying of starvation. This, dear friends, is truly scandalous. I think what the Pope is talking about is that in a world where we have enormous productive capability--industrial, agricultural--we have a situation where children die of diseases that are preventable all over the world, where people go hungry all over the world. Yet, as he says, our current levels of production are sufficient. We are producing enough to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide what people need, and yet we have an economy which works day after day to make billionaires richer and turns its back on desperate people all over the world. Let me end with this quote: Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape. That is certainly true in the United States. It is certainly truer all over the world. We are living in a world of the survival of the fittest. If you are poor, if you are unemployed, if you are hungry, government turns its back on you. But if you are rich, if you are powerful, if you can make campaign contributions of hundreds of millions of dollars, we love you, we welcome you, and we need you more and more. I think during this week where we welcome the Pope to Washington, DC, I would hope that some of my colleagues would examine the very profound lessons he is teaching people all over this world. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. I thank my friend from Maryland. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the agreement that the United States negotiated with China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and Iran. I support the agreement and will oppose the resolution of disapproval, as I believe this approach is the best way forward if we are to accomplish what all of us want to accomplish; that is, making certain that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon, an occurrence which would destabilize the region, lead to a nuclear arms race in the area, and would endanger the existence of Israel. It is my firm belief that the test of a great nation, with the most powerful military on Earth, is not how many wars we can engage in but how we can use our strength and our capabilities to resolve international conflicts in a peaceful way. Those who have spoken out against this agreement, including many in this Chamber, and those who have made every effort to thwart the diplomatic process are many of the same people who spoke out forcefully and irresponsibly about the need to go to war with Iraq--one of the worst foreign policy blunders in the modern history of our country. Sadly, people such as former Vice President Dick Cheney and many of the other neocons who pushed us into war in Iraq were not only tragically wrong then; they are wrong now. Unfortunately, these individuals have learned nothing from the results of that disastrous policy and how it destabilized that entire region. I fear that many of my Republican colleagues do not understand that war must be a last resort, not the first resort. It is easy to go to war. It is not so easy to fully comprehend the unintended consequences of that war. As the former Chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, I have talked to veterans from World War II to Iraq, and I have learned a little bit about what the cost of war entails. In Iraq and Afghanistan, we lost over 6,700 brave men and women, and many others have come home without legs, without arms, and without eyesight. Let us not forget that 500,000 veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan came back to their families with post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury--500,000 brave Americans. The suicide rate of young veterans is appallingly high. The divorce rate of those who served is appallingly high, and the impact on their children is appallingly high. God knows how many families have been devastated by these wars. We should also not forget that many hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women, and children who died in that war, and those whose lives who have been completely destabilized, hundreds of thousands of people whose lives have been totally altered, including those who are fleeing that country today with only the clothes on their backs as refugees. The cost of war is real. It is easy to give great speeches about how tough we are, but let us not forget the cost of war on the men and women who serve in our military and people in other countries. Yes, the military option should always be on the table, but it should be the last option. We have to do everything we can to reach an agreement to ensure that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon without having to go to war. I believe we have an obligation to pursue diplomatic solutions before resorting to military engagement-- especially after nearly 14 years of ill-conceived and disastrous military engagements in that region. The agreement before us calls for cutting off Iran's pathways to the fissile materials needed for a nuclear weapon by reducing its stockpile of uranium by 98 percent and restricting the level of enrichment of uranium to well below the level needed for weaponized uranium. The agreement requires Iran to decrease the number of installed centrifuges by two-thirds, dismantle the country's heavy water nuclear reactor so that it cannot produce any weapons-grade plutonium, and commit to rigorous monitoring, inspection, and verification by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Only after Iran has demonstrated to the international community its compliance with the tenets of this agreement, the United States and European Union will lift the sanctions that helped bring Iran to the negotiating table in the first place. This agreement also contains a mechanism for the snapback of those sanctions if Iran does not comply with its obligations. Does this agreement achieve everything I would like? No, it does not. But to my mind, it is far better than the path we were on with Iran developing nuclear weapons capability and the potential for military intervention by the United States and Israel growing greater by the day. Let us not forget that if Iran does not live up to this agreement, sanctions may be reimposed. If Iran moves toward a nuclear weapon, all available options remain on the table. I think it is incumbent upon us, however, to give the negotiated agreement a chance to succeed. It is for these reasons that I will support the agreement.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, on November 19, 1863, standing on the bloodstained battlefield of Gettysburg, Abraham Lincoln delivered one of the most significant and best remembered speeches in American history. At the conclusion of the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln stated ``that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain . . . that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom . . . and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.'' In the year 2015, with a political campaign finance system that is corrupt and increasingly controlled by billionaires and special interests, I fear very much that, in fact, government of the people, by the people, and for the people is perishing in the United States of America. Five years ago, in the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision, by a 5-to-4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court said to the wealthiest people in this country: Billionaires, you already own much of the American economy. Now we are going to give you the opportunity to purchase the U.S. Government, the White House, the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House, Governors' seats, legislatures, and State judicial branches as well. In essence, that is exactly what they said, and, in fact, that is exactly what is happening as we speak. As a result of Citizens United, during this campaign cycle, billions of dollars from the wealthiest people in this country will flood the political process. Super PACs--a direct outgrowth of the Citizens United decision--enabled the wealthiest people and the largest corporations to contribute unlimited amounts of money to campaigns. According to recent FEC filings, super PACs have raised more than $300 million for the 2016 Presidential election already, and this election cycle has barely begun. This $300 million is more than 11 times what was raised at this point in the 2000 election cycle. What will the situation be 4 years from now? What will the situation be 8 years from now? How many billions and billions of dollars from the wealthy and powerful will be used to elect candidates who represent the rich and the superrich? According to the Sunlight Foundation, more than $2 out of every $3 raised for Presidential candidates so far is going to super PACs and not to the candidate's own campaign. This is quite extraordinary. What this means is that super PACs, which theoretically operate independently of the actual candidate, have more money and more influence over the candidate's campaign than the candidate himself or herself. Let me repeat that. The millionaires and billionaires who control the super PACs have more money and more influence over a candidate's campaign than the candidate himself or herself. In other words, the candidate becomes a surrogate, a representative for powerful special interests and is not even in control of his or her own campaign. Mr. President, 35 individuals or companies have already donated more than $1 million to super PACs so far. According to the Associated Press, almost 60 donors have accounted for nearly one-third of all of the money donated so far in the Presidential race, including donations to the campaigns themselves. Donors giving at least $100,000 account for close to half of all funds raised. Let's be clear. This is all taking place at the early stages of the campaign. We have a long way to go. We know, for example, that the Koch brothers, worth some $85 billion--the second wealthiest family in America--have made public that they intend to spend some $900 million on this election. This is more money than either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party will spend. One family will be spending more money than either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. How do we describe a process in which one multibillion-dollar family spends more money on a campaign than either of the two major political parties? Well, I define that process not as democracy but as oligarchy. Let's be honest and acknowledge what we are talking about. We are talking about a rapid movement in this country toward a political system in which a handful of very wealthy people and special interests will determine who gets elected or who does not get elected. That is not, to say the least, what this country is supposed to be about. That was not, to say the least, the vision of Abraham Lincoln when he talked about a nation in which we had a government of the people, by the people, for the people. That is not what Lincoln's vision was about. This is not just Bernie Sanders expressing a concern. Last week, this is what former President Jimmy Carter had to say about the current campaign finance system on the Thom Hartmann radio show. President Carter stated that unlimited money in politics ``violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now, it's just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or to elect the president. And the same thing applies to governors and U.S. Senators and congress members. So now we've just seen a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect and sometimes get favors for themselves after the election's over.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have President Carter's statement printed in the Record.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, the need for real campaign finance reform is not a progressive issue. It is not a conservative issue. It is an American issue. It is an issue that should concern all Americans, regardless of their political point of view, who wish to preserve the essence of the longest standing democracy in the world, a government which represents all of the people and not a handful of powerful and wealthy special interests. The need for real campaign finance reform must happen and it must happen as soon as possible. That is why clearly we must overturn, through a constitutional amendment, the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision as well as the Buckley v. Vallejo decision. That is why we need to pass disclosure legislation which will identify all those wealthy individuals who make large campaign contributions. More importantly, it is why we need to move toward public funding of elections. Our vision for American democracy, our vision for the United States of America, should be a nation in which all people, regardless of their income, can participate in the political process, can run for office without begging for contributions from the wealthy and the powerful. Every Member of the Senate and every Member of the House knows how much time candidates spend on the telephone dialing for dollars-- Republicans, Democrats, everybody. This is not what democracy should be about. Our vision for the future of this country should be one in which candidates are not telling billionaires at special forums what they can do for them. Our vision for democracy should be one in which candidates are speaking to the vast majority of our people--working people, the middle class, low-income people, the elderly, the children, the sick, and the poor--and discussing with them their ideas as to how we can improve lives for all people in this country. Let us be frank. Let us be honest. The current political campaign finance system is corrupt and amounts to legalized bribery. How can we in the United States tell developing countries how they can go forward in developing their democracies when our system is corrupt? Our vision for the future of this country should be a vision which is inclusive, which tells young people that if you are conservative, if you are progressive, if you are interested in public service, you can run for office without begging the rich and the powerful for campaign contributions. When Congress returns after the August break, I will be introducing strong legislation which calls for public funding of elections, which will enable any candidate, regardless of his or her political views, to run for office without being beholden to the rich and the powerful. I hope very much the Republican leadership in the Senate will allow this legislation to get to the floor, I hope we can have a serious debate about it, and I hope very much we can go forward to restoring American democracy to a situation in which every citizen of this country has the right to vote and has equal power in determining the future of our great Nation. Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I won't object, I want to make certain that after Senator Grassley has completed his remarks, I will have time to make my remarks for up to 15 minutes. It will probably be less than that. Is that all right, Senator?

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I wish to address the status of VA health care and the Department's current budget shortfall. I am grudgingly supporting the bill before this body to extend highway funding for 3 months and to provide budget transfer authority to VA because, without it, highway contracts in Vermont and all across the country will be halted and VA will be unable to provide health care services to our veterans. These initiatives are too important not to support, but I want to be on record as saying this is a very dangerous path to be treading down--playing politics with the VA's funding. It is disingenuous and is a disservice to the brave men and women who have served our country. On July 31, 2014, 1 year ago tomorrow, the Senate passed the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act to address the crisis at the Department of Veterans Affairs. As chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, one of my top priorities during the negotiation of that legislation was to ensure VA had the resources needed to prevent a similar crisis in the future. I believed then--and I believe now--that, overall, the Department of Veterans Affairs provides high-quality health care; health care that veterans consistently give high satisfaction scores. But the crisis at VA last year was real--too many veterans were waiting far too long for care. And some VA employees were manipulating data to make it appear these wait times did not exist. At the time, we took serious, important steps to address the crisis. We gave the Department tools to hold staff accountable, provided funding for veterans who had trouble accessing care at VA to get that care in the private sector, and gave VA resources to ramp up capacity-- to hire health care providers and make improvements to the agency's crumbling infrastructure. The bill we passed last year was to ensure that a similar crisis wouldn't happen again. But here we are, 1 year later, facing another crisis in VA health care. But this crisis is different. This is a funding crisis. A crisis Congress could have prevented. Given the increased demand for care and volume of veteran patients, I hoped Congress would have understood the need at VA and provided the funding needed by the Department. But that hasn't happened. Instead, this Republican-led Congress underfunded VA by $1 billion in their budget resolution. And they have continued the bad policies of the Budget Control Act, subjecting VA to funding caps that hamstring the Department's ability to provide needed care. And let me be clear about something here: these caps are arbitrary spending cuts and have nothing to with how much money VA actually needs to operate. And, despite common misconception, VA is subject to these caps just like every other Federal Department. I believe we must lift these caps. Lift them so VA has the money it needs to take care of veterans, period. And if we are unwilling to lift the budget caps, we should at least be providing this funding through an emergency appropriation. We should be acknowledging that the caps mean we are coming up short--that Congress has insufficiently funded VA, tying their hands so they are left unable to pay for the health care services veterans want and need. But instead, we are considering transferring money from one bucket at VA to another. The bill we are considering today will move money from the Choice Program to the general operating budget. Congress created the Veterans Choice Program to address a specific problem. And we provided $10 billion to fix that problem. And now, instead of lifting the budget caps or providing emergency funding for VA, we are just going to use the Choice Program as a piggy bank. We are simply robbing Peter to pay Paul. This approach is a short-term fix, keeping VA's doors open for the next 60 days. But is does nothing to address the long-term budget shortfall VA will face next year, and the year after that. And I worry, if we fail to act responsibly now, we'll be right back here in 2016 and again in 2017, when we will no longer have the luxury of being able to raid billions from the Choice Program, and our veterans will be no better off. Not only is this method of funding VA irresponsible, my Republican colleagues are using this funding crisis to jam bad policies down our throats without careful consideration or a real debate. With just days to go before we adjourn for the August recess, and with our colleagues from the House having already skipped town, we are being backed into a corner--told the only way to get VA the money they need is to pass a bad piece of legislation filled with unrelated policies. Last week, during a markup of legislation in the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Chairman Isakson stated multiple times that he wanted new policies to go through regular order, to be considered by the committee in a legislative hearing before being voted on by committee members and certainly before being voted on by the full Senate. He also stated numerous times that we should not be passing legislation without paying for it. The Congressional Budget Office score of the bill appears to show the legislation is paid for. However, the reality is there are $1.2 billion in lost revenues included in the VA title of the bill that are being swept under the rug. These enormous, unnecessary costs are being covered up by offsets intended to pay for transfers from the general fund to the highway trust fund. These are not savings or revenue that will actually pay for the lost revenues in the VA title. They are savings and revenue intended to make much-needed repairs to roads and bridges. And I fully support those funds being used the way they were intended. But what I do not support is that we are turning a blind eye to $1.2 billion in costs in the VA title of this bill that have nothing at all to do with the funding shortfall at VA. So what are these policies that are so important that they should not be considered through regular order and take money out of critical transportation infrastructure projects? They are anti-veteran, anti-small business provisions that threaten to strip veterans of their access to affordable health care and treat them as second-class citizens in the workplace while putting new administrative burdens on small business owners. If Members really believe these unrelated policies are necessary, we should spend time on them. We should use the committee process that Senator Isakson talked about just last week in the Veterans' Affairs Committee markup to consider them through regular order. We should debate them on the Senate floor. But we should not link these politically motivated provisions to must-pass legislation to provide critical health care services to millions of veterans who need it. It used to be the case that Congress kept veterans above politics. Despite fierce debate over going to war, we all agreed that when servicemembers came home from war, we would take care of them. It is sad to say, that is no longer the case. Today, powerful political contributors like the Koch brothers are using veterans to push forward anti-worker, anti-union legislation under the guise of caring for veterans. They want to strip away the rights and protections of workers and will use any means necessary to accomplish those goals, even if it means using VA employees who serve veterans every day--and many of whom are veterans themselves--as the target. Congress should stand up and be honest with the American people about the reason for the VA budget crisis--that members of this Chamber would rather stand here trying to score political points. They would rather use veterans as pawns to promote their anti-worker, anti-union, anti- health care agenda, even if it means closing hospitals and local clinics. Let us not do that, instead let us say to the brave men and women who have served our country in uniform that we will put aside our differences and give VA the funding they need. Just as our veterans promised to fight for our country, we promised to take care of them when they came home. They fulfilled their promise to us. It is time for us to fulfil our promise to them.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. I thank Chairman Enzi and join him in commending Mr. Davis for his many years of dedicated and outstanding service to CBO, the Congress, and the American people. We wish him all the best. We hope our colleagues will join us in thanking Mr. Davis--and really all of the hard-working employees at the Congressional Budget Office-- for his and their service.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, July 26, 2015, marks the 25th anniversary of the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act. I would like to take a moment to discuss the importance of this landmark legislation and to highlight the strides we have made in making our communities more inclusive. It is estimated that nearly one in five Americans have a disability. Upon its passage, the ADA was hailed as the world's first comprehensive declaration of equality for people with disabilities. It established a clear national mandate that we as a nation have a moral responsibility to ensure that all Americans have access to the programs and the support needed to contribute to society, live with dignity, and achieve a high quality of life. Over the past 25 years, the ADA has expanded opportunities for Americans with disabilities by reducing barriers and changing perceptions and increasing full participation in all areas of public life, including the workforce, education, and transportation. Because of this legislation, we have made tremendous progress in eliminating barriers to everyday life for Americans living with disabilities. Unfortunately, even after 25 years, we still live in a world where people with disabilities have fewer work opportunities and higher rates of unemployment than people without disabilities. We still have more work to do to ensure that the basic civil rights of persons with disabilities are fully protected and respected, but the ADA was an important step forward in achieving these goals. Through passage of the ADA, we have made more progress on this issue than anyone ever dreamed of 25 years ago. We should be proud of these efforts to make our communities more inclusive, and we should honor this important anniversary by continuing our efforts to ensure that no person with a disability experiences prejudice, discrimination, or barriers to living full and productive lives.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I am very pleased to see that the Older Americans Act reauthorization passed the Senate last week. This law, which turns 50 years old this month, provides critical services like home-delivered meals, transportation, and elder abuse protections. I would like to thank Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray for their efforts to pass this bill. I would also like to acknowledge the many organizations representing tens of millions of Americans who worked with me and my staff to get this bill passed, including the National Council on Aging, Meals on Wheels America, AARP, the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging, and many others. While this bill is a good step forward, I would have preferred that it go much further. Older adults are the fastest growing segment of the U.S. population. Shockingly, 1 in 5 seniors is living on an average income of $8,300 per year. We learned from the Government Accountability Office last month that nearly 4 million seniors experience food insecurity and do not know where their next meal will come from. Fewer than 10 percent of low-income seniors who need a meal delivered to their homes receive one. There are seniors across the country who may not have enough money to eat dinner tonight. For the generation that fought to defend democracy and built our great Nation, we must do everything we can to make sure that seniors do not go hungry. Older Americans should not have to choose between buying medicine or keeping a roof over their heads or having food on the table. Providing home-delivered meals--Meals on Wheels--for seniors is not only the right thing to do, it makes good economic sense. Why is that? If frail seniors do not get the nutrition they need, they are more likely to fall and break a hip and wind up in the hospital emergency room or in a nursing home. At the end of the day, investing in nutrition which keeps seniors healthy actually saves us money by keeping them out of the hospital. Since 2006 when the Older Americans Act was last reauthorized, the U.S. population over 60 has grown by about 30 percent. Has funding gone up by 30 percent? No. In fact, funding has been basically flat, and when you account for inflation, funding has actually decreased by about 12 percent. I strongly believe we should significantly expand funding for Older Americans Act programs. The truth is that the priorities we hold--treating seniors with respect, making sure seniors have the food they need--have the overwhelming support of the American people. These principles are among the foundations of a just and fair society where people look forward to growing old. I thank my Senate colleagues for their support of this important reauthorization bill. I hope that my colleagues in the House of Representatives take up and pass this bill swiftly so that it can become law without any further delay.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I applaud President Obama for visiting a Federal penitentiary today to highlight the fact that, tragically, the United States has more people in jail than any other country on Earth. One of the reasons we have so many people in jail is that we have an obscenely high level of youth unemployment: for young White kids, 33 percent; for Hispanic kids, 36 percent; for African-American kids, 51 percent. The time has come for us to begin investing in jobs and education for our kids, not jails and incarceration. This bill, over a 2-year period, would create 2 million jobs for our young people. It is paid for by closing the carried-interest loophole that allows billionaires to pay a lower tax rate than working class Americans. It is high time we addressed this issue of high youth unemployment. I ask for bipartisan support.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Of course.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, one of the amendments that will be offered is an amendment I have submitted regarding a major crisis in this country that we don't talk about enough, and that is the frighteningly high rate of youth unemployment in America. I am delighted that the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is on the floor for debate today, and I thank Senator Alexander and Senator Murray for their hard and constructive work on this important piece of legislation. In my State of Vermont, we have held town meetings on No Child Left Behind, and the people of Vermont want to leave No Child Left Behind very far behind. They want to get rid of it. They feel it has not been productive for our kids, and I think that sentiment exists all over the country. If we go forward on this legislation, I think we will be taking a very important step forward for the children of America. When we talk about the needs of our young people, it is not just a dysfunctional child care system we talk about and the need to make sure working families all over this country have good-quality, affordable childcare; it is not simply that college is increasingly unaffordable for millions of working-class families; it is not just that the United States, tragically and embarrassingly, has the highest rate by far of childhood poverty of any major industrialized country on Earth. We talk about the future. We talk about family values. But the truth is that we have significantly ignored the needs of our children, and that is not what a great nation does--not a nation that looks forward to the future. This country has to come to grips with the reality that we have not just a high rate of youth unemployment but a tragically high rate of youth unemployment in this country. This is an issue we don't discuss. It is literally swept under the rug. We have to bring it out in the open, we have to discuss it, and we have to address this issue. Last month, the Economic Policy Institute released a new study about the level of youth unemployment in this country. This study took a close look at census data on unemployment among young people between 17 and 20 who are jobless, those who are working part time when they need a full-time job, and those who have given up looking for work altogether. The results of this study should concern everybody in our country and every Member of the Congress. By the way, I have mentioned these facts in the past. PolitiFact, which seems to check every statement I make, checked it out, and they said these facts are basically accurate. Here is what the Economic Policy Institute found. From April of 2014 to March of 2015, the average real unemployment rate for young White high school graduates between the ages of 17 and 20 was 33.8 percent. High school graduates, high school dropouts, White, 17 to 20--33.8 percent. The jobless figures for Hispanic kids in the same age group was 36.1 percent. And incredibly, the average real unemployment rate for African-American high school graduates was 51.3 percent. High school graduates or dropouts between the ages of 17 and 20, African American, over 50 percent unemployed or underemployed. Today in America, over 5.5 million young people have either dropped out of high school or have graduated high school and do not have jobs. It is no great secret--not to any parent, not to any Member of the Senate--that when kids are not in school, when kids have no jobs, that is when kids get into trouble, when they get into drugs, when they get into self-destructive activity. The result of kids not being in school and kids not having jobs is that tragically, today, we in this country have more people in jail than any other country on Earth, including China--a Communist authoritarian country with a population four times our size. We have more people in jail than China does. Incredibly, over 3 percent of our country's population is under some form of correctional control. According to the NAACP, from 1980 to 2012, the number of people incarcerated in America quadrupled--quadrupled--from roughly 500,000 to 2.2 million people. A January 2014 study published in the journal Crime & Delinquency found that almost half of Black males in the United States are arrested by the age of 23. That is an unbelievable statistic and a tragic statistic. If this current trend continues, one in four Black males born today can expect to spend time in prison during his lifetime. What a tragedy this is. We cannot ignore it. We have to deal with this reality. But this crisis is not just a destruction of human life and of potential, it is also very costly to the taxpayers of our country. In America, we now spend nearly $200 billion on public safety, including $70 billion on correctional facilities each and every year. It is beyond comprehension that we as a nation have not focused attention on the fact that millions of young people are unable to find work and begin their careers in a productive economy. That is what young people want to do. They want to get out, they want to get a job, they want to earn some money, they want to become independent from their parents, and they want to begin a career ladder, but for millions of these young people, that is not taking place today. Let me be as clear as I can be. It makes a lot more sense for us to invest in jobs and education rather than in more and more incarceration and more and more jails. The time is long overdue for us to start investing in our young people, to help them get the jobs they need, to help them get the education they need. This is not only saving human life; it is saving dollars. It is a very expensive proposition to put people into jail. Many people who go to jail come out of jail and go back to jail. They don't get jobs, and they don't pay taxes. Their lives are destroyed. Their families' lives are destroyed. It is high time we understood that. We have to invest in jobs, and we have to invest in education--not more jails, not more incarceration. I have offered an amendment that will be voted upon, either today or tomorrow, that is pretty simple and pretty straight forward. It says to us that now is the time to keep kids out of jail, to get them jobs, and to get them an education. This amendment would simply provide $5.5 billion in immediate funding to States and cities throughout the country to create 1 million jobs for young Americans between the ages of 16 and 24. This amendment would also provide job opportunities for hundreds of thousands of young adults. Frankly, this amendment doesn't go far enough, but it is an important start in trying to save the lives of countless numbers of young people who, if we do not address their needs, are going to end up in jail or with destroyed lives. Specifically, under this amendment the U.S. Department of Labor would provide $4 billion in grants to States and local governments to provide summer and year-round employment opportunities for economically disadvantaged youth, with direct links to academic and occupational learning. This amendment would also make sure that young Americans have access to transportation and childcare services they may need in order to participate in job opportunities all over this country. This amendment would also provide $1.5 billion in competitive grants to local areas to provide work-based job training to low- and moderate-income youth and disadvantaged young adults. I hope very much we can have bipartisan support for this amendment, because what we are talking about is not just saving countless numbers of lives and not just saving taxpayers a substantial sum of money. It is much more cost effective to invest in kids so they have productive lives rather than seeing them go into jail and into jail and into jail and see their families being destroyed. It is high time we addressed this issue. This amendment is an important first step. I look forward to seeing bipartisan support for it. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, today in our country over 5\1/2\ million young people have either dropped out of high school or have graduated high school and do not have jobs. It is no great secret to anyone that without work, without education, and without hope people get into trouble. They get into destructive activity or self-destructive activity. The result of all of that is that, tragically, here in the United States today we have more people in jail than any other country on Earth. We have more people in jail than in the authoritarian Communist country of China, with a population over three times our population. Today the United States represents 4 percent of the world's population. Yet we have 22 percent of the world's prisoners. Incredibly, over 3 percent of our country's population is under some form of correctional control. According to the NAACP, from 1980 to 2012, the number of people incarcerated in America quadrupled from roughly 500,000 to over 2 million people. A study published in the journal Crime & Delinquency found--this is really quite unbelievable and quite tragic--that almost half of Black males in the United States are arrested by the age of 23. If current trends continue, one in four Black males born today can expect to spend time in prison during his lifetime. This is an unspeakable tragedy. It is something we cannot continue to ignore. But this crisis is not just the destruction of human life. It is also very, very costly to the taxpayers of our country. Locking people up in jail is a very expensive proposition. In America we now spend nearly $200 billion on public safety, including $70 billion a year on correctional facilities. It is beyond comprehension that we as a nation have not focused attention on the fact that millions of young people are unable to find work and begin their adult lives in a productive way. We cannot continue to turn our backs on this national tragedy. Let me be very clear. I think I speak for the vast majority of people in this country and I hope the majority of Members in the Senate. It makes a lot more sense for us to be investing in jobs and in education than to be spending billions of dollars on jails and incarceration. We have to start creating the situation where our kids can leave school and lead productive lives and not have them arrested and incarcerated. I have introduced legislation along with Representative John Conyers in the House that would provide $5.5 billion in immediate funding to States and cities throughout this country to employ 1 million young Americans between the ages of 16 and 24 and to provide job training opportunities to young adults. Some people may say $5.5 billion is a lot of money. It is. But it is a lot less expensive to provide jobs and education to our young people than to lock them up and to destroy their lives. As we debate ESEA--again, I want to thank Senator Murray and Senator Alexander for their important work--I want this issue to be on the table. I intend to offer an amendment that says that in this country we are going to put our young people to work and we are going to get them an education rather than lock them up. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as someone who travels around this country, I am always amazed by the huge disconnect that exists between what we do here in Congress and what the American people want us to do. The simple truth, as poll after poll has shown, is that Congress is way out of touch as to where the American people are. Let me give a few examples before I get to the thrust of my remarks. Many of my Republican colleagues are still talking about cutting Social Security--a disastrous idea--but according to a recent NBC News/ Wall Street Journal poll, by a 3-to-1 margin the American people want us to expand Social Security benefits, not cut them. How out of touch can one be? About 2 weeks ago, the same poll told us that while there is virtually no Republican in the Senate who is prepared to support raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, what the American people want by a pretty solid majority is not to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour but to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour--something that is occurring now in Los Angeles, Seattle, and other places around the country. Tragically, this Congress is way out of touch with the American people on issue after issue, and it is high time we started to get our act together and to respond to the needs--the pressing needs--of the American people. Between 1985 and 2013, there was a huge redistribution of wealth in America. I know my Republican colleagues get very nervous when people talk about wealth distribution. Well, guess what, over the last 30 years we have had a huge degree of distribution of wealth in America. Unfortunately, that redistribution went in the wrong direction. That redistribution, to the tune of trillions of dollars, went from the pockets of the middle-class and working families of our country into the hands of the top one-tenth of 1 percent. So if we want to understand economics in the last 30 years, the middle class shrank and one-tenth of 1 percent doubled the percentage of wealth they own. Today the United States has more wealth and income inequality than any other major industrialized country on Earth. The top one-tenth of 1 percent now owns 22 percent of all the wealth in this country, while the bottom 90 percent owns 22.8 percent. In other words, the top one- tenth of 1 percent owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent, and the trend is toward more and more wealth and income inequality. That is the economic reality we are looking at now. But let me talk for a moment about another reality which saddens me very much and which we cannot continue to ignore. We are the wealthiest country in the history of the world. Yet we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major industrialized nation on Earth, with almost 20 percent of our kids living in poverty. In recent years we have seen a proliferation of millionaires and billionaires in this country. Yet over 50 percent of the children in our public schools are so low-income that they are eligible for the free or reduced-price School Lunch Program. As a result of the collapse of the American middle class over the last 40 years, men and women in this country are working longer and longer hours in order to cobble together enough income to sustain their families. Yet while over 85 percent of male workers are working more than 40 hours a week and over 66 percent of working women are working more than 40 hours a week, we have a dysfunctional childcare system which denies millions of working families the ability to secure high- quality and affordable childcare. Last week I spoke to a woman who lives right here in Washington, DC, and she told me that to get her 1-year-old child into quality daycare here in the Nation's Capital, she and her husband are spending close to $30,000 a year for one child. DC childcare is probably more expensive than other parts of the country, but millions of parents are struggling with childcare bills of $15,000, $20,000 or $25,000 a year when their income is $30,000, $40,000 or $50,000 a year. If you have two young kids, I don't know how you manage. The truth of the matter is that while working families are desperately trying to find quality childcare at an affordable cost, we are turning our backs on those families. The result is that millions of children in this country are not receiving the quality childcare or early education they need when the psychologists tell us that ages 0 to 4 are the most important years of a human being's life in terms of intellectual and emotional development. What sense is it that we ignore the needs of millions of working families and their children? What sense is it to tell working moms and dads that they cannot get the quality and affordable childcare they need? What sense is it to send many children into kindergarten and first grade already far, far behind where they should be intellectually because they had inadequate childcare? This is not what a great country is supposed to be about. When we talk about the future of America, we cannot be talking about turning our backs on the children of this country. That is why we should be doing in this country what nations all over the world have done, and that is to invest in our kids and move toward a universal pre-K education system for all of our children. I am glad that the Elementary and Secondary Educating Act is on the floor right now for debate. I want to thank Senator Murray and Senator Alexander for their hard work on this important bill. In Vermont and around this country--and I have had town meetings on this issue in Vermont where hundreds of teachers, parents, and kids come out--they understand that No Child Left Behind has failed, and what we are doing now begins to address that failure and move us in a very different direction. When we talk about the needs of young people--something we very rarely do--we should understand that it is not just that we have a dysfunctional childcare and pre-K system which must be significantly improved, it is not just that No Child Left Behind must be reformed, and it is not just that a college education is now unaffordable for millions of working-class and low-income families. All of those are terribly important issues that we must address. But I hope very much there is another issue that we will finally start to pay attention to. This country, this Senate, and the House of Representatives must come to grips with the fact that today in America we have a horrendous, horrendous level of youth unemployment in this country. This is an issue that gets virtually no discussion at all. This is an issue of crisis proportions that we are not addressing. For the future of this country, not to mention for the future lives of millions of our young people, we cannot continue to sweep the issue of youth unemployment under the rug. Last month the Economic Policy Institute released a new study about the level of youth unemployment in this country. What they found should concern every Member of the Congress and, in fact, every person in our country. The Economic Policy Institute analyzed census data on unemployment among young people who are jobless--who have no jobs-- those who are working part time when they want to work full time, and those who have given up looking for work altogether. This is what they found. From April 2014 to March 2015--a 1-year period--the average real unemployment rate for young, White high school graduates between the ages of 17 and 20 was 33.8 percent. The jobless rate for Hispanics in the same age group was 36.1 percent. Unbelievably, the average real unemployment rate for Black high school graduates and those who dropped out of high school was 51.3 percent. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the EPI's findings.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me just concur with the Senator from Ohio. This trade agreement was supported by virtually every major corporation in this country, the vast majority of whom have outsourced millions of jobs to low-wage countries all over the world. This trade agreement is supported by Wall Street. This trade agreement is supported by the pharmaceutical industry, which wants to charge people in poor countries higher prices for the medicine they desperately need. This agreement was opposed by every union in this country, working for the best interests of working families, and by almost every environmental group and many religious groups. In my view, this trade agreement will continue the policies of NAFTA, CAFTA, and Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China--agreements that have cost us millions of decent-paying jobs. We need a new trade policy in America--a policy that represents working families and not just the big money interests. I strongly disagree with the majority leader, who called this a great day for America. It is not a great day. It is a great day for the Big Money interests, not a great day for working families.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I wish to take this opportunity to send my condolences to the families of those who were murdered in Charleston, SC, on Wednesday evening and to the entire city of Charleston. It is hard to understand how someone could walk into a church, be welcomed into a prayer meeting, and then take out a gun and slaughter nine people who were in the process of discussing the Bible. That is hard to believe, but that is what happened. In the last 60 years, this country has made significant progress in civil rights and in trying to become a less discriminatory society. Sixty years ago, parts of our country were part of an apartheid-type system, segregated housing, segregated schools, segregated restaurants, segregated transportation, segregated water fountains, and, in fact, an entirely segregated way of life. Perhaps most significantly, African Americans in a number of Southern States were denied the basic right to vote and were unable to participate in the democratic process. Today, as a nation, we have a right to be proud of the significant changes that have taken place in our country over the last 60 years and the many advances that have been made in civil rights and in the creation of a less discriminatory society. We should be proud that in 2008, this country surprised the world by overcoming our racist history and electing our first African-American President and then reelecting him 4 years later with a strong majority. You may like Barrack Obama, and I do, or you may dislike Barrack Obama, and many Americans have that view, but it is no small thing that this country was able to judge a candidate by his ideas and character and not the color of his skin. But clearly, while we have made significant progress, the events of last week remind us how far we yet have to go in order to create a nonracist society. I am not the Governor of South Carolina, I am not in the South Carolina legislature, and I do not live in South Carolina, but I do believe the time is long overdue for the people of South Carolina to remove the Confederate flag from the statehouse grounds in Columbia. That flag is a relic of our Nation's stained racial history. It should come down. If any good can come of the terrible tragedy in Charleston, it is that the people of South Carolina now have the opportunity to finally turn a page on our past. Frankly, the Confederate flag does not belong on statehouse grounds, it belongs in a museum. I wish to also express my deep concern about the growth of extremist groups in this country, groups that are motivated by hatred--by hatred of African Americans, by hatred of immigrants, by hatred of Jews, by hatred of Muslims, and anyone else who is not exactly like them. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, sadly, there are some 784 active hate groups in the United States and the number of those groups is growing. Let me express my agreement with NAACP President Cornell Williams Brooks that ``we need vigorous prosecution and vigorous investigation of these hate groups and the resources to do so.'' I call upon the FBI to do just that. About 50 years ago, as a student at the University of Chicago, I was arrested in a civil rights demonstration to end segregated schools. I was also involved in helping to end segregated housing in Chicago. It is clear to me that over that period of time this Nation has come a very long way, but it is also clear to me--and I think to the majority of our people--that we still have a long way to go. I will conclude by reminding my fellow Americans about those great words that appeared in the Declaration of Independence, that moment in history when the Colonies broke off from the British: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men''--and we would add women-- ``are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.'' That is the dream of America, that is our vision, and that is a goal we must obtain. The tragedy in Charleston reminds us how far we yet have to go. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANDERS

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

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for up to 15 minutes and that Senator Durbin be recognized following my remarks.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I want to touch on an issue that I think does not get the attention it deserves. My view is that a nation is judged not by how many billionaires and millionaires it has but by how it treats the most vulnerable people among us. If we look at the greatness of a nation in that respect, the sad truth is that the United States today does not get particularly high marks. That is true not only in the way we treat our children, but it is also true in the way we treat our seniors. Yesterday, at my request, the Government Accountability Office--the GAO--released a new report that found that nearly 4 million seniors in our country are what they call food insecure. That means these seniors do not know where their next meal is coming from. What that means is that nearly 4 million American seniors may skip dinner tonight because they do not have enough money to buy food today. Every day in my State of Vermont and around this country, millions of seniors have to juggle with their limited budgets their ability to buy food, their ability to buy medicine, or, in the wintertime, their ability to keep themselves warm in their homes. Those are not the choices seniors in this country should be forced to make. There is a myth out there pushed by corporate and moneyed interests suggesting that seniors in this country are doing just great, that all seniors are comfortably middle class. But those people who hold those views have not looked at the reality of life for many seniors in this country. The truth is--and this is really a shocking truth--that 20 percent of seniors in America live on an average income of $7,600 a year. Between us, I don't know how anybody can live on $7,600 a year, let alone older people who need more medicine and more health care. The GAO recently found that more than half of all older American households have absolutely no retirement savings. So we are looking at families where people 55 or 60 have zero saved for retirement because for many years they have been working for wages that have been totally inadequate, preventing them from putting money into the bank. Many seniors obviously have worked their whole lives. They have raised kids. But, sadly, many of them do not have the resources they need to live a secure retirement. As I mentioned a moment ago, we have seniors in this country who are going hungry. The GAO report found that fewer than 10 percent of low- income seniors who needed a home-delivered meal in 2013 received one. In other words, what we have created here in Congress over the years are good and effective programs, such as the Meals on Wheels program, that provide nutritious food to the most vulnerable people in this country--seniors who cannot leave their homes; yet, what the GAO report discovered is that fewer than 10 percent of low-income seniors who needed a home-delivered meal in 2013 received one. I have gone to many senior citizen locations around this country, and I know that many senior citizens enjoy coming out and getting a congregate meal. They go to senior centers, and they are able to socialize with their friends. They get a good and nutritious meal at a reasonable price. Unfortunately, fewer than 10 percent of low-income seniors who need a congregate meal receive one. The need, in fact, is growing amongst seniors. GAO found that a higher percentage of low-income seniors are food insecure now--24 percent in 2013--than were in 2008, when the number was 19 percent. So the problem is becoming more acute. One in three low-income seniors aged 60 to 69 is food insecure; yet, fewer than 5 percent receive a meal at home and fewer than 5 percent receive a congregate meal in a senior center. GAO found that seniors with a disability, minorities, and older adults living on less than $10,000 a year were even more likely to be hungry. Overwhelmingly, those seniors are not getting the help they need. The report also found that 16 million older adults from all income levels report difficulties with one or more daily activity, such as shopping, bathing, or getting dressed. More than two-thirds of these seniors do not get the help they need. Many of the programs designed to provide support to seniors--in terms of Meals on Wheels, in terms of the Congregate Meal Program, and in terms of a variety of other programs--are funded by the Older Americans Act. The Older Americans Act was first passed by Congress in 1965, which is the same year Medicare and Medicaid were passed. This year, all three programs are celebrating their 50th anniversary. I requested this study to see how seniors have been faring in recent years. GAO reported that while the number of older adults in America has increased from 56 to 63 million Americans, the Older Americans Act funding provided to States has gone down since 2009. In other words, the need has gone up, but the funding has gone down. At current funding levels, less than two-tenths percent of Federal discretionary spending is going to achieve its original purpose. Common sense tells us that putting money into prevention and keeping seniors healthy in the end run not only prevents human suffering, but it also saves us money. If a senior is malnourished, that senior is more likely to fall, break a hip, end up in the hospital, at huge expense for Medicaid and Medicare. It makes sense to me, it seems, that if we fund adequately this important program which keeps seniors healthy, independent, and out of hospitals and nursing homes--that is what we should be doing. That is why I sent a letter to my colleagues on the Senate Appropriations Committee calling for a 12-percent increase in funding for the Older Americans Act programs, such as the nutrition programs. Thirty-two colleagues joined me on that letter. I hope that when we receive the funding level for the Older Americans Act this year, we will see an increase on these important programs. We should not be giving more tax breaks to those who don't need them. Instead, we should be expanding nutrition programs and other services for seniors. I also encourage my colleagues to support the bill reauthorizing the Older Americans Act, S. 192, and I look forward to working with the Presiding Officer to reauthorize and expand these critical programs for seniors. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I want to say a few words about family values. ``Family values'' is an expression that has been used for many years by my Republican colleagues. Generally speaking, what they mean by ``family values'' is opposition to a woman's right to choose, opposition to contraception, opposition to gay rights. I happen to strongly disagree with many of my Republican colleagues on those issues. Let me take the opportunity to briefly give a somewhat different perspective on family values--on real family values, on the values that really matter to millions of families in this country. When a mother gives birth to a baby and is unable to spend time with that newborn child during the first weeks and months of that baby's life because she does not have the money to stay home and is forced to go back to work, which is the case for millions of mothers in this country, that is not a family value. Separating a mother from a newborn baby for economic reasons is not a family value. In fact, that is an attack on everything that a family is supposed to stand for. When a wife is diagnosed with cancer and her husband cannot get time off of work to take care of her because he does not have any family or medical leave time or sick leave time, that is not a family value. That is an attack on everything that a family is supposed to stand for. When a husband, wife, and kids, during the course of an entire year, are unable to spend any time on a vacation, when they cannot get together in leisure activity, when they cannot relax and spend quality time with each other, that is not a family value. Let us be very clear in understanding that, in fact, in terms of protecting the needs of our families, in terms of real family values, in many, many respects the United States of America lags behind virtually every other major country on earth. When you look at other major countries, what you find is that the United States is the only advanced economy that does not guarantee its workers some form of paid family leave, some form of paid sick time, some form of paid vacation time. In other words, when it comes to basic workplace protections and family benefits, workers in every other major industrialized country in the world get a better deal than our workers here in the United States. That is wrong. That is a travesty, and that has got to change. Last place is no place for America. It is time for us to join the rest of the industrialized world by showing the people of this country that we are not just a nation that talks about family values but that we are a nation that is prepared to live up to these ideals by making sure that workers in this country have access to paid family leave, paid sick time, and paid vacations, just like workers in virtually every other major country on earth. Simply stated, it is unacceptable that millions of women in this country give birth and are forced back to work because they do not have the income to stay home with their newborn babies. When we talk about family values, what is more important than for mothers and fathers to bond with their babies at a time when almost every psychologist will tell you those are the most important weeks and months of a human being's life? What kind of family value is it when you tell a woman who has just had a baby that she cannot spend time with her child because she has to go back to work? This is not a family value. That is an insult to every mother, every father, and every newborn child in this country, and we have to change that. The reality is that the Family and Medical Leave Act that was signed into law in 1993 is totally inadequate. Today, nearly 8 out of 10 workers in this country who are eligible to take time off under this law cannot do so because they cannot afford to do so, according to the Department of Labor. Even worse, 40 percent of American workers are not even eligible to receive this unpaid leave because they work for a company with fewer than 50 employees. In my view, every worker in this country should be guaranteed at least 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave, and that is why I am a proud cosponsor of the FAMILY Act, introduced by Kirsten Gillibrand. The FAMILY Act would guarantee employees 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave to take care of a baby, to help a family member who is diagnosed with cancer or has some other serious medical condition or to take care of themselves if they become seriously ill. Just like Social Security retirement and disability, it is an insurance program that workers would pay into at a price of about one cup of coffee a week. That is not all. We have to make certain that in this country workers have paid sick time. It is absurd that low-wage workers in McDonald's and Burger King and low-wage employees all over this country who get sick are forced to work because they cannot afford to take time off. Not only is this unfair to the workers, it is also a public health issue. I do not know about you, but I am not crazy about the idea of somebody who is sick coming to work and preparing the food that I eat in a restaurant. That is why I am supporting the Healthy Families Act, introduced by Senator Patty Murray, which guarantees 7 days of paid sick leave to American workers. This bill would benefit 43 million Americans who today do not have access to paid sick leave, and it would create a permanent floor in workplaces where employers already provide some paid sick leave. Last but not least, when we talk about the disappearing American middle class, we are talking about millions of American workers working longer hours for lower wages. We are talking about Americans who are overworked, underpaid and, in many cases, living under enormous stress. In my State of Vermont, I see it every week I am home. You talk to people who work not one job but who are working two jobs or sometimes three jobs in order to cobble together some income and some health care. Here is an amazing irony. Many of us can remember in school reading about workers protesting, taking to the streets 100 years ago, and they held up large banners. Do you know what those banners said 100 years ago? They said: We want a 40-hour workweek. A 40-hour workweek was the demand 100 years ago. Today, we still have not achieved that goal. In fact, today 85 percent of men who are working and 66 percent of working women are working more than 40 hours a week. In fact, in America today--not widely known but true--our people are working the longest hours of any major country on Earth, because as real wages go down, people have to work 50 hours or they have to work 60 hours. Husbands are working here, and wives are working there--all to cobble together some income in order to provide for the family. Today Americans are working 137 hours a year more than workers in Japan--and the Japanese are very hard workers. We are working 260 hours more than the British and almost 500 hours a year more than French workers. That is why I am introducing legislation today to require employers to provide at least 10 days of paid vacation to workers in this country. This is already done in almost every other major country on Earth. It is one more way to demonstrate our commitment to real family values. What we are saying is that if families are overworked and if husbands and wives do not even have the time to spend together with their kids, what family values are about is that at least for 2 weeks a year, people can come together under a relaxed environment and enjoy the family. That is a family value that I want to see happen in this country. The time is long overdue for us to start talking about real family values, not about abortion, not about gay rights but the values the American people want to see inscribed in law to protect their families. Let us make sure every American worker is entitled to paid family and medical leave, paid sick time, and guaranteed at least some vacation time. Those are real family values. Let's go forward and make that happen.