Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, yesterday the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, estimated that this year's budget deficit will be 24 percent lower than it was projected just a few months ago. That is very good news for our country. Let's not forget that just 5 or so years ago when President Obama came into office in January 2009, he inherited a $1.4 trillion deficit--$1.4 trillion. This was as a result of two unpaid-for wars, huge tax breaks for the wealthy and large corporations, an unfunded Medicare Part D prescription drug program written by the drug and insurance companies and, of course, the terrible recession, which resulted in less revenue coming into the Federal Government. We experienced 4 straight years of deficits above $1 trillion. This year the CBO projects the deficit will just be $642 billion. Now, $642 billion is a lot of money. It is a large deficit. We have to continue working on that issue. But, clearly, for a variety of reasons we have made substantial progress, and we should be proud of that. By 2015, the CBO is projecting that Federal deficit will total just 2.1 percent of GDP, exactly what those folks involved with Simpson and Bowles told us we needed to achieve in order to be fiscally sustainable over the long term. So the good news is that we have made significant progress on deficit reduction. We should be proud of that. However, we must be cognizant that we do not place ourselves in a situation in which the operation was a success but the patient died. The patient I am talking about, of course, is the disappearing middle class, the backbone of this great country. In other words, while a lot of attention has been focused on deficit reduction, which is important, it is high time we started focusing on what is happening to tens of millions of working families, people who are unemployed, people who are working at very low wage jobs, elderly people who cannot afford their prescription drugs, families who cannot afford to send their kids to college or provide childcare for their young ones. My main point today is, let's start focusing on the issue of most importance to the vast majority of the American people; that is, creating the millions of jobs we desperately need and making sure people have income they can afford to live on with dignity. The sad reality is--and we need to focus on these issues--poverty is increasing and in many ways the great middle class of this country, once the envy of the world, is disappearing. Sadly, the gap between the very, very wealthy and everyone else is growing wider and wider. We must not have an economy where just the people on top, just the multinational corporations do extremely well, while the vast majority of the people are struggling to make ends meet. Since 1999 the average middle-class family has seen its income go down by nearly $5,000 after adjusting for inflation. Median family income today is lower than it was in 1996. So all over this country people get up in the morning, often husbands and wives, work long hours, and they come back and they find out that they are worse off financially than they were 10 or 15 years ago. When you ask people, why, what direction, how is the country doing, they think the country is moving in the wrong direction. That is precisely the reason: people are working long hard hours, and they are falling further and further behind. I understand when we pick up the newspapers they tell us unemployment is 7.5 percent. That is one way of looking at unemployment. But if we look at it in a more accurate way, including those people who have given up looking for work, people who are working part time when they want to work full time, real unemployment in this Nation today is 13.9 percent. It is high time this Congress began addressing that issue. In fact, more than 20 million Americans today do not have a full-time job when they want to be working full time. Another issue that has not received the attention that it deserves is youth unemployment. Youth unemployment is especially painful because we have young people graduating high school, graduating college, wanting to go out and begin their careers, begin their adult lives, and they cannot find a job. In some cases if they graduate college, they are finding a job which does not require a college degree. The youth unemployment rate for 16- to 24-year-old workers is 16.2 percent--16.2 percent. For teenagers the overall unemployment rate is 25.1 percent. For African-American teens, the number is 43.1 percent. Believe it or not, the United States has now surpassed much of Europe in the percentage of young adults without jobs, according to a recent article in the New York Times. We have done well for a variety of reasons in dealing with deficit reduction, but now it is time to turn to those young people throughout this country, kids who are looking forward to getting out on their own, earning a living, and help them get the kind of jobs they need to succeed in life and to start their adult life off in a good direction. Each and every year when we talk about young people, we should understand that another real tragedy is taking place, and that is because of the disappearing middle class and the high cost of college education. Some 400,000 high school graduates do not go to college, not because they are unqualified but because they cannot afford it. What a tragedy that is, to waste all of that intellectual capital. Who knows what those kids might do if they are able to get a college degree. But now, because of declining incomes for their families and the high cost of college education, they are unable to do it. This is an issue on which we must also focus. From 1969 to 2009, median earnings for male high school graduates plummeted by almost 50 percent after adjusting for inflation. Let me repeat that. From 1969 to 2009, median earnings for male high school graduates plummeted by almost 50 percent after adjusting for inflation. Men without a high school education have fared even worse. Their inflation-adjusted median earnings have shrunk by nearly two-thirds over the past four decades. What is that about? Well, what that is about is at one time in this country, when people did not have even a high school degree or just a high school degree, they could go out and get a job. Maybe that job was in a factory. Maybe it was not the greatest job in the world, but if they worked in a factory, and especially if they had a union job in that factory, they could make a decent wage. They could make it into the middle class. But, sadly, those jobs have, to a very significant degree, disappeared. We have lost over 50,000 factories in this country in the last 10 years millions of decent-paying jobs. What opportunities are there now available for young people who just graduate high school or may not even graduate high school? At best, at best, they are going to work at McDonald's or work at Wal-Mart for inadequate wages. But the truth is that many of those young people are finding it difficult to obtain any kind of job. There is another issue on which we must focus, and that is distribution of wealth because at the end of the game, the end of the game of economics, we want to know who wins and who loses. Clearly, what has been going on in this country in recent years is the people on top are doing phenomenally well while the middle class is shrinking and poverty is at a very high rate. According to a report that came out on April 23, 2013, a couple of weeks ago, from the Pew Research Center, all of the new wealth generated in this country from 2009 to 2011 went to the top 7 percent of American households, while the bottom 93 percent of Americans saw a net reduction in their wealth. All of the new wealth, from 2009 to 2011, went to the top 7 percent. Today, the wealthiest 400 individuals in this country own more wealth than the bottom half of America, 150 million people--400 people here, 150 million there. That is not what this great country was supposed to be about. Today, one family, the Walton family, the owners of Walmart, is worth $100 billion. That is more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of the American people. One family owns more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of the American people. Today the top 1 percent owns 38 percent of all financial wealth, while the bottom 60 percent owns 2.3 percent. In case people didn't hear that correctly--maybe they are scratching their heads--let me say it again. The top 1 percent owns 38 percent of all financial wealth in this country, while the bottom 60 percent owns 2.3 percent. That gap between the billionaires and everybody else is getting wider and wider and wider. In fact, as Warren Buffett has pointed out, we are seeing a massive shift of wealth from the middle class to the billionaire class. Warren Buffett pointed out recently that the 400 wealthiest Americans are now worth a recordbreaking $1.7 trillion, more than five times what they were worth two decades ago. Meanwhile, according to a June 2012 study from the Federal Reserve, median net worth of middle-class families dropped by nearly 40 percent from 2007 to 2010. What we are seeing is a massive shifting of wealth from the middle class, from the working class of this country, to the people on top. That gap between the very wealthy and everybody else is now wider than it has been since the 1920s and wider than any major country on Earth. What is my point? My point is that deficit reduction is important. We must continue to focus on it. We cannot forget about the economic reality facing the men, women, and children of this country, facing senior citizens of this country. It is high time we began to address some of the major economic problems we face. In terms of job creation, most economists will tell you the fastest way to create jobs is to put Americans back to work rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. In my State of Vermont and in States all over this country, there is a desperate need to repair and rebuild our roads, bridges, dams, culverts, sewers, schools, and affordable housing. If we do this, if we start investing in our infrastructure, making sure broadband is accessible in every area in this country, cell phone service is available in every area of this country, rebuilding our roads, bridges, rail, we will make this Nation more productive. At the same time we can put millions of people back to work at all kinds of work. The American Society of Civil Engineers has graded America's roads, public transit, and aviation infrastructure with a D-plus. They say we must invest $1.6 trillion more than we are currently planning to spend on infrastructure over the next 7 years just to get a passable condition. When we make that investment, we improve life in America. People do not have to go over potholes. Bridges do not have to be closed. We can develop a first-rate rail system to compete with Europe, Japan, China, and we can create jobs doing that. The second point, in terms of job creation, is we can create significant numbers of jobs transforming our energy system away from fossil fuel, into energy efficiency, and such sustainable energies as wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass. When we do that we begin to start addressing the planetary crisis of global warming, we begin to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions, and we create good-paying jobs. Thirdly, we have got to take a hard look at our disastrous trade policy, which for many years has been corporate America's policy, and a policy of Republicans and Democrats alike. Despite all of the evidence that unfettered free trade has resulted in the loss of millions of decent-paying jobs in this country, as corporations shut down here, move to China, Vietnam, and other low-wage countries, we still have Democrats and Republicans coming forward doing the bidding of corporate America so these companies can get cheap labor abroad while increasing unemployment in this country. We have got to take a hard look at our trade policies. I know every election campaign, 2 weeks before the election, all the candidates have ads on television bashing China and ads on television talking about trade policy. Somehow the day after the election everybody forgets it. Whether it is a Democratic President, whether it is a Republican President, whether it is a Republican House or whether it is a Democratic Senate, we still continue moving down the road of these disastrous trade policies. That means NAFTA, CAFTA, and permanent normal trade relations with China. We have to take a hard look and rethink those policies. The last point I want to make is that while making progress on deficit reduction, we have got to be appreciative that some of the people on whom we have balanced the budget are some of the most vulnerable people in this country. While one out of four major corporations pays nothing in taxes, while corporations are stashing their money in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, and other tax havens, we have made devastating cuts in programs that people can ill afford. As a result of sequestration, this is what is happening in the real world. At a time when over 20 million Americans are unemployed or underemployed, unemployment insurance checks, which average about $300 a week--try living on $300 a week--are being cut by 10.7 percent. In other words, those who are out of work, through no fault of their own, are having their unemployment benefits reduced by more than $32 a week on average. Now $32 here is what people spend for lunch. If you are a working family and you are unemployed, $32 is a question of whether you buy food for the kids. We have got to replace that loss. At a time when early childhood education is more important than ever, when we do an abysmal job in terms of childcare and preschool education already, as a result of sequestration 70,000 kids are losing access to Head Start and Early Head Start Programs. That is unacceptable. I am chairman of the subcommittee which deals with aging, and I can tell you that millions of seniors right now are struggling, figuring out how to pay their food bills, buy their prescription drugs, and keep warm in the wintertime. At a time when food insecurity is skyrocketing as a result of sequestration, tens of thousands of senior citizens have been denied access to the Meals On Wheels Program. Meals On Wheels is a program that goes to the weakest, most fragile, most vulnerable people in this country, elderly people who cannot get out of their homes. Meals are delivered to them. For these people, this is a question of life or death, whether they are going to live with a modicum of dignity. Those programs have been cut as a result of sequestration. At a time when millions of Americans cannot afford the cost of housing, 140,000 low-income families, primarily seniors with disabilities and families with kids, are losing rental assistance because of cuts to the section 202 elderly housing program, the section 811 disabled housing program, and a number of other affordable housing programs. At a time when the cost of a college education is becoming increasingly out of reach for working families, 70,000 college students, as a result of sequestration, are losing Federal work-study grants. Some of them will not be able to stay in college. At a time when 45,000 Americans will die this year because they don't have access to health care, sequestration has forced doctors in cancer clinics to deny chemotherapy treatments to thousands of patients because of a 2-percent cut to Medicare providers. LIHEAP, which is the Low Income Heating Energy Assistance Program, very important to the State of Vermont, is being cut by $180 million, meaning people will go cold next winter.

Mr. SANDERS. Let me conclude by saying we have made progress on deficit reduction, and that is good. Now it is time to pay attention to the needs of working families all over this country and put people back to work. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as the chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, I have pledged to improve outreach activities to better inform our Nation's over 22 million veterans of the benefits to which they are entitled. Legislation I introduced last week, the Veterans' Outreach Act of 2013, would authorize the Department of Veterans Affairs to carry out a 2-year demonstration project to award grants to State and local government programs and nonprofit organizations to improve the coordination and collaboration of veterans' health care and benefit services across Federal, State, and local assets. By providing State and local government programs and nonprofit organizations the opportunity to submit a grant proposal with stated goals and objectives, VA would be able to better leverage the countless services across the Nation that support veterans and their family members. Finally and most importantly, my legislation would require recipients to submit outcomes data back to VA in order to document a recipient's ability to increase awareness, efficiency, and effectiveness of Federal, State, and local outreach activities; enhance the availability of Federal, State, and local resources for veterans; and strengthen the overall culture of community-based support within a given community across our great Nation. With this 2-year demonstration project, VA will be able to examine what outreach activities work and reassess its outreach strategy accordingly. Last month I was in Brooklyn, NY, where I met two combat veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. One was a U.S. Marine Corps captain and the other was a sergeant in the U.S. Army. Both were receiving health care at VA and struggling to pay for their copays. Similarly, both were unaware of their eligibility to receive 5 years of free health care at VA following their most recent discharged from Active-Duty. Most displeasing was the lack of understanding of this very same health care benefit by senior VA officials who accompanied me that day. If senior VA officials are unaware of such a principal health care benefit available to combat veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, much more remains to be done inside and outside of VA to ensure veterans of all eras are informed and understand the benefits and services they are entitled. I urge my colleagues to ask veterans across their State and see how many understand all of the benefits and services available to them. For instance, countless veterans across this Nation remain unaware that some of them may be entitled to one-time dental care if they apply at VA within 180 days of separation from Active Duty. Little known benefits like this, can go a long way in placing our newest generation of veterans on sound footing following their exit from military service. Other veterans may be eligible for no-cost or low-cost health care and medications if they meet eligibility requirements for VA health care. To claim this coverage they must enroll at their local Department of Veterans Affairs medical center. These uncertainties surrounding VA health care eligibility will most certainly be compounded by the additional health care options that become available as we approach implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Veterans need to know and understand their options. The men and women who have sacrificed so much in defense of this country deserve to know about the benefits and care to which they are entitled, and it is VA's job to make sure they know. Simply knowing about benefits in certain instances is not enough. If VA is trying to reach rural veterans, knowing where and when a mobile vet center will visit your community is critical. If VA is trying to reach more and more veterans in the community, knowing when and where the local medical center or community-based outpatient clinic will hold events and activities can drive up the number of veterans in attendance. Furthermore, VA needs to do more to proactively identify outreach efforts that work locally while leveraging the countless services supporting veterans that are made available by organizations all across the country. Highly able and willing organizations and agencies are already providing quality social services and outreach into communities across the Nation. Some of these organizations report a lack of coordination and collaboration with local VA facilities. Additionally, many small nonprofits and local organizations sometimes lack the additional resources needed to strategically develop guidance and partnerships with and across Federal, State, and local assets. More effective and localized outreach will better address the community-based needs of today's veterans and do so in a cost-efficient way. This legislation goes beyond authorizing VA to issue grants. This legislation would also allow VA to enter into cooperative agreements and arrangements with various State agencies to carry out, improve, or enhance outreach activities for veterans. Simply put, if a State is already supporting our Nation's veterans, then this legislation would allow VA to reinforce the bond between Federal and State resources to ensure local veterans outreach activities are streamlined and cost- avoidances identified. One thing is undeniable, and that is that VA should be making every effort to ensure veterans are aware of the benefits and services afforded to them. I recently held a committee hearing where we heard about some of the progress the Department has made in addressing the important issue of outreach. We also heard from community-based organizations that are coordinating and collaborating across Federal, State, and local levels to leverage resources in order to provide cost- effective programs. But what struck me the most was the steadfastness with which each of these community-based organizations identifies veterans and links them to the Federal, State, and local benefits and services they are entitled. Widely available information and a clear understanding of the information are two basic components of effective outreach. If our Nation's veterans are to take full advantage of the benefits and service they have earned, effective outreach is indispensable. When our Nation's over 22 million veterans are able to take advantage of these benefits and services, they more often than not are placed on a positive path toward an encouraging future. Mr. President, we have made a solemn commitment to aid veterans after they leave military service. We can only honor this commitment if veterans and their families are aware of the benefits and services available to them. This legislation would strengthen VA's outreach and support the organizations and agencies that seek to stand shoulder to shoulder with VA in support of our nation's heroes.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. It is very important to Senator Leahy and me that be addressed.

Mr. SANDERS. I had heard there was some objection on the other side.

Mr. SANDERS. Will the Senator yield for a moment?

Mr. SANDERS. I thank the Senator from California and the chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee for her work on this important project. I do wish to mention we have in Vermont one small concern that I hope will be addressed in this bill. In Vermont we have suffered through Irene, and it was a devastating experience for many communities in the State and for businesses. The problem we are having now is that we have State regulations which correctly require that culverts be built which can, in fact, deal with the real problems of flooding. Unfortunately, what FEMA is prepared to pay for is inadequate infrastructure--culverts, among other things, that will not address the problem if we have to deal with another problem such as Irene. This is a very modest proposal. Senator Leahy and I feel strongly about this issue. I know the chairperson is sympathetic. There appears to be some problems on the other side, and I very much hope we can resolve this.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 889.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, this amendment is cosponsored by my colleague from Vermont, Mr. Leahy. What it does is it addresses a very serious problem facing the State of Vermont and I think potentially States all over the country. Mr. President, as you well know, Tropical Storm Irene impacted some 225 Vermont communities with 90 bridges and 963 culverts damaged or destroyed statewide. In a small State, that is a lot of damage. Long before Irene, the Vermont State legislature enacted stream alteration standards that prevented flood hazards, damage to fish and wildlife, and damage to adjacent property owners. These standards result in resilient infrastructure and are looked to as a model by other States. In other words, what the State legislature did appropriately is pass standards that would do the job, that would protect communities in times of floods and natural disasters. As we all know, FEMA compensates communities for the rebuilding of bridges and culverts damaged during large storms such as Irene, but FEMA--and here is the main point--in many cases is insisting on overriding Vermont's stronger standards, requiring communities to build inferior projects that are unlikely to withstand the next major storm to hit the State. In other words, communities are standing there wanting to do the right thing. The State has promulgated regulations as to what these culverts and bridges should look like. What FEMA is saying is we are not going to compensate you for doing the right thing. In other words, FEMA is insisting that local communities, in order to get reimbursed for these expenses of replacing damaged infrastructure, must build culverts and bridges to standards that have already failed and are likely to fail again. This is Vermont's problem today. It could be your State's problem tomorrow. The point here is we should not be rebuilding culverts and bridges in a way that will result in them failing once again when another flood or extreme weather disturbance takes place. That makes no sense at all. In Vermont, at least 39 bridge and culvert projects would benefit from this amendment, and half of these projects have not yet gone forward because of this dispute with FEMA. In other words, we have many communities in the State of Vermont that are not going forward rebuilding the damaged culverts and bridges but waiting because of this ongoing dispute with FEMA. Again, today this is Vermont's problem. Tomorrow it could be West Virginia's or California's. It makes no sense to rebuild bridges and culverts in a way that has failed. We want to rebuild them in a way that will enable them to remain strong during the next flood or extreme weather disturbance. If another Hurricane Irene were to hit, those towns would be vulnerable to severe damage yet again. In other words, they are sitting in limbo. They don't have the money to do the job they want to see done, and they are not getting help from FEMA. In fact, communities in States across the country that adopt more resilient standards for infrastructure replacement would benefit from this amendment. Today it impacts Vermont. Tomorrow it could impact any State in this country. Local communities and States have a better sense of the kinds of standards that are required for bridges and culverts than FEMA, and they should be allowed to go forward with those standards and be compensated by FEMA. FEMA's current practice throws good money at bad by preventing States and local communities from rebuilding with more resilient, better- defined infrastructure after devastating storms. The amendment Senator Leahy and I are offering will save taxpayers money, will save lives, and better protect communities from future natural disasters and extreme weather disturbances. In short, the Sanders-Leahy flood resilience amendment requires FEMA to recognize State standards when providing Federal reimbursements for bridge and culvert replacements after natural disasters, supports communities that want to rebuild more resilient infrastructure after natural disasters, harmonizes the approaches of the Army Corps of Engineers and FEMA, and stops throwing good money after bad, saves taxpayers at the local, State, and Federal level by making smarter investments in more durable infrastructure. With that, I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the time during all quorum calls be charged equally to both sides.

Mr. SANDERS. This amendment impacts Vermont today, but it can impact any and every State in this country if it experiences a major flood or a natural disaster. We all know FEMA compensates communities for rebuilding bridges and culverts damaged during storms such as Irene, but what is not widely known is that FEMA insists that local communities, in order to get reimbursed, must build culverts and bridges to the same standards that already failed and are likely to fail again. It is not terribly sensible. That is what this amendment deals with. I yield to my colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy.

Mr. SANDERS. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, today, as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am proud to introduce the Veterans' Educational Transition Act of 2013. My colleague and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Senator Burr, joins me in introducing this important legislation. The Department of Defense estimates that approximately 250,000 to 300,000 servicemembers will separate annually for the next 4 years. That is more than one million brave men and women who will face the harsh reality of transitioning back to civilian life. Many of them will elect to further their education by using the most lucrative benefit afforded to them since WWII--the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Since 2009, the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, has paid nearly 1 million Post-9/11 GI Bill beneficiaries more than $28 billion. The Post-9/11 GI Bill stands as a testament of our willingness to invest in our newest generation of veterans. Unfortunately, this investment often falls short of what they need to complete a post- secondary education and successfully transition back to civilian life. They deserve better. Given the nature of our Armed Forces, servicemembers have little to no say as to where they serve and where they reside during their military service. Thus, when transitioning servicemembers consider what educational institution they want to attend, many of them choose a school in their home State or a State where they previously served. I have heard from too many veterans that many of these public educational institutions consider them out-of-State students. Given that the Post-9/11 GI Bill only covers in-State tuition and fees for public educational institutions, these veterans are left to cover the difference in cost between the in-State tuition rate and the out-of- State tuition rate. In some States, this difference can be more than $20,000 per year. As a result, many of our Nation's veterans must use loans to cover this difference and in the process become indebted with large school loans that will take years to pay off. I applaud the States that have taken initiative to assist our veterans by recognizing them as in-State students for purposes of attending a public educational institution. Yet, there are too many States that still require transitioning veterans to meet stringent residency requirements before they can be considered in-State students. Recently separated veterans may not be able to meet such requirements because of their military service, and once enrolled, they cannot legally establish residency because of their status as full-time students. The Veterans Educational Transition Act of 2013 would require States, as a condition for course approval under the Post-9/11 GI Bill or Montgomery GI Bill, to recognize certain veterans and their dependents using these education benefits as in-State students for purposes of attending a public institution. The veteran must be within 2 years from the date of discharge, and the individual using the benefit must live in the State while attending the school. This legislation would help our brave men and women who have sacrificed so much in defense of our country transition to the civilian workforce 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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, today, as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am proud to introduce the Veterans' Educational Transition Act of 2013. My colleague and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Senator Burr, joins me in introducing this important legislation. The Department of Defense estimates that approximately 250,000 to 300,000 servicemembers will separate annually for the next 4 years. That is more than one million brave men and women who will face the harsh reality of transitioning back to civilian life. Many of them will elect to further their education by using the most lucrative benefit afforded to them since WWII--the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Since 2009, the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, has paid nearly 1 million Post-9/11 GI Bill beneficiaries more than $28 billion. The Post-9/11 GI Bill stands as a testament of our willingness to invest in our newest generation of veterans. Unfortunately, this investment often falls short of what they need to complete a post- secondary education and successfully transition back to civilian life. They deserve better. Given the nature of our Armed Forces, servicemembers have little to no say as to where they serve and where they reside during their military service. Thus, when transitioning servicemembers consider what educational institution they want to attend, many of them choose a school in their home State or a State where they previously served. I have heard from too many veterans that many of these public educational institutions consider them out-of-State students. Given that the Post-9/11 GI Bill only covers in-State tuition and fees for public educational institutions, these veterans are left to cover the difference in cost between the in-State tuition rate and the out-of- State tuition rate. In some States, this difference can be more than $20,000 per year. As a result, many of our Nation's veterans must use loans to cover this difference and in the process become indebted with large school loans that will take years to pay off. I applaud the States that have taken initiative to assist our veterans by recognizing them as in-State students for purposes of attending a public educational institution. Yet, there are too many States that still require transitioning veterans to meet stringent residency requirements before they can be considered in-State students. Recently separated veterans may not be able to meet such requirements because of their military service, and once enrolled, they cannot legally establish residency because of their status as full-time students. The Veterans Educational Transition Act of 2013 would require States, as a condition for course approval under the Post-9/11 GI Bill or Montgomery GI Bill, to recognize certain veterans and their dependents using these education benefits as in-State students for purposes of attending a public institution. The veteran must be within 2 years from the date of discharge, and the individual using the benefit must live in the State while attending the school. This legislation would help our brave men and women who have sacrificed so much in defense of our country transition to the civilian workforce 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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANDERS

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise today to say a few words about an issue I think does not get enough discussion in the Senate but is of great concern to the American people in general; that is, the need for Congress to pass comprehensive Postal Service reform as soon as possible. The Postal Service is of enormous importance to tens of millions of people, people in rural States like Maine or Vermont, to businesses all over this country, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of employees who serve us so well in the Postal Service. About 2 years ago, the Postmaster General of the United States came up with a plan for the Postal Service that would have--let me just tell you and the American people what it would have done. It would have eliminated about 220,000 Postal Service jobs, including the jobs of many American veterans. It would have closed about 15,000 post offices throughout the country, many of them in rural areas like the State of Vermont. It would have eliminated half of the mail processing plants in this country. It would have substantially slowed down the delivery of mail by eliminating overnight delivery for first class mail. It would have ended Saturday mail delivery. Many of us in the Senate and in the House thought that plan was a disaster for our country, for our economy, and for American workers. We all organized and fought back against that plan. The goal was to convince the Postmaster General to substantially revise the ideas that he had brought forth. Instead of closing down 15,000 post offices, the Postal Service, in fact, came up with a plan to reduce the hours of service at about 13,000 post offices throughout the country, and many in the State of Vermont. Was I happy with that? No, to be frank with you. Was it better to see a reduction of 2 hours or 4 hours than seeing the entire rural post office shut down? It was. Instead of closing down half of the mail processing plants in this country, the Postal Service decided they would keep about 100 of the mail sorting centers that were originally on the chopping block open. In other words, they did shut down some but not nearly as many as they had intended to shut down. Instead of ending overnight delivery standards, the Postal Service has adopted a plan to keep overnight delivery going, although not as strong as it previously was. Although it took an act of Congress through the appropriations process, the Postal Service, for the time being at least, has decided to obey the law of the land and not eliminate Saturday mail delivery. Last year, the Senate passed a comprehensive postal reform bill. That did not go as far as I would have liked, but it was certainly a substantial improvement over what the Postmaster General had proposed. We won that vote with 62 or 63 votes. There was bipartisan support for it. Unfortunately, the House of Representatives failed to even schedule a vote on the floor of the House for any postal reform bill. As a result nothing was signed into law last Congress, forcing us to start this process all over again. What I fear the most is that all of the work the Senate did last Congress--and the committee of jurisdiction worked hard on it. Some of us put together an ad hoc committee of 15, 16 Members of the Senate who worked hard on that issue. But I fear very much that all of that work to save the Postal Service will go for naught if Congress does not get its act together and pass a comprehensive postal reform bill as soon as possible. In my view the time has come to send a very loud and clear message to the leadership of the House, the leadership of the Senate, the Postmaster General of the United States, and the President of the United States; that is, in the midst of this terrible recession which has significantly impacted the middle class and working families of our country, it is imperative that we do not destroy thousands and thousands of decent-paying, middle-class jobs, including the jobs of many veterans. That is what happens when you make the kinds of cuts the Postmaster General has been talking about. In the midst of this terrible recession, it is important that we do not harm small businesses that depend upon the Postal Service to sell their products. Just yesterday I met with some businesses in the State of Vermont for whom it is enormously important that they know there is a strong Postal Service that can provide rapid delivery of the packages they produce. It is terribly important that as we talk about postal reform, we understand many senior citizens depend upon the post office for their prescription drugs. It is also important, again, for the economy, that we not slow down the delivery of mail, that we do not close half of the mail processing plants in this country. Here is the important point: There is no question that the Postal Service has financial problems. Nobody disagrees with that. I think many people do not understand the basic causes of the Postal Service's financial problems; that is, the Postal Service today is in terrible financial shape because of a congressional mandate signed into law by President Bush in December 2006, forcing the Postal Service to prefund 75 years of future retiree health benefits over a 10-year period. Let me repeat that. The Postal Service, as a result of a decision in 2006, is forced to prefund 75 years--75 years--of future retiree health benefits over a 10-year period. Clearly, no other government agency at the Federal level, State level, or local level comes anywhere close to that kind of onerous burden. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, no private sector corporation in this country is burdened with a mandate anywhere near that extreme. This prefunding mandate is responsible for about 80 percent of the Postal Service's financial losses since 2007. Let me repeat that. You are going to read often, and we read often, the Postal Service is facing severe financial problems. Let me repeat: This prefunding mandate is responsible for about 80 percent of the Postal Service's financial losses since 2007. Before this prefunding mandate was signed into law, the Postal Service was making a profit. In fact, from 2003 to 2006, the Postal Service made a combined profit of more than $9 billion. That is a significant profit. I should also note that despite what we read in the media, the Postal Service actually made a profit of $100 million during the last quarter sorting, processing, and delivering the mail. If we are serious about dealing with the financial problems facing the Postal Service, the first thing we have to do is end this prefunding mandate once and for all and allow the Postal Service to use the $48 billion sitting in that future retiree health fund to keep the Postal Service healthy and thriving for years to come. When we talk about the financial problems facing the Postal Service, we have to understand that to a very significant degree some 80 percent of the problem was caused by the Congress as a result of a decision made in 2006. It is clear to me, and I think to all Americans, that we live in the year 2013. The world is changing. We are becoming more and more a digital economy, but it is also clear to me that the Postal Service does not survive by cutting back on its services to the American people and to the business community. In order to save and strengthen the Postal Service, I have introduced the Postal Service Protection Act, S. 316. I am very proud to say that bill now has 23 cosponsors. Let me thank all of the Senators who are cosponsoring this bill: Senators Baucus, Blumenthal, Brown, Casey, Cowan, Franken, Gillibrand, Harkin, Heinrich, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Manchin, Menendez, Merkley, Schatz, Stabenow, Tester, Tom Udall, Warren, and Wyden. Mr. President, I would ask that Senator Cardin be added as a cosponsor to S. 316.

Mr. SANDERS. I am delighted that we are making progress on real postal reform not only in the Senate but in the House as well. I thank Congressman Peter DeFazio from Oregon for his leadership efforts in cosponsoring the exact same bill in the House as we have in the Senate, and that now has 139 cosponsors. We have 24 cosponsors now in the Senate, and in the House that bill has 139 cosponsors, which tells me the American people and their representatives in Washington understand how terribly important it is that we pass serious postal reform. Let me very briefly talk about what is in that legislation, what the legislation, if passed, would accomplish. That bill would reestablish strong overnight delivery standards to ensure the timely delivery of mail. When people put a letter or a package in a mailbox or go to the post office, they want to know that letter or package is going to be delivered in a timely manner, and we do that. In order to make sure we do have timely mail delivery, this legislation would prevent the closure of hundreds of mail processing plants throughout this country and save the jobs of tens of thousands of workers. This legislation would end, once and for all, as I just mentioned, the disastrous prefunding mandate that is the major problem facing the Postal Service. This legislation would allow the Postal Service to recoup over $50 billion it has overpaid into the Civil Service Retirement System. This legislation would prevent the Postal Service from ending Saturday mail delivery. Further, and significantly, our bill would give the Postal Service the tools it needs to compete in the 21st century. I understand, we all understand, the world has changed. It is not simply a question of finances, it is a question of giving the Postal Service the ability to compete in today's market and to allow it to sell innovative new products, new services, and, as a result, raise more revenue. We need a new vision for the Postal Service. This legislation would provide that vision. Many Americans don't notice, but right now Federal law is tying the hands of the Postal Service in terms of the products and services it can provide. We say to the Postal Service that we are upset they are not making enough revenue, and yet we tie their hands and prevent them from going forth in producing new products and services to raise the revenue that would help their bottom line. This legislation unties the hands of the Postal Service and would develop a process to allow the Postal Service to explore offering the best products and services that would raise the most revenue. Let me just give an example of some of the absurdities under which the Postal Service is now operating. If you were to go into a post office in Maine with a document and say to the clerk who is waiting on you: Listen, I need you to notarize this letter, the clerk would tell you: Sorry, it is against the law for me to notarize that letter. Now, that is pretty absurd. If you were to walk into a post office, as I am sure everyday people do, and say: Listen, I need you to give me 10 copies of this document because I have to send it out to 10 different people, they would say: Sorry, it is against the law of the United States of America for me to make 10 copies, 3 copies, or 1 copy of your document. Furthermore, it is against the law for post offices to sell fishing or hunting licenses. Well, in my State, we are a rural State. People might, in certain parts of the State or other parts of America, like to be able to walk into a post office and say: Hey, how do I get a fishing license? How do I pick up a hunting license? It is against the law right now. If somebody has a check that needs to be cashed, it is very difficult to cash that check in a post office. What you see, by the way, all over America are payday lenders who are charging outrageous rates to low-income people to cash a check, a service I suspect the Postal Service could do to make some money and also save people a whole lot of money by not having to pay these outrageous rates. If you were to pick up a case of beer or a case of wine and you wanted to send it to a relative in California, it is against the law for the Postal Service to deliver wine or beer. Currently, it is against the law for the United States Postal Service to engage in e- commerce activities. We say to the Postal Service: We want you to go out and we want you to be competitive. By the way, you can't do this and you can't do that. On top of that, we are going to cause a massive financial problem for you demanding that you prefund 75 years of retiree health care in a 10- year period. Good luck. Well, that has a lot to do with why the Postal Service is facing the serious financial problems it is today. We have to give the Postal Service a lot more flexibility, and we have to give them the opportunity and the ability to develop a very different business model than it currently has. In my view, we need to give the Postal Service the authority to do what other countries throughout the world are doing to respond to the shift toward electronic mail and away from hard copy mail. Fewer and fewer people are using first class mail. We understand that. They are using e-mail. That is the reality and we have to respond to that. Let me give a few of them, really just a few, of what other postal services around the world are doing. In Sweden, the post office will physically deliver e-mail correspondence to people who are not online or don't have access to a computer. Could that work here? I don't know. It is an interesting idea. In Switzerland, people can have their physical mail received, scanned, and delivered into their e-mail boxes by the postal service. In Germany, the post office will allow customers to communicate through secure service. I think people are increasingly and legitimately concerned about who is going to get into their e-mail. In Germany they provide secure services. Could that work here in the United States? I don't know. Is it worth exploring, worth looking into? I think it is. The point is that the Postal Service must be given the opportunity to innovate and implement an expanded business strategy for a changing world. We can't keep doing the same old-same old in a world that is changing. For over 230 years, and enshrined in our Constitution, the Postal Service has played an enormously important role for the people of our country and, in fact, for our entire economy. A strong Postal Service, a Postal Service that delivers mail and packages in a timely manner, is extremely important for our economy. That mission remains as important as it has ever been. Let's stand together and fight to save the Postal Service, not destroy it. Let's stand together in the midst of this recession to fight and save hundreds of thousands of jobs. I again want to thank the 23 cosponsors on my legislation. I look forward to having more, but let's go forward together to save the Postal Service. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, it is my belief that the inability to provide compensation benefits in a timely manner tarnishes the reputation of the Department of Veterans Affairs and overshadows much of the good work done there. As I have said before, I never want a veteran's negative experience with the claims system to prevent him or her from seeking mental health care or help in battling homelessness. That is why, today, I am introducing the Claims Processing Improvement Act of 2013, a bill that would help to provide veterans and their family members with the timely and accurate claims decisions they deserve. The fact that nearly 70 percent of claims are pending longer than the Department's goal of 125 days is completely unacceptable. VA knows this, and the Department has set ambitious goals, put forward a plan, and has been working hard to transform the compensation claims system. Despite these efforts, it is clear that much work remains to be done. That is why we must continue to work together to find innovative solutions until the claims system is transformed into one fit for the 21st century. Now is the time to truly apply all of the latest technological advances, the insight and experience of veterans service organizations, the lessons learned from the wealth of studies that have already looked at the claims system, and the resources of the Federal Government to tackle this problem from all angles and to finally make real progress. The Claims Processing Improvement Act of 2013 is a critical part of the solution. This bill is a holistic approach to addressing the challenges of the claims system and would provide long-term reforms that will improve VA's claims process from start to finish--from the regional offices located across the nation to the Board of Veterans' Appeals. I would like to highlight just a few of the important provisions in this legislation. VA must do a better job of showing not only Congress, but also veterans and their survivors about how VA plans to accomplish the ambitious goal of eliminating the claims backlog by 2015. That is why this bill, for the first time, would require VA to publicly report on a quarterly basis information on both VA's quarterly goals and actual production. This would allow Congress and the public to see both the successes and failures of VA's transformation efforts, measure VA's progress, and allow for quicker course corrections when necessary. At VA regional offices across this country, employees are trying to adapt to a changing work environment as VA continues its transition to a paperless claims processing system. These employees are given credit for work in a manner that does not accurately reflect the realities of an electronic claims processing system. VA's work credit system also focuses almost exclusively on speed, often to the detriment of quality. During a hearing held by the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs earlier this year, Mr. Bart Stichman, Joint Executive Director of the National Veterans Legal Services Program, commented that ``VA regional office adjudicators prematurely decide claims--without taking the time to obtain and assemble the evidence necessary to properly decide a claim--in an effort to ensure that the average time for deciding an initial claim that is reported to VA managers and Congress is a low number of days.'' I have heard from other veterans service organizations about the need for a cultural change at VA. In order for this change to occur, employees must operate within an environment that accurately reflects the important tasks they are asked to accomplish and an environment that focuses equally on speed and quality. This bill would facilitate that cultural change through the establishment of a work group designed to reassess the way employees are credited for their work. The work group, tasked with providing solutions, would include the very employees and organizations with the necessary expertise to finally establish a work credit system based on a data driven methodology and one that is updated on a consistent and predictable basis. VA employees, many of whom are veterans themselves, deserve nothing less. This bill would also address the workforce needs of VA and other Federal agencies with claims adjudication responsibilities. In fiscal year 2012, VA lost approximately 6 percent of its claims staff. This legislation would address employee attrition by establishing a task force to develop a strategic plan and initiate training to support the hiring of veterans in claims processing and adjudication positions throughout the Federal Government. This task force would simultaneously prepare servicemembers for the jobs that consistently need to be filled and create a generation of adjudicators throughout VA who can identify with the experiences of the population they serve. This bill would address concerns raised by the Disabled American Veterans by ensuring appropriate oversight of the disability examination system and encouraging the use of private medical evidence when appropriate. As Mr. Violante, the National Legislative Director of Disabled American Veterans, pointed out at a Veterans' Affairs hearing on the disability claims system in March, disability benefits questionnaires were ``designed to allow private physicians to submit medical evidence on behalf of veterans they treat in a format that aids rating specialists.'' Making better use of private medical evidence, and awarding appropriate work credit for doing so, would save VA adjudicators precious time, taxpayers the added expense, and would relieve veterans from the stress of excessive medical exams. While providing veterans with timely and accurate initial claims decisions has been the focus of much attention, I remain very concerned about the staggering number of appeals pending at the Board of Veterans' Appeals. According to the Report of the Chairman of the Board of Veterans' Appeals, there were 45,959 cases pending before the Board at the end of fiscal year 2012. The Chairman's Report also provided the average length of time between the filing of an appeal and the Board's disposition, which was 1,040 days in fiscal year 2012. It is 2 unconscionable that a veteran or a family member had to wait, on average, nearly three years for a decision on an appeal. This bill contains a number of provisions that would improve efficiency at the Board of Veterans' Appeals. This legislation would expand the use of video hearings in order to serve more veterans, reduce an appellant's wait time for a hearing, and increase efficiency in issuing final decisions on appeals by reducing the number of travel days for employees issuing decisions. However, the right to an in-person hearing would be preserved should the veteran desire such a hearing. This bill would also streamline the appellate process by requiring veterans to more quickly file a notice of disagreement. Many veterans already take quick action but to ensure veterans are protected this legislation would provide a good cause exception in the event a notice of disagreement is not filed in a timely manner, such as in cases where a physical, mental, educational, or linguistic limitation prevented timely filing. These are just a few of the provisions of this bill, which would positively impact the claims system. This legislation is the result of a collective body of information and insight gathered from Congressional hearings, meetings with veterans service organizations and VA staff, correspondence from veterans, and aggressive oversight by the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs. The challenges of the claims system are enormously complex and there is no single silver bullet that will magically solve every problem. The Claims Processing Improvement Act of 2013 would, however, provide a number of the solutions necessary to ensure veterans and their family members receive timely and accurate benefit decisions. Clearly there is much work yet to be done. I ask my colleagues to join with me in working together to find innovative solutions until we have truly created a claims system fit for the 21st century. As a nation we have asked more of these individuals than most of us can comprehend. We must now honor the promise we made as a nation--to take care of those who have taken care of us. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as the Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I have pledged to improve and expand employment training and development programs for our Nation's servicemembers and veterans. While our country continues with its economic recovery, we must ensure that veterans are not left behind. Veterans possess the skills, the discipline, and the leadership necessary to succeed in a 21st century workforce. Coupled with an array of practical skills, it would seem that transitioning to civilian employment after separation from service would be effortless. Yet we continue to find high unemployment rates among veterans, especially the youngest generation. Through their service and sacrifice, each of our Nation's veterans have earned a fair shot at a job, a fair shot at supporting their families, and a fair shot to prosper and resume their lives back home. Although unemployment numbers are getting better for everyone, there is still reason for concern and work to be done. The unemployment rate for our youngest veterans, ages 18-24, transitioning from the military, averaged 20 percent in 2012, compared to 15 percent for non-veterans between the ages 18-24. Furthermore, in 2012, the unemployment rate among post-9/11 veterans was nearly 10 percent, while the unemployment rate for all veterans and non-veterans was less than 8 percent. This trend continues into this year, with our younger post-9/11 veterans encountering the most difficulty finding employment. Businesses in the private sector have shown an interest in hiring veterans, but often find that veterans who apply lack industry specific experience to compete with non-veteran candidates. While it is important to ensure we provide programs to help veterans translate their military skills into the civilian sector, there remains a need to: equip veterans with civilian skills and experience necessary to meet the challenges of competing with those who have years of experience in the civilian workforce; find employers who understand military skills; and assist in helping them to readjust back to their local communities. The Department of Defense reports that approximately one in five enlisted servicemembers separating from active duty have a military- learned skill that is not easily transferable to a civilian occupation. Many of these servicemembers will need to transition into a civilian career field that is different than their military occupation. We have a responsibility to those who served in the military, and that includes providing practical solutions. I am proud to introduce legislation, The Veterans Equipped for Success Act of 2013, that would provide our veterans the tools necessary to transition to the civilian workforce. First, the legislation, establishes a three-year pilot program that will partner certain unemployed veterans with employers in the private- sector. In general, the program will provide employers a wage subsidy, up to 75 percent of the wages paid, capped at $14,000 a year, and incentives to hire these veterans. Not only does the program stimulate job creation, but will provide potentially more than 150,000 veterans with the valuable work experience and civilian skills they need to obtain long-term employment. Second, The Veterans Equipped for Success Act of 2013 focuses on providing employment opportunities and civilian work experience to our younger veterans ages 18-30. Under another three-year pilot program, up to 50,000 participating veterans, at a time, would be paired with private-sector employers for one year and provided a salary from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Employers would provide veterans mentorship, job shadowing, and valuable civilian work experience, while having the opportunity to learn about the work veterans performed in the military and the skills they acquired. The legislation also helps veterans reintegrate into their communities and give back to other veterans. We have made a solemn commitment to aid veterans by creating job opportunities and providing them with the necessary skills to succeed. There is clearly a need for improved employment opportunities for veterans, particularly our younger transitioning veterans. This legislation would help veterans meet the challenges of competing in the civilian workforce by filling gaps not addressed by current programs. We owe it to our veterans to ensure they have the opportunity to gain valuable skills and work experience to assist them in successfully transitioning into the civilian workforce. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as the Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I am committed to ensuring we provide our Nation's veterans the opportunities they need to successfully transition back to civilian life. One of the programs afforded to veterans to assist them during this difficult time is the Department of Veterans Affairs' work-study program. VA's work-study program provides veterans participating in several VA educational, vocational, and rehabilitation programs the opportunity to work alongside school certifying officials and State and Federal employees to assist veterans with VA benefits and services. In fiscal year 2012, this program assisted more than 10,000 veterans, who received approximately $25.7 million in work study payments. Under current law, this program is set to expire this year. I am proud to introduce legislation that would extend VA's work-study program for three more years. This legislation would allow veterans to continue doing such important activities as conducting outreach programs with State Approving Agencies; working with a National Cemetery or a State Veteran's Cemetery; assisting in caring for veterans in State Homes; and working with school certifying officials, claims processors, and other state and federal employees to provide much needed benefits and services to our Nation's heroes. VA has determined work-study participants do not have the authority to work in congressional offices, despite their successful service in such offices in the past. These veterans were critical to Congress' efforts to understand the needs of our Nation's veterans. They used congressional resources and personal experience to help veterans access earned benefits and services. This legislation would allow veterans to work in congressional offices to assist other veterans with casework issues, help congressional staff address the unique challenges facing our newest generation of veterans, and develop the knowledge and experience needed to successfully transition into the civilian workforce. Our veterans have sacrificed so much in defense of this country. They deserve a seamless transition when they look to return to civilian life. This legislation would expand a program that has been so vital in preparing veterans to succeed in the civilian workforce. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as the Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I am committed to ensuring we provide our Nation's veterans the opportunities they need to successfully transition back to civilian life. One of the programs afforded to veterans to assist them during this difficult time is the Department of Veterans Affairs' work-study program. VA's work-study program provides veterans participating in several VA educational, vocational, and rehabilitation programs the opportunity to work alongside school certifying officials and State and Federal employees to assist veterans with VA benefits and services. In fiscal year 2012, this program assisted more than 10,000 veterans, who received approximately $25.7 million in work study payments. Under current law, this program is set to expire this year. I am proud to introduce legislation that would extend VA's work-study program for three more years. This legislation would allow veterans to continue doing such important activities as conducting outreach programs with State Approving Agencies; working with a National Cemetery or a State Veteran's Cemetery; assisting in caring for veterans in State Homes; and working with school certifying officials, claims processors, and other state and federal employees to provide much needed benefits and services to our Nation's heroes. VA has determined work-study participants do not have the authority to work in congressional offices, despite their successful service in such offices in the past. These veterans were critical to Congress' efforts to understand the needs of our Nation's veterans. They used congressional resources and personal experience to help veterans access earned benefits and services. This legislation would allow veterans to work in congressional offices to assist other veterans with casework issues, help congressional staff address the unique challenges facing our newest generation of veterans, and develop the knowledge and experience needed to successfully transition into the civilian workforce. Our veterans have sacrificed so much in defense of this country. They deserve a seamless transition when they look to return to civilian life. This legislation would expand a program that has been so vital in preparing veterans to succeed in the civilian workforce. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am proud to introduce the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of- Living Adjustment Act of 2013. I am also pleased to be joined by Ranking Member Burr and all of my colleagues on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs in introducing this important legislation. I look forward to our continued work together to improve the lives of our Nation's veterans. Effective December 1, 2013, this measure would direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to increase the rates of veterans' compensation to keep pace with a rise in the cost-of-living, should an adjustment be prompted by an increase in the Consumer Price Index, CPI. Referred to as the COLA, this important legislation would make an increase available to veterans at the same level as the increase provided to recipients of Social Security benefits. Last year, I was proud to cosponsor the Veterans' Compensation Cost- of-Living Adjustment Act of 2012, which provided a 1.7 percent increase in veterans' compensation. The annual COLA legislation is so important because it impacts vital benefits, including veterans' disability compensation and dependency and indemnity compensation for surviving spouses and children. In fiscal year 2014, it is projected that over 4.2 million veterans and survivors will receive compensation benefits. As a longstanding advocate of our Nation's veterans, I understand the critical nature of these benefits as many recipients depend upon these tax-free payments to feed their families, heat their homes, pay for prescription drugs, and to provide for the needs of spouses and children. We have an obligation to the men and women who have sacrificed so much to serve our country and who now deserve nothing less than the full support of a grateful Nation. The COLA brings us one step closer to fulfilling our Nation's promise to care for our brave veterans and their families. We also must continue to ensure that these benefits are not diminished by the effects of inflation. For this reason, I strongly oppose the President's proposal to adopt the chained CPI. I am joined in opposition by nearly every major veterans' organization in America. The Gold Star Wives, The American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans and many, many more all oppose the chained CPI. I will do everything within my power as Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee to ensure we honor the promise we made to veterans and survivors. It is important that this country address our budget deficit, but there are fairer ways to do it than on the backs of disabled veterans--men and women who have already sacrificed so much for their country. I ask my colleagues to join with me in honoring the promise that has been made to our Nation's veterans. We cannot allow this misguided attempt to balance the budget on the backs of those who have so proudly served our Nation diminish the benefits provided to veterans and their survivors. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am proud to introduce the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of- Living Adjustment Act of 2013. I am also pleased to be joined by Ranking Member Burr and all of my colleagues on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs in introducing this important legislation. I look forward to our continued work together to improve the lives of our Nation's veterans. Effective December 1, 2013, this measure would direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to increase the rates of veterans' compensation to keep pace with a rise in the cost-of-living, should an adjustment be prompted by an increase in the Consumer Price Index, CPI. Referred to as the COLA, this important legislation would make an increase available to veterans at the same level as the increase provided to recipients of Social Security benefits. Last year, I was proud to cosponsor the Veterans' Compensation Cost- of-Living Adjustment Act of 2012, which provided a 1.7 percent increase in veterans' compensation. The annual COLA legislation is so important because it impacts vital benefits, including veterans' disability compensation and dependency and indemnity compensation for surviving spouses and children. In fiscal year 2014, it is projected that over 4.2 million veterans and survivors will receive compensation benefits. As a longstanding advocate of our Nation's veterans, I understand the critical nature of these benefits as many recipients depend upon these tax-free payments to feed their families, heat their homes, pay for prescription drugs, and to provide for the needs of spouses and children. We have an obligation to the men and women who have sacrificed so much to serve our country and who now deserve nothing less than the full support of a grateful Nation. The COLA brings us one step closer to fulfilling our Nation's promise to care for our brave veterans and their families. We also must continue to ensure that these benefits are not diminished by the effects of inflation. For this reason, I strongly oppose the President's proposal to adopt the chained CPI. I am joined in opposition by nearly every major veterans' organization in America. The Gold Star Wives, The American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans and many, many more all oppose the chained CPI. I will do everything within my power as Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee to ensure we honor the promise we made to veterans and survivors. It is important that this country address our budget deficit, but there are fairer ways to do it than on the backs of disabled veterans--men and women who have already sacrificed so much for their country. I ask my colleagues to join with me in honoring the promise that has been made to our Nation's veterans. We cannot allow this misguided attempt to balance the budget on the backs of those who have so proudly served our Nation diminish the benefits provided to veterans and their survivors. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs will meet on Thursday, May 9, 2013, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Pending Health Care Legislation.'' For further information regarding this meeting, please contact Jeff Johnson at the Veterans' Affairs Committee at (202 224-6478.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am proud to introduce the Caregivers Expansion and Improvement Act of 2013, which will address the important needs of veterans' caregivers. 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. These caregivers' dedication to caring for the needs of their injured veterans has often resulted in lost professional opportunities and reduction in income. Under the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010, important services and benefits were made available to seriously injured post-9/11 veterans and their families. These changes improved the lives of caregivers by giving them the support they need which, in turn, improved the lives of veterans. These services and benefits for caregivers include a tax-free monthly stipend, travel expenses, health insurance, mental health services and counseling, caregiver training and respite care for caregivers of seriously injured post-9/11 veterans. However, these services were not made available to pre-9/11 veterans with equally serious injuries and whose caregivers were in equal need of support. Many caregivers of pre-9/11 veterans have been caring for injured veterans for years with no support from the federal government. It is time to provide equal benefits to veterans and their family members from all eras. My legislation does just that. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting equal treatment of the caregivers of our Nation's veterans and cosponsor my legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.