Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise in full support of the legislation on the floor. I think most Members understand, as part of the 2013 bipartisan budget agreement, language was included which cut COLAs for military retirees. I think most Members here in the Senate and the House understand that was a mistake, an oversight, and is something that should be rectified and it should be rectified now. Promises made to people in the military should be kept, and our job is to do that. This morning, as the chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, I wish to say a word on broader issues impacting the veterans community. Shortly after this legislation is disposed of, we are going to move on to a comprehensive piece of legislation which addresses many of the very serious problems facing our veterans community. I will give a brief overview of what the legislation does. The legislation is the Comprehensive Veterans Health and Benefits and Military Retirement Pay Restoration Act of 2014--S. 1982. The first point I will make is I honestly believe, in terms of the veterans issues, there is widespread bipartisan support. On the Veterans Committee, every Member of our committee--Democrat, Republican, or in my case Independent--believes very much that we owe our veterans more than we can provide them. Their sacrifices are too deep, the pains are great. But all Members of the committee in a bipartisan way are doing their best to protect the interests of our veterans, and I thank all of them for their hard work. To as great a degree as possible, the bill which will be on the floor--the comprehensive veterans bill--is a bipartisan bill. It contains many provisions brought forth by my Republican colleagues. This bill consists of two omnibus bills unanimously passed by the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, supported by Democrats and Republicans. It also includes other provisions which had strong bipartisan support. This legislation also contains two new provisions, both of which have bipartisan support. The first new addition addresses the restoration of cuts made to military retiree COLAs as a result of the 2013 bipartisan agreement, the exact same issue being debated on the floor right now. We also have that language in our bill. Promises made to veterans have got to be kept. We have to restore those cuts to COLAs for military retirees. The second new provision not discussed, frankly, by the committee also has widespread bipartisan support, and authorizes the VA to enter into 27 major medical facility leases in 18 States and Puerto Rico. Interestingly, the legislation which will soon be on the floor contains two major provisions already passed by House Republicans. So to as great a degree as possible, in terms of language in the bill, in terms of working with our Republican colleagues in the House, this is a bipartisan bill and should have the support of every Member of the Senate who believes in protecting the interests of veterans. And I hope that is the vast majority of the people here. As Senator Begich mentioned a moment ago, our veterans have paid a very heavy price. What I have learned in the little bit more than the year in which I have been chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee is I think most Americans, including myself, were not fully aware of what that sacrifice was. And what that sacrifice was in recent years was not just the loss of over 6,700 Americans who lost their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq but the impact of those wars on hundreds and hundreds of thousands of veterans who came home either wounded in body--loss of arms, loss of legs, loss of hearing, or loss of sight--or the more invisible wounds of war. What most Americans don't know is a rather shocking number, but we are now dealing with hundreds of thousands of men and women who came home from Iraq and Afghanistan who are doing their best to cope with post-traumatic stress disorder, which has a terrible impact on their lives, on their families' lives, and on their ability to get a job and keep a job; and traumatic brain injury, the result of being in the presence of IEDs and the explosions in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are also dealing in this rough economy, this struggling economy, this high unemployment economy, with many young veterans coming home unable to find jobs. Some in the National Guard left decent jobs and came home to find those jobs are not there. I think virtually every Member in the Senate understands that at a time when the VA went from paper to digital and made the transformation which was necessary to deal with the claims process, the claims process today remains too long. The backlog is too great. We have to deal with that issue. We are dealing with a situation where young men and women were wounded in war who had hopes and dreams of starting their own families, but as a result of injuries sustained in those wars, for whatever reason, lost their reproductive capabilities and they still want to have families. We are dealing with issues of sexual assault--a scandal, an outrage I know every Member of the Senate feels strongly about. Women and men who were sexually assaulted are coming home in need of treatment and are unable to get that treatment. We are dealing with a situation today above and beyond the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, where there are people--often women, wives and sisters--who are under great stress taking care of disabled veterans who have no arms and no legs. They have devoted their lives to those people and they are hurting as well. As chairman of the veterans' committee, what I have done is listened as carefully as I could to what the veterans community--representing some 22 million veterans--had to say about the problems veterans are facing. My very fine staff and I--along with my Republican colleagues and their very fine staffs--worked together. We said: These are the problems facing our veterans. We all know that on Veterans Day and Memorial Day every Member of the Senate goes out and gives a great speech about how much they love and respect veterans and how much they appreciate the sacrifices made by veterans. Now is the time to stand and go beyond words and rhetoric. Now is the time to, in fact, address the real and serious problems facing those men and women whose families experienced the ultimate sacrifice and those men and women who came home wounded in body and spirit. We cannot solve all of the problems facing veterans. We cannot bring back loved ones lost in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and the other wars. We cannot bring them back to their wives, their mothers, their dads, and their kids. We cannot do that. We cannot magically replace the arms and the legs or eyesight lost in war, but we do have the moral obligation to do everything humanly possible to protect and defend those men and women who protected and defended us. We can do that and that we must. I am very proud the legislation that will soon be on the floor has the strong support of virtually every veteran and military organization in this country, and that includes all of the major organizations representing millions and millions of veterans. I thank the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the VFW, the Disabled American Veterans, also known as DAV, Vietnam Veterans of America, the Military Officers Association of America, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Gold Star Wives, and dozens and dozens of other veterans and military organizations that are supporting this legislation. The Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs has received letters of support from virtually all of these organizations, and if Members want to check out why these organizations that are representing millions of veterans are supporting this bill, they will find those letters on our Web site. I will quote from one of the letters. This letter is from the Disabled American Veterans, DAV. This . . . bill, unprecedented in our modern experience, would create, expand, advance, and extend a number of VA benefits, services and programs that are important to DAV and to our members. They see it--as do many of the other veterans organizations--as one of the most comprehensive pieces of veterans legislation brought forth in the modern history of Congress. I am proud of it. I thank the veterans organizations not just for their support of this legislation but for the help they gave us in drafting this legislation. This legislation did not come from Bernie Sanders or from anybody else on the committee. It came from the veterans community itself. It came from representatives of veterans organizations who came before us in hearings, who came before us in private meetings, and said: Senator, here are the problems facing our veterans. If you are serious about going beyond rhetoric and speeches and truly want to help veterans and their families, this is what needs to be done. We listened. We could not do everything, but we did put many of the major concerns facing the veterans community in this bill. Again, I thank the veterans organizations for being our partner in drafting this legislation. I also wish to take this opportunity to thank those people who have currently cosponsored this legislation, and that includes Senator Landrieu, Senator Begich, the Presiding Officer Senator Schatz, Senator Brown, Senator Blumenthal, Senator Hirono, Senator Boxer, Senator Casey, Senator Gillibrand, Senator Heinrich, Senator Heitkamp, Senator Merkley, Senator Murray, Senator Reed, Senator Shaheen, Senator Whitehouse, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Tester, and Senator Cantwell. I thank all of them for their strong support. I will take a few minutes to touch on some of the areas this comprehensive bill covers. As I return to the floor in the coming days, I will go into greater length about each of these provisions. Each of these provisions, unto themselves, is enormously important in terms of the needs of our veterans. As I mentioned earlier, our comprehensive veterans bill--consistent with the Pryor bill--will restore the cuts made in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 to military retirees. We address that issue in our bill. This comprehensive veterans legislation deals with another issue--not necessarily a sexy issue--that in fact impacts a large number of veterans in communities all over America, and that is that it will allow the VA to enter into 27 major medical facility leases in 18 States and Puerto Rico. That means--for a variety of reasons too complicated to get into right now--we have CBOC, community-based outpatient clinics, and other veterans facilities that are ready to go. They are on the drawing board. Actually, it is beyond the drawing board, but we have not been able to pull the plug on it. This is very important to veterans all over this country. It is important to Republicans, it is important to Democrats, and it is time to get this done. By the way, this has been passed in the House of Representatives. We need to do it and that is part of this legislation. This legislation includes groundbreaking provisions that would expand access to VA health care. In my view and in the view of veterans all over this country, the VA provides high-quality, cost-effective care to millions and millions of our veterans. There are approximately 6.2 million veterans accessing VA health care today. About 8 million are signed up for VA care. This legislation expands access to VA health care, allows more veterans to come in, and ends a very complicated priority 8 eligibility. Priority 8 is a situation where there are hundreds and hundreds of different eligibility levels all over the country, and it makes it very confusing for priority 8 veterans to determine whether they are eligible. We ended that and simplified it. The result is that more veterans will be able to access VA health care. We have also expanded complementary and alternative medicine within the VA. The truth is the VA is now doing a good job in providing complementary and alternative medicine, and that means meditation, acupuncture, yoga, and other treatments to veterans who are concerned about not being dependent on medication. One of the great problems we have nationally and in the VA is overmedication of people who have problems associated with pain and other ailments. The VA has done a good job. We are going to expand that opportunity. My experience--having gone around the country--is that both within the Department of Defense hospitals and the VA, more and more veterans are looking at these alternative-type treatments and want to break their dependence on overmedication. What we also do in this legislation is something that is terribly important. It is my strong belief that dental care must be considered a part of health care. The fact is that in this country there are millions of people--above and beyond the veterans community--who cannot find affordable dental care. Right now within the VA, dental care--with the exception of service-connected problems and homeless veterans--is not open to veterans, and we begin the process to do a significant pilot program to bring dental care into the VA. That is extremely important for the veterans community. I think all of us remember not so many months ago the Government of the United States was shut down and caused all kinds of problems for all kinds of people. What is not widely known is that disabled veterans and veterans receiving their pension were 7 to 10 days away from not getting their checks. We have disabled veterans all over this country who live from month to month through those checks, and they were 7 to 10 days away from not getting those checks. This legislation provides for advanced appropriations for mandatory VA benefits. By passing that provision, we will never again put disabled vets or veterans who are dependent on their pensions in the position of not getting their checks when they need it. One of the issues that has been discussed a great deal is the issue of benefits backlog. There is no disagreement in this Senate--whether one is a Republican, Democrat, Independent--that it is not acceptable for veterans who applied for benefits to have to wait for years to get those benefits. In my view, what the VA is now doing is undergoing a massive transformation of their benefit system, going from paper--which was incomprehensible to me. In 2008 their system was paper. They are going from paper to digital. They are making progress, but I want to see them make more progress. This legislation includes some important provisions to make sure we end this unacceptable backlog of VA benefits. One of the issues that has also received some attention is the issue of instate tuition assistance for post-9/11 veterans. A number of years ago we passed very significant legislation which enabled some 900,000 post-9/11 veterans and family members to get higher education throughout this country. This legislation would give our transitioning servicemembers a fair shot at attaining their educational goals without incurring an additional financial burden. We deal with the issue of somebody from out of State moving into another State and making sure that veteran is paying no more than what the instate tuition is for that State. This is a very important provision and, by the way, a provision that was passed in the House of Representatives. The language is pretty much the same in this bill. We promised veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan that they would have 5 years of free VA health care when they came home. For a variety of reasons, people have not taken advantage of that. We think it is important to extend--from 5 to 10 years--unfettered access to VA health care for recently separated veterans, and that is what this legislation does. I don't have to mention to anybody that our economy--while slowly improving--still has many challenges. Unemployment is much too high. What this legislation would do is reauthorize provisions from the VOW to Hire Heroes Act of 2011, including a 2-year extension for the Veterans Retraining Assistance Program, otherwise known as the VRAP program. In other words, what we are saying to our veterans is when they come home, we want a job to be there for them. We want them to get integrated back into civilian life, so we have some very important provisions in here for employment opportunities for our veterans. As I mentioned earlier, sexual assault is a scandal. The numbers are appallingly high. What this legislation does is enable those women and men who were sexually assaulted to come into the VA to get the quality of care their situations require and deserve. This provision was inspired by Ruth Moore, who struggled for 23 years to receive VA disability compensation. So we have language making sure those who suffered sexual assault will get the care within the VA they absolutely are entitled to. I mentioned earlier, also, that several thousand men and women who served in Iraq and Afghanistan were wounded in ways that make it impossible for them to have babies. These are people who really want families, and some of them are now spending a very significant amount of money in the private sector through a number of approaches in order to be able to have babies. We have language, a provision in this bill, which would help female and male veterans who have suffered significant spinal cord, reproductive, and urinary tract injuries to start a family. I think that is absolutely the right thing to do. Several years ago this Congress did the right thing by establishing a Caregivers Act, which said to those people who were caring for disabled vets that we understand how difficult--how difficult--that work is, that you are taking care of people who need constant attention, loved ones who need constant attention, and we are going to help you do what you have been doing. The good news is we passed that legislation. The bad news is it only applied to post-9/11 veterans. I think there was a general understanding, an assumption, that we were going to expand that program to all veterans--Vietnam, World War II, Korea--so those people, mostly women who are staying home, taking care of veterans, get the support they need. So the extension of the Caregivers Act is also included in this legislation. Those are some of the provisions. This is a 400-page bill, and I just touched on some of them. But let me end in the way I began. There is no way we can ever fully repay the debt we owe to the men and women who put their lives on the line defending this country. That is just the simple nature of things. We are not going to bring back the husbands who were lost in war, the wives who came back without any legs. We are not going to bring fathers and mothers back to children who lost their dad or their mom. We are not going to restore eyesight to people who are blind. We cannot do that. But if this country means anything, it means that we have to keep the promises we made to veterans and their families; that while we cannot do everything, we have to do as much as we can to make the lives of our veterans and their families, their loved ones, as happy and productive as we possibly can. So this legislation is from Senators who listened to our veterans, heard their concerns, worked with them, and developed this comprehensive bill. Let me conclude once again by thanking all of the veterans organizations. We have virtually every veterans organization in America--not all but almost all--supporting this legislation. We thank them for the work they do every day on behalf of our veterans. I thank them very much for all the help they have provided me and the committee in writing this legislation. Speeches on Veterans Day or Memorial Day are great. That is good. It is important we all do it. But now is the time to go beyond speeches. Now is the time to address the problems facing the veterans community. This legislation does this in a very comprehensive way, and I ask for the support of all my colleagues in the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, today I wish to speak in strong support of the nomination of Sloan Gibson to serve as Deputy Secretary at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Before I speak about Mr. Gibson's qualifications, I believe it is important that my colleagues understand the realities that Mr. Gibson will face if confirmed. He would be responsible for the day-to-day management of the Department charged with operating the Nation's largest integrated health care system and providing a variety of benefits and services to America's veterans, as well as their dependents and survivors. It is also no secret the Department of Veterans Affairs faces a number of challenges. We know it takes VA too long to issue claims decisions. We know it takes the Board of Veterans' Appeals too long to decide appeals. We know VA and the Department of Defense have spent years on an integrated electronic health record with very little to show for their efforts. We know VA has difficulty managing major construction projects; and we know far too many veterans still do not know about the benefits and health care for which they are entitled. These are the just some of the challenges awaiting Mr. Gibson and highlight the need for this body to move quickly to confirm Mr. Gibson for this important vacancy. All too often, VA's challenges can cast a large shadow over the things that VA does well. I think it is also important to acknowledge the amazing things VA is accomplishing each and every day. For instance, patient satisfaction at VA medical centers remains high throughout the country as does the quality of care veterans receive. VA has taken an aggressive stance on homelessness by pursuing the ambitious goal of eliminating veteran homelessness by 2015 and continues to make significant progress in reducing the number of veterans living on the street. Finally, the VA continues to make significant advances in health care through its world-class research programs. These are the realities and the challenges facing any nominee for a leadership position at the Department. I firmly believe Sloan Gibson is uniquely qualified to address these challenges. Mr. Gibson has a history of service to this Nation that has provided unique insights into the challenges confronting the servicemember and veteran communities. Mr. Gibson began his service as a cadet at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. He graduated in 1975 and went on to serve as an infantry officer, earning airborne and ranger qualifications during his military service. His service to this country, however, did not end when Mr. Gibson left military service. He continues this tradition of service today by leading the United Service Organizations, commonly known as the USO, which has the important mission of lifting the spirits of America's troops and their families. I feel the relationships Mr. Gibson has developed with the Congress and senior leaders within the Department of Defense during his tenure at the USO will serve him well as Deputy Secretary. Collaborative efforts between VA and DOD such as the Integrated Electronic Health Record and Integrated Disability Evaluation System have the potential to make the delivery of benefits and services much more efficient and to provide servicemembers with a smooth transition to civilian life. Yet, these efforts continue to face significant challenges. VA needs a Deputy Secretary like Sloan Gibson who will be able to provide the leadership attention necessary to ensure continued and meaningful collaboration between the Departments. Sloan Gibson also has the business experience, gained from service in both the for-profit and not-for-profit sectors, necessary to serve as Deputy Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Following military service, Mr. Gibson spent 20 years serving in a number of positions within the banking industry. This service included 11 years as an executive at AmSouth Bancorporation. He retired from AmSouth in 2004 as vice chairman and chief financial officer. Sloan Gibson's tradition of service, business experience, and educational qualifications make him well suited to manage the day-to- day operations of one of this Nation's largest Cabinet Departments. I am confident that if confirmed Mr. Gibson's service as Deputy Secretary would improve the lives of America's veterans and their families and as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee I look forward to working with Mr. Gibson to do just that. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting today to confirm the nomination of Sloan Gibson to serve as Deputy Secretary at the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the Vermonters who will be representing the United States in the Olympic Winter Games in Sochi, Russia. Vermont has a long tradition of excellence in winter sports that we owe partly to our State's cold climate and mountainous terrain, but also to an outdoor spirit that dates back generations. I would like to acknowledge these athletes individually and wish them the best of luck in pursuing the gold. Sophie Caldwell, from Peru, VT, will be competing for the United States in cross-country skiing. Sophie was a five-time All-American at Dartmouth College, and received a degree in psychology and plans to go back to school to pursue a career in either psychology or education. Hannah Dreissigacker, from Morrisville, VT, is a member of the Craftsbury Green Racing Project, a group of elite athletes who are committed to pursuing an environmentally conscious lifestyle. Hannah will be competing in the biathlon in Sochi. Kelly Clark, from West Dover, VT, is one of the most successful snowboarders to ever compete. She won a gold medal in the halfpipe event at the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, and a bronze medal at the 2010 games in Vancouver. In addition to her success on the slopes, Kelly has given back to her community by starting a foundation that provides scholarships to athletes from disadvantaged backgrounds. Susan Dunklee, from Craftsbury, VT, will be competing for the United States in the biathlon. Susan placed fifth in the World Championship's Individual race in Ruhpolding, Germany, and tied for the best score of those U.S. female biathletes competing. Susan, like Ms. Dreissigacker, is also a member of the Craftsbury Green Racing Project, which promotes sustainability and endurance sports. Lindsey Jacobellis, from Stratton, VT, started competing in snowboard cross competitions when she was 11 and has risen to become a dominant force in the sport. Lindsay won a silver medal at the 2006 Winter Olympics in Turin, and is an eight-time champion in snowboardcross at the Winter X Games. Hannah Kearney, from Norwich, VT, is one of the top freestyle mogul competitors in the world, having won a gold medal at the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver. I wish her the best of luck in defending her Olympic title. Devin Logan, from West Dover, VT, is a freeskier who will be competing in the slopestyle and halfpipe events. During her rookie season, she finished second in the halfpipe event at the U.S. Championships and earned her first U.S. halfpipe skiing title at the age of 15. Andy Newell, from Shaftsbury, VT, is a cross-country skier who has been racing since the age of five. He placed 16th in freestyle sprint during the 2006 Winter Olympics and finished off the 2012-2013 season ranked as the fifth fastest sprinter in the world. Outside of training for this year's Winter Olympics, Andy works with kids at the New England Nordic Ski Association to introduce the sport to a new audience. Hannah Teter, from Belmont, VT, won a gold medal in the halfpipe event at the 2006 Winter Olympics and a silver medal in 2010 in Vancouver. In true Vermont fashion, Hannah is very active in her community and charitable causes, combining her prize money with proceeds from maple syrup sales to start a charity called ``Hannah's Gold'' which builds schools and fresh water infrastructure in a village in rural Kenya. Ida Sargent, from Barton, VT, is a cross-country skier who is also a member of the Craftsbury Green Racing Project. After finishing her cross-country skiing career, Ida hopes to become a physical therapist. Liz Stephen, from East Montpelier, VT, switched from alpine to cross- country skiing midway through her tenure at Burke Mountain Academy. Liz took first place in two events at the 2008 U.S. National Championships. Since her last trip to the Winter Olympics in 2010, she finished atop the podium at the Swiss National Championship in 2012 and finished fifth in the 10k freestyle at the 2013 World Ski Championships. Liz enjoys mountain biking and takes classes at Westminster College. Mikaela Shiffrin, from East Burke, VT, will compete for the United States in alpine skiing. Mikaela is an eight-time World Cup slalom medalist. Mikaela is the first non-European to win four World Cup slalom races in one season. When she isn't competing, she also enjoys playing tennis and soccer. Ty Walker, from Stowe, VT, has made a significant impact on women's slopestyle snowboarding. Ty has won the Burton European Open Junior Jam three times in a row from 2009-2011. In 2013, when she was just 16, she finished fifth at the FIS World Snowboarding Championship. Off the snow, Ty is a straight-A student and loves to jump on trampolines. Alex Deibold, from Manchester, VT, will compete in his first Olympics as a snowboardcross competitor. Alex finished second in the 2013 World Cup championship in Sochi, Russia. Alex also made finals at four out of five World Cup starts in 2013. When he is off the slopes, Alex enjoys rock climbing, surfing, and mountain biking. Jacqueline Hernandez, from Londonderry, VT will compete for the United States in snowboardcross. Jacqueline is a seven-time World Cup top-10 finisher. In her spare time, she enjoys riding motorcycles, swimming, and boating. Nolan Kasper, from Warren, VT, will compete for the United States in alpine skiing. Nolan competed in the 2010 Winter Olympic Games and placed 24th in men's slalom. In addition, Nolan enjoys ice skating and playing soccer. Mr. President, Vermont is very proud of the athletes who will be competing in Sochi, and I would like to join the citizens of my state to wish them the best of luck at the 2014 Olympic Winter Games. Bring home the gold!

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I rise today to recognize a remarkable Vermonter, David Melincoff, who is carrying on the tradition of providing a good meal and fostering a sense of community each Thanksgiving. As many Vermonters continue to struggle to make ends meet in the wake of the most severe recession to hit the United States in generations, Mr. Melincoff marked the 24th year his Burlington, VT restaurant has offered a traditional Thanksgiving dinner at no cost. Nearly 1,000 dinners were given away this past Thanksgiving. Since the Thanksgiving Community Dinner started 24 years ago at Sweetwaters American Bistro, Mr. Melincoff estimates that more than 20,000 meals have been served free of charge. The dinner, a traditional Thanksgiving meal of turkey, stuffing, and mashed potatoes, offers the same experience a diner would have eating at the restaurant on any other night, including wait service provided by volunteers. The fundamental difference is that the meal is free of charge--and the sense of community this generosity inspires is undeniable. It is not only those who are having financial difficulties who attend the Thanksgiving Community Dinner. As Mr. Melincoff noted, ``Sometimes it's an emotional need.'' Often, people who have lost a loved one attend in order to share in the company and fellowship of others. The dinner provides an opportunity where people, regardless of their economic status, can sit and break bread together. ``Here, they just feel equal. That's the part that always gets me,'' Mr. Melincoff said. ``It's about self-respect.'' The meal itself is just one part of the day-long event. A coat donation drive was added as another effort to serve 4 years ago. Hundreds of coats are collected in advance by the Windjammer Restaurant in South Burlington, and this year roughly 700 coats were provided to individuals in need. Local residents and members of the business community also pitch in to make the Thanksgiving Community Dinner a success. Everyone benefits from this event, whether it is from the food provided or the satisfaction of giving back to the community. For the volunteers, Mr. Melincoff noted, ``it puts things into perspective about what you should be grateful for.'' Mr. President, I wanted to take this opportunity to commend Mr. Melincoff for his commitment and service to others and applaud his efforts to reach to out those in need.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record finalist essays written by Vermont High School students as part of the Fourth Annual State of the Union Essay contest conducted by my office. These 7 finalists were selected from over 380 entries. The essays follow: Raihan Kabir, South Burlington High School, Grade 12 (Finalist) How a country collects and allocates its resources takes precedence in outlining the foundation of equality and general welfare. We as individuals rely on a revenue of both incomes and loans, which makes for a crude economic model of spending. This holds true for our government. As the nation dives deeper into debt and countries around the world experience protests and riots over austerity measures, it is clear that additional tax dollars are necessary to reduce debt, support society, and give rise to the economy. Tax increases will put the definition of taxation back into its actuality. The United States tax rates are theoretically graduated by income level, meaning that lower income ranges pay a lower rate than higher income ranges. However, those in a higher tax bracket often have more deductions to further equalize their effective rate with that of the middle or lower brackets. A decline in tax rates for the most wealthy is a disproportionate advantage for the already financially capable members of our society, which further instigates the income disparities that threaten our democratic ideals. The top percent of Americans possesses more wealth than the entire bottom 90 percent; the 400 wealthiest Americans have a greater combined net worth than the entire bottom 150 million; and yet, everyone is paying a similar effective rate. Not everyone is currently contributing their fair share to society, and living in a nation with the largest amount of debt in the world, this matter of fact is unacceptable. Tax increases will make the theory of taxes a reality and restore economic equality. Though our current fiscal path is unstable, increasing taxes will reduce national debt and put us on the right track back to recovery. With a 16 trillion dollar debt that is rising at the rate of 6 billion dollars a day (4 million dollars every minute), every family in America would owe about $50,000 to various countries around the world if the burden trickled down to the general public. When the government needs money, it sells treasury bills (similar to savings bonds) to investors, who cash them in after an average of ten years for the original amount plus interest. Though a certain amount of debt is arguably helpful for the economy, consistently high deficits force the government to offer higher, more appealing interest rates; investors eventually realize that the country is unlikely to pay back the money it borrows and they stop lending, which crushes the economy, as most recently witnessed in Greece. Our current national debt is greater than the economies of the United Kingdom, Australia, and China, combined. Stopping this vicious economic cycle requires less foreign-reliance and more self-sustenance, which is feasible if and only if we increase taxes. Tax increases will ensure the funding and availability of certain social programs and necessary expenditures on infrastructure without the need to excessively issue bonds. Taxes currently fund public services of insurance, such as Social Security and Medicare, of welfare, such as the Pell Grant and Food Stamp programs, and of infrastructure, such as the scholastic and interstate highway systems. Nobel laureate of economics Paul Krugman affirms a current necessity for increased taxes in his following statement: [Regarding] proposals to raise the age of Medicare eligibility to 67 . . . outlays would fall only by $125 billion over the next decade . . . and even when fully phased in, this partial dismantling of Medicare would reduce the deficit only about a third as much as could be achieved with higher taxes on the very rich . . . don't believe anyone who claims otherwise. Taxes pay for important programs that go unpaid by spending cuts. The Bureau of Economic Statistics reports that the average standard of living, determined by comparing adjusted incomes and poverty rates, has increased in years with a higher annual budget and decreased in years on the contrary. According to the New York Times and the Board of Economic Advisors, there is a direct correlation between the amount of money provided to the government in the national budget and the quality of life in the United States, as determined by the rate of poverty. This makes logical sense; our standard of life escalates as we make fiscal contributions to society. Yet we continue to have the lowest tax rate in the world. Taxes are imposed so that roads get fixed, so we get an education, and so people don't invade our country. Taxes are imposed to protect our rights. The government imposes taxes on us for our own benefit, and by raising them, we will improve the living conditions and quality of life in America. Tax increases will lead to economic growth and prosperity. In 1990 and again in 1993, President Clinton enacted deficit- reduction legislation that raised taxes for high income taxpayers; as a result, economic growth and job creation were strong. Within this period of a sensational economy, capital gain rates were cut, and there was a 20% increase in job availability for a total of 21 million new jobs. However, after the Bush Tax Cuts of 2001 and the Bush Recession, job growth lagged behind GDP growth, there was 0% net job growth, and with continuous population growth, there were record high unemployment rates. Tax increases have helped society and the economy in the past, and they will help again. In any case of regulatory action, the value to be upheld is the quality of life. By reducing debt, supporting society, and giving rise to the economy, the nation will better ensure a standard of well-being for its citizens. The government of these United States is to assure life, liberty, health, and happiness, in our pursuit of the American dream. Lincoln said it best in his Gettysburg Address: ``that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.'' The prioritization of tax increases over spending cuts is essential to future policy in the United States of America to sustain the American public. Fiona Higgins, Champlain Valley Union High School, Grade 12 (Finalist) There are many issues facing the United States. Personally, I believe one of the most critical domestic issues is reproductive rights. Every step back to pre-Roe v. Wade is sensationalized in the media, and rightfully so. The issue is much more far reaching than pro-life versus pro-choice; it is both a human rights issue and an economic issue. Firstly, it is a human rights issue. It is a matter of women having control over their own decisions, their bodies, and their lives. Western women strive to liberate women who they view as oppressed, but these same western women don't realize that their freedoms are also disappearing. Women and men alike have the right to decide what happens to their bodies. Restricting access to contraception and health services violates this human right for both genders. Secondly, it is an economic issue. Children cost money. When parents cannot support their family, they are prone to apply for welfare and other government programs that were put in place to help low-income families. These programs are needed, but the federal government could decrease the need and the cost of these programs if it focused on education and access to contraception. In low-income neighborhoods, people are often not able to access contraception. This takes away lower-income women's autonomy as well as perpetuating the cycle of poverty. If there were more accessible systems in place, these systems (rather than chance) would help families plan for the future, and allow them to decide to have children (rather than chance). In addition, a decreased level of government spending would curb the growth of the debt, which would aid the struggling economy. A woman rarely thinks to herself, ``I'd like to have an abortion instead of using contraceptives this time.'' That is lunatic. Abortions happen out of necessity. If they were illegal or severely restricted, women would still get them, but the procedures would be unsafe and deadly. If members of Congress truly want to protect the unborn and create a diminished welfare-dependent state, they must focus on education and accessibility; this strategy will also lower government spending in the long run. Instead of going backwards, the United States should be moving forwards. Members of Congress must recognize that women have an inalienable right to privacy with regard to their bodies, a right that we should not have to fight for. Education and access to contraceptives needs to be more widespread, thereby improving our dire economic situation and our quality of life. Owen Deffner, Thetford Academy, Grade 7 (Finalist) 2013, America has had quite a year, with many ups and downs. Everything from the government shut down, to what I'd call: an official economic recovery. We have witnessed a terrible civil war in Syria where tremendous bloodshed has occured. America has hosted many natural disasters too, everything from intensely cold temperatures to violent tornadoes. In these tragic times America has stepped up its game and delivered, helping our neighbors when they are struggling. This is the America that our allies look up to; the friendly, hospitable, welcoming America that we all contribute to every single day. Let's keep that good, positive America in our hearts this year. 11 million people are in America illegally. These people have come to this great nation in search of a better life. These people are trying to achieve the American dream. Immigrants are trying to send money home to their family in another country, some are trying to provide for their family here in the US. All the while they are constantly worried that our government will deport them back to their home country. This is not right, it's not okay that we don't welcome them into our nation. I want the path to citizenship easier for them so that they can get what they wanted to get by coming here. Let's be a bit more hospitable to people who are just trying to help their family. Our status on the issue of the environment is not looking up. America has the great opportunity to help lead the fight against climate change. America must set high standards concerning the environment so that other countries will follow to help reduce the risk of the world's surface covered in water. Inside America to confront this issue head on we need to educate Americans on what is okay and not okay to recycle and how to compost or break down food into soil for our farms and gardens. This is a plan that will work and that we must initiate this year. Our country is very behind on a major issue. America's education system is well behind many other well developed global powers. We need to fix that issue from the bottom up starting in our pre and elementary schools, with more emphasis on math and science. At higher levels, more affordable college and university opportunities for the lower and middle-class. We need to invest more time and education in our education and we need to now! All of these ideas I am proposing are simple and should be easy to carry out with a bit of willingness from both parties. I am not asking to overhaul anything just some easy doable requests that all of us can help to accomplish. America should look to the future, to the next generation growing into adulthood. Let's get back on track for these young men and women who have high hopes for themselves and their country. Emily Martin, Vergennes Union High School, Grade 10 (Finalist) The United States of America is an amazing country to call home. However, in the modern day we as a nation face problems that challenge our ingenuity and integrity. The world today is one of war, whether that is physical, or political. We struggle to find resources to continue on living the way we have for as long as we can remember, yet forget that the earth which we walk on is a fragile one. The United States is no exception. We often find ourselves between a rock and a hard place; dealing with complex issues such as health care for all, or additional billions of dollars in debt; the Continuation of fighting a war which is not ours, or withdrawing our troops and allowing innocent people to face an uncertain future. Spend billions in foreign oil to keep companies in business, or convert to clean energy and watch the economy crumble. The list of hard choices goes on and on. The reality is, we no longer live in a time when decisions are cut and dry and each decision resonates into our future with force. As a nation, we face an increasingly unpredictable future, and without reassurance of our outcome, fear can cause bitterness and ignorance. Education, the economy, politics, and the fate of an ever-changing climate put an enormous amount of stress on us a people. There is no certain cure for the issues we deal with a nation, but the first step towards solution and unification. As a country, it's time that we put aside our grudges, opinions, and preferences and work as a whole to support America's path towards growth, safety, security and stability. The United States of America has been a country that others look to as a role model and to some as a beacon of freedom and safety. We have more than ourselves to work for; there are millions of people around the world who rely on our help and support. We need to shed the selfish shells, and work as a people, not as a political party or organization. Whether you are a Republican, Democrat, and Libertarian it doesn't matter, because America is your home, and at the end of the day we all have to learn to coexist and benefit from each other's support. This is how we will help to secure America's future, America's education, industry and healthcare. Unification is the first step towards solution. If we need reminding of the impact of dissention and fracturing of our political system, the Civil War looms in the hearts and from the pages of our history, when compromise not only failed, but conversation stopped. The State of the Nation in America is painful obvious even to the young people and the children. If we don't remember how to talk to each other, work together and accomplish the majority rule established as a framework in the US Constitution, we stand to lose more than a budget. We stand to lose our democracy. Nick Majeski, Woodstock Union High School, Grade 11 (Finalist) Bribes from Fast Food: A State of Corruption In the year 2014, the union is majorly corrupt; the country is run by a capitalist nightmare of over-powerful healthcare, tobacco, and food industries. From their very beginnings at the turn of twentieth century, the fast food industry has steadily become more and more powerful and influential. Spawning from this growth in influence, the union has steadily declined into a state of corruption at the hands of the fast industry, with these major food chains bribing government workers in high positions. Government agencies controlling food, such as the FDA, USDA, and EPA may have been created with good intentions, but when a higher up does not believe they are being paid enough money for their job, they are known to be tempted to accept bribes and submit to being the puppets of fast food corporations, looking to exploit their power to lower the standards of their products. An article on Naturalnews.com explained how, in a survey given to workers at the FDA and USDA, one fourth of the survey takers admitted to have changed policies for corporate gain. On one hand this is not morally right both in the way that our government officials-- who were elected by the people--are accepting bribes, and also that they are changing policies allowing even less healthy food that causes diseases--more money to health care; another corrupt industry in the United States. Corrupt FDA, USDA, and EPA fat-cats obviously do not want to break their ties with fast food puppeteers; this brings more corruption directly into the government organizations themselves. In the Naturalnews.com article the writer explains that many innocent workers at organizations like the FDA and USDA are demoted or even fired for trying to do their job and not keeping their mouths shut about corruption they have witnessed. The higher-ups in charge of these huge organizations influence immoral decisions that bring dirty money to their own pockets; they change state standards to very low standards and do not require food companies to tell customers when the food was made, processed or cooked. Despite all this--mostly widely known information--this corruption is still going on and growing. According to Fastfoodnationhonorsproject.weebly.com ties between congress and fast food are too strong to vote against certain policies. This means that the way to lower corruption in the food industry would have to be to take direct action. Despite knowledge of corruption being well known in America- Supersize Me is a mainstream movie- there is not very much motivation to stop bribes from the food industry. This is a problem that should not only be addressed, but worked towards solving as well. Holly Thayer, Milton High School, Grade 12 (Finalist) My fellow Americans, I stand here before you to evaluate the state of our great nation. Over the past year our economy has risen as the Gross National Product increased 4.1% in the third quarter, and the National Deficit went down $1.8 Billion. As of November, the national unemployment rate has dropped to 7% and personal income has risen, proving that our nation is moving out of the recession, and America is once again becoming a nation of economic growth and wealth. 2013 saw an increase in revolutions around the world, from Syria to Egypt, many countries around the world are experiencing the same revolution the United States and our ancestors endured in order to gain our individual freedoms. Through the government and all of our national forces, we must work together to give aid in the form of resources and money, to assist the new governments that are the result of these revolutions, and ensure that there is smooth turn over of power. The United States must also create a coalition of our allies, along with the United Nations, to create an agreement that delegates the responsibilities and costs of helping these nations form new governments, and ensures that the re- created states are not intruding on an individual's human rights. The production of Genetically Modified Organisms, GMOs, that are then placed in processed foods or on crops and used as an insecticide, have created a serious health risk for myself, and all my fellow Americans. It has been proven that GMOs can lead to serious health issues and impose high health risks. We must work together with the agricultural farmers and corporations that use GMO's to research the other options that these businesses have in order to ensure plant safety, without endangering the public health at the same time. Then we must create a grant program that would give states and localities money to allocate to farmers and organizations that agree to not use GMOs. For companies that still use GMOs, we must toughen the regulations on the use of them, through only allowing a regulated amount to be present in foods, and make it mandatory that this presence is labeled on every package of a product. Educated masses lead to innovations and improvements in every aspect of life. Currently, around 30% of Americans have obtained a college degree. In order to have an educated citizenry, we need to make federal aid for students planning on going to college more available. To do this, we need to restructure the system that is used to disperse federal financial aid. If we create a formula, based on family income, and reduce the importance and use of merit based scholarships, while increasing the use of incentive programs, then allocate the money based on this system, we could effectively make financial aid more available and abundant, and therefore increase the percentage of Americans who have a college degree, creating an educated citizenry. Thank you, God Bless America. Delaney Spink, South Burlington High School, Grade 12 (Finalist) I can't claim to know a lot about politics. In fact, I make a point to stay as uninvolved in it as possible. In a nutshell, all I know is that Obama is our president, and that I should never bring up politics with my grandfather, unless I'm willing to spend the next three or four hours listening to him denounce every decision our government has made since the 1920's. When our class was told we had to write this essay, my first thought was, ``I have no idea what the state of our union is. How am I supposed to write about how to fix it?'' I'd bet that every single other student in my classroom was having the same thought, save the one or two kids that are really into politics, and, as we all know, are going to win this competition. This got me thinking, and I've come to a conclusion. The problem with our country is that not enough young people know what the problem is. Ironic, isn't it? When I think of our government, I think of old white men. Now, I know this is a very stereotypical generalization that I'm making. Women are getting involved, and, hey, our president is black. We seem to be doing better, based on the limited information that I have. But, whether they're diverse or not, the people making decisions for our country are old. This isn't entirely a bad thing; older people have more experience, confidence, and knowledge. All I'm saying is that that wisdom needs to be balanced with the fresh perspectives of our country's younger generations. Younger people need to start getting more excited about politics, myself included. We need to start looking at it as an exciting opportunity to change what we think should be changed, instead of as a boring subject that our uncles argue about over Thanksgiving dinner. Now, I know there are probably many kids out there that are interested in politics. That's great, but I also know that the vast majority of kids, like myself, are simply uninterested. The solution lies with us, and we need to motivate ourselves. It can't come from the adults. If this essay somehow makes it to anyone important, please don't take this as a sign that you need to launch a national ``Politics are Cool, Yo!'' campaign. It won't work. It needs to be started by the kids. We need to start clubs, be in our school governments, or even just watch the news. I don't have a perfect solution, seeing as I am, for now, one of the aforementioned uninterested students. But, I know this: If politics can become more accessible to young people in any way, shape, or form, we will take notice, and, eventually, get involved. It's our country too. We want to be just as involved as Grandpa Bill and Senator Sanders. One of us just needs to lead the way.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record finalist essays written by Vermont High School students as part of the Fourth Annual State of the Union Essay contest conducted by my office. These 9 finalists were selected from over 380 entries. The essays follow: Carly Neeld, Champlain Valley Union High School, Grade 11 (Finalist) It is a great privilege to be a citizen of the United States. As citizens, we have a responsibility to ensure that our government is used to improve lives. Although this country has achieved much, there are many aspects that can be improved. In particular, we need to work towards reducing the unemployment rate and take meaningful steps to stop climate change. Addressing these two issues now will go a long way towards helping current and future generations. The unemployment rate is at seven percent. It is our obligation, as a nation, to lower this rate. By lowering the unemployment rate, we could see a drop in crime and a reduction in poverty as more people are earning a steady income. Because of this steady income, there will be more tax revenue which could then support safety net programs that help the impoverished. An increased employment rate will also cause an increased access to health care and other necessities to living, strengthening families and communities. In order to decrease the unemployment rate, there are things in our country that will need improvement and our support. Affordable childcare can benefit the employment rate, as it allows parents to be free to go to work. Access to higher education is also essential in increasing the employment rate, as more people will be able to obtain higher paying jobs or start businesses that create jobs. Quality public education, especially early childhood education, will build a strong workforce as jobs are created. It is important to acknowledge the small businesses that provide countless jobs and to ensure that the government is giving these businesses the support they need to sustain their existence. Climate change is a pressing issue the world is now facing and, as the United States, we need to lead the world in a greener direction. Carbon dioxide emissions are growing exponentially and are hurting our environment and our people's health. We need to take meaningful steps to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions and put our energy and resources into renewable energy technologies. Not only will the environment benefit, but we will benefit economically as the prices of energy will be stable and affordable. These goals may be difficult to achieve; however, the result will benefit the country immensely and place us as a world leader in many aspects. These issues must be addressed, as they will improve the lives of every citizen and will allow us to strengthen our union.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record winning essays written by Vermont High School students as part of the Fourth Annual State of the Union Essay contest conducted by my office. The essays follow: Alexina Federhen, Mount Anthony Union High School, Grade 11 (Winner) A House Divided 2013 was a difficult year for America. Nature brought death and disaster by fire, wind, and water; four prominent banks used unethical methods to deprive Americans of their homes; numerous individuals, businesses, and the city of Detroit hit financial rock bottom; and shootings in our schools every other week killed 19 and wounded 24 students and staff. A spy revealed that our government is spying on our private conversations; universal healthcare became a universal headache when the application process required major surgery; and an exciting finish exploded into terror at the Boston Marathon. But Americans are resilient and resolute. Oklahoma is rebuilding and Detroit is reorganizing. Many Americans have healthcare for the first time and dozens of Boston's runners finished their race in the Shires of Vermont Marathon. Americans weathered the tragedies of 2013 with the same determination, innovation, and cooperation that has enabled us to overcome depressions, recessions, wars, and disasters in the past; we pull up our boot straps, plant our feet firmly in the direction of progress, and extend a helping hand to those in need. Tragically, there was one disaster that the American people could not overcome in 2013--a Congress so dysfunctional that it could not even manage to operate the government for the entire year. And our expectations were not high to begin with. A Gallup poll conducted in January 2013 found that Americans rank Congress lower in popularity than root canals and cockroaches and rate Congressmen lower in ethics and honesty than used car salesmen. Instead of employing collaboration and compromise, our leaders indulged in backstabbing and finger pointing. Rather than seeking common ground to find solutions to the problems facing our country, our elected representatives nitpicked and cherry picked and attacked each other's intentions and integrity to boost their personal prospects for fundraising and reelection. The spectacle of Tea Party Republicans posturing for the press while the government crashed and burned lacked only a violin accompaniment to rival Nero's folly. The 113th Congress was the least productive legislature in our history, passing only fifty-five bills into law. Public approval of Congress sank from a ``high'' of 18% on January 1, 2013 to a current low of 8%. In fact, ``69% think no matter how bad things are, Congress can always find a way to make them worse.'' (Rasmussen Reports) We deserve better from our political leaders. We need Congressmen and Senators who will set aside personal gain and divisive ideology in order to build compromise and find consensus on the issues that challenge us: economic opportunity, income parity, gun control, immigration, stagnant academic achievement, climate change, and long-term deficit reduction. Abraham Lincoln once observed that ``a house divided cannot stand.'' Our House and Senate have splintered into partisan factions of squabbling inactivity. Americans will continue to soldier on, overcoming whatever obstacles impede our advancement. We can only hope that our Congressional leaders will acquire the maturity and wisdom to help rather than hinder our progress. But for now, we are a union without unity.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, I take a moment to thank all the members of that committee for their hard work over the last year. At a time when there is obviously an enormous amount of divisiveness and partisanship here in the Senate, I am happy to report that by and large there has been a great deal of bipartisan effort being made in the Veterans' Affairs Committee, and I think very productive work as well. (The remarks of Mr. Sanders and Mr. Blumenthal pertaining to the introduction of S. 1950 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') Thanks to Patrick Kilcur

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, today as the chairman of the committee I have introduced the most comprehensive piece of veterans legislation that we have seen in a very long time. The Comprehensive Veterans Health and Benefit and Military Retirement Pay Restoration Act of 2014 delivers on the promises that we have made to our servicemembers and I believe will have the support of Members of the Senate and of the House. It addresses virtually every single issue the veterans community has been concerned about. What we have done now is taken two omnibus bills and wrapped them into this legislation. In addition, we have taken other pieces of legislation passed by the committee, and we have added to that based on some recent developments. This legislation is the product of a year of bipartisan work and includes provisions important to almost every single veterans service organization and dozens of Members of the Senate, Republican, Democrat, and Independent, many of which were reported out of the Veterans' Affairs Committee with strong bipartisan support. This legislation completely eliminates the cuts that were made to the military retiree cost-of-living adjustments. I know there was great concern here in the Senate from Democrats and Republicans about that cut, as well as in the House of Representatives. I am happy to say this legislation completely eliminates the cuts that were made to the military retiree cost-of-living adjustments. As we all know, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 that was passed a few days ago would lower cost-of-living adjustments for military retirees by reducing the annual adjustment by 1 percent until age 62. The American people have spoken very loudly and very clearly. They have told the Congress to restore those cuts to military retirees and we have listened. I applaud the House and the Senate for restoring these cuts for disabled military retirees and survivors in the appropriations act we passed today. Today we took care of part of the problem. But we have to do more. What the comprehensive veterans bill I have introduced today does is restore the full COLA to all military retirees, every single retiree. This bill restores these COLAs and does much more. I wish to take a moment to highlight some of the key provisions of this comprehensive piece of legislation. Let me say, this legislation is based on listening very carefully to what the veterans organizations have told us in private meetings, in hearings, and at some of the very large hearings we have held with the American Legion, the VFW, the DAV, and many other service organizations. Let me briefly touch on some of the provisions we are addressing, some of the concerns we are addressing in this comprehensive veterans legislation which, I should add, is fully paid for. It is fully paid for. In the first omnibus bill that we passed, S. 944, the Veterans Health and Benefits Improvement Act of 2013, we dealt with in-State tuition assistance for post-9/11 veterans, an issue of great concern to young veterans and to all of the veterans organizations. This package includes provisions the committee's ranking member Senator Burr and I worked together on, that would help servicemembers transition back into civilian life by making recently separated veterans eligible for tuition at the in-State rate. Given the nature of our Armed Forces, servicemembers have little to no say as to where they reside during military service. Therefore, many of these servicemembers have not had sufficient time to establish residency by the time they go back to school. This legislation would help the transition of our brave men and women who have sacrificed so much in defense of our country by giving them a fair shot at attaining educational goals without incurring an additional financial burden. We address that issue in this legislation. Clearly one of the issues that has been an embarrassment to all of us is the degree of sexual assault we have seen in the military. What this legislation does is address that issue as well. While the Pentagon, Congress, and other stakeholders continue to work to end sexual assault within the military, something we have to focus on, we must nonetheless do everything we can to ensure that the VA is a welcoming place for those who have survived sexual assault. That is why this legislation includes important provisions that would improve the delivery of care and benefits to individuals who experience sexual trauma by serving in the military. These provisions were inspired by Ruth Moore, a veteran who struggled for 23 years to receive VA disability compensation. It would expand access to VA counseling and care to active-duty servicemembers and members of the Guard and Reserve who experienced sexual assault during inactive-duty training. It also takes a number of steps to improve the adjudication of disability compensation claims based on military sexual trauma. This legislation will give the VA additional tools to provide victims of sexual trauma with the care and benefits they need to confront the emotional and physical consequences of these horrific acts. Sexual assault in the military is unacceptable and this committee is, in a significant way, addressing that issue. One of the concerns we have heard from many veterans and veterans organizations is the issue of overmedication. Many of our veterans come back and receive in some cases 5, 10 different types of pills to address some of the very serious problems they have. What this bill does is expand, among many other things, access to complementary and alternative medicine. The VA already does a good job in that area. This would expand their capability to provide complementary and alternative medicine. Maintaining the VA's world-class health care system remains a priority for our committee. I am pleased we were able to respond to calls from veterans to increase access to complementary and alternative medicine for the treatment of chronic pain, mental health conditions, and chronic disease. By expanding access to these treatment options-- options such as acupuncture, meditation, massage therapy, and many others--we can enhance the likelihood veterans get the care they need in the way that works for them. These treatments are becoming more and more popular. More and more veterans want access to them and that is what we do in this legislation. Additionally, this legislation calls for the VA to promote healthy weight in veterans by increasing their access to fitness facilities as a healthy weight is critical to combating multiple chronic diseases, including diabetes and heart disease. In other words, the most cost-effective and best way to treat disease is to prevent that disease by making sure our veterans have the opportunity to keep healthy. This legislation does that as well. This legislation further honors as veterans certain persons who performed service in the Reserve components of the Armed Forces. I know how important this provision is for all those who wore this Nation's uniforms as members of the Reserves. I am pleased we will finally honor their service with passage of this legislation. This legislation also expands benefits for surviving spouses, for the spouses of those who gave their lives to defend this country. I want to make special note of provisions that will be included in this package that would also strengthen the benefits and services provided to surviving family members by addressing a number of concerns brought to the attention of this committee by the Gold Star Wives in testimony last year. Obviously the Gold Star Wives are the spouses of those soldiers who died in combat. Specifically, this bill would provide additional dependency and indemnity compensation for surviving spouses with children in order to provide financial support in the difficult period following the loss of a loved one. This bill would also expand the Marine Gunnery Sergeant John David Fry Scholarship to include surviving spouses of members of the Armed Forces who died in the line of duty. That means surviving spouses would become eligible for post-9/11 GI bill benefits, setting them and their families up for success in the years to follow. One of the issues that has occupied a great deal of time and energy on the committee deals with claim processing. We all know that for the last number of years the VA has had a very significant backlog. That is clearly not acceptable. When a veteran brings forth a claim, that claim should be processed in a reasonable period of time with a reasonable degree of accuracy. We are all too well familiar with the challenges of the claims backlog. I am very pleased to see that the VA is making significant progress on this complex issue. They are going from paper to digital. That is a huge process. As a result, the backlog is declining. That is good news, but we have to do more. This legislation would support VA's ongoing efforts and would make needed improvements to the claims system. Among a number of claims- related provisions, this bill for the first time would require the Department to publicly report on both claims processing goals and actual production. This would allow Congress and the public to closely track and measure VA's progress on this difficult issue. The Secretary of the VA Eric Shinseki has proposed a very ambitious goal for the end of 2015. We want to make sure they are on track. That is some of the provisions included in the first bill. Let me talk a little about bit about the second omnibus bill. Both of those bills passed unanimously out of committee. The Comprehensive Veterans Health and Benefits and Military Retirement Pay Restoration Act of 2014 includes provisions from S. 1581, a second omnibus bill that moved out of the committee with unanimous support at the November markup. Here are some of the provisions in that omnibus. The improvement and expansion of dental care. I don't know about New Mexico, but I can tell you that in Vermont, and in fact in many parts of this country, inability to access affordable dental care is a major crisis. It is true for the general public and it is true for veterans as well. The truth is, right now the VA, with the exception of service- connected oral problems, does not provide dental care to our veterans. I think that is a very significant omission. What this legislation does is, starting off with a large-scale pilot project, begin the effort to make sure dental care becomes part of VA health care. This is something that I think the veterans throughout this country will be very excited to learn about and to participate in. Those are some of the provisions that were in the two omnibus bills, and they passed unanimously. Let me talk about some other legislation that came out of the committee, in some cases with bipartisan support, but not unanimously. The first one deals with advanced appropriations for the VA; that is, S. 932, the Putting Veterans Funding First Act of 2013. That was introduced, as I recall, by Senators Begich and Boozman in a bipartisan way. Here is the story, which is very important: As we saw last year, in the event of a prolonged government shutdown, the Veterans' Administration would not have been able to issue disability compensation or pension payments or provide educational benefit to millions of deserving veterans. The truth is that during that shutdown, we were perhaps a week or 10 days away from disabled veterans, and others, not getting the benefits so many of them depend upon. It is what they depend upon to buy groceries, it is what they depend upon to pay a mortgage, and to make their car payments. We were a week or 10 days away from those veterans not getting those benefits. I am happy to say that in this legislation we have addressed that issue, and we have moved forward with advanced appropriations for mandatory accounts at the VA. Our economy is making slow progress. We are creating jobs, but nobody believes we are anywhere near where we want to be. Real unemployment in this country is close to 13 percent. In my view, we owe a great deal to our veterans who have left their families, their jobs, gone abroad, and then when they come back, they are unable to find employment. What our legislation does is put into this comprehensive bill the Renew Our VOW to Hire Heroes, S. 6, the Putting Veterans Back to Work Act of 2013. This legislation would reauthorize provisions from the VOW to Hire Heroes Act, including a 2-year extension to the Veterans Training Assistance Program which retrains unemployed veterans for high-demand occupations. There are other employment provisions in this legislation as well. Several years ago, under the leadership of our colleague Patty Murray, who was my predecessor as chair of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, we proudly passed the Caregivers Act. The Caregivers Act was a very important piece of legislation which said to families who were taking care of disabled veterans: We understand what you are doing is very difficult, and we are going to give you some assistance. The legislation we had passed dealt with post-9/11 veterans and their families. After listening to the concerns of pre-9/11 veterans and their family members, I introduced S. 851, the Caregivers Expansion and Improvement Act of 2013 to extend eligibility for the caregivers programs to veterans' families of all eras. So we took this program, which was working well, and we said we are going to pay attention to the needs of all families who are taking care of men and women who put their lives on the line to defend us and have become disabled, and that is in this legislation as well. Also in this legislation is language which will extend eligibility to enroll in VA health care, and that is S. 1604. We all know that early diagnosis of health care conditions is critically important. Under the current law, recently separated veterans have 5 years of free health care from the VA. This legislation would extend the period of time for these individuals, including members of the active component, the National Guard, and Reserves. They will be eligible to enroll in the VA health care system for 10 years post deployment. We go from 5 years to 10 years. This benefit has been incredibly helpful to our most recent generation of servicemembers, and extending the enrollment period will allow more individuals to take advantage of VA's high-quality, cost- effective health care system, including important access to mental health care services. Additionally, this legislation simplifies the process for determining eligibility for enrollment in VA health care for lower income veterans. Currently VA uses an extremely complex calculation of geographic income thresholds that vary from county to county. You can have one veteran in one county in Vermont, another person living a mile away, and one is eligible for VA health care because of his or her income, but another person with the same income is not eligible. My legislation establishes one income threshold per State, simplifies the process, and will enable more veterans to be eligible for VA health care. This legislation also includes S. 131, the Women Veterans and Other Health Care Improvements Act of 2013. With the widespread use of improvised explosive devices throughout Iraq and Afghanistan, both female and male servicemembers have found themselves with increased risk of spinal cord, reproductive, and urinary tract injury. Many of these veterans dreamed of starting a family, but their injuries prevented them from conceiving, and this legislation will help them fulfill their dreams. We have three more important provisions I want to briefly touch upon, and that is, once again, the restoration of full COLA for all military retirees. In an effort to address concerns regarding the cost-of-living adjustments for all military retirees, this bill would reaffirm the commitment Congress made to our servicemembers and veterans by ensuring consistent and appropriate funding for military retirees and veterans. This very important provision is in this legislation. Furthermore, there has been a concern that many CBOCs, community- based outreach clinics, that have been planned all over this country have been unable to be built for a variety of technical reasons. We addressed that issue as well. This bill also improves access to mental health treatment for veterans. Let me conclude by saying we give a lot of speeches about the respect we have for the men and women who put their lives on the line to defend this country. They have come forward through the veterans committee and they have said: We have concerns. We have concerns about health care; we have concerns about how quickly the benefits that we apply for come to us. They have been very loud and clear in saying--and we agree with them--that it is unacceptable that pensions promised to veterans have been cut. There have been many other issues dealing with employment and dealing with education. What this bill does in a comprehensive way is to say to the veterans of this country--the millions and millions of people who have given so much to us--we hear your concerns. We hear your concerns, and we are going to address your concerns. I want to take this moment to thank majority leader Senator Reid. He has been very supportive of not only veterans in general but supportive of this effort to make sure we keep our promises to the veterans of this country. That bill has been introduced. My hope is we can get it to the floor as soon as possible. I hope very much that although there is a partisan climate, that on this issue of keeping our promises to the men and women who have put their lives on the line to defend this country, we can come together as a Senate and as a House and have the President sign this bill which will mean so much to so many. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, today as the chairman of the committee I have introduced the most comprehensive piece of veterans legislation that we have seen in a very long time. The Comprehensive Veterans Health and Benefit and Military Retirement Pay Restoration Act of 2014 delivers on the promises that we have made to our servicemembers and I believe will have the support of Members of the Senate and of the House. It addresses virtually every single issue the veterans community has been concerned about. What we have done now is taken two omnibus bills and wrapped them into this legislation. In addition, we have taken other pieces of legislation passed by the committee, and we have added to that based on some recent developments. This legislation is the product of a year of bipartisan work and includes provisions important to almost every single veterans service organization and dozens of Members of the Senate, Republican, Democrat, and Independent, many of which were reported out of the Veterans' Affairs Committee with strong bipartisan support. This legislation completely eliminates the cuts that were made to the military retiree cost-of-living adjustments. I know there was great concern here in the Senate from Democrats and Republicans about that cut, as well as in the House of Representatives. I am happy to say this legislation completely eliminates the cuts that were made to the military retiree cost-of-living adjustments. As we all know, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 that was passed a few days ago would lower cost-of-living adjustments for military retirees by reducing the annual adjustment by 1 percent until age 62. The American people have spoken very loudly and very clearly. They have told the Congress to restore those cuts to military retirees and we have listened. I applaud the House and the Senate for restoring these cuts for disabled military retirees and survivors in the appropriations act we passed today. Today we took care of part of the problem. But we have to do more. What the comprehensive veterans bill I have introduced today does is restore the full COLA to all military retirees, every single retiree. This bill restores these COLAs and does much more. I wish to take a moment to highlight some of the key provisions of this comprehensive piece of legislation. Let me say, this legislation is based on listening very carefully to what the veterans organizations have told us in private meetings, in hearings, and at some of the very large hearings we have held with the American Legion, the VFW, the DAV, and many other service organizations. Let me briefly touch on some of the provisions we are addressing, some of the concerns we are addressing in this comprehensive veterans legislation which, I should add, is fully paid for. It is fully paid for. In the first omnibus bill that we passed, S. 944, the Veterans Health and Benefits Improvement Act of 2013, we dealt with in-State tuition assistance for post-9/11 veterans, an issue of great concern to young veterans and to all of the veterans organizations. This package includes provisions the committee's ranking member Senator Burr and I worked together on, that would help servicemembers transition back into civilian life by making recently separated veterans eligible for tuition at the in-State rate. Given the nature of our Armed Forces, servicemembers have little to no say as to where they reside during military service. Therefore, many of these servicemembers have not had sufficient time to establish residency by the time they go back to school. This legislation would help the transition of our brave men and women who have sacrificed so much in defense of our country by giving them a fair shot at attaining educational goals without incurring an additional financial burden. We address that issue in this legislation. Clearly one of the issues that has been an embarrassment to all of us is the degree of sexual assault we have seen in the military. What this legislation does is address that issue as well. While the Pentagon, Congress, and other stakeholders continue to work to end sexual assault within the military, something we have to focus on, we must nonetheless do everything we can to ensure that the VA is a welcoming place for those who have survived sexual assault. That is why this legislation includes important provisions that would improve the delivery of care and benefits to individuals who experience sexual trauma by serving in the military. These provisions were inspired by Ruth Moore, a veteran who struggled for 23 years to receive VA disability compensation. It would expand access to VA counseling and care to active-duty servicemembers and members of the Guard and Reserve who experienced sexual assault during inactive-duty training. It also takes a number of steps to improve the adjudication of disability compensation claims based on military sexual trauma. This legislation will give the VA additional tools to provide victims of sexual trauma with the care and benefits they need to confront the emotional and physical consequences of these horrific acts. Sexual assault in the military is unacceptable and this committee is, in a significant way, addressing that issue. One of the concerns we have heard from many veterans and veterans organizations is the issue of overmedication. Many of our veterans come back and receive in some cases 5, 10 different types of pills to address some of the very serious problems they have. What this bill does is expand, among many other things, access to complementary and alternative medicine. The VA already does a good job in that area. This would expand their capability to provide complementary and alternative medicine. Maintaining the VA's world-class health care system remains a priority for our committee. I am pleased we were able to respond to calls from veterans to increase access to complementary and alternative medicine for the treatment of chronic pain, mental health conditions, and chronic disease. By expanding access to these treatment options-- options such as acupuncture, meditation, massage therapy, and many others--we can enhance the likelihood veterans get the care they need in the way that works for them. These treatments are becoming more and more popular. More and more veterans want access to them and that is what we do in this legislation. Additionally, this legislation calls for the VA to promote healthy weight in veterans by increasing their access to fitness facilities as a healthy weight is critical to combating multiple chronic diseases, including diabetes and heart disease. In other words, the most cost-effective and best way to treat disease is to prevent that disease by making sure our veterans have the opportunity to keep healthy. This legislation does that as well. This legislation further honors as veterans certain persons who performed service in the Reserve components of the Armed Forces. I know how important this provision is for all those who wore this Nation's uniforms as members of the Reserves. I am pleased we will finally honor their service with passage of this legislation. This legislation also expands benefits for surviving spouses, for the spouses of those who gave their lives to defend this country. I want to make special note of provisions that will be included in this package that would also strengthen the benefits and services provided to surviving family members by addressing a number of concerns brought to the attention of this committee by the Gold Star Wives in testimony last year. Obviously the Gold Star Wives are the spouses of those soldiers who died in combat. Specifically, this bill would provide additional dependency and indemnity compensation for surviving spouses with children in order to provide financial support in the difficult period following the loss of a loved one. This bill would also expand the Marine Gunnery Sergeant John David Fry Scholarship to include surviving spouses of members of the Armed Forces who died in the line of duty. That means surviving spouses would become eligible for post-9/11 GI bill benefits, setting them and their families up for success in the years to follow. One of the issues that has occupied a great deal of time and energy on the committee deals with claim processing. We all know that for the last number of years the VA has had a very significant backlog. That is clearly not acceptable. When a veteran brings forth a claim, that claim should be processed in a reasonable period of time with a reasonable degree of accuracy. We are all too well familiar with the challenges of the claims backlog. I am very pleased to see that the VA is making significant progress on this complex issue. They are going from paper to digital. That is a huge process. As a result, the backlog is declining. That is good news, but we have to do more. This legislation would support VA's ongoing efforts and would make needed improvements to the claims system. Among a number of claims- related provisions, this bill for the first time would require the Department to publicly report on both claims processing goals and actual production. This would allow Congress and the public to closely track and measure VA's progress on this difficult issue. The Secretary of the VA Eric Shinseki has proposed a very ambitious goal for the end of 2015. We want to make sure they are on track. That is some of the provisions included in the first bill. Let me talk a little about bit about the second omnibus bill. Both of those bills passed unanimously out of committee. The Comprehensive Veterans Health and Benefits and Military Retirement Pay Restoration Act of 2014 includes provisions from S. 1581, a second omnibus bill that moved out of the committee with unanimous support at the November markup. Here are some of the provisions in that omnibus. The improvement and expansion of dental care. I don't know about New Mexico, but I can tell you that in Vermont, and in fact in many parts of this country, inability to access affordable dental care is a major crisis. It is true for the general public and it is true for veterans as well. The truth is, right now the VA, with the exception of service- connected oral problems, does not provide dental care to our veterans. I think that is a very significant omission. What this legislation does is, starting off with a large-scale pilot project, begin the effort to make sure dental care becomes part of VA health care. This is something that I think the veterans throughout this country will be very excited to learn about and to participate in. Those are some of the provisions that were in the two omnibus bills, and they passed unanimously. Let me talk about some other legislation that came out of the committee, in some cases with bipartisan support, but not unanimously. The first one deals with advanced appropriations for the VA; that is, S. 932, the Putting Veterans Funding First Act of 2013. That was introduced, as I recall, by Senators Begich and Boozman in a bipartisan way. Here is the story, which is very important: As we saw last year, in the event of a prolonged government shutdown, the Veterans' Administration would not have been able to issue disability compensation or pension payments or provide educational benefit to millions of deserving veterans. The truth is that during that shutdown, we were perhaps a week or 10 days away from disabled veterans, and others, not getting the benefits so many of them depend upon. It is what they depend upon to buy groceries, it is what they depend upon to pay a mortgage, and to make their car payments. We were a week or 10 days away from those veterans not getting those benefits. I am happy to say that in this legislation we have addressed that issue, and we have moved forward with advanced appropriations for mandatory accounts at the VA. Our economy is making slow progress. We are creating jobs, but nobody believes we are anywhere near where we want to be. Real unemployment in this country is close to 13 percent. In my view, we owe a great deal to our veterans who have left their families, their jobs, gone abroad, and then when they come back, they are unable to find employment. What our legislation does is put into this comprehensive bill the Renew Our VOW to Hire Heroes, S. 6, the Putting Veterans Back to Work Act of 2013. This legislation would reauthorize provisions from the VOW to Hire Heroes Act, including a 2-year extension to the Veterans Training Assistance Program which retrains unemployed veterans for high-demand occupations. There are other employment provisions in this legislation as well. Several years ago, under the leadership of our colleague Patty Murray, who was my predecessor as chair of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, we proudly passed the Caregivers Act. The Caregivers Act was a very important piece of legislation which said to families who were taking care of disabled veterans: We understand what you are doing is very difficult, and we are going to give you some assistance. The legislation we had passed dealt with post-9/11 veterans and their families. After listening to the concerns of pre-9/11 veterans and their family members, I introduced S. 851, the Caregivers Expansion and Improvement Act of 2013 to extend eligibility for the caregivers programs to veterans' families of all eras. So we took this program, which was working well, and we said we are going to pay attention to the needs of all families who are taking care of men and women who put their lives on the line to defend us and have become disabled, and that is in this legislation as well. Also in this legislation is language which will extend eligibility to enroll in VA health care, and that is S. 1604. We all know that early diagnosis of health care conditions is critically important. Under the current law, recently separated veterans have 5 years of free health care from the VA. This legislation would extend the period of time for these individuals, including members of the active component, the National Guard, and Reserves. They will be eligible to enroll in the VA health care system for 10 years post deployment. We go from 5 years to 10 years. This benefit has been incredibly helpful to our most recent generation of servicemembers, and extending the enrollment period will allow more individuals to take advantage of VA's high-quality, cost- effective health care system, including important access to mental health care services. Additionally, this legislation simplifies the process for determining eligibility for enrollment in VA health care for lower income veterans. Currently VA uses an extremely complex calculation of geographic income thresholds that vary from county to county. You can have one veteran in one county in Vermont, another person living a mile away, and one is eligible for VA health care because of his or her income, but another person with the same income is not eligible. My legislation establishes one income threshold per State, simplifies the process, and will enable more veterans to be eligible for VA health care. This legislation also includes S. 131, the Women Veterans and Other Health Care Improvements Act of 2013. With the widespread use of improvised explosive devices throughout Iraq and Afghanistan, both female and male servicemembers have found themselves with increased risk of spinal cord, reproductive, and urinary tract injury. Many of these veterans dreamed of starting a family, but their injuries prevented them from conceiving, and this legislation will help them fulfill their dreams. We have three more important provisions I want to briefly touch upon, and that is, once again, the restoration of full COLA for all military retirees. In an effort to address concerns regarding the cost-of-living adjustments for all military retirees, this bill would reaffirm the commitment Congress made to our servicemembers and veterans by ensuring consistent and appropriate funding for military retirees and veterans. This very important provision is in this legislation. Furthermore, there has been a concern that many CBOCs, community- based outreach clinics, that have been planned all over this country have been unable to be built for a variety of technical reasons. We addressed that issue as well. This bill also improves access to mental health treatment for veterans. Let me conclude by saying we give a lot of speeches about the respect we have for the men and women who put their lives on the line to defend this country. They have come forward through the veterans committee and they have said: We have concerns. We have concerns about health care; we have concerns about how quickly the benefits that we apply for come to us. They have been very loud and clear in saying--and we agree with them--that it is unacceptable that pensions promised to veterans have been cut. There have been many other issues dealing with employment and dealing with education. What this bill does in a comprehensive way is to say to the veterans of this country--the millions and millions of people who have given so much to us--we hear your concerns. We hear your concerns, and we are going to address your concerns. I want to take this moment to thank majority leader Senator Reid. He has been very supportive of not only veterans in general but supportive of this effort to make sure we keep our promises to the veterans of this country. That bill has been introduced. My hope is we can get it to the floor as soon as possible. I hope very much that although there is a partisan climate, that on this issue of keeping our promises to the men and women who have put their lives on the line to defend this country, we can come together as a Senate and as a House and have the President sign this bill which will mean so much to so many. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, hopefully later this evening or tomorrow there will be a very important vote regarding the extension of long- term unemployment benefits. What that vote is about is to make it very clear which side we are on. Are we prepared to stand with over 1 million workers and their children and say, no, we are not going to turn our back on you, we are not going to leave you literally out in the cold, worrying how you are going to heat your home or pay your rent or put gas in your car or, as fellow Americans, we are going to stand with you and make sure you at least have some income through extended unemployment benefits coming in to your family. I think, as we all know, the good news is that unemployment has gone down in recent years. When President Bush left office we were hemorrhaging over 700,000 jobs a month--clearly unsustainable, clearly a tragedy for our Nation. Today, while the economy is nowhere near where it needs to be, where we want it to be, the fact is we are growing several hundred thousand jobs a month. That is the good news. The bad news is that real unemployment is close to 13 percent, if we count those people who have given up looking for work and those people who are working part time when they want to work full time. The even worse news is that long-term unemployment today is almost the highest it has ever been on record. Today it takes about 37 weeks for the average unemployed American to find a job. Today, 37 percent of unemployed Americans have been out of work for more than 6 months. Today, there are three job applicants for every one job opening. The reality is there are simply not enough jobs for the 11 million Americans who actively seek work. If we do not extend unemployment benefits now for these 1.3 million Americans, the situation will only become worse. By the end of the year, we will be looking at close to 5 million Americans whose benefits will have been exhausted. I understand some of my Republican friends are saying, yes, we are prepared to extend these unemployment benefits, but we need an offset. Let me suggest to some of my Republican friends that if that is their position--and I should point out that under President Bush, when long- term unemployment was not as serious a problem as it is today, under President Bush, time and time again, extended unemployment benefits were seen as an emergency and were passed without offsets. But if my Republican friends believe they desperately need an offset now that Barack Obama is President, let me suggest a few of the areas they may want to explore. We are losing about $100 billion every single year because corporate America is putting its money into tax havens in the Cayman islands, Bermuda, and elsewhere. If we need an offset, what about telling the one out of four corporations in this country that today pays nothing in Federal taxes that we are going to end their loopholes. Are we prepared to demand that corporate America start paying its fair share of taxes so long-term unemployed Americans can afford to have food on their table or heat in their homes? Many of my Republican colleagues believe we should repeal completely the estate tax, a tax which only applies to the top 3 percent of the wealthiest people in America. We are talking about families such as the Walton family who are worth $100 billion. If some of my Republican friends think the Walton family, the wealthiest family in America, needs another tax break while working Americans who are desperately searching for work should not get any help at all, I suggest to my Republican colleagues they are way out of touch with the values of America and the values that make this a great country. I think there are some people who believe the folks who are long-term unemployed right now just do not want to work. That is grossly unfair and grossly untrue. Let me give a few examples. In Hagerstown, MD, 3,600 of our fellow citizens recently applied to work at a dairy farm to process milk and ice cream. This dairy farm will be hiring 36 people. Yet 3,600 people applied for those 36 jobs. Do those people want to work? They sure do. Last October, Walmart received over 11,000 job applications for stores they are opening in Washington DC. As we all know, Walmart is not the highest paying employer in America. Yet they received 11,000 applications in the DC area at a time when they will be only hiring 1,800 workers. That type of scenario is true in many parts of this country. An employer puts an ad in the paper, makes it known the company needs workers, and they are seeing 10 times as many workers applying for limited jobs. The last point I wish to make is not only is this a moral issue, the issue of not turning our backs on people, some of whom who have worked for their entire lives, at this moment when they and their families have so much need--that is the moral issue--but there is an economic component as well. If a long-term unemployed worker does not get the average $300 check he or she would otherwise get, what kind of money does that person have to spend locally? What the economists tell us is that when we dry up that source of spending in communities all over this country, when people do not have the money to buy the goods and services they desperately need, that in itself, that lack of spending, will result in several hundred thousand jobs being lost in the overall economy. So not extending unemployment not only hurts the individual, it hurts our overall economy, and the economists also tell us that not extending long-term unemployment benefits will reduce our GDP by about .2 percent. We have a moral issue. We have an economic issue. If my Republican colleagues want offsets, there are more than enough offsets available if they are prepared to ask some of the wealthiest people in this country and some of the largest corporations in America to start paying their fair share of taxes. But the bottom line is that in an economy which today is still hurting very deeply, we cannot punish people who are severely in need. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I take this opportunity to thank Senators Levin and Inhofe and the Committee on Armed Services for their very hard work on the Department of Defense authorization bill. Unfortunately, I must vote against it, and I want to take this opportunity to explain why I am voting no and to express my very serious concerns about our Nation's bloated military budget, particularly in light of the many unmet needs we face as a nation. At a time when the United States has a $17.2 trillion national debt and when we spend almost as much on defense as the rest of the world combined, the time is long overdue for us to take a hard look at the waste, at the cost overruns, and at the financial mismanagement that have plagued the Department of Defense for decades. As a point of comparison, the International Institute for Strategic Studies estimates total global military spending in 2012 at $1.583 trillion. The U.S. portion of that spending is over 40 percent--$645 billion. In other words, the United States is spending almost as much as the rest of the world combined on defense. We are spending about $645 billion. China spends $102 billion. The United Kingdom spends $64 billion. Russia spends $59 billion. Other countries spend less. According to the Washington Post: Since 2001, the base defense budget has soared from $287 billion to $530 billion--and that's before accounting for the primary costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. In addition to the trillions spent on the war in Iraq and what seems to be a never-ending war in Afghanistan, the Department of Defense consistently engages in wasteful, inefficient, and often fraudulent spending. At my request several years ago the Department of Defense issued a report detailing the breadth of fraud that exists within the Pentagon-- the simple issue of massive fraud. The report showed that the Pentagon paid over $573 billion during the past 10 years to more than 300 contractors involved in civil fraud cases that resulted in judgments of more than $1 million--$398 billion of which was awarded after settlement or judgment for fraud. When awards to parent companies are counted, the Pentagon paid more than $1.1 trillion during the past 10 years just to the 37 top companies engaged in fraud. The bottom line is that almost every major defense contractor in this country has in one way or another been involved in fraudulent dealings with the taxpayers of this country and the Department of Defense. Further, above and beyond fraud, the waste at the Pentagon is rampant, and we can go on for many hours just documenting the waste, but let me give just a few--a few--of the kinds of waste that the Pentagon regularly engages in. These are just a very few examples. In July 2013 the Pentagon decided to build a 64,000-square-foot command headquarters for the U.S. military in Afghanistan that will not be utilized or even occupied. Even though the $34 million project was deemed unwanted by military commanders 3 years ago, the military still moved ahead with construction. That is one example. Another example. According to a report released by the Department of Defense inspector general this year, the Pentagon has been paying contractor Boeing more than $3,357 for a piece of hardware they could have purchased from their own hardware store, the Defense Logistics Agency, for $15.42. It seems to me it would be a pretty good deal to get a product for $15 that you are paying over $3,000 for, but that is the way the Pentagon runs. Furthermore, another issue, the July 2013 Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction report includes the purchase of over $771 million worth of aircraft that the Afghans will be unable to operate and maintain. The Afghan Special Mission Wing has only one- quarter of the personnel needed to maintain and operate the fleet, and there are no existing DOD plans to reach full strength. The Pentagon is moving forward with purchases. Most of that money--$553 million--has been awarded to a Russian company that also sells weapons to Syria. These are just a few examples. Needless to say, there are many more. A recent article in Mother Jones has some interesting numbers about our military spending. According to the article, 70 percent of the value of the Federal Government's $1.8 trillion in property, land, and equipment belongs to the Pentagon. The American people will no doubt be interested in understanding that the Pentagon operates more than 170 golf courses worldwide. At a time when we now spend almost as much as the rest of the world combined on defense, we can make judicious cuts in our Armed Forces without compromising our military capability. I think everybody in the Congress believes and understands that we need a strong defense--no debate about that--but we do not need a defense budget that is bloated, that is wasteful, and that has in it many areas of fraud. In this respect, I hope my Republican colleagues and, in fact, all of my colleagues remember what former President Dwight Eisenhower, a good Republican, said on April 16, 1953, just as he was leaving office. What he said then was profound, and it is as true today as when he said it 60 years ago. This is what he said: Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. . . . This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. I would ask all of my colleagues to remember what Eisenhower said and understand that today, when we have this bloated and huge military budget, there are people who are talking about massive cuts in food stamps, massive cuts in education, massive cuts in affordable housing, cuts in Social Security, cuts in Medicare, cuts in Medicaid. I would argue very strongly that before we cut from the elderly and the children and the sick and the poor, maybe we take a hard look at this bloated military budget. That is my view, but let me mention what the Cato Institute has to say--not Bernie Sanders but the Cato Institute, one of the most conservative organizations in this country. Here is what the Cato Institute said on May 3, 2013. By the way, as I think most people know, my views are as far apart as possible from the Cato Institute on most issues. This is what the Cato Institute said. Some of my conservative Republican friends might want to pay attention to this quote: U.S. military spending is far too excessive for legitimate defense needs. . . . After sequestration we will still spend more [on defense], against much less severe threats, than at the peak of the Cold War. . . . The U.S. now accounts for 44 percent of all global military spending. Put another way, the U.S. spends nearly as much on the military as the rest of the world combined. . . . Twenty percent of the U.S. federal budget is devoted to military spending, while the average-- And this is an important point made by Cato-- for our NATO allies is a mere 3.6 percent. Five percent of U.S. annual GDP is allocated to the military, but for the NATO countries, Japan and China, it is well below 2 percent. . . . Today the amount Washington spends on the military each year is $2,300 a person in the U.S. The comparable obligation for the average NATO country is $503 a person. For China it is less than $200 a person. That is not Bernie Sanders; that is the Cato Institute. The situation is so absurd that the Pentagon is unable to even account for how it spends its money. Earlier this year the Government Accountability Office cited its inability--that is, the GAO's ability-- to audit the Pentagon. They wrote that they were unable to do a comprehensive financial analysis due to ``serious financial management problems at the Department of Defense that made its financial statements unauditable.'' That is from the Government Accountability Office. So we are voting for a budget that the GAO says they cannot even audit--for the most expensive agency in government. Let me now quote from an article that appeared in the Washington Post on August 29, 2013. The defense budget--a purposefully opaque document--includes what is known as the black budget. The information I am providing here comes from the Washington post--$52.6 billion that funds the CIA, NSA, and other secret intelligence agencies. The CIA, NSA, and National Reconnaissance Office receive more than 68 percent of the black budget, with the NSA receiving $10.8 billion annually. At a time when the NSA has been engaging in what I consider to be unconstitutional activities--the widespread collection of American citizens' data--I think we can find the ability to make some cuts in what they are doing. I support a strong defense for our country and a robust National Guard and Reserve that can meet our domestic and foreign challenges. The National Guard provides a well-trained, disciplined, and operationally ready force for a fraction of the cost that Active-Duty soldiers require. The Reserve Forces do not require nearly the same level of overhead in terms of full-time employment and infrastructure costs. So as we move forward trying to develop how we have a cost- effective defense, I think we should put a great deal of emphasis on our National Guard and on the Reserve. Let me conclude by saying in America today our middle class is struggling. We have more people living in poverty than at any time in the history of our country. Real unemployment is over 13 percent; youth unemployment, 20 percent; African-American youth unemployment, close to 40 percent We have an infrastructure which is crumbling. We have large numbers of young people graduating from college deeply in debt. We have others who cannot even afford to go to college because of the high cost of college. In other words, this country faces monumental problems. On top of that, we have a $17.2 trillion national debt. It would seem to me that it is important we get our priorities straight. One of the priorities we should be getting straight is that we cannot give the Department of Defense all they want. It is time to take a very hard look at that budget in a way we have not done up to this point. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I rise today to urge Senate passage of S. 944, the Veterans Health and Benefits Improvement Act of 2013. This bipartisan legislation is the result of months of hard work by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. This legislation was passed out of committee by voice vote. There were no objections that took place on July 24, and this legislation is paid for. Furthermore, this legislation is supported by nearly every major veteran and military service organization in our country, including the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the Military Officers Association of America, the American Legion, the Vietnam Veterans of America, the Association of the United States Navy, the Reserve Officers Association, the Jewish War Veterans, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States, the National Association for Uniformed Services, AMVETS, Gold Star Wives, and the National Congress of American Indians. In fact, I think it would be a very good statement about what we are trying do as a nation if the Senate could pass this comprehensive veterans bill before we adjourn so we can get about the business of working with our House colleagues to get important veterans legislation passed by both bodies signed into law. I will briefly highlight some of the key provisions of this very important piece of legislation. Again, this legislation is bipartisan; it came out of the committee unanimously; and it has the support of virtually every veterans organization. Ranking Member Burr and I have worked together on a provision that would help servicemembers transition back into civilian life by making recently separated veterans eligible for tuition at the instate rates. This has been a very contentious issue, but what we do is make recently separated veterans eligible for tuition at the instate rate, which is something many of the veterans organizations and people all over this country have wanted. Given the nature of our Armed Forces, servicemembers have little to say as to where they serve and where they reside during military service. This legislation would help our brave men and women who have sacrificed so much in the defense of our country transition by giving them a fair shot at attaining their educational goals without incurring an additional financial burden simply because they chose to serve their country. I know this issue was discussed a great deal in the House and it was discussed here a great deal, and we have reached resolution on this important issue. Further, while the Pentagon, Congress, and other stakeholders continue to work to end sexual assault within the ranks--this is an enormously important issue--I want to do everything within my power as chairman of the VA to ensure that the VA is a warm and welcoming place for those survivors of military assault. That is why this legislation contains important provisions that would improve the delivery of care and benefits to veterans who experience sexual trauma while serving in the military. This was inspired by Ruth Moore, who struggled for 23 years to receive VA disability compensation. It would expand access to VA counseling and care to members of the Guard and Reserves who experience sexual assault during inactive-duty training. It also takes a number of steps to improve the adjudication of claims based on military sexual trauma. This legislation would give the VA additional tools to do all it can to provide victims of sexual trauma with the care and benefits they need to confront the emotional and physical consequences of these horrific acts. Maintaining the VA's world-class health care system remains a priority for this committee, and this legislation does just that. I am pleased we were able to respond to calls from veterans to increase access to complementary and alternative medicine for the treatment of chronic pain, mental health conditions, and chronic disease. By expanding the availability of these treatment options, we can enhance the likelihood that veterans get the treatment they need in ways that work for them. Additionally, this legislation calls for the VA to promote healthy weight in veterans by increasing their access to fitness facilities. A healthy weight is critical to combating multiple chronic diseases, including diabetes and heart disease. By managing veterans' obesity, we can both improve their overall health and reduce the costs to the health care system. Every Member of this body knows all too well the challenges of the claims backlog. I am pleased to see that the VA is making progress on this complex issue, but much more remains to be done. This legislation supports VA's ongoing efforts and would make needed improvements to the claims system. Among a number of claims-related provisions, this bill, for the first time, would require the Department of Veterans Affairs to publicly report on both claims processing goals and actual production. This would allow Congress and the public to closely track and measure VA's progress on this difficult issue. This bill also addresses a number of concerns presented to the Veterans' Affairs Committee by the Gold Star Wives earlier this year by improving the benefits and services provided to surviving spouses. The Veterans Health and Benefits Improvement Act would provide additional dependency and indemnity compensation for surviving spouses with children in order to provide financial support during the difficult period following the loss of a loved one. This bill also expands the Marine Gunnery Sergeant John David Fry Scholarship to include surviving spouses of members of the Armed Forces who died in the line of duty. The Veterans Health and Benefits Improvement Act contains provisions that will improve the lives of our Nation's servicemembers, veterans, and their survivors. I am proud of the bipartisan manner in which the Veterans' Affairs Committee has conducted its business to produce this important legislation. Our veterans deserve far more help from the Congress than they have received. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 258, S. 944; that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; that the committee-reported title amendment be agreed to; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. SANDERS. I understand the Senator's objection. I am disappointed. It takes forever to get anything done in this body, and we have a situation now where we have seen a process develop in the Committee on Veterans' Affairs by which there has been bipartisan support. It is kind of the way things are supposed to be done. Yet because of the objection, we are going to be unable to move forward in the way I think most of the Members want. Thank you very much. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANDERS. Well, I am disappointed that there is objection to a bill that came out of committee without objection, that was done in a bipartisan manner, that is paid for, and that has the support of virtually every veterans organization. I hope that even though there is an objection to the unanimous consent, there would not be an objection to a rollcall vote on this bill.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Murray, and several of my colleagues regarding the not-for-profit student loan servicing provisions in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013. Is it your understanding and intent that the not-for-profit servicing provision in this act does not require the termination of the existing Federal loan servicing contracts of any not-for-profit servicers who are currently servicing Federal loans? Is it further the understanding and intent of the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee that the Education Department will continue to enter into contracts with not-for-profit servicers based on their performance?

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, there is a reason why the favorability rating of the Congress is somewhere, on a good day, around 10 percent. The reason I think is pretty simple: The American people are hurting. They look to their elected officials to try to do something to address the problems they have and the crises facing our country. Time after time, they see the Congress not only not responding to the needs they face but in many cases doing exactly the opposite. In poll after poll, the American people tell us the most pressing issue they face deals with the economy and high unemployment. When we look in the newspapers, we are told the official unemployment rate is 7 percent. By the way, that is a rate which has in recent months gone down, and that is a good thing. But the truth is, if you include people who have given up looking for work and people who are working part time when they want to work full time, real unemployment in this country is 13.2 percent. That is enormously high. The unemployment rate for our young people is close to 20 percent, and there are parts of the country where it is higher than that. African-American youth unemployment is close to 40 percent. So what we are looking at all over this country are millions and millions of people who want jobs, who want to work, and who can't find those jobs. We are looking at a younger generation of workers who cannot get into the economy. If you are a young person and you leave high school, for example, and you can't get a job in your first year out there or your second year, if you think this does not have a cataclysmic impact on your confidence, on your self-esteem, you are very mistaken. I fear very much and worry very much about the millions of young people out there who are not in school, who are not working. Tragically, many of those young people will end up on drugs. Some of them are going to end up in jail. These are issues we have to consider. What the American people tell us over and over is: Yes, the deficit is a serious problem. I believe it is. Everybody in the Congress believes it is. But what the American people also say is: High unemployment is an even more serious issue. According to a March 2013 Gallup poll, 75 percent of the American people, including 56 percent of Republicans, 74 percent of Independents, and 93 percent of Democrats, support ``a Federal job creation law that would spend government money for a program designed to create more than 1 million new jobs.'' What the American people are saying is, yes, we have made progress in the last 4 years. We have cut the deficit in half. We have to do more. But what the American people are saying loudly and clearly is that we need to create jobs. What they also understand, and poll after poll indicates this, is that when we have an infrastructure that is crumbling--roads, bridges, water systems, wastewater plants, our rail system--when we have an infrastructure that is crumbling, we need to invest in rebuilding that infrastructure. When we do that, we create significant numbers of jobs. That is what the American people want us to do. When is the last time you even heard that debate here on the floor of the Senate? The unemployment crisis, the need to create jobs--that is what the American people want us to do, and we are not even talking about that issue. There is a second issue about which the American people are very clear. It is a funny thing--sometimes the media writes about how partisan the Congress is, how divisive the Congress is. Senator Grassley and I supposedly hate each other, we do not talk to each other, and all that nonsense. That is not the reality. The truth is that among the American people, surprisingly enough, there is a lot of consensus. I mentioned a moment ago that the American people very strongly believe that we should invest in our infrastructure and create jobs. Unfortunately, that is not what we are doing. Here is another issue about which the American people are loud and clear. They understand that--tragically in today's economy--most of the new jobs that are being created are not good-paying jobs. That is the sad reality. Most of the new jobs that are being created in today's economy are low wage jobs and many of them are part-time jobs. If you are making $8 or $9 an hour and you are working 30 hours a week, you are going to have a very hard time supporting yourself, let alone a family. What do the American people say? They say raise the minimum wage. Raise the minimum wage. Let me quote from today's Wall Street Journal: Americans strongly favor boosting the Federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour but oppose raising it above that, a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll finds. In the survey, 63 percent supported a rise to $10.10 an hour from the current $7.25 rate. Sixty-three percent of the American people support that. Democrats strongly support it, Independents support it, and many Republicans support it. One would think, therefore, when the vast majority of the American people understand that $7.25 an hour is a starvation wage and that we need to raise the minimum wage to at least $10.10 an hour, we would be moving on it. Maybe we would get a UC on it, a unanimous consent. Let's get it done. I fear very much that right here in the Senate we are going to have a very difficult time gaining 60 votes. I hope I am wrong, I sincerely do, but I am not aware at this point that there are any Republicans prepared to support an increase of the minimum wage to $10 an hour. I believe in the Republican-controlled House it would be extremely difficult to get legislation widely supported by the American people through that body. But not only will my Republican colleagues not do what the American people want in terms of raising the minimum wage, quite incredibly, I have to tell you that many of my Republican colleagues do not believe in the concept of the minimum wage. Many of them believe we should abolish the concept of the minimum wage, so that if you are in a situation in a high-unemployment area where workers are desperate for work and an employer says: Here is $4 an hour; take it or leave it, that is OK for some of my Republican colleagues. Again, we are in a situation where the vast majority of the American people want to do something about low wages. They want to raise the minimum wage, and we are going to have a very difficult time getting that legislation through. I hope I am wrong, but I do know that unless the American people stand up, get on the phone, start calling their Senators and Members of Congress, we probably will not succeed in doing what the American people want. Interestingly enough, what the American people also understand is that raising the minimum wage will help us with the Federal deficit in a variety of ways. It may be a surprise to some Americans to know that the largest welfare recipient in the United States of America happens, coincidentally, to be the wealthiest family in America. The Walton family, which owns Walmart, is worth about $100 billion. They are the wealthiest family in America. They own more wealth as one family than the bottom 40 percent of the American people--extraordinary wealth. One of the reasons they are so wealthy is the American taxpayer subsidizes Walmart because Walmart pays low wages, provides minimal benefits, and many of their workers end up on Medicaid, they end up on food stamps, and they end up in government-subsidized housing. I am not quite sure why the middle-class working families of this country have to subsidize the Walton family because they pay wages that are inadequate for their workers to live a dignified life. My hope is that when the American people are loud and clear about the need to raise the minimum wage, their Congress will respond, but I have to tell you that I have my doubts. What we also hear--and most recently from Pope Francis--is an understanding that there is something profoundly wrong about a nation and increasingly a world in which so few have so much and so many have so little. In the United States of America today we have more wealth and income inequality than at any time since the late 1920s, and we have more wealth and income inequality than any other major country on Earth. Today the top 1 percent of our population owns 38 percent of the wealth of America, financial wealth of this country, and the bottom 60 percent owns 2.3 percent. The top 1 percent owns 38 percent of the wealth of America, and the bottom 60 percent owns 2.3 percent. Is that really what America is supposed to be about? I think not. I think Pope Francis recently talked about that issue. He talked about the moral aspects of that issue. He is exactly right. Those are some of the issues we have to talk about. Another issue out there that I think we have to be very clear about-- and again the American people are extraordinarily clear about this--the American people understand that Social Security has been probably the most successful Federal program in the modern history of this country. For the last 70-plus years it has kept seniors out of poverty. In fact, before Social Security 50 percent of seniors in this country lived in poverty. Today that number, while too high, is about 9.5 percent. That is a significant improvement. And Social Security, despite what is going on in the economy--in good times and bad times--has never once failed to pay all of the benefits owed to every eligible American. Today Social Security has a $2.7 trillion surplus. It can pay every benefit owed to every eligible American for the next 20 years. Do you know what the American people say about Social Security? They say it loudly and clearly. Republicans say it, Independents say it, and Democrats say it. Do not cut Social Security. Do not cut Social Security. Yet I have to tell you that virtually all Republicans think we should cut Social Security. Some Democrats believe we should cut Social Security. The President of the United States has talked about a chained CPI--a very bad idea--about cutting Social Security. Maybe we should listen to the American people and make it very clear: No, we are not going to cut Social Security. In fact, we are going to take a new look at Social Security and see how we can make it solvent not just for 20 years but for 50 years and in addition to that increase benefits. There are pretty easy ways to do that, including lifting the cap on taxable income that goes into the Social Security trust fund. As you know, today, if somebody makes $100 million and somebody makes $113,000, they both contribute the same amount into the Social Security trust fund. Lift that cap. You can start at $250,000, and you will solve the Social Security solvency issue for the next 50 or 60 years. That is exactly what we should do, and that is what the American people want us to do. In terms of Medicare, people say Medicare has financial problems, and it does. The issue--and interestingly enough, it gets back to what Senator Graham was talking about. He was talking about his health care plan in South Carolina. It sounds like a pretty bad plan to me, I agree with him. What is the issue there? The issue we have to look at, which we don't for obvious issues, is how does it happen that in the United States of America--before the Affordable Care Act; things will change a little bit--before the Affordable Care Act, we have 48 million people who are uninsured, we have tens of millions more people who have high deductibles, like Senator Graham--a $6,000 deductible is incomprehensible--and high copayments. At the end of the day, 48 million people uninsured, high deductibles, high copayments, health outcomes that are not particularly good--better than some countries, worse than other countries--infant mortality worse, longevity worse, life expectancy worse, yet we end up spending twice as much per person on health care as any other nation. How does that happen? How do we spend so much and get so little value? Is that an issue we are prepared to discuss? I guess not because the private insure companies say: Don't talk about that. We are making a whole lot of money out of the current health care system, including the Affordable Care Act. We make a lot of money, our CEOs do. Yes, we are spending 30 cents of every dollar on administrative costs, on bureaucracy, on advertising. Don't touch that because that is the American health care system. I suggest we have to take a hard look at what goes on in the rest of the world. People have said we have the best health care system in the world. That is not what the American people say. The polls I have seen show that there is less satisfaction with our system than exists in other countries around the world, for obvious reasons. We spend a lot. We get relatively little. Are we prepared as a Congress to stand up to the insurance companies? Are we prepared to stand up to the drug companies that charge us far higher prices for prescription drugs than any other country on Earth? Are we prepared to stand up to the medical equipment suppliers? I don't think so because that gets us into the issue of campaign finance, where people get their money to run for office, because these guys contribute a whole lot of money. Are we prepared to stand up to Wall Street? We have six financial institutions on Wall Street that have assets of over $9 trillion-- equivalent to two-thirds of the GDP of the United States of America. They write half of the mortgages in this country, two-thirds of the credit cards. Do you think maybe it is time to break up these guys or are we going to march down the path of too big to fail and have to bail them out again? Do you hear a whole lot of discussion about that, Mr. President? No, not too often. Let me conclude. We had the president of the World Bank here yesterday talking about global warming. As I think most people know, the entire--well, virtually the entire scientific community, people who study the issue of global warming, understands that the planet is warming significantly, that it is already causing devastating problems, that the issue is manmade, and that if we do not address this crisis by cutting greenhouse gas emissions and moving away from fossil fuels, the habitability of this planet for our kids and our grandchildren will be very much in question. That is what the scientific community says. Have you heard any debate on this floor about how we are going to aggressively transform our energy system? We do not do it. Let me conclude by saying this. There is a reason the Congress has a favorability rating of about 10 percent, and that is that the American people are hurting and we are not responding to that pain. We are not addressing the many crises facing this country, and the American people are saying to Congress: What world do you live in? How about joining our world? How about changing your attention to our needs? With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, when people think of government, some of the first words that may come to mind are politics and bureaucracy, two things that tend to stifle progress. Today, however, I have the great pleasure of honoring someone who has spent her many years on the Hill overcoming these barriers. She has implemented changes and fixed problems to improve the lives of veterans and their families in a very real way. Now, as she moves into retirement, she leaves behind an example to which we should all aspire. Mary Ellen McCarthy has spent the last 7 years of her distinguished career serving as the lead investigator for the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the decade before that as staff director for two subcommittees of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. In that time, she has visited nearly every Department of Veterans Affairs regional office and reviewed thousands of benefits claims. She has not only identified gaps in services to veterans and their families, but also problems within VA. Most importantly, Mary Ellen never rested with the identification of a problem. Instead, she found solutions to meet the needs of veterans and their families and worked relentlessly to ensure they were put into place as quickly as possible. Among her many achievements, Mary Ellen will be forever recognized for her extraordinary work in ensuring Vietnam era veterans and their families receive the benefits to which they are entitled. She has worked tirelessly to identify the many veterans whose exposure to dangerous toxins was previously overlooked. Her efforts have helped veterans with service on the inland waterways of Vietnam, along the DMZ in Korea, and on the perimeters of Air Force Bases in Thailand. Her work has led to vindication and assistance to those suffering from health problems related to Agent Orange exposure. Her efforts did not stop with the veterans themselves, however. She also brought attention to the children who are born with spina bifida, as a result of their parents' exposure to Agent Orange. So much of Mary Ellen's work has focused on those most in need-- elderly and low-income veterans and surviving family members. For example, one of Mary Ellen's investigations revealed the surviving spouses of veterans who had been receiving VA disability benefits were not receiving the payments to which they were entitled during the month of their spouse's passing. These payments not only help with funeral costs, but provide some time to make other financial arrangements. Her discovery of this oversight and subsequent actions resulted in approximately 200,000 surviving spouses receiving more than $124 million in benefits, allowing them to focus on moving forward after the death of a loved one. Mary Ellen has also been heavily involved in working toward elimination of the claims backlog, a challenge that has plagued the Department for decades and caused far too many veterans unnecessary hardship. Before she came to Capitol Hill, she spent two decades working as a nurse and then a lawyer, helping low-income and elderly individuals obtain government benefits. This experience gave her a unique insight into the challenges of claims processing and she has been able to offer a number of solutions that may otherwise have been overlooked. These are just a few examples of the very real contributions Mary Ellen has made to the veterans community throughout her career. To those who have had the pleasure of working with her, Mary Ellen has been an inspiration--working tirelessly to provide assistance to those who have served this great Nation--a true veterans' advocate. As she enters into her much deserved retirement, she can rest easy knowing her efforts will continue benefiting veterans and their families for generations to come, which is, as she is known to say, not bad for an old lady. Mary Ellen, thank you for your years of advocacy on behalf of our Nation's veterans. I wish you only the best in retirement.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, November is National Family Caregivers Month. As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I would like to take a moment to discuss the important role caregivers play in the lives of our Nation's veterans as they cope with the visible and invisible wounds of war. For generations, as the men and women of our armed forces returned home with serious injuries sustained overseas, their wives, husbands, parents and other family members stepped in to care for them. These family members have often provided this care at significant personal sacrifice. Their dedication to the needs of injured veterans has often resulted in lost professional opportunities, negative impact on their own physical and mental health, and reduction in income. Under the ``Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010,'' a number of important benefits were made available to these caregivers for the first time, with additional services and benefits made available to caregivers of seriously injured post-9/11 veterans and their families. These additional services and benefits include a tax-free monthly stipend, travel assistance, health insurance, mental health services and counseling, caregiver training and respite care. Passage of the Caregivers Act served as an important step in ensuring the caregivers of our newest generation of veterans received the additional resources to provide the best possible care for their loved ones. However, limiting eligibility for these additional services and benefits to caregivers of post-9/11 veterans created an inequity between caregivers of the newest generation of veterans and the tens of thousands of hardworking, dedicated caregivers who provide care to all other veterans. In an effort to address the disparity, I introduced legislation earlier this year that would extend the services and benefits of the Caregiver Program to caregivers of veterans of all eras. Through this expansion, severely injured pre-9/11 veterans and their families may now leverage the benefits from which, until now, only post-9/11 veterans have benefited. The Congressional Budget Office estimates this bill would expand access to services to approximately 70,000 caregivers of pre-9/11 veterans. I am pleased the committee passed my legislation, S. 851, the Caregivers Expansion and Improvement Act of 2013 earlier this year and am working to bring it before the full Senate for a vote. All caregivers of our Nation's injured veterans deserve our full support. This is an issue of equity. As a long-standing advocate for veterans, I will continue to work to ensure caregivers have the resources they need. We have learned from experience and research that veterans are best served when they can live as independently as possible. I hope my fellow Members will help me honor the commitment this country has to all of its veterans by supporting S. 851 when it comes to the Floor.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. This afternoon I wish to touch on two issues. One is the issue of Social Security, which is life-and-death for many millions of Americans, and the other is the issue of Medicare and Medicaid. The main point I would like to make--and I make this as a member of the budget conference committee--is that the American people, regardless of their political persuasion--Democratic, Republican, Independent, conservative, progressive, whatever--are quite united in stating they do not want cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and they do not believe we should balance the budget on the backs of some of the most vulnerable people in this country. According to the latest National Journal/United Technologies poll, 81 percent of the American people do not want to cut Medicare benefits at all, 76 percent of the American people do not want to cut Social Security benefits at all, and 60 percent of the American people do not want to cut Medicaid benefits at all. This is only one of many polls that are out. What the American people understand is that millions of people are hurting in today's economy. The number of people living in poverty is at an alltime high, and median family income is going down. Unemployment is much too high. People are hurting, and we cannot make devastating cuts to the social safety net that is literally life-and- death for so many of our people. I did want to mention that I worked on a petition drive with a number of grassroots organizations throughout this country. They include CREDO, Daily Kos, Campaign for America's Future, Social Security Works, Democracy for America, Progressives United, MoveOn, Other98, USAction, and the Alliance for Retired Americans. In a pretty short time--less than 1 week--we received over 500,000 names on a petition that says very clearly: Do not cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Do not balance the budget on the backs of some of the most vulnerable people in this country. The other point I would make when we talk about the budget is that at the end of the day people do believe the deficit is too high. We should be proud, by the way, that in the last 4 years we have cut the deficit in half, but it is too high. But what the American people also say is that what is much more significant to them is the economy and the fact that we have so many people who are unemployed. I would point out, as somebody who believes very strongly--and I speak as a former mayor of Burlington, VT--who believes absolutely that when your infrastructure--your roads, bridges, and rail system--is in need of enormous investment, where we can create millions of decent- paying jobs rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, what the American people are saying is, yes, we have to create jobs. According to a March 3, 2013, Gallup poll, 75 percent of the American people--including 56 percent of Republicans, 74 percent of Independents, and 93 percent of Democrats--support ``a federal jobs creation law'' that would spend government money for a program ``designed to create more than 1 million new jobs.'' Again, of course, people say we are divided in America. In many ways we are not quite so divided. The American people say don't cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The American people say the most important issue facing our country is creating jobs. They want the Federal Government to do that. In this body we are divided, but among the American people, on these issues, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents are not quite so divided. When we talk about unemployment, an issue that does not get anywhere near the kind of discussion we need is youth unemployment in America. As horrendous as unemployment is for anybody of any age, it is terrible for the young people who are graduating high school and graduating college. All of us say to the young people in this country: Don't stand on street corners. Don't do drugs. Go out and get a job, create a career, and make it into the middle class. Yet real unemployment for young people in this country, for youth in this country, is somewhere around 20 percent. Among African-American young people it is over 40 percent. I don't hear the discussion in the Senate about the need to create the millions of jobs our young people desperately need so when they leave school they can go out and create a career for themselves and make it into the middle class. I worry very much about those young people who don't have that opportunity. In an interview published October 1, 2013, Pope Francis said: The most serious of the evils that afflict the world these days are youth unemployment and the loneliness of the old. He is not, of course, only talking about America; he is talking about what is going on throughout the world. Continuing: The old need care and companionship; the young need work and hope but have neither one nor the other, and the problem is they don't even look for them anymore. I couldn't agree more. We cannot turn our backs on the elderly. We cannot cut Social Security and Medicare. We cannot turn our backs on the young people. They need to be given the opportunity to have decent jobs and make a life for themselves. Older Americans Act I would also like to say a few words about a piece of legislation that just passed the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. I am the chairperson of the Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging. I thank Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Alexander, who are cosponsors of the Older Americans Act legislation that only last week came out of committee. This is a bill some of us have been working on for several years. The Older Americans Act is an enormously important piece of legislation for senior citizens all over this country. The bill that came out of committee in a very strong bipartisan way has the strong support of over 50 national organizations representing tens of millions of Americans, including AARP, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, the National Council on Aging, the Alzheimer's Association, and the Meals On Wheels Association of America. I won't go into all of what this bill does, as I don't have the time do that, but it deals with the very important issue of elder abuse and making sure that seniors in nursing homes get the care and respect to which they are entitled. It deals with the Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program. It places an increased emphasis on evidence-based programs. It addresses the changing nature of senior centers in America, prevents fraud and abuse, and it focuses on home care and nutrition services. There is a lot in this bill that I believe is quite good, and it is a step forward. One of the problems we have--Senator Burr of North Carolina raised it, and appropriately so--the issue is that we are seeing in this country in general a migration of folks from northern parts of the country to the South--this is not a new issue--including many seniors. What Senator Burr was arguing is that he thinks the current formula is unfair and that it does not take into account that kind of migration. I think he has a valid point, which we want to address. The other point and the most important point is that since 2006--the last year in which the Older Americans Act was authorized--the U.S. elder population has grown by over 20 percent. As the baby boomers age, every single State in this country has seen its senior population grow. The important point is that Federal funding for this legislation is the same today as it was in 2006--$1.8 billion. Funding for the act in terms of real inflation-accounted-for dollars has decreased by more than $250 million during that period of time. We have a growth in the senior population and a decline in real dollars going into the needs of seniors through the Older Americans Act, and this is a very serious problem. We compound that problem with the migration from the North in some States to the South. What is the solution? I believe the solution is very simple. If we understand that the Older Americans Act is an enormously cost-effective act--one doesn't need to be a gerontologist or a physician who deals with senior citizens to understand that when a senior is malnourished and doesn't get the nutrition he or she needs, that senior is more likely to break a hip by falling, that senior is more likely to get sick, go to the emergency room, and go to the hospital at great cost. Everybody knows that. There is no debate about that. When seniors have the companionship and the nutrition they need, they are less likely to go to the emergency room, they are less likely to go to the hospital, and we can save money. Study after study shows that investing in programs such as the Older Americans Act--that is, the Meals On Wheels program, the congregate meal program, employment opportunities for seniors, dealing with elder abuse--when we invest in those programs, we save money. We not only from a moral perspective make life better for seniors, we actually save Federal money by preventing other bad things from happening. I hope our committee and Members of the Senate can work together to say that increasing funding for the Older Americans Act is not only the right thing to do for millions of Americans, it is also the cost- effective way to go. If we can increase funding, we can deal with some of the issues Senator Burr has raised. What I will not support is making drastic cuts in certain States, such as Iowa, New York, or Massachusetts, in order to increase funding in other States. We have to protect every State in this country because there is no State in which programs like the Meals On Wheels program don't already have long waiting lines. What we need to do is invest in these programs. When we do, we will have done something that is very important for seniors all over this country. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask to be allowed to address the Senate for a brief period of time.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. First of all, I congratulate the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Missouri for touching on what is obviously a very serious national issue; that is, how we deal with the crisis of mental health in this country. I thank both of them for the work they are doing. I would like to say a few words as a member of the conference committee on the budget, which is hoping to avert another government shutdown and come up with a sensible long-term budget for our country. The first point I would make is that when I return from Vermont and come here to Capitol Hill, I am always amazed at how different the world view is here as opposed to the real world--whether it is Vermont or when I travel to other States around the country. It almost seems as if we are living on two separate planets. As a member of the Budget Committee, I understand, as do the American people, that a $17 trillion national debt and a $700 billion deficit is a serious issue that must be addressed. The American people know that, but what they also understand is that there is an even more important issue out there; that is, real unemployment today is close to 14 percent. Youth unemployment--an issue Pope Francis is beginning to talk about a great deal--in this country is approximately 20 percent. African-American youth unemployment is over 40 percent. The American people are saying: Yes, deal with the deficit, but do not forget that we continue to have a major economic crisis with millions of Americans unemployed. And for many other Americans who are working, their wages are deplorably low. We have millions of folks working for $8 or $9 an hour who cannot take care of their families under those wages. While the middle class is disappearing and the number of people living in poverty is at an alltime high, we also have another dynamic we don't talk about too much here for obvious reasons; that is, the wealthiest people are doing phenomenally well, corporate profits are at recordbreaking levels, and the gap between the very wealthy and everybody else is growing wider and wider. We are surrounded by lobbyists representing the wealthy and large corporations, and they don't really like that discussion, so we don't talk about that too much, but it remains absolutely true. When I go home and talk to Vermonters or when I go around the country, people tell me--and the polls tell me--that the American people--regardless of political persuasion, by the way--are in significant agreement about a lot of issues. We don't see that reflected here, but the American people are in significant agreement. If we ask the American people, I suspect, in North Dakota, Vermont, Maryland, or anywhere else whether they think we should cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, they would overwhelmingly say no. These are tough economic times. Poverty is going up among seniors. People are worried about health care costs, and these programs are vital to the survival of so many people. So do not cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. That is not what Bernie Sanders is saying; that is what the American people are saying. That is what Democrats are saying, that is what Republicans are saying, that is what Independents are saying, and that is what people who agree with the tea party are saying. There is not a whole lot of dispute outside of Washington, but inside Washington the picture becomes a little different. We have virtually all Republicans talking about cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. We have the President talking about cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. We have some Democrats talking about it. But that is not what the American people believe. According to the latest poll I have seen on this issue--the National Journal/United Technologies poll--81 percent of the American people do not want to cut Medicare, 76 percent of the American people do not want to cut Social Security, and 60 percent of the American people do not want to cut Medicaid. So I have a very radical idea for my colleagues. What about occasionally--we don't have to overdo it--listening to the people who sent us here? What they are saying is they do not want to cut these terribly important programs. Second of all, what do the American people want? What they want is for us to invest in our infrastructure and create the millions of jobs we desperately need. According to a Gallup poll of March 3, 2013, 75 percent of the American people--that includes 56 percent of Republicans, 74 percent of Independents, and 93 percent of Democrats-- support ``a federal jobs creation law [that would spend government money for a program] designed to create more than 1 million new jobs.'' The American people are saying: Yes, the deficit is important, but what is more important is creating jobs, and rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure is one way to do it, but don't cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. What else are the American people saying? Well, not too surprisingly, when we see so much income and wealth inequality in America, the American people believe that when 95 percent of all new income in the last few years has gone to the top 1 percent, given the fact that the wealthy are doing phenomenally well, maybe they should be asked to pay a little more in taxes, and maybe we should end all of the corporate loopholes that currently exist. Again, that is not Bernie Sanders. According to a January 29, 2013, poll by Hart Research Associates, 66 percent of the American people believe the wealthiest 2 percent should pay more in taxes and 64 percent of the American people believe large corporations should pay more in taxes than they do today. The American people are giving us a solution to the major crises facing the American people. They want to invest in our economy, they want to create jobs, they want to ask the wealthy and large corporations to pay more in taxes, and they do not want to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. That is the real world, but then when we come back to Washington, what are people saying? Let's cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; let's not invest in our infrastructure and create jobs; and, in fact, let's give more tax breaks to the wealthy and large corporations. This is an ``Alice in Wonderland'' world. The American people are saying one thing and the lobbyists around here and many Members of Congress are saying something very different. The deficit is an important issue, and we should be proud, by the way, that we have cut the deficit in half in the last few years. We have more to go, but we should take some credit for that. But when we talk about the deficit, it is very important for us to remember how we got to where we are today--a $17 trillion national debt and a $650 billion-or-so deficit. I find it interesting that some of those people who were most active in causing the deficit are now standing up saying: Oh, I am really worried about this deficit that I helped cause; therefore, we have to cut all these programs that working people and children and the elderly need. So let's take a brief look back into the recent past and find out how we got to where we are today and who voted for those programs. As I hope most Americans know, in January 2001 when President Clinton left office and President Bush took over, this country had a $236 billion surplus--a $236 billion surplus. That is quite a large surplus. The Congressional Budget Office projected that the 10-year budget surplus would be $5.6 trillion; that there would be a huge increase in our budget surplus. The projections were very strong. In fact, they projected that we could erase the national debt by 2011. Imagine that. That was where we were heading. Well, President Bush took office and a number of things happened. We went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. I voted for the war in Afghanistan; I strongly opposed the war in Iraq. But be that as it may, many of my friends, who are great deficit hawks, forgot to pay for those wars. Those wars are estimated to cost somewhere around $6 trillion. So folks who are standing up today saying: Gee, we just can't afford nutrition programs for children, they didn't have a problem voting for two wars and not paying for them. They also did not have a problem voting for huge tax breaks that went to the wealthiest people in this country, and they also did not have a problem voting for a Medicare Part D prescription drug program--written by the insurance companies, by the way, by the pharmaceutical industry--which also added to the deficit. The point I am making is that many of the folks who are standing here demanding cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid voted for two wars, tax breaks for the rich, and an unfunded Medicare Part D program. Then on top of all that, we had the Wall Street crash, which resulted in less revenue coming in to the Federal Government. Add all that stuff up and you have a large deficit. Let me conclude by simply saying at a time when we have massive wealth and income inequality in America, which is something we should focus on from both a moral perspective as well as an economic perspective; at a time when the middle class is disappearing and millions of people are working longer hours for lower wages, at a time when we have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world, at a time when senior poverty is increasing, at a time when we have 20 percent youth unemployment in this country, in my humble opinion, we do not balance the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable people in this country--working people, the elderly, the children, the sick, and low-income people. That is not what we do. What we should do is go to those people who are doing very well and say to them: You know what. Welcome to the United States of America. You are part of our country, and you are part of our economy. This country has problems now. You, if you are a large corporation--one out of four large corporations paying nothing in Federal income taxes--you are going to have to start paying your taxes. You can't just stash your money in the Cayman Islands and in other tax havens. And if you are an extremely wealthy person doing well, you are going to have to contribute more in tax revenue. The bottom line is that we need to create jobs in this country, we need to protect the most vulnerable people in this country, and we need to do it in a way which is morally right and which makes good economic sense. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, this country has gone through over 2 weeks of very difficult times. It is extremely distressful that approximately 1 million Federal employees have not received a paycheck. These Federal employees have gone 3 years without a raise, they have been furloughed because of sequestration, and now they have been sent home, in many cases without any pay. Similar to every other working American, these are people who are worried as to how they are going to pay their mortgages, how they are going to pay their car loans, how they are going to pay their college loans, and they are extremely anxious. But it is not only the 1 million or so Federal employees who are hurting. Obviously, it is the tens of millions of Americans who are in enormous anxiety about whether they are going to get the Federal benefits they are entitled to and the Federal services they need. I am talking now, as chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, about Vietnam veterans who have written to me from Vermont and elsewhere who are worried that they may not get their veterans' disability benefits. Think about that. People who have put their lives on the line for this country, were wounded in action, and they are sitting at home wondering whether they are going to get a check, which they desperately need in order to keep their family going. I am talking now about people on Social Security who are wondering that if this government actually defaults for the first time in our history--does not pay our bills--that they may not get a Social Security check. Millions and millions of seniors depend on that Social Security check in order to pay their bills and to maintain a very minimal standard of living. I am talking about moms who today are walking their kids into the Head Start Program and then going off to work, and they are worried about what happens if their Head Start Program is shut down. What does that mean to their child? What does it mean to them? How do they get to work? Who is going to take care of their kid? Are they going to lose their job? So what has happened in the last few weeks has brought a whole lot of anxiety and pain to tens and tens of millions of Americans. Why? Because over in the House we had a handful of rightwing extremists who decided they were going to hold hostage the American Government unless they were able to defund ObamaCare. That was last week. Then more recently, they were going to hold the government hostage unless we made major cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. That was a few days ago. So I think what has happened has been incredibly unfortunate for our country. The damage done in terms of our position in the international community will take many years to overcome. What do you think the international community--people in Latin America, people in Europe, people in Asia--believes when they see the United States, the largest economy on Earth, presumably the leader of the free world, government is shut down and this country is debating whether we pay our bills? How does the President of the United States go to the United Nations, go to the world community, and say: Listen. There is an international crisis. You need to follow our lead. And we are the country that cannot even pay its bills or is threatening not to pay its bills for the last couple weeks and has shut down the entire U.S. Government. So the damage already done by rightwing extremism is irreparable. I think people's confidence in the U.S. Government has been shattered. I am thinking about kids in Wisconsin or kids in Vermont who are now looking at the U.S. Government as some kind of joke, where maybe at some point they were thinking of running for office, getting involved in the political process, and now they say: It is not something I want to do. That is very sad. I intend to vote for the agreement hammered out by the majority leader and the minority leader. But I wish to make something very clear. If anybody thinks this sequestration budget is a good thing for America, they are very mistaken. As I understand it, sequestration will be extended until January 15, and we do not know what happens after that. Presumably that is going to be based on negotiations. But according to the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, if, in fact--and I will do everything in my power to see that does not happen--but if the $988 billion sequestration budget were to go throughout this year, it would cost us some 900,000 jobs. I have heard many of my Republican friends--and perhaps some Democrats--making the point, and an important point, that we have to do something about the budget deficit and we have to do something about our national debt. I agree with that. I am proud that along with other Members, we have cut the deficit in half from $1.4 trillion to $700 billion. Anyone who does not think that is progress is very wrong. Cutting the budget deficit in half is significant progress. But let me make a point that is not made terribly often on this floor. Yes, the deficit is a serious problem. Yes, we have to work on it. But every poll I have seen--and in my discussions with people in Vermont--they say: Yes, the deficit is a serious problem. Do something about it. But let me tell you, Senator Sanders, what is a more serious problem; that is, that the middle class of this country is disappearing. Median family income is lower today than it was 24 years ago. Real unemployment is close to 14 percent. Youth unemployment is somewhere around 20 percent. African-American youth unemployment is somewhere around 40 percent. The people of America are saying do something about the economy. Make sure that when my kid graduates high school, there will be a job available for him or her. Do something about the high cost of college education because I do not want my son or daughter to be leaving school $25,000 or 50,000 in debt. Make sure, they tell me, that you do not cut Social Security because Social Security is one of the few bedrocks remaining to protect some of the most vulnerable people in this country. Make sure you do not voucherize Medicare, as the Ryan budget in the House proposed, ending Medicare as we know it and giving senior citizens an $8,000 check, and when they get diagnosed with cancer, good luck to them, because that $8,000 will last 2 or 3 days. Make sure you do not slash Medicaid. The important point that has to be made is deficit reduction is an issue, but the more important issue the American people want us to resolve is to create the millions and millions of jobs this country desperately needs. The sequester budget we are voting on today moves us in exactly the wrong direction. If that budget were to go on for a year--right now it is scheduled to end January 15. But if that would go on for a year, it would cost us 900,000 jobs rather than growing the many millions of jobs we currently need. Let me again raise an issue many of my colleagues do not talk about, but I think the American people understand. At a time when we have more income and wealth inequality in this country than since the 1920s, what morality demands, and, in fact, what good economics demands, is you do not balance the budget on the backs of the elderly, the children, working families, the poor. But I do not hear much of that discussion here. If you have a situation in America where the top 1 percent owns 38 percent of the wealth, and the bottom 60 percent owns 2.3 percent of the wealth, who should have to experience austerity? Should we go to working families who in many cases have seen a decline in their income and say: Guess what. We are going to have to balance the budget on your backs. We are going to have to cut Medicare, cut Medicaid, cut nutrition programs, cut the ability of our kids to go to college, because we need to balance the budget. Guess what. The rich and the powerful have too many lobbyists here, so we are going to have to cut programs that impact you. I know many people in the Senate want to move in that direction. I do not. Not only do we have an obscene, unfair distribution of wealth, it is as bad when we talk about income inequality. The Presiding Officer has seen the same studies I have seen which talk about how in the last few years 95 percent of all new income generated in this country went to the top 1 percent--95 percent of all new income went to the top 1 percent, while tens of millions of other Americans saw a decline in their income.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.