Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I rise to introduce the Homeless Veterans Prevention Act of 2013. I would like to thank Ranking Member Burr for joining me to introduce this bill. At a time when too many veterans are sleeping in the streets, in cars, and on couches, the Department of Veterans Affairs has taken on an aggressive initiative to end homelessness among veterans by 2015. This high level commitment has led to a 17 percent decrease in the homeless veteran population between 2009 and 2012. These declining numbers are a reflection of the combined efforts of VA and its Federal, State, Local, Tribal, and community partners as they work to eliminate veteran homelessness by 2015. However on one night in January 2012, an estimated 62,000 veterans were still without a place to call home. We must continue to work toward removing any remaining barriers to housing for veterans. The legislation we are introducing today would reaffirm this commitment by improving upon VA's programs to prevent and end homelessness among veterans. VA's transitional housing programs for homeless veterans must modernize to ensure that they are meeting the needs of the homeless veterans they are serving. With increasing numbers of women joining the military and eventually becoming veterans, VA is facing a growing homeless women veteran population. Many of these women are single mothers or have experienced military sexual trauma, making their housing needs even more complex. The Government Accountability Office and VA's Office of the Inspector General both found that homeless women veterans were not able to safely access services through VA's transitional housing programs. The Homeless Veterans Prevention Act of 2013 would remove these barriers by requiring grantees to ensure that facilities can safely serve the needs of the populations that will be living there. It also would allow VA to reimburse grantees for housing the children of homeless veterans, keeping families together and encouraging parents to come forth and be housed without having to worry about splitting their families up. As VA focuses on resolving homelessness, instead of just managing it, housing stability is increasingly a focus. This bill also modifies the transitional housing program to allow VA to incentivize grantees to avoid the challenges that veterans completing time-limited transitional housing programs can face as they search for permanent housing. More specifically, this bill allows VA to focus on housing stability by allowing certain transitional housing grantees to turn a portion of their transitional housing units into permanent housing units as veterans are stabilized and linked to support services. Access to stable and safe housing is a priority, but it is also critical to find ways to prevent homelessness among veterans who are at-risk of becoming homeless. This bill would also increase access to legal services and dental care for our veterans, two things that homeless veterans themselves have identified as unmet needs. Access to these services would greatly increase their chances of finding gainful employment, avoid foreclosure or eviction, obtain identification, and deal with legal issues that have resulted from the criminalization of homelessness, among other things. Veterans have a number of services and resources available to meet their needs. At its very simplest, homelessness among veterans is preventable when all of these programs work together to lift a veteran up. Conversely, homelessness occurs when a veteran slips through the cracks. We cannot sit by idly and allow another veteran to slip through the cracks. We must reach out and let them know when, where and how to get the help that they need and that they have earned. This is not a full summary of all the provisions within this legislation. However, I hope that I have provided an appropriate overview of the major benefits this legislation would provide. 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 Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am proud to introduce the Veterans Health Promotion Act of 2013, which will address veterans' health and wellness. The most recent statistics show that VA is providing health care to over 6.5 million individual veterans each year, including over 674,000 veterans from the most recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. These veterans are enrolling in VA at a rate of 56 percent, higher than any other group of veterans from previous conflicts. These veterans are receiving some of the best health care this nation has to offer. They can access this care at medical centers, outpatient clinics, vet centers, mobile clinics and through telemedicine. Despite this access to care, many veterans still struggle with their overall wellbeing. Therefore, it is not enough to treat veterans who are very sick. When we focus solely on disease and illness, we miss the broader goal of wellness. We must expand our understanding of the care options necessary to improve veterans' lives. Therefore, I am introducing legislation which would do just that--expand veterans' access a full spectrum of care including wellness and Complementary and Alternative Medicine--known as CAM. VA has made significant strides in providing CAM at VA medical centers. As the name describes, CAM therapies can serve as a complement to traditional care or, for some veterans, as an alternative. There is a growing body of evidence to support the value of these therapies but greater understanding can be achieved through the expansion of these services to more veterans. The legislation I am introducing today would do just that. This expansion would occur through the Veterans Health Administration's Center of Innovation, which is developing, demonstrating and evaluating veteran-centered health care policies. To date, VA has established five such centers. My legislation would increase the number of these Centers of Innovation, establishing at least one in each of VA's 23 Veterans Integrated Service Networks. My legislation would create a total of fifteen pilot sites to provide CAM therapies to veterans throughout the nation. Five of the pilot sites would be located at VA's Polytrauma Centers, which care for veterans with the most complex injuries. The remaining ten would provide CAM therapies within primary care settings. Additionally, my legislation would require VA to study barriers to providing and promoting preventive and holistic approaches to health care, including CAM and wellness, in the primary care setting. When we understand these barriers we can find a way to break them down, furthering opportunities to enhance the overall health and sense of wellbeing among veterans. The legislation would also authorize grants to state and city agencies, and community-based nonprofit organizations to provide combat veterans and their family members access to wellness programs. By leveraging these outside organizations while improving their collaboration with VA, we can improve access to wellness programs without sacrificing VA's valuable model of care coordination. An important component for maintaining a healthy lifestyle is physical activity. One of the best ways to improve the health of a population is to increase access to opportunities for physical activity. When coupled with a healthy diet, physical fitness can help promote weight loss and lower the risk of diabetes, heart attack and stroke. Therefore, my legislation would create a pilot program to provide fitness center memberships for overweight and obese veterans, in consultation with their VA health care provider. The pilot program would be over a 2-year period at 10 pilot sites. Additionally, the legislation would require VA to partner with fitness centers to improve access for veterans. Finally, we must ensure CAM, wellness and fitness options are not only available to veterans, but are also utilized by veterans. Therefore, my legislation would require VA to study the barriers that exist across VHA in providing and promoting preventative and holistic approaches to health care, to include Complementary and Alternative Medicine and Wellness, in the primary care setting in order to enhance their overall health and sense of wellbeing among veterans. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I look forward to working with them to continue to improve health care access for our veterans. 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 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.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I rise to introduce the Homeless Veterans Prevention Act of 2013. I would like to thank Ranking Member Burr for joining me to introduce this bill. At a time when too many veterans are sleeping in the streets, in cars, and on couches, the Department of Veterans Affairs has taken on an aggressive initiative to end homelessness among veterans by 2015. This high level commitment has led to a 17 percent decrease in the homeless veteran population between 2009 and 2012. These declining numbers are a reflection of the combined efforts of VA and its Federal, State, Local, Tribal, and community partners as they work to eliminate veteran homelessness by 2015. However on one night in January 2012, an estimated 62,000 veterans were still without a place to call home. We must continue to work toward removing any remaining barriers to housing for veterans. The legislation we are introducing today would reaffirm this commitment by improving upon VA's programs to prevent and end homelessness among veterans. VA's transitional housing programs for homeless veterans must modernize to ensure that they are meeting the needs of the homeless veterans they are serving. With increasing numbers of women joining the military and eventually becoming veterans, VA is facing a growing homeless women veteran population. Many of these women are single mothers or have experienced military sexual trauma, making their housing needs even more complex. The Government Accountability Office and VA's Office of the Inspector General both found that homeless women veterans were not able to safely access services through VA's transitional housing programs. The Homeless Veterans Prevention Act of 2013 would remove these barriers by requiring grantees to ensure that facilities can safely serve the needs of the populations that will be living there. It also would allow VA to reimburse grantees for housing the children of homeless veterans, keeping families together and encouraging parents to come forth and be housed without having to worry about splitting their families up. As VA focuses on resolving homelessness, instead of just managing it, housing stability is increasingly a focus. This bill also modifies the transitional housing program to allow VA to incentivize grantees to avoid the challenges that veterans completing time-limited transitional housing programs can face as they search for permanent housing. More specifically, this bill allows VA to focus on housing stability by allowing certain transitional housing grantees to turn a portion of their transitional housing units into permanent housing units as veterans are stabilized and linked to support services. Access to stable and safe housing is a priority, but it is also critical to find ways to prevent homelessness among veterans who are at-risk of becoming homeless. This bill would also increase access to legal services and dental care for our veterans, two things that homeless veterans themselves have identified as unmet needs. Access to these services would greatly increase their chances of finding gainful employment, avoid foreclosure or eviction, obtain identification, and deal with legal issues that have resulted from the criminalization of homelessness, among other things. Veterans have a number of services and resources available to meet their needs. At its very simplest, homelessness among veterans is preventable when all of these programs work together to lift a veteran up. Conversely, homelessness occurs when a veteran slips through the cracks. We cannot sit by idly and allow another veteran to slip through the cracks. We must reach out and let them know when, where and how to get the help that they need and that they have earned. This is not a full summary of all the provisions within this legislation. However, I hope that I have provided an appropriate overview of the major benefits this legislation would provide. 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 Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am proud to introduce the Veterans Health Promotion Act of 2013, which will address veterans' health and wellness. The most recent statistics show that VA is providing health care to over 6.5 million individual veterans each year, including over 674,000 veterans from the most recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. These veterans are enrolling in VA at a rate of 56 percent, higher than any other group of veterans from previous conflicts. These veterans are receiving some of the best health care this nation has to offer. They can access this care at medical centers, outpatient clinics, vet centers, mobile clinics and through telemedicine. Despite this access to care, many veterans still struggle with their overall wellbeing. Therefore, it is not enough to treat veterans who are very sick. When we focus solely on disease and illness, we miss the broader goal of wellness. We must expand our understanding of the care options necessary to improve veterans' lives. Therefore, I am introducing legislation which would do just that--expand veterans' access a full spectrum of care including wellness and Complementary and Alternative Medicine--known as CAM. VA has made significant strides in providing CAM at VA medical centers. As the name describes, CAM therapies can serve as a complement to traditional care or, for some veterans, as an alternative. There is a growing body of evidence to support the value of these therapies but greater understanding can be achieved through the expansion of these services to more veterans. The legislation I am introducing today would do just that. This expansion would occur through the Veterans Health Administration's Center of Innovation, which is developing, demonstrating and evaluating veteran-centered health care policies. To date, VA has established five such centers. My legislation would increase the number of these Centers of Innovation, establishing at least one in each of VA's 23 Veterans Integrated Service Networks. My legislation would create a total of fifteen pilot sites to provide CAM therapies to veterans throughout the nation. Five of the pilot sites would be located at VA's Polytrauma Centers, which care for veterans with the most complex injuries. The remaining ten would provide CAM therapies within primary care settings. Additionally, my legislation would require VA to study barriers to providing and promoting preventive and holistic approaches to health care, including CAM and wellness, in the primary care setting. When we understand these barriers we can find a way to break them down, furthering opportunities to enhance the overall health and sense of wellbeing among veterans. The legislation would also authorize grants to state and city agencies, and community-based nonprofit organizations to provide combat veterans and their family members access to wellness programs. By leveraging these outside organizations while improving their collaboration with VA, we can improve access to wellness programs without sacrificing VA's valuable model of care coordination. An important component for maintaining a healthy lifestyle is physical activity. One of the best ways to improve the health of a population is to increase access to opportunities for physical activity. When coupled with a healthy diet, physical fitness can help promote weight loss and lower the risk of diabetes, heart attack and stroke. Therefore, my legislation would create a pilot program to provide fitness center memberships for overweight and obese veterans, in consultation with their VA health care provider. The pilot program would be over a 2-year period at 10 pilot sites. Additionally, the legislation would require VA to partner with fitness centers to improve access for veterans. Finally, we must ensure CAM, wellness and fitness options are not only available to veterans, but are also utilized by veterans. Therefore, my legislation would require VA to study the barriers that exist across VHA in providing and promoting preventative and holistic approaches to health care, to include Complementary and Alternative Medicine and Wellness, in the primary care setting in order to enhance their overall health and sense of wellbeing among veterans. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I look forward to working with them to continue to improve health care access for our veterans. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. That is right. I think the point has to be made--and I see Senator Durbin on the floor as well, and he has made this point-- that we can argue about how we go forward on Social Security, but we should be clear: Social Security hasn't contributed a nickel to the deficit because it is funded by the independent payroll tax. So it is a reasonable question as to how we make Social Security solvent for 75 years rather than just the next 20 years. That is a good debate. The Senator and I have similar ideas on how we should tackle that issue. But it should not be considered as part of the deficit reduction effort. And it disturbs me very much because the administration has acknowledged that reality and we have heard them over the years say: Yes, we want to deal with Social Security but not part of deficit reduction. It bothers me that they have now injected Social Security into the deficit reduction debate.

Mr. SANDERS. Yes.

Mr. SANDERS. I would say that most estimates suggest that. If you look at both Iraq and Afghanistan, it may be three times that number.

Mr. SANDERS. That is a very important question, and let me answer it in several ways. First thought: let's be clear, we have some colleagues in the House and Senate who believe not just that you should privatize Social Security, not just that you should cut Social Security, they believe the concept of government assistance in terms of retirement or government programs in terms of health care, they believe they are unconstitutional. They don't believe the government should be there. If you are elderly and you have no health care, sorry, you are on your own. That is No. 1. There is a philosophical belief on the part of some that what government does should be very limited and that we should not be there to make sure that when the elderly people reach retirement age, they have security. The second point is about the consistently--and this has gone on for years--the long-term opposition to Social Security. Does the Senator know what it is about? It is because Social Security has worked so well. If you hold the belief that the government is terrible, the government is awful, and the government can't do anything, and if there is a program that for 77 years has paid every nickel owed to every eligible American, has very modest administrative costs, and is very popular among the American people, and you don't believe in government, that is a bad thing. They have to start cutting it and doing away with it. The third point I would make--again, no secret here--is that we have a significant deficit, and we have choices to make as to how we deal with the deficit. When we lose $100 billion every single year because corporations stash their money in the Cayman Islands and in other tax havens, maybe we might want to ask them to start paying their fair share of taxes rather than cutting Social Security. But we have colleagues who are much more interested in the well-being and the profits of large corporations than they are in the needs of seniors. Those are some of my answers.

Mr. SANDERS. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS. I would say the Senator makes a very good point. And I often point out to my Republican friends that I think you are looking at yourself and me as some of the major deficit hawks. Our friends today who want to cut Social Security in the name of deficit reduction apparently didn't have a problem with the deficit when they went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan without paying for those wars and when they gave huge tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this country without offsetting those tax breaks. The Senator's point is very well taken.

Mr. SANDERS. It would be much larger than it is right now because more people would be paying into it.

Mr. SANDERS. Of course.

Mr. SANDERS. I want to thank my colleague Senator Harkin not only for his fight for seniors and disabled vets on this issue but for his long career in fighting for those people who often do not have a voice here in Washington. The time has come for the Senate to send a very loud and clear message to the American people. It is the message Senator Harkin has just articulated, that is, we are not going to balance the budget on the backs of the elderly, on the backs of disabled veterans, on the backs of those people who are already, in the midst of this terrible recession, hurting so much. As chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, let me make it very clear that I will do everything I can to make sure we are not balancing the budget on the backs of disabled veterans, men and women who have lost their arms, their legs, and their eyesight defending this country. That is morally unacceptable. The chained CPI--and this is an important point to make. Sometimes you hear the crescendo inside the beltway, and all of the lobbyists talking: This is the right way to go. But as Senator Harkin mentioned, go across America, from Iowa to Vermont, California to Maine, the American people are saying in poll after poll: No, do not cut Social Security. Do not cut benefits for disabled vets. The organizations that represent tens of millions of people are saying the same thing. The American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Disabled American Veterans, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the Gold Star Wives, the Disabled American Veterans, they are on record--and I have submitted their testimony into the Congressional Record--they are in opposition to this chained CPI. But it is not just veterans organizations. The chained CPI is opposed by every major senior citizens group in this country--the AARP, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, the Alliance of Retired Americans, and other groups. The chained CPI is opposed by every major trade union in America, including the AFL-CIO. The chained CPI is opposed by every major disability group in the country. It is opposed by the National Organization for Women because they understand that cutting Social Security impacts women more than it does men. Maybe once in a while the Senate might want to listen to ordinary Americans, people who do not have well-paid lobbyists, people who do not own the local newspapers, and do what is right for the American people. There are some who believe that lowering cost-of-living adjustments, COLAs, through the adoption of a so-called chained CPI would be a minor tweak in benefits, hardly worth discussing. But let's be clear. For millions of disabled veterans and seniors living on fixed incomes, the chained CPI is not a minor tweak. It is a significant benefit cut that will make it harder for permanently disabled veterans and the elderly to feed their families, heat their homes, pay for their prescription drugs, and make ends meet. This misguided proposal must be vigorously opposed. What I find truly disturbing is that folks such as Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and my Republican colleagues who refer to the chained CPI as ``a more accurate measure of inflation.'' That is their argument. Senator Harkin, when I speak to seniors in Vermont and I tell them there are some people in Washington who think the current COLAs are too generous, do you know what invariably happens? They start laughing. They should laugh. Two out of the last 4 years they got zero. I think the last COLA was 1.7 percent. There are some in Washington who think that is too generous. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a statement from 250 Ph.D. economists and 50 social insurance experts who wrote: No empirical basis for reducing the Social Security COLA. No empirical basis.

Mr. SANDERS. I do.

Mr. SANDERS. That is right.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I also agree we should not invade Canada. I live right near there. It would be terrible. What we are hearing and what we have heard now for a number of months is a discussion about deficit reduction, about how we proceed and how we address the fact that this country has a $16.6 trillion national debt. That is a serious issue. I think as we contemplate how we address this issue, we have to put it into a broader context as to what is going on in the United States. What is the best way forward in terms of deficit reduction at a time when the United States has by far the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major country on Earth. In other words, we cannot talk about how we proceed with deficit reduction, we cannot say it is OK to cut Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid or nutrition programs when the middle class of this country is disappearing, poverty is extremely high, while at the same time the wealthiest people and the largest corporations are doing phenomenally well. Any serious discussion about deficit reduction has to include those issues. Let me bore you for a moment with some interesting statistics. This, in fact, came out just yesterday from the Pew Research Center. What they said is that all the new wealth generated in this country from 2009 to 2011 went to the top 7 percent of the American households. All the new wealth went to the top 7 percent of American households, while the bottom 93 percent of Americans saw a net reduction in their wealth. The Pew Research Center found that from 2009 to 2011, the mean net worth of American households in the top 7 percent rose by 28 percent, while the mean net worth of the bottom 93 percent of American households went down by 4 percent; in other words, the people on top are doing very well, everybody else is not doing well. Over this same time period, the top 7 percent of American households saw their wealth increase by a combined $5.6 trillion--the top 7 percent, $5.7 trillion in wealth increase; the bottom 93 percent saw a wealth decline of $600 billion. That is what the Pew Research Center reported just yesterday. Today, when we talk about distribution of wealth and income, the wealthiest 400 individuals in this country own more wealth than the bottom half of America. Four hundred people have more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans. Today, one family, the Walton family-- owners of Walmart--own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of the American people; one family has more wealth than the bottom 40 percent. Today--and this is truly a remarkable fact which of course we do not talk about too much--the top 1 percent of Americans own 38 percent of all financial wealth. Let's guess what the bottom 60 percent of the American people own. The top 1 percent own 38 percent of the wealth. The bottom 60 percent own 2.3 percent of the wealth in America. That is a rather remarkable and disturbing fact. Today, as Warren Buffett has pointed out, the 400 richest Americans are now worth a recordbreaking $1.7 trillion, more than five times what we were worth just two decades ago. Meanwhile, according to a June 2012 study from the Federal Reserve, median net worth for middle-class families dropped by nearly 40 percent from 2007 to 2010. That is the equivalent of wiping out 18 years of savings for the average middle- class family. That is distribution of wealth. That is incredibly unequal, incredibly unfair, and getting worse and worse. That is something we might want to keep in mind when we talk about how we do deficit reduction. Then when we talk about distribution of income, what we earned last year, that is even worse than distribution of wealth, as bad as that is. If you can believe it, the last study we have seen on this subject--this is quite amazing--showed that from 2009 to 2011, all the new income created during that time period went to the top 1 percent while the bottom 99 percent actually saw a decline in their income. All the new income created in that time period, 2009 to 2011, went to the top 1 percent. Real unemployment today is not 7.6 percent, it is 13.8 percent if we count those people who have given up looking for work and those people who are working part-time. The youth unemployment rate is just horrendous, and it is even higher than the general average. Very interestingly, a new poll came out by Gallup that was done just a few days ago--April 17, 2013. I find the results of that poll very remarkable. This poll deals with an issue that very few people in Congress are even prepared to talk about, let alone act upon. Here is what the poll from April 17, 2013--this week--said: About 6 in 10 Americans--about 60 percent--believe money and wealth should be more evenly distributed among a larger percentage of the people in the United States, while only one-third of Americans think the current distribution is fair. So when my friends want to cut programs for the middle class and give tax breaks to the rich, they should understand that about 60 percent of the American people already believe that we have an unfair distribution of wealth in America. What is even more interesting, according to this Gallup poll from a few days ago--and they do this poll every year--is that a recordbreaking 52 percent of the American people believe ``that our government,'' i.e, the Congress, ``should redistribute wealth by heavy taxes on the rich.'' Again, that is 52 percent of the American people who believe that. How many Members of the Congress get up and come close to reflecting what a majority of the American people want? The American people know that the middle class is collapsing. They know poverty is unacceptably high. They know the wealthy and large corporations are doing extraordinarily well, and they want us to do something about it. But around here, forget doing something about it. We cannot even talk about what the American people want us to do. The American people are frustrated with Congress for a whole lot of reasons, and certainly at the top of the list is how we are ignoring the economic reality facing the middle class of this country and the growing wealth and income inequality. They want us to do something about it, and I think it is high time we did. So instead of cutting programs for the middle class, they are giving more tax breaks for those people who don't need it. Maybe we should do what the American people want and ask the wealthy and large corporations to start paying their fair share of taxes and protect working families. Interestingly enough, we hear from the wealthiest people in this country and from their organizations. What we hear from them is not: Hey, we are doing really well. We know this country has a whole lot of problems, and we are prepared to pitch in; we are prepared to help out with deficit reduction. By the way, for those who are on Wall Street, remember that it was the American people who bailed out Wall Street. Instead of hearing how they are prepared to reciprocate now in America's time of need, unfortunately what we are hearing is quite the contrary. Lloyd Blankfein is the CEO of Goldman Sachs, and this is what he said on November 19, 2012, to CBS: You're going to have to undoubtedly do something to lower people's expectations--the entitlements and what people think that they're going to get, because they're not going to get it. Blankfein and his friends at the Business Roundtable recently came out with a report. Now, the Business Roundtable is the organization representing the CEOs of the largest corporations. All of them make millions of dollars a year in salary or benefits. All of them have very generous retirement benefits. Some of them are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. These people, the Business Roundtable, which consists of Wall Street and other large corporations that are doing phenomenally well, came forward and said to Congress: You should raise the eligibility age for Social Security and Medicare to 70 and cut Social Security COLAs by adopting the so-called chained CPI. The wealthiest people are doing phenomenally well, Wall Street gets bailed out by working families all over this country, and then these guys come back to Congress and say: Raise the retirement age for Social Security and Medicare to 70 years of age. Needless to say, my views are a little bit different than Mr. Blankfein's or the Business Roundtable. I believe the way to do deficit reduction is not by punishing people who are already hurting and struggling to keep their heads above water. We don't punish the sick, the kids, the elderly, or disabled veterans. We need to ask those people who are doing very well to start paying their fair share of taxes. Now I will talk about what I think we should be doing and why we should be doing it. In 1952, 32 percent of all of the revenue generated in this country came from large corporations--about one-third of all the revenue. Today just 9 percent of Federal revenue comes from corporate America. In 2011, corporations paid just 12 percent of their profits in taxes. That is the lowest percentage since 1972. In 2005--the last figures we have--one out of four corporations paid no Federal income taxes at all even though they collected over $1 trillion in revenue during that 1-year period. In 2011, corporate revenue as a percentage of GDP was just 1.2 percent lower than any other major country in the OECD, including Britain, Germany, France, Japan, Canada, and many other countries. Each and every year corporations and the wealthy are avoiding more than $100 billion in U.S. taxes by sheltering their incomes in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, and other offshore tax havens. So the point is: How do we do deficit reduction? Do we say to an elderly woman in the State of Vermont who is trying get by on $14,000 or $15,000 a year that we are going to cut her Social Security? Do we say to a disabled vet: Thank you for your service and your sacrifice for this country, we are sorry you lost your legs, but we are going to have to cut your benefits? Do we say to a struggling low-income family trying to survive on one or another nutrition program: Sorry, but you may have to go hungry and not get dinner on Wednesday? Do we say to working people who have lost their jobs: We are going to have to cut your unemployment compensation which will make it almost impossible for your family to survive? Is that our approach or do we go to corporate America, which is enjoying recordbreaking profits? One out of four corporations pays nothing in taxes. Do we say to them: You know what, it is time you helped us with deficit reduction. I hear a lot of my Republican friends and the President talking about how we need tax reform, but we are going to do it deficit neutral. No, I beg to differ. We do need tax reform. We do need to end the absurdity of losing huge amounts of money because of the tax havens in the Cayman Islands and Bermuda and elsewhere, but we also have to raise revenue when we do tax reform. It is not simply lowering tax rates. I will give some examples about how absurd the current situation is and why--before we cut Social Security and before we attack programs that the middle class and working families of this country depend upon--we have to end these absurd loopholes corporate America is enjoying. I have just a few examples. Bank of America is one of the financial institutions that was bailed out by the American people when their recklessness and greed almost resulted in the collapse of our financial system. In 2010, Bank of America set up more than 200 subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands, which, of course, has a zero percent tax rate to avoid paying U.S. taxes. Bank of America set up 200 subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands. In 2010, not only did Bank of America pay nothing in Federal income taxes, but it received a rebate from the IRS worth $1.9 billion that year. Bank of America paid nothing in taxes. In 2010, JPMorgan Chase operated 83 subsidiaries incorporated in offshore tax havens to avoid paying $4.9 billion in U.S. taxes. They avoided paying $4.9 billion. Goldman Sachs is one of the largest institutions in the country. In 2010, Goldman Sachs operated 39 subsidiaries and offshore tax havens to avoid an estimated $3.3 billion in U.S. taxes. Citigroup, which is another financial institution that was bailed out by the taxpayers of this country, has paid no Federal income taxes for the last 5 years. That is not bad. Many people who are out there watching this are saying: That is pretty good. How did they avoid paying income taxes when they are one of the largest corporations in America for a 5-year period? That is pretty good. During the last 5 years General Electric made $81 billion in profit, which is not too shabby. Not only has General Electric avoided paying Federal income taxes during these years, it received a tax rebate of $3 billion from the IRS. GE has at least 14 offshore subsidiaries in Bermuda, Singapore, and Luxembourg for the purpose of avoiding U.S. income taxes. Does anyone still want to know why the American people are cynical about what is going on in Washington? Does anyone want to know why the Congress of the United States has an extremely low level of support or favorability? It is because the American people know they are getting ripped off. They are working 50 or 60 hours a week, and they are paying their taxes. General Electric makes $81 billion, and over the last 5 years they have paid nothing in taxes. Does anybody vaguely think that is fair? We have some people who say: We want to do tax reform, but we want to make it revenue neutral. We don't want any new income in order to help us with deficit reduction. Let's cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education, but, no, we cannot get new revenue from large corporations. During the last 5 years Verizon made over $48 billion in profits. Not only has Verizon avoided paying Federal income taxes during those years, it received a $535 million rebate from the IRS--not too bad. From 2008 through 2010, not only did Honeywell avoid paying Federal income taxes, it received a $34 million tax refund from the IRS. Merck is a pharmaceutical company. In 2009 not only did Merck pay no Federal income taxes, it received a $55 million tax refund from the IRS. On and on it goes: Corning, Boeing, Microsoft, Caterpillar, Cisco, Dow Chemical. I have example after example of large profitable corporations where CEOs make millions and millions of dollars, and they say to the American people: We support cuts in programs for you--Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, you name it--but don't ask us to pay more in taxes. This Senate has a decision to make: Do we occasionally--I am not asking for much--stand up to the lobbyists, campaign contributors, and big money interests and ask the large corporations and the wealthy who are doing phenomenally well to help us with deficit reduction or do we continue to stick it to the working families and the middle class of this country? That is the challenge and the issue we face. I hope we have the courage to do the right thing. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as the Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, one of my top priorities is to honor the promise that we made, as a nation, to care for veterans and their survivors. The Senate recently passed a resolution, which I was proud to co-sponsor, designating April 5 as ``Gold Star Wives Day,'' in honor of the Gold Star Wives of America, a nonprofit organization that provides services, support, and representation for widows and widowers whose spouses died on active duty in the military or as a result of a service-connected disability. We recently celebrated ``Gold Star Wives Day,'' by recognizing the sacrifices of the families of fallen servicemembers and veterans. In addition to honoring surviving spouses and families, we must take steps forward to provide the comprehensive care and benefits they need. Without a doubt, a decade of war has had a major impact on our military families. Over 6,600 U.S. servicemembers have died in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. They leave behind spouses, who must now face a variety of issues such as financial difficulties, preserving the family home, maintaining the family business, and caring for their children. Earlier this year, the Veterans' Affairs Committee heard from the Gold Star Wives of America about the significant challenges that survivors continue to face. Among the issues the organization advocated for were improved Dependency and Indemnity Compensation benefits and qualification requirements. These are some of the challenges that this legislation would address. This legislation would improve existing survivor benefits and establish a new pilot program to help address the grief counseling needs of surviving spouses. It would also expand health care and other supportive services to children who suffer from spina bifida as a result of their parent's exposure to certain herbicide agents during service in Thailand during the Vietnam War. This legislation would make a real and positive impact in the lives of the approximately 350,000 surviving spouses and children, currently receiving benefits, who have lost a loved one as a result of service to this country. The Survivor Benefits Improvement Act of 2013 would extend the timeframe for increased DIC benefits for surviving spouses with children from 2 years to 5 years. A 2001 evaluation of benefits for survivors of veterans with service-connected disabilities revealed that survivors with dependents perceived an approximate $6,000 annual gap between DIC received and DIC needed. The study also found that the average total household income decreased over $20,000 on average during the transition period after the veteran's death. As a result of this study, it was recommended that the $250 monthly increase in DIC payment be extended from two years to five years for surviving spouses with dependent children. It has now been over a decade since the 2001 report and we still have not provided this increase. Furthermore, a recent survey from the Department of Veterans Affairs indicated that approximately 44 percent of surviving spouse respondents had incomes below $20,000. It is clear that this legislation is necessary to provide much needed additional support to survivors during the period following a veteran's death, especially for low-income families. We must act to remedy this shortfall immediately. This legislation would also expand eligibility for DIC to surviving spouses who remarry at or after age 55. The lower remarriage age would ensure that surviving spouses receive benefits at a requirement level comparable to other federal survivor programs. For example, under the Military Survivor Benefit Plan and for federal employees generally, the remarriage age is 55 for retaining benefits. At present, VA presumes that spina bifida in biological children of certain Vietnam-era and certain Korea service veterans was caused by the veterans' exposure to Agent Orange during military service. As a result, VA provides health care, vocational rehabilitation and employment services, and a monthly monetary allowance to qualifying children. Although Agent Orange was primarily used in Vietnam, it was also used at military installations and other facilities, such as those in Korea and Thailand. Veterans who served in certain occupations at certain bases in Thailand are eligible to receive service-connected disability compensation. Therefore, it is only logical that VA should also be required to provide benefits to the children of veterans with qualifying service in Thailand, who are suffering from spina bifida. The loss of a loved one is a devastating and life changing event. This legislation would strengthen our dedication to the overall well- being of surviving spouses by providing a pilot program on grief counseling in retreat settings. The program would enable surviving spouses, and dependents in certain instances, to receive the counseling, support, and sense of community necessary to heal from losing a loved one. We have made a steadfast and unwavering commitment not only to our veterans, but to their surviving spouses and children. This legislation would strengthen, develop, and expand essential programs and benefits for survivors. Veterans and their families, who have both sacrificed so much for this country, deserve these benefits. We must deliver. 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, one of my top priorities is to honor the promise that we made, as a nation, to care for veterans and their survivors. The Senate recently passed a resolution, which I was proud to co-sponsor, designating April 5 as ``Gold Star Wives Day,'' in honor of the Gold Star Wives of America, a nonprofit organization that provides services, support, and representation for widows and widowers whose spouses died on active duty in the military or as a result of a service-connected disability. We recently celebrated ``Gold Star Wives Day,'' by recognizing the sacrifices of the families of fallen servicemembers and veterans. In addition to honoring surviving spouses and families, we must take steps forward to provide the comprehensive care and benefits they need. Without a doubt, a decade of war has had a major impact on our military families. Over 6,600 U.S. servicemembers have died in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. They leave behind spouses, who must now face a variety of issues such as financial difficulties, preserving the family home, maintaining the family business, and caring for their children. Earlier this year, the Veterans' Affairs Committee heard from the Gold Star Wives of America about the significant challenges that survivors continue to face. Among the issues the organization advocated for were improved Dependency and Indemnity Compensation benefits and qualification requirements. These are some of the challenges that this legislation would address. This legislation would improve existing survivor benefits and establish a new pilot program to help address the grief counseling needs of surviving spouses. It would also expand health care and other supportive services to children who suffer from spina bifida as a result of their parent's exposure to certain herbicide agents during service in Thailand during the Vietnam War. This legislation would make a real and positive impact in the lives of the approximately 350,000 surviving spouses and children, currently receiving benefits, who have lost a loved one as a result of service to this country. The Survivor Benefits Improvement Act of 2013 would extend the timeframe for increased DIC benefits for surviving spouses with children from 2 years to 5 years. A 2001 evaluation of benefits for survivors of veterans with service-connected disabilities revealed that survivors with dependents perceived an approximate $6,000 annual gap between DIC received and DIC needed. The study also found that the average total household income decreased over $20,000 on average during the transition period after the veteran's death. As a result of this study, it was recommended that the $250 monthly increase in DIC payment be extended from two years to five years for surviving spouses with dependent children. It has now been over a decade since the 2001 report and we still have not provided this increase. Furthermore, a recent survey from the Department of Veterans Affairs indicated that approximately 44 percent of surviving spouse respondents had incomes below $20,000. It is clear that this legislation is necessary to provide much needed additional support to survivors during the period following a veteran's death, especially for low-income families. We must act to remedy this shortfall immediately. This legislation would also expand eligibility for DIC to surviving spouses who remarry at or after age 55. The lower remarriage age would ensure that surviving spouses receive benefits at a requirement level comparable to other federal survivor programs. For example, under the Military Survivor Benefit Plan and for federal employees generally, the remarriage age is 55 for retaining benefits. At present, VA presumes that spina bifida in biological children of certain Vietnam-era and certain Korea service veterans was caused by the veterans' exposure to Agent Orange during military service. As a result, VA provides health care, vocational rehabilitation and employment services, and a monthly monetary allowance to qualifying children. Although Agent Orange was primarily used in Vietnam, it was also used at military installations and other facilities, such as those in Korea and Thailand. Veterans who served in certain occupations at certain bases in Thailand are eligible to receive service-connected disability compensation. Therefore, it is only logical that VA should also be required to provide benefits to the children of veterans with qualifying service in Thailand, who are suffering from spina bifida. The loss of a loved one is a devastating and life changing event. This legislation would strengthen our dedication to the overall well- being of surviving spouses by providing a pilot program on grief counseling in retreat settings. The program would enable surviving spouses, and dependents in certain instances, to receive the counseling, support, and sense of community necessary to heal from losing a loved one. We have made a steadfast and unwavering commitment not only to our veterans, but to their surviving spouses and children. This legislation would strengthen, develop, and expand essential programs and benefits for survivors. Veterans and their families, who have both sacrificed so much for this country, deserve these benefits. We must deliver. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. They want to know if we are going to balance the budget on the backs of disabled veterans. I hope very much we will not do that.

Mr. SANDERS. If Mr. Burr supports this amendment, I ask for a rollcall vote.

Mr. SANDERS. What this amendment basically says is it does away with the revenue that the committee has put into the bill. It says the only way to do deficit reduction is to cut, cut, cut--cut Social Security, veterans programs, Medicare, Medicaid. One out of four corporations does not pay a nickel in taxes today. No problem. We are losing $100 billion with companies putting their money in the Cayman Island's tax havens. No problem. The only way to go forward is to cut, cut, cut. The American people do not support that concept. This amendment should be defeated. Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment is not germane to the underlying resolution and therefore violates section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 198.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, this amendment would create a deficit- neutral reserve fund to protect disabled veterans and their survivors, which may not include a chained CPI--no chained CPI. This amendment is cosponsored by Senators Harkin, Hirono, and Whitehouse. This amendment is strongly supported by the American Legion and all of the veterans organizations. It is supported by the AARP and all of the senior organizations because they do not want to see cuts in Social Security. It is supported by the AFL-CIO and the National Organization for Women, among many other groups. After all of the fine Memorial Day speeches about how much we love and support our veterans, the Disabled Veterans of America, the Gold Star Wives----

Mr. SANDERS. Let us not balance the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable people in our country. I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Whitehouse to my amendment No. 198.