Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. We are not going to walk away from anything, but we are going to do it right. Again, the argument that when you run a health care system which has 151 medical centers, has some 900 community-based outreach clinics, has 300,000 employees that a new President can start wiping out, without necessarily giving people the right to defend themselves, does not make any sense to me. So we are going to look at the positive provisions in Senator Rubio's bill, and I think there are some. I would say to the Senator from Florida, I think we are going to reach an agreement. I think the Senator from Florida is going to be happy. I think it will be a good bill and we will reach consensus around it and I think we have to do that. On the other hand, I wish to reiterate the point I made about money. Senator Rubio is right, that one of the reasons we only had two Republican votes for a comprehensive piece of legislation that addresses the issues that the veterans communities brought to us--it is not a Bernie Sanders bill, it is a bill that listened to the needs of veterans and we said we hear you. Once again, I would just say to the Senator from Florida, I don't think--I was just literally an hour ago at a function of the Gold Star Wives organization. These are women who have lost their husbands in battle. I think that under the post-9/11 GI bill, a very good and important piece of legislation, wives should have the right to use that legislation to go to college, get an education, so they can get better jobs. If I brought that bill to the floor today, I suspect I would have unanimous support, and I think that out of our committee the bill I brought forth, many provisions had unanimous support and many provisions were Republican provisions--good provisions, bipartisan provisions. So what I say to my friend from Florida is thank you. The Senator's bill is an important bill and it is going to be dealt with and it will be dealt with in the very near future.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, who has control of the time right now? Do I have the time?

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, let me reiterate. When I quoted the Washington Post and when I talked about politicalization, I wasn't suggesting the Senator from Florida was being political on the floor today. What I was suggesting about politicizing the VA is if we have a situation, for example, where a new Secretary comes in or a new administration comes in and can fire wholesale hospital administrators, without the ability to defend themselves, I think that is not the kind of system the Senator from Florida would want or certainly I would want. So how we address this issue is important. I would suspect that while this issue may have been taken up in committee today, I doubt very much there were any witnesses who testified about this bill. Second of all, I found it interesting that the Senator from Florida said--and he is right that other Republicans have raised this point. The legislation I introduced, which again has the support of the American Legion, DAV, Vietnam Vets, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Iraq- Afghanistan Veterans of America, Paralyzed Veterans of America--he is right--it costs money. He is right. This country has a deficit. He would be right if he said that going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan has cost us trillions of dollars, which is one of the reasons we have the deficit we have. But I believe from the bottom of my heart that if we go to war, if we spend trillions of dollars on that war, that when our men and women come home from war, some wounded in body, some wounded in spirit--I don't want to hear people telling me it is too expensive to take care of those wounded veterans. I don't accept that. If we think it is too expensive to take care of veterans, don't send them to war. So let me reiterate my view, as the Senator from Florida has raised an important issue. We are going to address it as quickly as we can, and we are going to address other issues facing our veterans who on this Memorial Day need to know we are there for them and their families.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, let me suggest to the Senator from Florida that we divide the remaining time, if he wishes to take a minute or two and I will take a minute or two; how is that?

Mr. SANDERS. Reserving the right to object, Madam President, I thank Senator Rubio for his remarks, and I think many of us share the exact same concerns he has raised. When men and women put their lives on the line to defend our country, they are entitled to the best quality health care we can provide to them. In my view and I think in the view of virtually every veterans organization, the VA does provide good-quality health care to those people who access the VA system, but there are very serious problems in terms of access, there are serious problems regarding waiting lists, there are serious problems regarding the possibility of hospitals keeping two sets of books, and we are going to get to the root of those issues. The one thing we do not want to do is politicize the well-being of America's heroes. I have a quote from an editorial in the Washington Post: The men and women who have served their country in uniform deserve better than delay or denial of the medical care they need and have earned. So it is crucial to get to the bottom of allegations of misconduct at the nation's veterans hospitals. America's veterans also deserve not to be treated as so many pawns in election-years gamesmanship--but that sadly is proving to be the case in Congress's increasingly hyperbolic response. It goes on: That the extent of wrongdoing is unclear doesn't seem to matter much to those more interested in scoring political points. How else to explain the knee-jerk calls, mainly by Republicans in the House and Senate, for the ouster of Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric K. Shinseki or the ill- advised and punitive legislation aimed at VA workers? I will just make this point: I happen to think the bill that was passed in the House yesterday has many important provisions with which I happen to agree. But as the Senator from Florida knows, we have not held a hearing on this legislation, and some of us are old-fashioned enough to know that maybe folks in the Senate might want to know what is in the bill before we vote on it. The Senator from Florida is right--it passed with very strong support in the House. In my view, a similar bill containing some of the salient provisions in the House bill will pass the Senate, but it is important that we discuss that bill. One of the concerns I have is that I do not want to see the VA politicized. It is one thing to say--which I agree with--that if a hospital administrator is incompetent, the Secretary should be able to get rid of that administrator without a whole lot of paperwork. I agree with that. It is another thing to say that if a new administration comes in--whether it is Democratic or Republican--somebody sitting in the Secretary's office can say: I want to get rid of 20 or 30 or 50 hospital administrators because we have other people we want in there. We can just get rid of them, and they don't have a right to defend themselves. I worry about that. Clearly we have to discuss the issue. I suggest that the Senator from Florida understands that it is probably a good idea to discuss an issue before we vote on it. The bottom line for me is, yes, every top administrator at the VA has to be held accountable. I do not want to see an enormous amount of paperwork and obstruction go forward before we can get rid of incompetent people. But before we vote on legislation, it might be a good idea to understand the full implications of that legislation, and there are some aspects of it with which I think some of us have concerns. I have a few more points on that issue. I hope the Senator from Florida agrees with me that we have to be certain the VA is able to recruit and retain high-quality leaders and managers, especially when the VA is in competition with other Federal agencies for those leaders. To that end it is vital to ensure we are fostering an environment at the VA where individuals feel as if they are protected from the political whims of their leaders. That is the point I made earlier. There are other areas that concern me in terms of setting precedents that may not be a good idea, but the bottom line is I think there are important provisions in the bill that passed the House. I want to work with Senator Rubio on this matter, and I think the administration wants to work with him. If I might, I will make another point, which is that I was very happy to see so much concern being paid to veterans' needs over the last few weeks. As chairman of the committee, I am very happy to see that. I say to the Senator from Florida and others that he is well aware that the veterans community faces many serious problems above and beyond what we have been hearing over the last few weeks with regard to the VA. We have 200,000 men and women who have come back from Iraq and Afghanistan either with PTSD or TBI. I would assume my friend from Florida agrees they need to get the quality care they deserve. An hour or so ago I had the privilege of being honored by the Gold Star Wives. They are the widows of men who died in action. I brought legislation to the floor that would have made it possible for Gold Star Wives to be able to get a college education under the post-9/11 GI bill. That bill received 56 votes. One Senator was absent; otherwise, we would have had 57 votes. Only two Republicans supported that bill. I suspect that Senator Rubio and many others support that. That is in the bill I brought to the floor. Right now we have--as I am sure Senator Rubio knows because the problem exists in Vermont, so it most likely exists in Florida as well--70-year-old women, in most cases, who are taking care of disabled vets, and they don't get the support they need. They are on duty 24/7, and they save the government money because those wounded veterans are staying at home. They need some help. I want to see them get help, and I hope Senator Rubio will work with me to make sure they get that help. Senator Rubio is aware, as is the Presiding Officer, that there is great concern not only in the military--the VA and DOD--but in the civilian sector that there is too much use of opiates to treat problems. We have a very serious problem in that area. We have language in our overall provision that extends help to the VA to move forward to give our veterans alternative treatments other than opiates, and we think that is a very important piece of legislation. We have legislation which has passed which provides 5 years of free health care in the VA for those who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. We think it is important to extend that to 10 years. Many veterans out there do not have access to decent-quality dental care. It is a problem in Vermont, and I suspect it is a problem in Florida. We want veterans to get that care as well. There is bipartisan support for advanced appropriations for VA, and we have that in our legislation. While the VA is making good progress in cutting back the backlog and moving from paper to a digital system, I want to see them do better. We have language in there that would push them to do better. Just this morning, Senator Burr and I were at a hearing that dealt with the educational problems facing veterans who come back from the battlefield. There are problems when they go to college. Most of us think veterans should be able to take advantage of instate tuition in the State in which they are living. Sexual assault has been a very serious problem in the military, and we want the VA to do better. Et cetera, et cetera. I thank Senator Heller and Senator Moran for voting for this bill, along with every Democrat. I am very glad my Republican colleagues are now beginning to focus on veterans issues, and we need to step to the plate to help not only our veterans but their families, and that is the legislation I have offered. I say to Senator Rubio through the Chair that your legislation has many important provisions with which I happen to agree. There are some that I think need work, and we are going to hold a hearing on that legislation and other legislation in early June. I respectfully object to that legislation right now, but I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 297, S. 1950, with the Sanders amendment, which is at the desk and is the text of S. 1982, the Comprehensive Veterans Health and Benefits Military Retirement Pay Restoration Act. That is the comprehensive legislation supported by virtually every veterans organization in the country, millions of veterans, and the American people. It says ``thank you'' to the veterans who put their lives on the line to defend this country, and we are going to be there for you. I ask unanimous consent that this legislation be passed.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. I apologize to my friend from South Carolina. Mr. President, I want to talk about an issue that millions and millions of people all over this country are increasingly concerned about; that is, last week the FCC, the Federal Communications Commission, released a proposal in response to a recent Federal court decision that struck down the Commission's 2010 Open Internet Order. The proposal would, for the very first time, allow Internet service providers to be able to pay for priority treatment. What this means, in point of fact, is the end of net neutrality and the end of the Internet as we know it. What net neutrality means is that everyone in our country--and, in fact, the world--has the same access to the same information. Whether you are a mom-and-pop store in Hardwick, VT, or whether you are Walmart, the largest private corporation in America, you should have the same access to your customers. Net neutrality also means that a blogger, somebody who just blogs out his or her point of view, in a small town in America should have the same access to his or her readers as the New York Times or the Washington Post. If the FCC allows huge corporations to negotiate ``fast-lane deals,'' then the Internet will eventually be sold to the highest bidder. Companies with the money will have the access and small businesses will be treated as second- or third-class citizens. This is grotesquely unfair and this will be a disaster for our economy and for small businesses all across our country. I want to take this opportunity to thank Commissioners Clyburn and Rosenworcel for their strong support of net neutrality. They are doing exactly what the American people want from the Commission. During last week's hearing Commissioner Rosenworcel stated: We cannot have a two-tiered Internet, with fast lanes that speed the traffic of the privileged and leave the rest of us lagging behind. Commissioner Clyburn noted: [The] free and open exchange of ideas is critical to a democratic society. And she is, of course, absolutely right. I have to say--and I don't mean to be particularly partisan on this issue, but the facts are the facts--that in contrast, the Republican Commissioners, Ajit Pai and Michael O'Reilly, would like to completely deregulate the Internet. Commissioner O'Reilly said, in response to the proposal: As I've said before, the premise for imposing net neutrality rules is fundamentally flawed and rests on a faulty foundation of make-believe statutory authority. I have serious concerns that this ill-advised item will create damaging uncertainty and head the Commission down a slippery slope of regulation. That is Republican Commissioner O'Reilly. What does all of this mean in English? What it means is that when we talk about deregulating the Internet, we are talking about allowing money--big money--to talk, and allowing the big-money interests to once again get their way in Washington. That is very wrong. We cannot allow our democracy to once again be sold to the highest bidder. I think all of us agree the Internet has been an enormous success in fostering innovation and enabling free and open speech across the country and throughout the world. We kind of take it for granted. But when the Presiding Officer and I were growing up, there was no Internet, and I think we can all acknowledge now what a huge advance it has been for business and for general communication. Unfortunately, these Republican Commissioners on the FCC want to fix a problem that does not exist. What they want is to change the fundamental architecture of the Internet to remove the neutrality that has been in place for decades--since the inception of the Internet--and to allow big corporations to control content online. Let me say the American people--people in Vermont and across this country--care very deeply about this issue. A little while ago, in advance of the FCC's vote, on the Internet I asked people in Vermont and throughout the country to share their views with me, to write to me and tell me what they thought about the attempt to do away with net neutrality, and I was blown away by the response we received. More than 19,000 people have submitted comments to my office so far, and what they are saying in statement after statement after statement is that the FCC has to defend net neutrality. I think these 19,000 people represent the vast majority of the people in this country who understand how important net neutrality is, and I want to take this opportunity and a very few moments to share some of the comments I received through my Web site. Anthony Drake of Moreno Valley, CA, said: Net neutrality is vital for a free and open internet, and the economic advantages that it has brought our nation and the world. Please work to reclassify ISPs as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act. Stamford, VT, resident Roy Gibson concurred, telling the FCC that Internet providers ``should be treated like utilities.'' I agree with Roy Gibson. Reg Jones of Bennington, VT, said President Obama must uphold his campaign promise to enforce net neutrality. He further said: Net neutrality should be mandated as President Obama promised. Any attempt to allow differential speeds and access to the Internet should be squashed and those who propose it should be replaced by people who represent all of the citizens of this country. Internet access should be for the good of all, not for the select few who already have too much power and more money than they need. William LaFrana of Versailles, KY, said: Everyone should have equal access to the Internet. The Internet was developed with taxpayer funding, and should not be held hostage to corporate piracy. Patricia Moriarty from Harwich Point, MA, wrote: The Internet is the only place where we truly have freedom of speech and the ability to freely exchange new ideas around the world. Leave the Internet OPEN. President Obama himself has long been on record supporting net neutrality. In 2007, then-Presidential candidate Obama said: What you've been seeing is some lobbying that says that the servers and the various portals through which you're getting information over the Internet should be able to be gatekeepers and to charge differential rates to different Web sites . . . so you can get much better quality from the Fox News site and you'd be getting rotten service from the mom and pop sites. . . . And that I think destroys one of the best things about the Internet--which is that there is this incredible equality there. That is what Barack Obama said when he was campaigning for the Presidency. Barack Obama was right when he said that, and I would very strongly urge the President to stand for what he said when he was campaigning for President and defend net neutrality. I understand the FCC is an independent body, but the American people have spoken with a clear and unified voice that they want to maintain net neutrality. What is so frustrating for the American people is to elect a candidate--in this case President Obama--who campaigned on an issue and now see many of the FCC members he appointed moving in a different direction. It is simply not enough for the President to sit on the sidelines on this issue. We need him to speak out for net neutrality, as he did when he campaigned for President. Let me conclude by simply saying the Commission will soon consider whether to reclassify the Internet as a so-called common carrier. Under this distinction, the Internet would be treated like other utilities. Being classified as a common carrier will mean Internet service providers must provide the same service to everyone, without discrimination. This is the only path forward to maintain an open forum, free of discrimination. Over the next few months the public will have an opportunity to weigh in on this proposal by the FCC. Each of us--and I hope every Member of Congress--should be concerned about this issue. I encourage you to be vocal. If people want to write to my office--sanders.senate.gov--we already have 19,000 people commenting and we welcome even more. I hope the American people rally around this issue of net neutrality and that we defeat any proposal to do away with that. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Reserving the right to object, how much longer----

Mr. SANDERS

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

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to yield back all remaining time on both sides.

Mr. SANDERS

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

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, as I think most Americans know, about 4 years ago the Supreme Court rendered a decision, which I happen to believe is one of the worst in the history of the Supreme Court, and that is their decision regarding Citizens United. As a result of that decision, what they said is corporations are people and individuals could spend an unlimited--unlimited--sum of money in elections. By ``unlimited,'' I mean hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions of dollars--quite as much as they want through independent expenditures. I think many Americans observed the repercussions of that decision just last month. A gentleman named Sheldon Adelson, one of the wealthiest people in this country, worth many billions, held what was called the Adelson primary in Nevada. What he did was invite prospective Republican candidates for President to come to Nevada to chat with him, to tell him their views; and if he decides to support one of those candidates, they will end up receiving, in all likelihood, hundreds of millions of dollars. But it is not just Sheldon Adelson. Probably even more significantly, when we talk about the impact of Citizens United and we talk about the flood of money coming in from the billionaire class to the political process, it is important to talk about the Koch brothers. I understand there has been a lot of criticism of Majority Leader Reid because he has talked about the Koch brothers, but I think the majority leader is exactly right. The issue is not personal. I don't know if the Koch brothers are nice guys or not nice guys; that is not the issue. The issue is the impact this billionaire family, the second wealthiest family in America, is having on the political process; and, second of all, and even more importantly, what do they stand for? Who are they? Why are they pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into the political process? I have a problem, to tell you the truth--whether somebody is a rightwinger or leftwinger--I have a real problem with these rich guys spending huge sums of money. But at the end of the day what is important to understand is what do they want? Why are they spending so much money in politics? Why are they supporting candidates throughout this country, running for the Senate, running for the House? Clearly they will be heavily involved in the next Presidential election. What do they stand for? That is the issue. It disturbs me very much, by the way, that the media hasn't been talking about that. What do these guys stand for? What do they want? Many Americans know the Koch brothers provided the main source of funding for the creation of the tea party--that is fine--and many Americans know the Koch brothers want to repeal the Affordable Care Act. They have run a lot of ads supporting candidates who want to repeal the Affordable Care Act. That is their view, and that is fine as well. But what I think most Americans don't know is the Koch brothers want to repeal virtually every major piece of legislation that has been passed in the past 80 years to help the middle class, to help working families, to help the elderly, to help the children, to help low-income people. Their view, their ideological view, is that we should eliminate or substantially cut back on all of those programs. In 1980, David Koch, one of the Koch brothers, was the vice presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party. In fact, he helped fund the Libertarian Party in that year. I want to read to you and discuss with you a few of the excerpts from the 1980 Libertarian Party platform that David Koch ran on. People may think: Well, that was back in 1980. But do you know what. It is my impression their views haven't changed one iota; that they are funding many organizations all over this country that essentially espouse those very view views David Koch ran on in 1980. This is the first quote that was in the 1980 Libertarian Party platform David Koch ran on as a vice presidential candidate and helped fund. He said: ``We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system.'' That is their view. That shouldn't surprise anybody. These guys do not believe government should be involved in health care, in retirement security. It is totally consistent with what they believe. But when Americans see ads on television paid for by David Koch, I hope they understand these guys eventually want to see--probably not tomorrow--the repeal of Social Security. They want to privatize it, they don't want it to exist. What is the reality? The reality is the overwhelming majority of the American people disagree with the Koch brothers. The reality is Social Security is probably the most successful Federal program in the history of our country. For more than 78 years, in good times and in bad, Social Security has provided every single benefit owed to every eligible American without delay. That is in good times, bad times, recession, boom, whatever it was. Before Social Security was created, nearly half of seniors lived in poverty. Today, while still too high, that number is 9.1 percent. We have gone from 50 percent down to 9.1 percent largely because of Social Security. The main point is according to virtually every poll I have seen, including the latest National Journal poll on the subject, 76 percent of the American people do not want to cut Social Security at all, an issue you and I were involved in. They do not want to cut Social Security. They sure as heck do not want to repeal Social Security. So when you see the ads on television being paid for by the Koch brothers, understand where they are coming from in terms of Social Security. Let me give another quote, and this is an exact quote from the 1980 platform of the Libertarian Party, David Koch, vice presidential candidate: ``We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.'' Abolition, what does that mean? It means if you are a senior citizen, 70 years of age, you are not feeling well, you go to the doctor, the doctor diagnoses you with cancer, you are not going to have Medicare there for you. If you don't have a lot of money, how are you going to get the health care you need? Well, you know what. You may not, because according to the Koch brothers, the Federal Government should not be involved in public health insurance programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. What happens if you are a low-income person? What happens if your kid is on the Children's Health Insurance Program, called Dr. Dynasaur in Vermont--I don't know what it is called in Hawaii--but it covers all of the States in this country. Millions of kids are getting their health insurance through the Children's Health Insurance Program. What is the Koch brothers' view? We should eliminate it. The Federal Government should not be involved in health insurance. According to the latest polls I have seen on this subject, 81 percent of the American people do not want to cut Medicare benefits at all and 60 percent of the American people don't want to cut Medicaid benefits at all, because they understand that in these tough times it is terribly important that we have guaranteed health care programs for our people. Yet the view of the Koch brothers is we should end Medicare and Medicaid. So, again, when you see ads on television, understand who is paying for them. We have been discussing the minimum wage bill. The Presiding Officer and I agree it is absolutely imperative that we raise the minimum wage. I think $10.10, the bill we had on the floor last week, is a start. I would go farther, but I think most Americans understand a family breadwinner and a family who is making all of $7.25 an hour or $14,000 or $15,000 a year is not a wage upon which anyone can live. Yet when you read the platform David Koch ran on--and again, their success has been that where their ideas were thought to be pretty crazy and kooky in 1980--he got 1 percent of the vote and ran because they thought Ronald Reagan was much too liberal in 1980--today these ideas are increasingly becoming mainstream. They are in the Ryan budget passed by the Republican House. They are reflected by actions in the Senate by my Republican Senate colleagues. One example is when we talk about the minimum wage, some of us think we have to raise it. Their view, what the Koch brothers said in 1980, and I believe it is their view today: We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws. So this is not a debate about whether you raise the minimum wage to $10.10. You do what they are doing in Seattle, WA, over a period of time raising it to $15 an hour, whether you raise it to $9 an hour, that is not their debate. Their debate is we should repeal the concept of the minimum wage. What does that mean in real terms? It means that in high-unemployment areas of this country where workers are desperate for jobs, if an employer says: I am going to give you 3 bucks an hour, and you say: I can't live on 3 bucks, and the employer says: Well, I have 20 other people who are prepared to take the job, that is their goal. They do not believe the Federal Government should be involved in providing at least a minimum wage for the workers of this country. They believe, among other things, that we should abolish the U.S. Postal Service, and I want to get into that. Their view is, again, the Postal Service, a Federal Government program--not a question of having a debate, how do you strengthen the Postal Service, what do you do, and what do you not do--they want to abolish the U.S. Postal Service. Let me go to another quote from David Koch, which I think maybe is the most interesting of all. This is where they are coming from. This is their philosophy: We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and ``aid to the poor'' programs. All these government programs are privacy-invading, paternalistic, demeaning, and inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals. I want to put into English what they say. What they are saying is they want to get rid of food stamps, they want to get rid of all nutrition programs, all affordable housing programs, Meals On Wheels Programs, which help vulnerable seniors, congregate meal programs, Head Start--which obviously are important to millions of working families and their children. So you ask: Well, what happens if I am hungry and there is no food stamp program because they want to get rid of all of these programs, because they think the Federal Government should not be involved in these issues? What do we do when people are hungry when they can't find jobs? Well, they can go to their local church, they can go to their local charity. Maybe they will get some help, maybe they won't. In other words, we are back to the days of Charles Dickens. We are back to the days of Charles Dickens where ordinary people and lower income people have no rights and no benefits. The only way they get help is if some charity is there to dole out some money. I don't believe that is where the American people are, and I don't believe that is what the American people want. Back In 1980, the Libertarian Party had a rather bold proposal, and they said: ``We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.'' Essentially what they are saying is no more government. That is it. No more government. There is going to be a vote in a few minutes, and I am going to seesaw, and I will be back on this issue. But I wanted to point out to what degree these folks, who are worth at least $80 billion, whose wealth increased last year by $12 billion, who have indicated they are prepared to spend as much as it takes to elect people who to some degree or another--I am not sure all of the candidates they support agree with everything they say, but they know what they are doing. They are smart. They are spending huge sums of money to create an America in which the wealthiest people will get huge tax breaks while working families, the middle class, the elderly, the children, and the sick will be left out on the street all by themselves. That is not the vision of America the American people believe in. I doubt there are 5 or 10 percent of the American people who believe in that vision, maybe less than that. But when you have $80 billion, and you are worth that much and can spend unlimited sums of money, you will have a huge impact on the political process, and you will have candidates who talk about this perspective, who defend this point of view, because that is where their money or campaigns comes from, rather than talking about the needs of working families or ordinary Americans. Let me make this last point, and that is this: It was 34 years ago the Koch brothers said: We urge the repeal of Federal campaign finance laws, and the immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election Commission. They have come so far in 34 years that that is now the position of a number of Republicans, including, as I understand it, the chairman of the National Republican Party. What does that mean? It means if you repeal all campaign finance laws, the Koch brothers and other billionaires will not just be able to spend as much as they want on independent campaign expenditures, they will be able to give money directly to the candidates of their choice.

Mr. SANDERS. Let me conclude by saying: I hope everybody pays attention to what the Koch brothers stand for. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. I do object. And I am going to----

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, unfortunately, I didn't quite hear that the Senator from Louisiana wanted to work with us. So I will have my office call his office and see if we can sit down with our staffs and find out what the Senator's concerns are about the legislation. It is not Bernie Sanders' legislation. It is not the Veterans' Committee's legislation. This is legislation supported by the American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Vietnam Veterans of America, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, and virtually every other veterans organization in America. In preparation for the discussion I look forward to having with my colleague from Louisiana, this is not changing the world. This is not legislation that is going to solve every problem in the world. But it does do a whole lot to improve the lives of millions of veterans and their families who are hurting, and I think it is appropriate that we do that. I want my colleague from Louisiana to be thinking about these issues and to come into the office and tell me: No, Senator Sanders. I disagree. Does he disagree with restoration of full COLA for military retirees? As he knows, for current people in the military and new people who are coming in, they are going to get less of a COLA than longstanding members of the military. Maybe he disagrees; maybe he doesn't. Let's talk about it. Does he believe the veterans community--people who go into the VA-- should be entitled to dental care? I don't know about Louisiana, but in Vermont that is a very serious issue. All over this country veterans are dealing with rotting teeth, and they can't get that care in VA facilities right now. There is widespread support for advanced appropriations for the VA. I think virtually all the veterans organizations understand that the VA could do a better job if they had advanced appropriations. I support it. Many people support it. I don't know if my colleague from Louisiana supports it. Let's work together, and I will find out. The next time we come down to the floor and go through this exercise, we can tell the people what we agree with and what we don't agree with. On ending the benefits backlog, the truth is that the current VA Administration--General Shinseki and others--inherited a paper system. Can you believe that? In the year 2009 the VA benefits system was on paper--maybe the last remaining system of its size in the world to still be on paper and not digital. What people at the VA have done-- General Shinseki and others--is they transformed that system from paper to electronic records. Guess what. The backlog is going down. But that is not good enough for me. We have language in this bill which will make sure the backlog continues to go down. There is an issue I am sure my colleague from Louisiana is very familiar with: instate tuition. There are veterans from Louisiana who may want to go to school in Vermont or veterans from Vermont who may want to go to school in Louisiana, but they can't get instate tuition. It is a serious problem, and we address it. What does my colleague from Louisiana feel about that issue? Then there is extending health care access for recently separated veterans. As he knows, we have legislation now that extends free health care to all those who served in Iraq and Afghanistan for 5 years. I think it should be extended for 10 years. Does he agree or does he not agree? The veterans community feels very strongly about that issue. We have high unemployment rates for returning veterans. We want to do something to expand employment opportunities. We have the issue of sexual assault--a very serious issue, as we all know--and we want to make sure the VA is providing excellent-quality care to those victims of sexual assault. We have, in my mind, a really tragic problem. The good news is that a few years ago Congress did the right thing and said to the post-9/11 veterans, those men and women who came home seriously injured: We are going to pass a caregivers act to give support to your wives or your sisters or your brothers who are providing often 24/7 care for you-- every single day, long hours--at great stress. We are going to help you. But what we didn't do is reach back to the Vietnam-era veterans, the Korean war veterans, even World War II veterans. There are families today in which a 70-year-old woman is taking care of her husband who lost his legs in Vietnam, and day after day, year after year she is getting virtually no support from the government. This legislation has the strong support of the Paralyzed Veterans of America and many other organizations that say we can't ignore those people. I don't know what my friend from Louisiana feels about this. Let's talk about it. Here is the bottom line. The bottom line is, as I have said many times, I do support the provision the Senator from Louisiana speaks about. We do need these facilities. But we need a lot more. We need cooperation and people coming together. I believe the Senator from Louisiana said there were 44 people who voted in opposition. He is right. He forgot to mention that there were 56 who voted for this bill, with the support of every veterans organization in America. One person was absent who would have voted for it, so 57 voted for it and 44 voted against it. Unfortunately, in the rules of the Senate, when we have a Republican filibuster, we do need 60 votes. I am looking for three more Republican votes. One of those votes I would very much appreciate receiving is from the Senator from Louisiana. That would make me two votes shy. And we think we are making some progress with some other Republicans who understand that we must address the serious needs facing the veterans community. I again extend my request to the Senator from Louisiana to work with me. But pending that, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 297, S. 1950, with the Sanders amendment, which is at the desk and is the text of S. 1982, the Comprehensive Veterans Health and Benefits and Military Retirement Pay Restoration Act.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I just asked a brief question of my friend from Louisiana.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I simply reiterate my hope that Senator Vitter would sit down with me, his staff would sit down with my staff, and we can work out our differences. I have always been willing to compromise and make changes in the legislation. But for the veterans of this country who have suffered so much and who have been hurt so much, we owe them so much, and we have to do right by them. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANDERS. What I am going to do, Madam President, is I am going to object, and I am going to ask for a unanimous consent request on legislation that I have offered, and I want to say a word about that. I want to ask a question of my friend from Louisiana. My colleague from Louisiana has indicated he wants to work with us. I think I heard that in his statement today, and I applaud that. I am not quite sure he has done that yet, but I look forward to working with him and his staff. I would invite my colleague from Louisiana to come to my office at a mutually convenient time to see how in fact we can work together. Will my colleague from Louisiana take me up on that offer, I ask through the Chair?

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I hear what my colleague from Louisiana says. I hear that he objects to passing legislation which has the support of virtually every veterans organization in the country that represents many millions of veterans. I hear him objecting to legislation which has the support of 57 Members of the U.S. Senate. I hear him objecting to what I believe is legislation which has the support of the vast majority of the American people, who do believe we should do right by our veterans. It is very easy to send people off to war; it is a lot harder to take care of them when they come home. I would simply say that I look forward to sitting down with my colleague from Louisiana and other Republican colleagues--and we are doing that right now but specifically with my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Vitter--and seeing where we can agree and how we can create some significant legislation to address the very serious problems facing the veterans community.

Mr. SANDERS. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, let me touch on a few of the points of my distinguished colleague from Louisiana. First of all, regarding the allegations against the VA in Phoenix, as we know, these are very serious allegations, and it is absolutely appropriate the inspector general do a thorough and independent investigation of those allegations. As I am sure my colleague from Louisiana knows, the leadership at Phoenix has rejected those allegations, saying those are not true. The Secretary of VA has done what I believe, and I would hope my friend from Louisiana believes, is the right thing to do, which is to do an independent investigation. I am not a lawyer, but I did learn enough in school to know you don't find somebody guilty without assessing the evidence. And frankly, just because CNN says something doesn't always make it the case. So what we need is a serious independent investigation into the very serious allegations about Phoenix and any other facility within the VA. I have said I will hold hearings immediately--more than one hearing, if necessary--to get to the truth of the matter regarding the VA situation in Phoenix. I would also tell my friend that when we talk about the VA, when we talk about health care in general--and I am sure he would agree with me--as a nation we have a whole lot of serious problems, don't we? We have about 30 million people today who have no health insurance at all. Harvard University estimates about 45,000 people die each year because they do not get to a doctor when they should, because we are the only country in the industrialized world that doesn't guarantee health care to all people. There was a study that came out recently that indicates that some 200,000 to 400,000 patients a year die in hospitals in America because of medical errors, in ways that could have been prevented--200,000 to 400,000 people a year. So, yes, as chairman of the Senate Veterans Committee, I am going to do everything we can do, along with my colleagues, in a bipartisan way to make sure the veterans of this country get all of the health care they need, and get the best quality they can. This is a very serious issue, and with an independent investigation taking place in Phoenix now, we are going to get to the truth of that. When we talk about the VA, as I am sure my colleague from Louisiana knows, in fiscal year 2013, the VA provided 89.7 million outpatient visits, and the VA has 236,000 health care appointments every single day. Today, over 200,000 veterans in 151 medical centers in 900 community-based outreach clinics all over this country are walking into the VA to get health care. I assure my colleague from Louisiana that every single day there are problems within the VA. When there are over 200,000 people walking in, there are going to be problems. But I also assure my friend there are problems in every other medical facility in America today as well. I just mentioned the very frightening situation that, according to a very significant study, we are experiencing between 200,000 and 400,000 patients dying from what are preventable deaths because of hospital errors all over America. My point about saying that is to say, let's put the VA within a broader context. If you want to criticize the VA, fine, I am there with you. You got problems, I will work with you. But let's not paint a broad brush. The VA has 151 medical centers, they have 300,000-plus employees-- many of them veterans themselves--and in my view, and in the view of the veterans community--the veterans associations--the Veterans' Administration is providing high quality care to the veterans across this country. It is not just me. My colleague from Louisiana may have recently read that an independent customer service survey, done by the American Customer Satisfaction Index--these are people who assess how people feel about medical facilities around the country--found that in 2013 an overall satisfaction rating for the VA was 84 percent for inpatient care and 82 percent for outpatient care, which in some respects was higher than for the hospital industry in general. For the past 10 years, the American Consumer Satisfaction Index has found a high degree of loyalty to VA among veterans of over 90 percent. I would suspect my colleague from Louisiana finds--as I have found when I talk to veterans in Vermont--and he asks them, as I am sure he does, what do you think about VA health care, veterans will say: You know what. It is pretty good health care. Is it perfect? No. Are there problems? Yes. In general, they think it is pretty good health care.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about one of the great crises facing our country; that is, the high cost of college, and the fact that hundreds and thousands of young people who are bright and wish to get a higher education have now decided that, because they do not want to leave school deeply in debt, they are not going to go to college. What a loss that is, not only to the individuals and the enhancement of their own lives, but it is a loss to our Nation because in a highly competitive global economy we need the best educated workforce possible. The fact that college is becoming a distant dream-- an unreachable dream--for millions of families is a horrendous situation which this Congress must address. Over the last 10 years, the cost of attending a public 4-year college has increased by nearly 35 percent at a time when middle-class incomes have remained flat and, in fact, many families have seen a decline in their incomes. Of the students who do go to college, hundreds of thousands graduate with significant debt--on average, over $27,000. This morning I was talking to a staffer of mine who is $119,000 in debt. And what was her crime? How did she accrue that debt? Did she go on a spending spree? Did she lose her money in a gambling casino? Her crime was that she wanted to go to law school, and she came out of law school $150,000 in debt. Today that is down to $119,000. I have talked to doctors and dentists who are now several hundred thousand dollars in debt. The important point to make is there was once a time in the United States when that kind of college and graduate school indebtedness did not exist. Only a few decades ago this country made a commitment to our students that if you worked hard, if you studied hard, and if you wanted to pursue a higher education, you could do so at little or no cost. That was what we used to do. Unfortunately, in that very important area we have regressed, and regressed significantly. Until the 1970s, at the City University of New York, one of the important and best educational systems in the country, the cost was completely free. The University of California system, one of the largest and best university systems in the world, did not begin charging tuition until the 1980s. In fact, in 1965, average tuition at a 4-year public university was $243. We know we are living in a highly competitive global economy, and if our Nation is to succeed, we need to have the best educated workforce in the entire world. But the sad truth is we are now competing against other nations around the world that make it much easier for their young people to go to college and graduate school than is the case in the United States of America. According to a report released last year by the OECD--the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development--the United States was one of the few advanced countries in the world that did not increase its public investment in education over the last decade. From 2008 to 2010, most advanced countries experienced significant economic decline as a result of the Wall Street collapse. Despite that, the vast majority of countries increased educational spending by 5 percent or more. The United States was one of the few nations to decrease overall educational spending. I live about 1 hour away from Canada in northern Vermont. In Canada, average annual tuition fees were $4,200 in 2010--roughly half of what they were in the United States--and yet the OECD says Canada is one of the most expensive countries for a student to go to school. Germany, an international competitor of ours, is in the process of phasing out all tuition fees. Even when German universities did charge tuition, it was roughly $1,300 per student. According to the European Commission in 2012, the following countries do not charge their students any tuition--and these are countries we are competing against. These are countries where young people go to college without any out-of-pocket expenses. Those countries are Austria, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Scotland, and Sweden. In Europe, university systems enjoy a very high level of public funding. The EU average is 77 percent. In other words, in countries throughout Europe--Austria, Belgium, Denmark, and all of the rest--what governments understand is that investing in higher education is terribly important for the individual students and their families. But, in addition, it is enormously important for the competitive capabilities of those countries. So countries such as Austria, Belgium, Denmark, each put in more than 88 percent of public funding into their universities. In the United States, the number is 36 percent. Countries all over the world that don't provide free higher education pump significantly more into their university systems than we do. The result is several very significant points. First, we have many working-class and middle-class young people who are looking at the economic picture we face as a nation and looking at their own lives, and they are saying: Do I want to go to college and leave school $50,000 or $60,000 in debt? How am I going to pay off that debt once I leave school? Many of these young people, tragically, are saying: I don't want to take that risk. I don't want to leave school deeply in debt. I will not go to college. What a tragic situation that is for our entire country, because we are losing the intellectual potential of all of those young men and women. Second, those who do go to college are coming out of school with an incredible chain of indebtedness around their neck, which impacts every aspect of their lives. It determines what kind of jobs they will get. Will they do the job they had hoped to do their whole lives--their life's dream, the work they were looking forward to doing or are they going to gravitate to those jobs which simply pay them a lot of money and enable them to pay off their debt? For the first time in our country's history, American families have more student debt than credit card debt, and that is an extraordinary reality. All over this country families are struggling with debt in a way they never have before. The average loan balance for American graduates has increased by 70 percent since 2004. Average student debt is now near $27,000. In Vermont, it is even higher at $28,000. One in eight borrowers is carrying more than $50,000 in student debt. The percentage of families in the United States with outstanding student debt increased from 33 percent in 2005 to 45 percent in 2010. The bottom line here is we have a huge crisis which is impacting millions of individual families and individual young people. But from a national perspective, it is a crisis which is impacting our competitiveness in the global economy. There was once a time, not so many years ago, when we had the best educated workforce in the world and we had a higher percentage of college graduates than any other country on Earth. That is not the case today. I think we have got to do some very hard thinking about the crisis regarding college affordability and the crisis regarding student debt. If this country is to remain internationally competitive in the global economy, we need some bold ideas in terms of how we address these crises. I can tell you that in Vermont, as I speak to young people around my State, this is the issue foremost on their minds. The young people in high school are wondering about how they can afford to go to college. The students in college are worried about how they are going to pay off their college debt. Our job must be to say to every young person in this country that if you are a serious student, if you study hard, you are going to be able to get a higher education regardless of the income of your family, and you are going to be able to get the best education our Nation can provide you based on your ability and not on the income of your family. This is an issue of enormous importance to individuals around the country, but it is an issue of huge consequence for the economic future of this country. So in the coming weeks I will be introducing legislation--I know there is a lot of other good legislation that is going to be coming to the floor--because this is an issue of huge consequence, and it is an issue that must be addressed. Mr. President, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, there has been a lot of criticism waged at the majority leader of the Senate, Harry Reid, for his discussion about the Koch brothers. That criticism of Senator Reid is unfortunate. I think what Senator Reid is trying to do is educate the American people about the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision and what it has done by allowing billionaire families, such as the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson and others, to pump hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars into the political process in order to elect candidates in the House, in the Senate, and in the White House, who are working overtime against the best interests of the middle class and working families of this country and, at the same time, are working to provide even more tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires and large profitable corporations. I think it is important, when we talk about the Koch brothers, not to make this discussion personal. It is not a personal discussion. It is a discussion about what the most powerful political family in this country believes. If they are spending hundreds of millions of dollars--and this is a family worth $80 billion, and they may end up spending, in fact, billions of dollars on campaigns--what is it they want? What do they believe? What do folks such as Sheldon Adelson believe, when they invite potential Republican candidates for President to come to Las Vegas for what has been called the Adelson primary, where he will listen to them and decide who he might support and spend hundreds of millions of dollars on in a Presidential campaign? So I think it is important we know what the Koch brothers believe. Here is the best information I have. In 1980, as it turns out, David Koch, one of the two brothers, ran for Vice President of the United States on the Libertarian Party platform. What is interesting to me is to what degree the platform he ran on--which in 1980 got him 1 percent of the vote on the Libertarian ticket--to what degree that extremist set of positions has now become mainstream Republican today. I want to take a few minutes to quote exactly what was in that 1980 platform so the American people can recognize to what degree ideas that at one point were considered extremist are now mainstream Republican. This is what was in the 1980 Libertarian Party platform upon which David Koch ran for Vice President: We urge the repeal of federal campaign finance laws, and the immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election Commission. What that means is the Koch brothers, and increasingly the Republican Party, now believe there should be no campaign finance laws, that Citizens United did not go far enough, and that the Koch brothers should be able to spend millions of dollars by giving that money directly to individual candidates. That is what the Koch brothers said in 1980. That is what many Republicans believe today. Let me state an exact quote from the platform: We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system. There are many Republicans today who not only want to see cuts in Social Security but who ultimately want to privatize Social Security who believe it is unconstitutional for the U.S. Government to be involved in retirement benefits for seniors. Libertarian Party platform, 1980: We oppose-- Listen to this one. This is really quite incredible: We oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes. We support the eventual repeal of all taxation. Repeal of all taxation? That is the government. Basically, what they are saying, very boldly, straightforwardly--we have to respect their honesty--is they don't believe in government. I have not heard any of my Republican colleagues say they want to abolish all taxation. That is not what they say and that is not what they believe. But on the other hand, it is important to note that the Ryan budget, just passed in mid-April in the House, provides a $5 trillion tax break over a 10-year period, mainly by cutting the top individual and corporate income tax rates significantly. In other words, at a time when the wealthiest people are doing phenomenally well at the same time as the middle class disappears and more and more people live in poverty, what my Republican colleagues believe is we should give more tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires. The Koch brothers' position in 1980 was that they support-- Libertarian Party platform: We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws. What does that mean? Yesterday, we had a vote on the floor of the Senate which said that a $7.25 an hour minimum wage is a poverty wage; that people who are working 40 hours a week and are making $7.25 an hour are living in poverty; that they cannot bring up and raise families on those wages; and that if we raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, we could increase the salaries of approximately 28 million Americans. On that vote to overcome a Republican filibuster, one Republican voted with members of the Democratic caucus, and we lost that vote. What is interesting, it is not simply that almost every Republican voted against raising the minimum wage; what is more significant is that many Republicans believe we should abolish the concept of the minimum wage. Many of us know Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma to be an honest and straightforward guy. He tells it the way he sees it. This morning on the ``Morning Joe'' television show, this is what Senator Coburn said, and I quote from the transcript: I don't believe you ought to interfere in the market. If there's to be a minimum wage--my theory is I don't believe there ought to be a national minimum wage. That's my position. In other words, what Senator Coburn is saying today and, in fact, what many Republicans agree with him about, is we should abolish the concept of the minimum wage--something the Koch brothers were talking about 34 years ago. What are the implications of that if we do as Senator Coburn suggested and just let the market work and don't have government interfere by establishing a minimum wage American workers should receive? What it means, quite simply, when we let the free market work, is that if people are in a high unemployment area and there are many workers competing for few jobs, an employer will say to a potential employee: I am prepared to hire you, good news, and I am going to pay $4. The worker says: I can't live on $4 an hour. That is a starvation wage. The employer says: That is OK, because I have 20 other workers who are prepared to accept that wage. That is what happens when we abolish the concept of the minimum wage. Many of us--and I think the vast majority of the American people-- have a very different vision of where our country should go. We don't believe we should be abolishing the minimum wage. We don't believe we should be cutting or privatizing Social Security or transforming Medicare into a voucher program or making horrendous cuts to Medicaid. What, in fact, the American people want is the Federal Government to start standing up for working families rather than millionaires and billionaires. In poll after poll, what the American people have said is they want us to invest in rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and create millions of decent-paying jobs. That is what the American people want. They do not want tax breaks for billionaires but the creation of millions of jobs for rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. The American people, despite what Senator Coburn and others may believe, want us to raise the minimum wage. Poll after poll suggests the American people want us to raise the minimum wage to at least $10.10 an hour. The American people do not want us to cut Social Security. In fact, more and more Americans want us to expand Social Security, to make sure when elderly people reach retirement age, they can live and retire with dignity. I think there has perhaps never been a time in the modern history of this country where the political lines have been drawn as clearly as they are right now. If you listen to the Koch brothers, if you read the Republican Ryan budget in the House, their positions are quite clear: Tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires and significant cuts in the programs that are life and death for the middle-class and working families of this country. That is not what the American people want, and it is time we began to listen to the American people. It is time we took on those people, those billionaires who are spending huge amounts of money electing candidates who represent their interests. And it is time we listen to the working families of this country, who are struggling to survive. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I wish to bring to your attention to a remarkable Vermont family. The Marvin family has an incredible family tie to Vermont and to one of the State's best known products--maple syrup. David Marvin founded Butternut Mountain Farm in 1972 on land his father purchased in Johnson, VT., in the 1950s. David Marvin has a strong and enduring commitment to an iconic Vermont industry. Through careful stewardship, and with the help of his wife Lucy, he has built a company renowned for quality maple products. The family produced maple syrup, grew Christmas trees and consulted on timber management. Today, David's children, Ira and Emma, are integral to the operation, which includes more than 80 employees, maple syrup from 300 Vermont farms, and a 75,000 square-foot facility in Morrisville, VT. Butternut Mountain Farm is more than just a producer of maple syrup; it has also become an effective marketer of a treasured product of Vermont. The family and the company have been recognized for their success. Just a decade after the company's founding, for example, Butternut Mountain Farm was named Vermont State Tree Farm of the Year and National Tree Farm of the Year by the American Forest Institute. The Marvins are encouraging a culture of conservation. Their Morrisville operation is increasingly relying on renewable energies and energy efficiency. The family has also developed a pay structure that seeks to reward employees with flexible hours, to help reduce commuting costs, and a fair wage. It is also worth noting that the Marvin family's business plays a crucial role in supporting the jobs of countless Vermonters throughout the state who produce maple syrup which is bottled by Butternut Mountain Farm.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we talk about holding hostage. The distinguished junior Senator from Louisiana pointed out that 43 Senators voted against comprehensive legislation that is supported by virtually every veterans organization in this country. The arithmetic is 43 voted against it, that is true. How many voted for it? Fifty-six voted for it and 1 was absent who would have voted for it. Fifty-seven voted for comprehensive legislation, 43 voted against it. So when the Senator talks about holding veterans hostage, I would suggest to my friend from Louisiana that maybe instead of filibustering this bill and requiring an undemocratic 60 votes, let the majority rule. The American people want us to pass this legislation. If you choose not to vote for it, that is your right. But I do urge you not to hold us hostage by demanding 60 votes when a very strong majority wants to see it passed. With that, Mr. President, I would object.

Mr. SANDERS. Reserving the right to object, let me again thank Senator Landrieu, who has raised this issue with me on numerous occasions. The issue we are talking about--I think Senator Vitter referred to it--is clearly not just an issue for Louisiana, it is an issue which addresses the need to see built 27 major medical facilities in 18 States and Puerto Rico. To my mind, this is a very important provision, which is in fact why I put it in a very prominent place in my legislation. What I would say to my friend from Louisiana is that as important as that provision in the bill is, there are many other provisions of equal or greater importance. What I would say to my friend from Louisiana is that organizations--and, again, virtually every veterans organization in America, representing millions and millions of veterans, wants this body and Members of the Senate to not just give speeches on Veterans Day or Memorial Day about their concerns for veterans, they want this body to start acting on behalf of the veterans in this country. What they want us to do, among many other things, is an advanced appropriations. I know my friend from Louisiana isn't a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, and maybe he does not know that in the last government shutdown we were 10 days away from veterans--disabled veterans--not getting the checks they live on. This bill I have introduced addresses that. Maybe the Senator from Louisiana does not know we have a major backlog problem; that while the VA is making good progress and significantly reducing that backlog, I as chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee want to make absolutely certain that when a veteran applies for a benefit, that benefit is adjudicated in a rapid, efficient, and accurate way, and my legislation deals with that issue. I don't know if the junior Senator from Louisiana knows we have a real problem for veterans in Louisiana and across this country who are trying to take advantage of the post-9/11 education bill. Over 1 million veterans and their families are taking advantage of it but suddenly find themselves, if they move from Vermont to Louisiana or Louisiana to Vermont, they may not be able to take advantage of instate tuition. Our bill addresses that issue.