Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

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

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. I thank the Chairwoman. The sooner we can work on this the better, as it will really give the program and all the centers across the country the stability and certainty they need to plan for the future.

Mr. SANDERS. I would like to thank Chairwoman Murray for including the request I made in the budget resolution to provide $2.2 billion in discretionary funding and $2.2 billion in mandatory funding for community health centers in fiscal year 2014. I believe that community health centers are the answer we are looking for to make health care work for everyone, and I am very grateful for the language included in this Budget that recognizes the value of health centers. As the Senator knows, since enactment of the Affordable Care Act, budget cuts have significantly reduced discretionary funding for the Community Health Center Program. Current service levels for the Community Health Center Program have been maintained only by redirection of the ACA's mandatory expansion funding--which is not authorized beyond the year 2015. In other words, beginning in fiscal year 2016, the community health center fund will expire. Unless we find a solution to this problem, community health center funding will be reduced by 69 percent. If adequate funding is not restored, the result will be dramatic reductions in the number of patients community health centers are able to serve. I believe that would be a serious mistake. Would the Senator be willing to work with me and other Senators on resolving the funding cliff facing health centers in 2016 so we don't have a massive cut facing such a valuable program? Mrs. Murray. I thank the Senator and I couldn't agree with him more on the value of the Community Health Center Program. I know very well about the value they bring to Washington State, and also to the country by controlling health care costs and delivering care to our Nation's most vulnerable people and communities. We have included language that recognizes the importance of adequately funding the Community Health Center Program and I look forward to working with the Senator and other Senators to try and find a solution to the community health center funding cliff before it occurs.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Murray for yielding, and I want to thank her and her staff for the excellent work they have done. As a member of the Budget Committee, I have enjoyed working with them. Everybody knows our country has an $850 billion deficit and a $16- plus trillion national debt. But what has not been discussed as often as it should be is how we came into that financial position. How do we have the deficit and how do we have this huge debt? Let us not forget, as we discuss this issue, that in January of 2001, when President Bill Clinton left office, this country had an annual Federal budget surplus of $236 billion. A surplus of $236 billion in January 2001. We now have an $850 billion deficit. So what happened? Well, I think many Americans know what happened. When you go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq and you don't pay for those wars, you add to the deficit. When you give huge tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this country and you don't offset that, you add to the deficit. When you pass a Medicare Part D prescription drug program and you don't pay for that, you add to the deficit. And on top of all of that, we must understand that right now, at 15.8 percent of GDP, revenue coming into the Federal Government is the lowest it has been in 60 years. The reason for that is we are in the midst of a very serious recession--a recession caused by the greed, recklessness, and illegal behavior on Wall Street. Not only has that led to significant increases in unemployment and businesses going under, once again, it resulted in less tax revenue coming in to this government. And by the way, when we talk about Wall Street and the greed and the recklessness and illegal behavior on Wall Street, I must say I was stunned when the Attorney General of the United States recently suggested it might be difficult to prosecute Wall Street CEOs who commit crimes because of the destabilizing effect that prosecution might have on the financial system of our country and the world. In other words, we have a situation now where Wall Street is not only too big to fail, they are too big to jail. The theory is, if you are just a regular person and you commit a crime, you go to jail. If you are the head of a Wall Street company, your power is so great, the tentacles of that company are so great, that if you are prosecuted, and there is destabilization in that company, it can have worldwide or national implications. That is an issue we have to think long and hard about. We are supposed to be a country of law, and that law should apply to the CEOs of Wall Street companies as well as everybody else. The other point I want to make deals, if you will, with a moral issue. When you are dealing with a deficit situation--and I just described how we got into the deficit situation--and you say we need to make sacrifices, it is absolutely appropriate to ask who is best able to make those sacrifices. Right now, as I think most Americans know, the wealthiest people in this country are doing phenomenally well. Large corporations are enjoying record-breaking profits. That is one group of people. Meanwhile, the middle class of this country is disappearing, and we have 46 million people living in poverty. So common morality, basic morality, says who should we ask most significantly to help us with deficit reduction? Do we tell an unemployed worker who is struggling to keep his or her family afloat that we are going to balance the budget on their back or do we ask, a huge profitable corporation, that in some cases is paying nothing in taxes, to help us with deficit reduction? It is important for us to do what we do too rarely on the floor of the Senate--take a hard look at what is happening to the American people right now. I am very pleased we are seeing more job creation. Good thing. We are seeing somewhat of a recovery in housing. Very good thing. But let us understand where the middle class of this country is today, where the working class of this country is today before we demand that we balance the budget on their backs, as the Ryan budget in the House does. 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. Real unemployment is not 7.7 percent, it is 14.3 percent if you count those people who have given up looking for work and are working part time. Youth unemployment is even higher. More than 25 percent of young Americans are unemployed. In terms of the African-American community, unemployment is off the charts. When we talk about job creation, we all want job creation. However, it is important to understand that nearly 60 percent of the new jobs that have been created since 2010 are low-wage jobs paying between $7.80 an hour and $13.80 an hour. Jobs, yes. But we want jobs that can take care of families, not just low-wage jobs. Further, when we are talking about the budget, we don't talk about this at all. I know my Republican friends don't talk about it; most of my Democratic friends don't talk about it. It is anathema here to talk about issues of distribution of wealth and income, but I think it is important before we talk about on whose backs we are going to balance the budget. Today the United States has the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major country on Earth, and the gap between the very, very wealthy and everyone else is growing wider and wider. Incredibly, the wealthiest 400 individuals in this country today own more wealth than the bottom half of America, 150 million people. I think that is an issue we might want to discuss even if it offends some of our wealthy campaign contributors, but I think we should put that on the table. Today one family--the Walton family of Walmart--owns more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of families in this country. And by the way, you will all be delighted to know they got a huge tax break recently. Today the top 1 percent owns 38 percent of all financial wealth. That is a stunning number. What is even more stunning is the bottom 60 percent owns 2.3 percent of the wealth in this Nation. One percent on top owns 38 percent of the wealth; the bottom 60 percent owns 2.3 percent. And who do Mr. Ryan and my Republican friends want to balance the budget on? Those 60 percent, the working families who already have nothing, who are losing what they have, who are struggling to keep their heads above water. But it is not just distribution of wealth, it is distribution of income. If you can believe it--this is again a stunning fact which, for some reason, we don't talk about too much here on the floor. A recent study shows that had all of the new income gained from 2009 to 2011 gone to the top 1 percent, 99 percent gained nothing. So who do we balance the budget on? Of course you go after the middle class, go after the working class, go after low-income people. Well, maybe somebody might want to ask that 1 percent to start paying a little bit more in taxes before we cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education, and nutrition. One of the good parts of the Murray budget is that it provides $100 billion in funding to put millions of Americans back to work rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. I would have gone much higher. Because while deficit reduction is a very serious issue, it is even more important that we start putting millions of people back to work who are in desperate need of employment. The fastest way to do that is to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. One hundred billion is a good start. We need more. During the consideration of the budget resolution, I plan on offering two amendments. The first, amendment No. 264, would create a reserve fund to reduce the deficit and create jobs by eliminating offshore tax abuse by large profitable corporations. The second, amendment No. 198, would establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to protect the benefits of disabled veterans--and I speak as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee--disabled vets and their survivors by not enacting the so- called chained CPI. I am pleased that this amendment is being cosponsored by Senator Harkin and Senator Hirono. Let me take a few minutes to describe both of these amendments. At a time when corporate profits are at an all-time high, when the effective corporate tax rate is at a 40-year low, when one out of four profitable corporations pays zero in taxes, it is time for large profitable corporations to significantly contribute to deficit reduction. The first amendment I will be offering would create a reserve fund to reduce the deficit and create jobs by eliminating offshore tax abuse by large profitable corporations. In 2011, corporate revenue as a percentage of GDP was just 1.2 percent. That is lower than any other major country in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, lower than Britain, Germany, France, Japan, Canada, you name it. Each and every year, corporations and the wealthy are avoiding more than $100 billion in U.S. taxes by sheltering their income offshore. Offshore tax schemes have become so absurd that one five- story building in the Cayman Islands is now the home to more than 18,000 corporations. When the Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, and Citigroup needed a taxpayer bailout in 2008--and I did not vote for that bailout--they told us what great Americans they were, how much they love the United States of America, proud to be an American. But when it comes to paying their taxes, these large Wall Street companies are proud to be with the Cayman Islands. So my suggestion to these corporations: Next time you need a bailout, don't come to the taxpayers of America. Go to the people of the Cayman Islands and get your bailout there. But so long as you are an American company, how about helping us with deficit reduction and paying some taxes in this country? But it is not just Wall Street. You have pharmaceutical companies such as Eli Lilly and Pfizer also using offshore tax havens. Apple wants all the advantages of being an American company, but it doesn't want to pay American taxes or American wages. It creates the iPad, the iPhone, the iPod, and iTunes in the United States, manufactures most of its products in China, and then ships most of its profits to Ireland, Luxembourg, the British Virgin Islands, and other tax havens to avoid paying U.S. taxes. This is a huge issue. By the way, it is not just an American issue. It is an issue facing governments all over the world: Corporations run to tax havens, Cayman Islands, Bermuda, and elsewhere. We have got to address that issue. I am going to list for the Record 15 large profitable corporations that have used offshore tax havens to avoid paying U.S. income taxes in recent years. At the top of the list, Bank of America. In 2010, Bank of America set up more than 200 subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands to avoid paying U.S. taxes. It worked. Not only did Bank of America pay nothing in Federal income taxes but it received a rebate from the IRS of $1.9 billion that year. Before you cut Social Security and Medicaid and Medicare, do you think maybe we might want to ask Bank of America--which we bailed out, by the way--to help us with deficit reduction? General Electric during the last 5 years made $81 billion in profits. 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. Citigroup, Verizon, Honeywell International, JPMorgan Chase, Merck, Corning, Boeing, Goldman Sachs, Microsoft, Qualcomm, Caterpillar, Cisco Systems, Dow Chemicals, major profitable corporations using tax havens to avoid paying in the United States of America. We have an amendment to deal with that issue, and I hope we can have bipartisan support for that amendment. Now I want to talk about my second amendment, and now I speak as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. This amendment, No. 198, would establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to protect the benefits of disabled veterans and their survivors by not enacting the so-called chained CPI. I am pleased this amendment is being cosponsored by Senators Harkin and Hirono. The time has come for the Senate to send a very loud and clear message to the American people: We will not balance the budget on the backs of disabled veterans who have lost their arms, their legs, and their eyesight defending our country. We will not balance the budget on the backs of the men and women who have already sacrificed for us in Iraq and Afghanistan, nor on the widows who have lost their husbands in Iraq and Afghanistan defending our country. And we will not balance the budget on the backs of those who served so valiantly in World War II, the Korean war, the Vietnam war, the gulf war, and other conflicts, by cutting Social Security benefits. We will not the adopt the chained CPI. The chained CPI is forcefully opposed by every major veterans organization in this country. I have talked to many of them, and they are outraged after the sacrifices veterans have made that people want to balance the budget on their backs. All veterans organizations are in opposition to the chained CPI, and that includes of course the American Legion, the VFW, the Disabled American Veterans, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Gold Star Wives, DAV. You name the veterans organization, and they are in opposition. But it is not just the veterans organizations that oppose the chained CPI. The chained CPI is opposed by every major senior citizen group in this country--including the AARP, the largest senior group. And I understand they have been calling Members of the Senate and the House, and I hope Members will listen to what the AARP has to say--and the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, and the Alliance for Retired Americans. The chained CPI is opposed by every major union in this country. I had a press conference not so long ago with Rich Trumka of the AFL-CIO. They are strongly opposed to the chained CPI. The chained CPI is opposed by every major disability group in this country. It is opposed by the National Organization for Women, because they understand what the chained CPI would mean for women. There are some who believe that lowering costs of living adjustments--COLAs--through the adoption of a chained CPI would be just a minor tweak in benefits. 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. In one moment or another everybody here has talked about how they want to save Social Security, because they know that back home Social Security is enormously popular. In poll after poll--whether you are Democrat, Republican, Independent--what people are saying is, Don't cut Social Security. Don't cut benefits for disabled veterans. Now we are going to give Members on both sides of the aisle the opportunity to act on what they have been saying for many years. Supporters of the chained CPI want the American people to believe that the COLAs for the disabled vets, senior citizens, and the surviving spouses and children who have lost loved ones in combat are too generous. For any senior citizen who is listening to this, the theory behind the chained CPI is the benefits that you have been getting are too generous. And whenever I say this in Vermont, people start laughing. They really do. And I have to say, No, they are not kidding, they are serious. At a time when some think these benefits are too generous, we should understand that in 2 out of the last 4 years disabled vets and senior citizens did not receive any COLA at all, zero. So I guess a zero COLA is too generous. And this year's COLA of 1.7 percent is one of the lowest ever at a time when prescription drug costs for seniors are going up, health care costs for seniors are going up, heating costs in cold weather States such as mine are going up, food costs are going up. And yet seniors got a 1.7 percent COLA, and there are people who say that is much too generous. Today, more than 3.2 million disabled vets receive disability compensation benefits from the VA and would be negatively impacted by the chained CPI. Are you really ready after all the great speeches we hear--speeches of thank you to the veterans who put their lives on the line, who gave their lives defending this country--do you really want to cut those benefits for those who lost their arms, their legs, their eyesight? I hope not. Under the chained CPI, a disabled veteran who started receiving VA disability benefits at age 30 would have their benefits cut by more than $1,400 at age 45; $2,300 at age 55; and $3,200 at age 65. For our Wall Street friends, the people who make millions of dollars a year, that is not a lot of money. But for people who are trying to survive on $20,000, $25,000, $15,000 a year, that is a big hit. In my view, if you respect veterans and the sacrifices they have made, if you respect the ``greatest generation'' and what they have done to make this country great, you do not balance the budget on their backs. Let me just conclude by saying I have been to Walter Reed, and I have seen what war has done to veterans. Many of my colleagues have done the same. In Vermont we paid a very heavy price for the Iraq war. I have been to too many funerals. I know many of my colleagues have done the same. I just ask that before we support this so-called chained CPI, which will make devastating cuts on the backs of disabled veterans and senior citizens, we remember the sacrifices those people made. Let me ask unanimous consent to have printed letters in opposition to the chained CPI that I have received from the American Legion, Disabled American Veterans, Veterans of Foreign Wars and several other veterans organizations. Let me quote from a letter I received from the National Commander of the American Legion, Jim Koutz, in opposition to the chained CPI: On behalf of the 2.4 million members of The American Legion I voice our opposition to [the chained CPI] because of the harmful effects it will have on veterans' and Social Security benefits . . . Under the chained CPI, which cuts the formula used to determine the COLA for VA benefits, disabled veterans who receive this benefit would have their benefits reduced by thousands of dollars over their remaining lifetimes . . . The American Legion understands the need to restore fiscal discipline, but it should not be done by reneging on this country's promises to its veterans who already have earned these benefits through their service to country . . . For these veterans and their families, reducing the current COLA represents real sacrifice . . . We ask you not to do harm to those who have already sacrificed so much for this great nation. I ask unanimous consent to include the American Legion letter in the Congressional Record. Let me also quote a letter I received from the Executive Director of the Disabled American Veterans--DAV, Barry Jesinoski: On behalf of all disabled veterans and their families, we stand with you in firm opposition to the application of the chained CPI to disability and pension payments for veterans, dependents and survivors of veterans. In recent years, it has become apparent that even the current COLA has failed to meet the rising costs faced by disabled veterans, their dependents and survivors. Lowering VA benefit payments using a new formula designed to reduce federal spending at large seems an unconscionable policy and would threaten their financial security and must be rejected. America's heroes deserve better from a grateful and caring nation. I ask unanimous consent to print the DAV letter in the Congressional Record. Let me also quote from a letter I received in opposition to the chained CPI from the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Blinded Veterans Association, Gold Star Wives, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the Vietnam Veterans of America, and several other veterans' groups, in one letter. They came together and here is what this letter says: As efforts to address our nation's debt continue, we are writing to express our opposition to changing the formula used to calculate the annual cost of living adjustment (COLA) because of the harmful effects it will have on veterans and Social Security benefits. We agree that political leaders need to restore fiscal discipline, but we believe it should be done with great care and without reneging on this country's promises to veterans, including the promises of Social Security and VA disability compensation and pension benefits--all of which are modest in size. Many veterans who rely on these programs live on fixed incomes and very tight budgets. For them, every dollar of hard-earned benefits counts in meeting basic expenses, attaining quality of life, and building a better future for themselves and those who depend on them. For many of them, reducing the annual COLA would mean real sacrifice. We ask that you not do that for those who have already sacrificed so much for this great country. I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record. So here we are. We are in this deficit situation because of wars that were unpaid for, tax breaks for the wealthiest people in this country, Medicare Part D not paid for, and a recession caused by Wall Street. Now we have folks who are saying we have a serious deficit problem. I agree. The way we are doing it is to make devastating cuts on the backs of some of the most vulnerable people in this country, including disabled vets and including people who receive Social Security and disability benefits. I do not think that is the moral thing to do. I do not think that is the economically appropriate thing to do. When you have one out of four major corporations, huge corporations, profitable corporations paying zero in taxes; when the corporate tax rate today, the effective corporate tax rate is the lowest it has been in decades; when the gap between the very wealthy and everybody else is growing wider; there are ways to do deficit reduction that are fair. I will do everything I can to make sure that as we go forward with deficit reduction we do it in a way that is fair and not on the backs of some of the most vulnerable people in this country.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. I thank the Senator from Alabama for yielding. I also intend to vote against Jack Lew to be our next Secretary of the Treasury but, in fact, for very different reasons than my colleague from Alabama. Let me begin by stating that I have had the opportunity to speak with Jack Lew in my office on several occasions. It is very clear to me that Jack Lew is a very intelligent person. He is a very serious man. I applaud his many years of public service to our country. Furthermore, I believe that this afternoon he will be confirmed by the Senate. But I have to say that he will not be confirmed with my vote. The reason for that is that at this particular moment in American history, we find ourselves in the most difficult economic moment since the Great Depression. The reality is--and we do not talk about it too much, the media doesn't talk about it too much, but most people understand--the great middle class of this country is disappearing. Poverty is extraordinarily high. Over 46 million Americans are living in poverty. At the same time, while the middle class collapses and poverty is extraordinarily high, the wealthiest people in this country are doing phenomenally well and we are seeing recordbreaking profits for large corporations. The question is--given the fact that the Secretary of the Treasury is one of the most important positions in our Government, having enormous powers unto himself in addition to being a key adviser to the President, the question is, Is the new Secretary of Treasury prepared to take on the increasingly powerful oligarchy that controls the economic and political life of our Nation and stand with the working families of America who are being battered and beaten up every single day? I do not believe by any stretch of the imagination that Jack Lew is that person. This is the economic reality we are confronting today, and this is the economic reality we need a Secretary of Treasury to work with the American people to improve. We have the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major country on Earth, worse than at any time since before the Great Depression. Today the wealthiest 400 Americans own more wealth than the bottom half of America--150 million people. Four hundred to 150 million. Do I believe Jack Lew sees this as a serious problem he is going to address? I do not. Today one family, the Walton family--one of the major welfare beneficiaries in America because they pay their workers such low wages and provide such poor benefits that many of their workers are on Medicaid, food stamps, assisted housing--that one family owns more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of American families. Do I believe Jack Lew is going to say: Wait a minute, that doesn't make sense, we have to change those policies. No, I do not. Today the top 1 percent owns 38 percent of the wealth in America, which is incredible unto itself. But even more incredible is that the bottom 60 percent own less than 3 percent of the Nation's wealth. This is not only a moral issue, it is not only an economic issue because when you have that kind of wealth and income disparity, working families are not going to have the money to spend to buy goods and services to create jobs, it is also a political crisis because as a result of Citizens United, this 1 percent can now spend unlimited sums of money to elect those candidates who support their agenda and to create terror on the floor of the Senate on the part of any Member who is going to vote against their interests. Gee, should I vote to deal with the greed on Wall Street if Wall Street is going to pour millions of dollars against me in my reelection campaign? Do I believe Jack Lew as Secretary of Treasury is going to begin to address the issues of income inequality and wealth inequality in this country? Not for a second do I believe he will do that. While the wealthiest people are doing phenomenally well, the Federal Reserve reported last year that median net worth for middle-class families dropped by nearly 40 percent from 2007 to 2010. Can you believe that? It dropped by 40 percent. That is the equivalent of wiping out 18 years of savings for the average middle-class family. This is even more incredible, and it is absolutely important. I get tired of being one of the very few people up here who talk about it. I hope there will be some other Senators who will talk about what is, in fact, one of the major issues facing this country--income and wealth inequality. In terms of income, here is a fact that is literally beyond comprehension. The last study on this subject showed that from 2009 through 2011, 100 percent of all new income went to the top 1 percent. All of the new income generated went to the top 1 percent, while the bottom 99 percent--those include some pretty wealthy people--actually saw a loss in their income. What that tells us is that it almost doesn't matter that economic growth now is obviously low. It is not as high as we want it, but it almost doesn't matter because all of the new income generated by this economic growth is going to go to the top 1 percent. Do I think this is an issue Jack Lew is going to address? No, unfortunately, I do not. Real unemployment in this country is not what the papers report--7.8 or 7.9 percent. Real unemployment is over 14 percent if we count those people who have given up looking for work or who are working part time when they want to work full time--some 23 million people. Have I heard one word from Jack Lew about the need to come up with programs to put millions of people back to work immediately, including the young people whose unemployment rate is higher than that of the general public or people of color who are also economically suffering? I have not. Millions of people are still underwater on their mortgages, and millions more have seen the American dream of home ownership turn into a nightmare of foreclosure. The next Secretary of Treasury will be facing enormous challenges. Let me mention just a few. The next Secretary of Treasury will play a central role in regulating and overseeing Wall Street and large financial institutions. Let's never forget that as a result of the greed, recklessness, and illegal behavior on Wall Street, millions of Americans lost their jobs, their homes, their life savings, and their ability to send their kids to college. That is all attributable to the greed and recklessness and illegal behavior on Wall Street. We need a Secretary of Treasury who does not come from Wall Street but is prepared to stand up to the enormous power of Wall Street. We need a Treasury Secretary who will end the current business model of Wall Street, which is operating the largest gambling casino this world has ever seen, and demand that Wall Street start investing in a productive economy where businesses actually produce real goods and services and create jobs. Do I believe Jack Lew is going to be doing that? No, I do not. In my view, we need a Secretary of the Treasury who will understand that when the largest banks in this country have become even larger, it is time to break them up. Do I believe Jack Lew will work to break up these huge financial conglomerates? No, I do not. Today the 10 largest banks in America are bigger than they were before the financial crisis began. You may remember that we bailed out Wall Street because they were too big to fail; that if these banks went under, they would take a significant part of the American and world economies with them and the taxpayers of this country had to bail them out. Now we find that every single one of the top 10 financial institutions today is larger than they were when we bailed them out some years ago because they were too big to fail. Today the six largest financial institutions in this country-- JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and MetLife--have assets equal to two-thirds of the GDP of this country--over $9.6 trillion. Six financial institutions have assets equal to two-thirds of the GDP of the United States of America. These six financial institutions issue two-thirds of all of the credit cards, half of all of the mortgages, control 95 percent of all derivatives, and hold nearly 40 percent of all bank deposits in this country. Do I think this issue--this concern--is something Jack Lew will address? Not in a million years. While millions of Americans continue to struggle through the worst economic crisis since the 1930s, Wall Street is doing phenomenally well today. They caused the recession, we bailed them out, and now they are doing phenomenally well. Financial institutions made over $143 billion in profits in 2012. It was the most profitable year on record with the exception of 2006, just before the economic meltdown. Incredibly, the financial industry now makes almost half of all nonfarm corporate profits in the United States--up from about 10 percent in 1947. As someone who has worked hard to elect Barack Obama on two occasions, I remain extremely concerned that virtually all of his key economic advisers have come from Wall Street, and Jack Lew is no exception to that. Let me be clear. It is not just because Mr. Lew served as a chief operating officer at Citigroup during the financial crisis; it is not just because Citigroup awarded Mr. Lew a $940,000 bonus as he was leaving to join the State Department; it is not just because Citigroup received a total of $2.5 trillion in virtually zero-interest loans from the Fed or that the Treasury Department provided Citigroup with a bailout of more than $45 billion during Mr. Lew's tenure at Citigroup; I am opposed to Mr. Lew's nomination because of the views he now holds about Wall Street and the financial bailout. On September 22, 2010, when I asked Mr. Lew at a Budget Committee hearing if he believed deregulation of Wall Street significantly caused the crisis--something that almost all economists agree with--here is what he said: I don't believe that deregulation was the proximate cause. I would defer to others who are more expert about the industry to parse it better than that. At his confirmation hearing at the end of this month, Jack Lew called the Glass-Steagall Act ``anachronistic,'' and said that the Dodd-Frank Act had ``effectively'' dealt with the issue of too big to fail. I could not disagree more. In my view, we don't need another Treasury Secretary who thinks that the deregulation of Wall Street did not significantly contribute to the financial crisis. We need someone who will stand up to these huge financial institutions on behalf of the American people, small businesses, and working families and say enough is enough: Wall Street, you cannot continue to operate the way you are. The next Treasury Secretary will be the lead negotiator for the President on how to reduce the deficit, an issue we are all concerned about. Here is the issue: Do we balance the budget by cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education, nutrition, and programs that middle-income and working families depend upon? We could do it that way. Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, will come up with that proposal, and it will mean huge suffering for tens and tens of millions of families who are already hurting. That is one way we could do deficit reduction. First of all, I think that approach is way out of touch with what the American people want. The American people have been very clear: They do not want cuts in Social Security, they do not want to cut veterans programs, and they do not want to cut Medicare or Medicaid. The American people have also been clear that at a time when the wealthiest people and largest corporations are doing phenomenally well, when their effective tax rates are the lowest in decades, when they enjoy huge loopholes that enable them to avoid paying their vast share in taxes, the American people say: Those guys have got to start paying their fair share. All of us will remember a few years ago when Wall Street was on the verge of collapse because of their greed and recklessness. They came crawling to the Congress and the taxpayers of America and said: We are Americans; we love America; bail us out. Congress--against my vote-- bailed them out. Now these same corporations that told us how much they love America are not only shipping our jobs to China and other countries, they are stashing their profits in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, and other tax havens and avoiding their responsibility as taxpayers. Offshore tax schemes have become so absurd that one five- story office building in the Cayman Islands is now the home to more than 18,000 corporations. Everybody knows what that is about. All that is is a mail drop for corporations. They don't exist there; they are just using that address as a means to avoid paying taxes to the United States and other countries. Let me give a few examples of some of these large corporations and what they have done to avoid paying American taxes at a time when revenue today, as a percentage of GDP, is almost at the lowest it has been in decades. The choice is to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, or ask enormously profitable corporations to stop using loopholes to avoid paying taxes. I will give just a few examples, although I could give many examples. In 2010, the Bank of America--one of the largest financial institutions in this country, an institution bailed out by the working families of this country when they were on the verge of collapse--set up more than 200 subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands, which, by the way, has a corporate tax rate of zero, so they can avoid paying U.S. taxes. How is that? We bail them out, they run to the Cayman Islands, set up 200 separate subsidiaries in order to avoid paying taxes to America. It is time for Congress and it is time for the Secretary of Treasury to address that issue. In a million years do I think Jack Lew is prepared to do that? No, I don't. We need a Secretary of Treasury who will do that. Not only did the Bank of America pay nothing in Federal income taxes, but in 2010 it received a rebate from the IRS worth $1.9 billion that year. They pay nothing in taxes, they are enormously profitable, they were bailed out by the American people, and then they get a rebate from the IRS for almost $2 billion. Then people say: We don't have enough revenue; we have to cut Social Security; we have to cut nutrition programs for hungry children. Yet when one of the largest financial institutions in the country gets a rebate and doesn't pay any taxes, at least for some of my colleagues, that is okay. In 2010, JPMorgan Chase operated 83 separate subsidiaries incorporated in offshore tax havens to avoid paying some $4.9 billion in U.S. taxes. That same year Goldman Sachs operated 39 subsidiaries in offshore tax havens to avoid an estimated $3.3 billion in U.S. taxes. Citigroup--where Mr. Lew actually worked--has paid no Federal income taxes for the last 4 years after establishing 25 subsidiaries in offshore tax havens. On and on it goes. Wall Street, which was bailed out by the American workers, caused the recession, is now enormously profitable. Its CEOs get huge compensation packages, but when it comes to paying their taxes, suddenly they love the Cayman Islands. My suggestion is that the next time these crooks destroy their banks and need to be bailed out, let them go to the Government of the Cayman Islands to get their bailout and not the taxpayers of the United States of America. Let me conclude by talking about trade for a moment because the Secretary of the Treasury gets involved heavily in trade issues. Trade is not a sexy issue, but it is an enormously important issue. I think it is important for all of us to understand that our current, unfettered, free-trade policy has been an unmitigated disaster for the working people of this country. Last year our trade deficit was more than $540 billion. Permanent normal trade relations with China-- remember when that came up? Oh, my goodness, we are going to open up the Chinese market, we are going to create all kinds of jobs in the United States, we are going to sell all of our products to the large population in China. Well, not quite. Not quite. PNTR with China led to the loss of nearly 3 million American jobs, and the NAFTA agreement led to the loss of nearly 1 million American jobs as large multinationals continue to throw American workers out on the street and move to China, Mexico, and other countries where workers are paid pennies an hour. In 2008, I supported then-Senator Barack Obama when he told the AFL- CIO in Philadelphia the following: What I refuse to accept is that we have to sign trade deals like the South Korea Agreement that are bad for workers. What I oppose--and what I have always opposed--are trade deals that put the interest of multinational corporations ahead of the interests of American workers--like NAFTA, and CAFTA, and permanent normal trade relations with China. And I'll also oppose the Colombia Free Trade Agreement if President Bush insists on sending it to Congress because the violence against unions in Colombia would make a mockery of the very labor protections that we have insisted be included in these kind of agreements. So you can trust me when I say that whatever trade deals we negotiate when I'm President will be good for American workers, and they'll have strong labor and environmental protections that we'll enforce. That was Barack Obama, candidate for President in 2008. Unfortunately, President Obama signed those bad trade deals into law while Mr. Lew was the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. As a result, more American jobs have been lost and our trade deficits for all of those countries have gone up. In my view, we need a Secretary of Treasury who will work to fundamentally rewrite our trade policies to ensure that American jobs are no longer our No. 1 export. Do I believe Jack Lew will be that person? Not a chance. I will conclude by simply saying this: This country faces the most difficult economic times since the Great Depression. Tens of millions of working families, seniors, and children are struggling every single day to keep their heads above water while the wealthiest people are doing phenomenally well and large multinational corporations are enjoying record-breaking profits. Because of all the money Wall Street and these large profitable corporations have, they are investing in the political process, putting in huge amounts of money--hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars--to elect candidates who will represent their interests and not the interests of the average American. Now is the time to have people in the Obama administration who are going to stand with the American people, stand with workers, stand with seniors, and have the courage to take on the big money interests that are causing so many problems for our Nation. In my view, Jack Lew is not that person and I will vote against him becoming our next Secretary of Treasury. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. I will.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I say to my friend that he is right when he said that I oppose the Lew nomination also. I oppose his nomination for different reasons than he does, and I will speak later on that issue. From my perspective, at a time when the middle class is disappearing, when we have 46 million people living in poverty, when we have the most unequal distribution of wealth and income since the Great Depression, we need a Secretary of Treasury who is going to stand up for working families and be prepared to take on Wall Street. He needs to be prepared to change our disastrous trade policies, be prepared to defend Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the safety net that is so important to tens of millions of Americans. That is my objection to Mr. Lew. I agree with my friend from Alabama that deficit reduction is a serious issue. Where we disagree is that I don't believe we balance a budget on the backs of the elderly, the children, the sick, and the poor. I ask my friend to take a look at the Cayman Islands and Bermuda. Take a look at all the corporations making record-breaking profits and stashing their money in the Cayman Islands. For what purpose? To avoid paying taxes to the U.S. Government. The Senator and I have met with the parents of young men and women who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that is called patriotism. It is not called patriotism when corporations run to the Cayman Islands to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

Mr. SANDERS. I thank my friend from Alabama, and with that, I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. I thank my colleague from Arkansas for yielding. When we talk about sequestration, when we talk about deficit reduction, it is important to put that discussion in a broader context. The broader context needs to be, No. 1, what is the fairest way to move toward deficit reduction and what is the best approach in terms of economic policy making our country strong and creating jobs. I fear very much the debate we are currently having has very little to do with financial issues. I believe it has a lot to do with ideology. It is all about economic winners and losers in our country. It is all about the power of big money. It is all about the soul of what America is supposed to be. You may have noticed there was a poll done. I can't remember who did it, but it was consistent with all the other polls I have seen. They asked the American people: Are you concerned about deficit reduction? Do you think we should cut Social Security and Medicare? Overwhelmingly, Democrats said no, Republicans said no. Yet here in the Congress, surrounded by lobbyists and campaign contributors who are very wealthy, that is where we are heading. We are heading toward a so-called chained CPI, which very few people outside the beltway understand. This will mean cuts, significant cuts in Social Security and in benefits for disabled veterans. The American people say we think the wealthiest people in this country should help us with deficit reduction, protect the safety net. In Congress, there is a fierce attack by the Republicans and some Democrats on the safety net. To a large degree, we are allowing large corporations, that are enjoying very low effective tax rates, to get away with what they are doing. When we talk about who should help us with deficit reduction, we need to look at what is going on economically in the United States of America. We don't discuss this issue enough. We need more people coming down to the floor to talk about it. We have the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major country on Earth, and the gap between the very wealthy and everyone else is growing wider. Today, the wealthiest 400 individuals in this country own more wealth than the bottom half of American people, 150 million people. You have 150 million here, you have 400 over there. Who do you think should pick up the burden of deficit reduction? Should we go after children who are having a hard time getting the nutrition they need or seniors who can't afford prescription drugs? Yes, we could do that. Is that a moral thing to do? No. Is that good economics? No. Today, one family, the Walton family of Walmart, is probably the most major welfare beneficiary in America. So many of their low-paid employees are on Medicaid, food stamps or other Federal programs. This one family owns more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of the American people. Do you know what we did a couple months ago? We gave the Walton family a tax break by expanding the estate tax. Today, the top 1 percent owns 38 percent of all financial wealth--1 percent owns 38 percent. The bottom 60 percent owns less than 3 percent of all wealth. What do we think? Do we want to go after the bottom 60 percent, families who are making $25,000, $30,000 a year, falling further and further behind? Do we want to take away the educational opportunities and the nutrition their kids can get? Yes, we may do it that way. Maybe it makes more sense to go after the top 1 percent who are doing phenomenally well. Do you know what. The vast majority of Americans agree with that, but this Congress does not reflect the interests of the vast majority of the American people. It is not the American people who are funding the campaigns for Members of the Senate and the House. It is not the average American who has well-paid lobbyists all over this place. As Warren Buffett has pointed out, the 400 richest Americans are now worth a record-breaking $1.7 trillion, more than 5 times what they were worth two decades ago. While the wealthiest people are becoming even richer, the Federal Reserve reported last year that median net worth for middle-class families dropped by nearly 40 percent from 2007 to 2010, dropped by 40 percent. That is the equivalent of wiping out 18 years of savings for the average middle-class family. Whom do we go after? Do we think it makes any economic or moral sense to go after a middle class which is disappearing or maybe do we ask the wealthiest people in this country--who are doing phenomenally well--to help us with deficit reduction? As bad as wealth inequality is, the distribution of income, what people make every year is even worse. It is an amazing statistic, and I hope everybody pays attention to this. The last study on the subject of income distribution showed that from 2009 to 2011, the last study we have, 100 percent of all new income went to the top 1 percent, while the bottom 99 percent actually saw a loss in their income. In a sense it doesn't matter, given that incredible imbalance in income, what kind of economic growth we have. All the gains are going to go to the top 1 percent. I have some friends over in the House, our Republican friends, who are saying: No, no, no. We can't ask these people to help us more with deficit reduction. I think that is very wrong. When we are talking about how to reduce the deficit--and we all want to do that--we need to understand we can't get blood out of a stone. We can't ask people who are earning less and in many cases working longer hours. We can't ask the 14 percent of Americans who are unemployed. If we add people who have given up looking for work and people who are working part-time, we cannot get blood out of a stone. As Willy Sutton the bank robber reminded us, you go where the money is. In this case, all the money and all the income gains are with the top 1 percent. The other point that needs to be made is we need to ask the question of how we reached the place we are right now. No. 1, we need to ask who is best able to help us with deficit reduction. It is surely not the struggling middle class. It is surely not the disabled veterans and their families. It is surely not elderly people who can't afford prescription drugs. It is surely not kids who don't have enough to eat. The second question we need to ask is how did we get to where we are today. Did this deficit just arrive yesterday? I think we all remember that in the last year of the Clinton administration this country had a $236 billion surplus, a surplus. The economists were projecting that the surplus would expand, expand, and expand. What happened from the year 2000 to 2013 so that we went from a very significant surplus to a very serious deficit? That needs to be understood when we talk about sequestration and deficit reduction. The answer is, as everybody knows, we went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. A strange thing happened. We forgot to pay for those two wars. When we go into two wars and we are taking care of all those veterans who have been hurt, that adds up to something like $3 trillion by the time we take care of the last veteran, as we must. During the Bush administration, we gave huge tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this country, didn't offset it. That adds up. We passed the Medicare Part D prescription drug program, didn't pay for that. That adds up. Most important, because of the greed, recklessness, and illegal behavior on Wall Street, we were plunged into a major recession, high unemployment, businesses going under, less tax revenue coming into the Federal coffers. I know my Republican friends say cut, cut, cut, cut benefits for disabled vets, cut Social Security, cut Medicaid, cut nutrition, cut Head Start. We could do it that way, but we should also understand that at 15.8 percent as compared to GDP, the percentage of GDP, our revenue is almost the lowest it has been in 60 years. Yes, in the middle of a recession we are spending a lot of money making sure people don't go hungry, making sure people who lost their jobs have unemployment benefits, making sure people have affordable housing. It is true. What is also true is that at 15.8 percent, as a percentage of GDP, our revenue is less, almost less than it has been in 60 years. Today, not only are we seeing a growing gap between the very wealthy and everybody else, it is important to take a look at large corporations. When we do, we find that corporate profits are at an alltime high, while corporate income tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is near a record low. Profits are soaring, and the effective tax rate is near a record low. In 2011, corporate revenue as a percentage of GDP was just 1.2 percent lower than any other major country in the OECD, including Great Britain, Germany, France, Japan, Canada, et cetera. Corporate revenue as a percentage of GDP is 1.2 percent lower than any other major country in the OECD. In 2011, corporations paid 12 percent of their profits in taxes, the lowest since 1972. We have a choice. Do we go after the elderly? Do we go after the sick? Do we go after the children? Do we go after the poor or maybe do we say that when corporate profits are at a record level and their effective tax rate is the lowest since 1972, maybe we say to corporate America, hey, help us with deficit reduction. The last figures we have seen on this issue is that in 2005, one out of four major corporations paid no income tax at all while they collected over $1 trillion of revenue over that 1-year period.

Mr. SANDERS. Let me conclude by simply saying we are losing $100 billion a year from tax havens in the Cayman Islands and elsewhere. There are ways to do deficit reduction without hurting the most vulnerable people in this society. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I submit to the record these essays written by Vermont High School students as part of the Third Annual ``What is the State of the Union?'' Essay contest conducted by my office. These 13 finalists were selected from over 300 entries. Riley Forbes, Mt. Abraham Union High School (Finalist) The most important issue for the government to solve today is human rights. Everybody deserves equal opportunities in life. The State and Federal Government should help to make sure that everyone is free from torture, has the right to adequate food, clothing and housing, and has the right to health care. The most significant issue for the government to solve today is human rights. Human rights are the basic rights that everyone who is human has. Human rights are important for everyone in the world to have. An important right is the right to have basic items, adequate clothing, food and housing. The United Nations has a right that gives everyone the basic items that they need, (clothing, food and housing). Whereas the United States does not have a right giving everyone basic supplies that is needed to live. ``A man in India without access to clean water dies of a treatable disease'' (Pinheiro). Everyone deserves adequate clothing, food, water and housing, but the problem is that these things are limited. There are homeless shelters and water, but there may not be enough for everyone. The Government should try to help provide people with the basic needs that are needed to survive. The government should act to protect all people from torture. The United Nations and the United States believe that people should have the right to be safe from torture. A guard watches as a man is assaulted by an inmate in a jail Texas (Pinheiro). This man gets assaulted and the guard does nothing. The guard is watching; he should help to protect the people and not let them suffer even though they are in jail. The Government should pay attention and try to help people feel free and safe from torture. In order for everyone to get a long life, people need to have their basic needs. The United Nations and the United States do not have any kind of right that says that everyone should have healthcare or be able to have health care. Obamacare will allow more people health insurance that they can afford (Marston). People who couldn't afford health care before now have a health care that is more affordable. The Government is helping to provide people the access to an affordable health insurance. The Government should help to support the people and their rights. Bibliography: Pinhiero, P.S. Choices Program On-line Scholar Brown University, Real Lives Computer Game. Marston, C. Class Notes. MAUHS: Bristol, VT. November 2012 Damon Fulcher, South Royalton High School (Finalist) The state of the Union is the most difficult to decipher in years. We, as a nation, are stuck in a time where the war in Afghanistan is dwindling, and we're trying to climb out of an abysmal fiscal pit. In a nation that has made its name for moving forward, controversies over human rights like the right to marry and the right to have an abortion are still as prevalent as ever. However, all is not lost, and this great nation will continue to forge on, despite these setbacks. The land of the free still does not grant rights to every group of people. Gay marriage is one of the most hotly debated subjects in our country right now. Even though our Constitution states that all men are created equal, we as a nation do not always abide by this principle. Half of the American population is brushing a group of people under the rug, just because they have a different sexual orientation than themselves. The most recent example of this is North Carolina amending its state constitution to say that same-sex couples do not have the right to marry. This act takes the issue to a whole new level past legality. However, not all is bad. Several more states have begun adding to the pool where same-sex couples have the right to marry. The United States' highest court is taking on a case concerning a California proposition to ban gay marriage. This case will decide the fate of the issue in the years to come. Unfortunately, the most serious issue our country faces is not even marriage equality. The most pressing issue currently is the economy. The great debate is whose taxes should be cut and whose taxes should be raised. The nation is greatly divided along partisan lines in this respect. These opinions are exemplified by our current President Barack Obama and our Speaker of the House John Boehner. One believes that taxes should be raised on the wealthy and cut on the middle class and the other, vice versa. This is the nation's problem. We simply need to get over which party we are a part of and work toward a common goal. There is guaranteed success if all of Congress works together to move forward. The current state of the Union is complex, containing many positives and negatives. With the idea in mind that working together is necessary for the betterment of this nation, the President and Congress will move forward and fix the dilemmas that this country faces. Benjamin Gilbert, Milton High School (Finalist) This country faces one of the most important stages of change and development it has ever seen. The decisions we make as a nation in the next few years will shape not only the future of our own lives, but the lives of every citizen of this world. We won't be able to do this unless we come together. We are humans. It is in our nature to disagree. We are a democracy. It is a democracy's nature to disagree. Disagreement is a sign of a thriving democracy. It is also in our nature to solve problems, to be civil, to be fair, and to provide for a better tomorrow. In the coming years, we need more doctors and researchers, to finally find a cure for cancer. We need more books to inspire. We need more businesspeople to meet to the new age markets. We need teachers, and lawyers. We need successful young people to inherit this country. However, this will not be possible with the rising costs of higher education. The cost of sending a child to college is the highest it has ever been. If we as a country decide not to act, we cannot hope to make a better tomorrow for ourselves or for our children. In a state of economic turmoil, cuts have to be made. The military has been allowed to spend almost without limit. The funds that will keep Americans safe and soldiers well equipped should not be touched, but the endless spending must stop. Anything that is not absolutely vital and necessary for the safety, protection, and justice of the American people ought to be reevaluated. Since its foundation, America has been the birthplace for equality. From George Washington fighting against the oppression of a monarchy, to Martin Luther King working towards a more civil existence, to Alice Paul screaming for the right to vote. Each step has helped open the door to equality. Each day we are tested, and each day we must answer history's call to change. Gay men and women have been quieted for centuries. But their time is here. No federal ban on love will stop the dawn of equality that is breaking upon this nation. This is not about Republicans or Democrats, religions, or politics, but about American people who love and cherish one another. We have a broken system. Today, it is far too difficult to receive mental healthcare. It is easier to get your hands on an assault weapon than visit a doctor. We have seen in the past decade that this inequality leads to a tragic and horrific reality. Assault weapons are made for the military, and should be reserved exclusively for that purpose. Most importantly, those in need of mental healthcare should have access to it. We must forget about the politics and money, and focus on the lives of Americans who are in danger every day. I have high hopes for the future of this country. We are all different. We are often very divided. However, we are strongest when we stand together. Liam Hayes, Vergennes Union High (Finalist) Today our country is facing many problems that require the attention of not only the leaders in Washington, but the American people as well. As a teenager I believe the two most important issues are unemployment and our education system. I know that these issues are affecting our country, mainly in its overall growth. First, I feel that our unemployment rate is quite unacceptable. However, in the past year it has been lowering slowly by the month. Although it may seem like a substantial amount, the area of the nation I live in continues to struggle to find jobs for students graduating college and for people retraining to new careers. I believe to continue this progress over the coming years America needs to look at the national picture of what jobs are there, what new jobs could serve a need for products and industry and what skills these new industries will require Americans to have. Lastly, I think that when it comes to education in this great nation, the statistics and rankings don't lie. In math, science, and writing, the US is in the lower half when compared to other nations. If you look at statistics, compared to others, we are a more developed country. I am sure there are many things that we can do as a country to climb higher in the tables. I truly think that if there wasn't a long summer break, and there were one or two week breaks frequently throughout the course of the year to take place of the large summer break. I think this would help because the long summer break leaves ridiculous amounts of time to forget everything you have learned in the school year. I also think that Americans have requirements for a second spoken language and to promote challenging classes throughout our schooling experience. If education is truly the key to our future, it needs to give us not only the basics, but the skills to problem solve, create and be the architects of America's new future. Christie Kershaw, South Burlington High School (Finalist) I believe our nation has shown much improvement over the past year. Job growth rates have been increasing and businesses have been getting back on their feet after an economic low point. Even with these developments, there are many more aspects that need to be addressed and improved. I believe that as a country, the biggest issues we should be focusing on are improving the state of our environment and making college more affordable for students. In my opinion, our government isn't taking the issue of global climate change as seriously as it should be. We are no longer able to turn our backs on this difficult issue because we are already starting to see signs of its negative impacts on us. With major droughts this summer in the Midwest and powerful storms like Super storm Sandy, it's clear to see that our climate is becoming more unpredictable and deadly, and the root cause of this is from climate change. There haven't been enough major moves put into effect by our government to combat this issue and I believe that both political parties should work closer together to come to an agreement on how do this. There should be tighter regulations on the amount of greenhouse gases factories can emit, higher miles per gallon standards for new cars, and more money put into the development of renewable energy sources. In order to make advancements in the field of green energy to slow down climate change, there must be scientists who are able to do the work. But we may soon be seeing a decrease in the number of these people because increasing costs for post- secondary education make it difficult for those who want to pursue a career in the sciences, or any other field, to do so. In order to ensure that our country will have enough highly educated citizens to help bring our nation closer to solving our energy crisis, we need to make college more affordable for everyone. Universities must lower their tuition costs and have more scholarships and grants for a wide range of students. If our government made loans easier to get with lower interest rates, this would also help remedy this problem. This particular issue is especially important to me because, as I start my college career in less than a year, I will be spending a lot of time worrying about how I will be able to pay for my education. Many other students feel the same way as me and some may have to postpone their plans for higher education. A decrease in college-educated citizens is not what our country needs right now. These two issues of climate change and post-secondary education affordability are to me the most important on the list of many our country is facing. If both political parties work together, they will be able to resolve these issues in the near future. Sonia Lowen, Champlain Valley Union High School (Finalist) The United States of America is the most powerful nation in the entire world but it's currently facing severe issues. The financial crash of 2008 resulted in the most disastrous economy since the 1930's Great Recession. Climate change is creating extreme weather disasters and destroying nature. Not to mention that there is more income inequality in present day than ever before. These are only a select few because the list of issues goes on. The good news is that solutions are accessible but the bad news is that as long as corporate lobbyists continue to corrupt legislators, they will never be reached. The United States Congress needs to stop allowing corporate corruption. The American economy is beginning to show signs of recovery but it still has a long way to go. Millions are out of a job and the government has a $16 trillion debt hovering over their heads. The end of this recession is not going to come fast, but there are provisions that will begin to facilitate it, such as raising taxes not only on the rich but on the corporations as well. This will cause more of their money to go towards helping the government rather than manipulating it. America is not the only place being affected by climate change but that does not, in any way, constitute sitting back and hoping someone else will fix it. The United States makes up 2% of the world's population yet they use 25% of the world's resources. The environment's safety is dependent on Congress to create new laws that will further regulate manufacturers to reduce harmful emissions. America's economy and climate would prosper greatly if they invested time and money into green energy. Unfortunately, automobile and other corporate lobbyists refuse to let that happen because they can make more money manufacturing oil-powered products. Corporate lobbying has corrupted what the Constitution deems as the most powerful branch of government. Much of the legislation that is passed is beneficial to industries, whereas much of the legislation that would be beneficial to the general population is rejected. The corporations have gained this unhealthy amount of power by guaranteeing members of Congress a future job in the private sector in exchange for legislation that will favor whichever industry and/or corporation they represent. It is a gross injustice of congressional power. The United States of America is at a fork in the road: they can either choose to take a step in the right direction and work for the interests of the people, or they can take a leap in the wrong direction and work in the interests of corporations. The country's future prosperity will be a result of that decision. It is crucial that the government abolishes corporate lobbying and strives to serve the people this nation was built for. This will not be easy, but it is critical in the process of rebuilding America. Alexandra McFarland, Woodstock Union High School (Finalist) As we have seen throughout our country over the past few years, climate change is greatly affecting weather patterns. In 2011 Vermont was hit by Hurricane Irene which devastated much of the state and resulted in destroyed roads and homeless families. In 2012 Hurricane Sandy came ashore in New Jersey and New York changing even more of our fellow Americans' lives with massive destruction. Last year snowfall here in the Green Mountains was nearly half of the annual average. This year we have already seen two major snowstorms and snow levels are already approaching and surpassing the total snowfall of last year. We have to be concerned with these extreme weather changes. Weird weather may now be normal weather and scientists predict such patterns only worsening in the future unless we take action. Climate change is a great problem that the United States, although on the surface has attempted to tackle, needs to face head on. We need to once again be world leaders. Our first step is to launch a nationwide campaign, as there remains a huge portion of the population who still believe climate change is simply a myth, to help folks understand the complex science. Second, our nation needs to support scientific research and publicize new discoveries that could help to better our understanding of the climate change crisis as well as create and implement new green technologies to combat it. We need to establish a national plan to reduce our energy use. The 350 Initiative, started by environmental activist Bill McKibben, is a great goal for our nation to strive toward. Through awareness and education programs that will lead us to conserve as well as the development of new and innovative green technologies, we will reduce atmospheric carbon levels to a more sustainable level of 350 parts per million by the year 2050. Scientists have shown that 350 is a safe upper limit for the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. The 350 plan puts a solid number that we can strive to achieve on a concept that so often feels much too great to tackle. As one of the largest economies and one of the largest consumers of fossil fuels, we should be a leader in changing the way people around the globe think about our climate. It's not simply here for us to use at will. It's here for us to take care of and preserve for generations to come. These are feats that our country has the resources, the will power and the ingenuity to tackle. We will not sit back and watch as extreme weather washes over our great nation. As we have in the past, we will face our worst problems and we will overcome them. Rachel Moore, South Royalton Middle/High School (Finalist) My family is like most families in Vermont: middle-class citizens. Both my parents work to pay taxes and to put meals on the table for my two brothers and me. Sometimes barely getting by is all we can do. Life is not what it used to be. When it is time for taxes to be paid for, it is always the hardest, but we skim by. Taxes are killers to lower and middle class citizens. I think the government should address this problem in full detail. It is time to be fair and to put the money back into the economy. In my opinion, when the President gives his State of the Union speech, he should promise to raise taxes for the rich and lower them for the poor. Lower-class citizens pay taxes like everyone else. The difference between them and higher classes is their income. Lower-class citizens do not receive a lot of income. Therefore they have a harder time supporting their families. There is a reason why so many people are losing their homes. And most of those people are lower-class citizens. When the President makes his State of the Union address, he, in my opinion, should promise to raise taxes on the rich and lower them for the poor. It is not fair that lower-class people work twice as hard to keep their home, and to pay for food, when higher-class citizens do not have to work as hard and they do not need to worry. Lower-class citizens are not the only ones who suffer from taxes. Middle-class citizens also suffer from taxes. They have to work harder to support their families than the higher-class. Being a part of the middle-class group, I have experienced the effects taxes have on our lives. Sometimes skimming by is all my family is capable of doing. I have sat at the table watching my mom write out and pay all her bills. I frequently wish that I were rich, so I could support all my family members and to get them to a better state. But wishing has not done much for me, so I gave up. But now I have turned my head to the President and his colleagues. Maybe my plea can be heard by them, to lower taxes on the poor and raise it on the rich. I want to live an American dream, not just dream it. The more you raise taxes on the lower-class, which is the majority of Americans, the less money will go back into the economy. Tax the people who can spare an extra dollar, not the people who depend on that dollar for a meal. In my opinion, taxes should be raised on the rich and lowered for the poor. Lower and middle classes have a hard time supporting their families because of taxes. What about that American dream people talk so much about? How will future generations be able to live that dream if they cannot even buy a house? It is time to do something, so, in my opinion, when the President makes his State of the Union address he should promise to lower taxes on the poor and raise them to the rich. Derryk O'Grady, Milton High School (Finalist) My fellow Americans, we need to remember the tragic events that occurred in Newtown, Connecticut, change in gun control laws must happen. Unfortunate events like this can separate weak countries and divide them, but we are different. A tragic incident like this makes us more aware and stronger. As we move forward, we will use this as a learning experience to make this country safer by decreasing the ability to own a gun. In addition to gun control, the following are other major topics of concern. First, we are in major national debt. Second, unemployment rates are reaching an unbearable high. Third we need to use more green energy and save more of the world's oil. Lastly, the cost of the education is incredibly high and still increasing. We must find solutions to these issues and I believe I can do it. We need to better our international relationships. We need to stop involving ourselves in wars. Wars are a heavy burden, and over the past twelve years, we spent $3.7 trillion and by the end, possibly $4.4 trillion. This money does not need to be spent. We need to take care of our own business, impose higher taxes on the wealthy, and save money from wars. More jobs need to be created for our country. The national unemployment rate is around 7.7%, and in 2010, we reached 9.8%. A steady decline has to continue to happen. The more people in this country working, the more revenue we can bring. This will help chip away at the debt because the more people working making money, the more money they can spend. This series of working, making money, and putting it back into the economy is what we need to create a surplus. America's oil dependency is on a slight decrease since president Obama took office. We have limited the use of other countries oil by depending more on ourselves and this saves money. We need to find more ways of using renewable energy such as wind power, solar power, and hydro power: fossil fuel is not everlasting, while renewable energy is. We tell high school students that they need to go to college to reach success, but then we throw them in debt. The prices for college are astronomically high and continue to increase. The average price for an in-state student is $22,000 a year. How many students can afford to spend $88,000? The answer is easy: not many. We need to find a standard price range for colleges to work with. As we grow as a nation, I promise we will find answers. Our nation can overcome any challenge. Nothing brings this country down. We will keep fighting these battles until we have reached our goals. Thank you, and may God bless you all. Saleban Olow, Winooski High School (Finalist) Dear President Obama, Senator Sanders, and Fellow Americans, From the birth of America, to America today, the driving force and the heart of America has always been the American success story. The United States of America is a country of opportunity and accomplishment. We believe in our country and our government. We believe that we will eventually succeed, overcoming any obstacles that we face. Our government and the entrepreneurs creating jobs made our country the best among the world, but new issues have appeared from the unemployment rate to the cost of college tuition to gun control. These are what we need to address. Perhaps the biggest problem we face as a nation is the current rate of unemployment. According to the ``Department of Numbers,'' during the November of 2012, the unemployment rate is down to 7.7 percent of people in the United States. This means that over 12 million Americans are jobless, including my mom. Many American families are losing their jobs because companies obtain their jobs. Companies and wealthy people are getting richer and those from the middle class and poverty levels are falling toward and below the poverty line. This is particularly true given the fact that the dollar is not worth what it was in the past. As a result, inflation is boosting up the price of all goods and services. As unemployment has been rising, the cost of education is increasing. Today, American colleges have imposed an extraordinary increase in tuition. Additionally, there are also issues such as gay rights, Social Security, illegal immigration and the War on Terror. In spite of these factors, many students in the United States look for higher education after high school. They want to go to college and have a good career. If the government's influence results in increasing college costs, then students like ``ME'' will not be able to afford college. The average family cannot fully support their child's tuition costs. Our parents' incomes are spent paying for college debt. While many college graduates remain jobless, they still must face debts of more than 90K dollars. For our newly hatching generation, I believe that college tuition should be cheaper for everyone no matter what economic level the family is. Regarding another critical issue, each year thousands of Americans lose their lives through gun related problems. Guns are designed to kill people easily and many lives are lost each year because the United States doesn't have strict gun control laws. The deadly massacre shooting at a Connecticut elementary school was heartbreaking. The outcome of this tragedy resulted in the deaths of 20 children and 6 adults, a painful scenario. Beautiful little kids between the ages of 4 and 9 years were slaughtered. It is my strong opinion that the government should pass a gun law that would reduce gun problems. President Obama and fellow lawmakers, I feel you need to be creative and figure out a better way to ensure young kids' safety. By choosing you, the United States is going in the right direction for a better future. In conclusion, the challenges that we face with unemployment, college tuition and gun control are ones that we must currently address. We must make significant changes in order to progress. The success of our nation must be made by building upon our society. As in the past, we can and always will work hard and make America and the world a better place. God bless the United States of America. Robert Pennypacker, St. Johnsbury Academy (Finalist) This year's Tax Rate for the richest are the lowest this Country has ever seen! Today's tax rate means that person making $379,150 pays the same tax as a person making seven million dollars. Thirty years ago this was different. In 1981 there were 16 tax brackets. Today there are six. The highest tax bracket for today's federal income tax is 35% for a person making $379,150 or more. That means you're taxing a small business owner the same rate as a giant corporation president like General Electric's Chairman and CEO Jeffrey Immelt who has a salary of 3.3 million dollars as of 2011. If and when the tax rate increases for the rich like many Americans want, it will not hurt the economy like the GOP is stating. Last September, the Congressional Research Service published a report countering Republican claims that lowering top tax rates would lead, or had led, to higher economic growth. ``Changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal rate and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth,'' the report concluded. Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell responded by having the report suppressed, but its findings were incontrovertible. This shows that, with the rise in taxes for the upper class, it will not affect the economy like many Republicans are stating. Also, we are at war with the Taliban and yet we still have lower taxes than ever before. How are we paying to support this war? Never before has the United States had lower taxes during a war. In 1943, during WWII, the tax rate for a person making $2,593,984 (adjusted for inflation) was 88%. In that same year a person making $155,000 (adjusted for inflation) was 38%. During the Vietnam War, in 1966, the tax rate for a person making $629,530 (adjusted for inflation) was 70%. Also, in that same year, a person making $83,104 (adjusted for inflation) was 36%. Today's tax rate, as of 2011, for a person making $379,150 is 35%. A person making 1.1 million dollars tax rate pay the same 35%. Should a person making $379,150 pay the same rate as multi- millionaires? No they shouldn't. Why do we have the lowest taxes ever in the United States and yet be in a war? The United States should have taxes similar to years before. The middle class should pay the same rate. The rates for the middle class have stayed within the same percentage for the last 70 years. Meanwhile the upper class has gone from a 90 percent tax rate in the 1940's and 50's to 70 percent from 1960's through 1981, and 50 percent in 1982 through 1986. Now they have a 35 percent tax rate which is the same as a middle class citizen. The United States should raise the taxes of the rich. Rebecca Potter, Brattleboro Union High School (Finalist) Congress is dysfunctional because of priority discrepancies. Some in our government seem to believe that holds, filibusters, and less legal tactics of delay and obstruction serve as necessary means to a greater GOP- dominated end. Others argue that while disagreement is key in a true democracy, so is compromise. Certain members of the Senate, where unanimous consent remains relevant in the scheduling and timing of legislation, stand by ``holding'' the Senate's progress on a bill or committee action. Others point out that this is 2012, where a hold in Senate exists as a euphemism for indefinite or permanent vetoes, often done in secret. In both houses, many forget that the true party holding the majority in Congress is the white, heterosexual, wealthy men. While Congress' dysfunction directly correlates with the partisan gridlock we've been witnessing over the past four years, this has more to do with flaws in the system itself rather than the puppets within it. Sure, people are selfish and want the connections voting a certain way or hiring a specific set of hands will bring--but what ingenious economic system provides the impetus for such action? Capitalism, at the root of it all, enables members of Congress and the wealthy holding the strings above them to exist as money- motivated figures of power. The privatization of education, healthcare, and human services creates the legislative standstill we've got in Congress, which dedicates an absurd amount of time to arguing over non-issues in a partisan lock. This allows legislation that matters often gets nixed in committee or shoved through without necessary debate. Capitalist society has created a dysfunctional Congress, and until we fix the system we will keep getting the same results. The bandage for this infectious situation is compromise in the Senate and House of Representatives-- impending compromise, I predict, what with a certain cliff looming over our heads. Antibiotics for a more permanent change would mean a re-evaluation of everything we've grown up being told was ``American'': federalized elections, spending limits on campaigns, socialized care for humans and our unalienable rights (health, education, safety), and public ownership of the land of the free. Austin Price, Mt. Anthony Union High School (Finalist) My fellow Americans, Our country is evolving and changing in ways it has never before. We can either adjust or get left in the past. America was once the greatest power in the world and I believe we can get back to that, but we must take hold and lead with force. Although we are on the path back, we still need to focus on our military, economy, and civil rights. Our military is the backbone of our success as a nation. With over nine hundred military bases internationally, we need our military to be strong as ever to protect our trading partners as well as us. The necessary changes that must be made are to increase our presence in the countries that are filled with enemies of the state and looking to do harm to the United States and its citizens. We must increase the spending budget for the military so that we will maintain our internationally renowned army. We as a country have the responsibility to not only protect our rights, but to protect the civil rights of others who don't have the ability themselves. Further, we are in one of the greatest recessions since the Great Depression; we face unprecedented challenges as a nation to get back on top. If any country can come out of a depression and be even stronger than before, it is America, the home of the brave. Were the spending in any sector to increase, then there would be a huge influx of jobs that were created by all that new money. A higher tax rate for the wealthiest of Americans will help this nation get out of the greatest debt it has ever been in. It is time for everyone to pay their fair share. Although the taxes do need to be increased, increasing the taxes on small business owners will only hurt our economy because they will hire fewer workers. There is also a great civil rights issue that must be addressed in our country. This is the marriage of homosexuals. I am proud to say that the state I reside in has done what few other states are brave enough to do by creating civil unions. There are a shocking forty-one states that ban same-sex marriage compared to only nine that allow it. I am asking for an immediate legalization of same-sex marriage in all states, similar to that of the desegregation laws of the sixties and seventies. If we as a nation are to be prosperous, we must grow and adapt to the world around us. In order to reach our goals their will have to be sacrifices made by every American. We must make changes to the economy, military, and civil rights in order to reach our lofty goals and reap the benefits of our hard work.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs has adopted rules governing its procedures for the 113th Congress. Pursuant to Rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the committee rules be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record finalist essays written by Vermont High School students as part of the Third Annual ``What is the State of the Union?'' Essay contest conducted by my office. These 21 finalists were selected from over 300 entries. The essays follow. Sydney Alderman, Mt. Abraham Union High School (Finalist) Today we often face the problem of excessive violence between people, starvation, and economic problems. People aren't all getting what they need and something needs to be done. What would fix everything, broaden our universal communications skills and get things done quicker would be to unite globally. By working as an entire unit we can all communicate and work toward the same goal we all crave: peace. Uniting globally can solve conflicts causing violence, starvation, and economic problems. Uniting globally will benefit the people of the world immensely. By uniting globally it would be much easier to distribute the necessary resources to sustain everyone, such as food, water, and energy. When everyone is on the same page and communicating thoroughly between territories, you can maintain fair trade and further discuss what laws and human rights need to be established as well. When we're all united for a common goal, let's assume peace amongst all people, discussion is more productive and conclusive and proper action can be taken at a faster pace. Actions such as bringing food and water to those who have none, and also getting the area with these conditions re-established for suitable living conditions. Everyone benefits from a united world. The U.S. economy will be heavily benefitted by uniting globally. When we unite globally, trade is faster and we can simply work faster because communication is quicker and more conclusive than when we're all thinking separately. Trade will therefore be quicker and we can be more productive about it with such open communication. It would be easier to discuss the distribution of currency amongst countries and people and how we can fix the current economic problems. Uniting globally will solve the biggest problems of the world. It will broaden the communication between territories and will help us resolve conflicts causing famine, violence, and economic problems universally. When we all band together we can accomplish anything and finally bring a new era of peace. Tyler Bradley, South Burlington High School (Finalist) Our country needs to invest in clean sustainable energy and decrease our dependence for oil from other nations. Our nation should be investing in wind and solar power. Wind is a renewable source of energy, which will last forever. It does not pollute our environment and is all natural. Solar energy also provides us with clean energy, with no combustion. It too is renewable and causes no greenhouse gases. Although wind and solar, as energy sources, may prove to be expensive, it is a small price to pay for the health and safety of our environment. In contrast, we are eventually going to run out of oil and the high cost of transporting oil and our dependency on other nations needs to be eliminated. We need to stop relying on foreign nations for our energy supply. If foreign governments continue to control oil profits they can use that money to fund terrorism mischief. In addition, these energy rich countries can restrict the oil supply and therefore make the United States a hostage to their demands. We need to end this cycle and invest in more sustainable energy sources. We need Congress to work harder to obtain sustainable energy tax incentives like the Investment Tax Credit and Production Tax Credits. These credits will help reduce the cost of wind and solar projects and in the long run help reduce global warming. All across our earth we currently see record heat waves, melting glaciers, rising sea levels and extreme droughts and floods. The United States must lead the world in reversing global warming, to preserve a safe planet for our children and grandchildren. Annie Arthur, Woodstock Union High School (Finalist) To be a democracy, our country must be able to hear the voices of every citizen individually and the population as a whole. People all over the world are sacrificing their lives for the hope of the right to vote. In the United States, eligibility is simple. To vote, one must be a citizen of the United States and be 18 or older. However, a country as great as ours does not seem able to succeed in a very seemingly simple task: vote freely. The State of our Union is teetering on the edge. In the 2012 Presidential Election, only 57.5% of the entire eligible population cast their ballots. About 93 million citizens did not participate in this most basic foundation of democracy. How is the United States supposed to run as an effective democracy if so many citizens remain silent in such a crucial time to make their voices heard? Granted, part of this lack of voting is caused by laziness, indifference or belief that one vote will not change the outcome. However, there are many citizens who want to vote but restrictions imposed at the state level have either attempted or succeeded to suppress participation in this election. In this recent election there were laws passed to hinder voter participation by making it difficult to register to vote, requiring voter photo identifications, miscommunication of date and times, and threatening voters with imprisonment for voter fraud. Officials also succeeded in cutting early voting periods, voting by mail, polling hours and number of locations. Even though courts temporarily struck down many of these efforts, there is no reason to believe that state officials will be deterred from imposing more voting restrictions in the future. This national issue should not be determined at state level. Restriction on voting is a federal problem and should be addressed by federal powers. This is too important an issue to leave to individual state governments as clearly demonstrated by the blatant attempts to deny citizens their right to vote. The solution is to simply create basic standards on voting. The federal government could pass a bill with minimum guidelines for states to follow on voting laws. This legislation does not need to be a complex list of restrictions; this bill would be freeing up voting laws by listing only what needs to happen to achieve successful voting. Each state would then have the freedom to expand on these basic requirements. This bill could facilitate registration, polling hours and ability to mail in votes. It is an American's right to be able to vote. As the world's greatest democracy, no political party should be able to obstruct voting. The United States, a nation for the people, of the people, by the people needs to set a better example as the standard bearer of democracy. Jeannine Bissonette, Champlain Valley Union High School (Finalist) Ever since Woodrow Wilson was elected in 1913, it has been a tradition for Presidents to address the nation with their State of the Union report. As President Obama prepares to present his State of the Union address, many politically concerned citizens begin to ponder the thoughts of what will be produced in the next four years. With a current national unemployment rate of 7.9%, the numbers appear to be much lower than the 10% that the United States endured during October of 2009. Although these rates suggest a recuperating recession, they have not yet reached a level in which the nation can sit back comfortably. These high unemployment rates understandably result in a greater necessity for more families to reach out to social welfare services such as food stamps and local food shelves. According to a local press interview with food shelf coordinator Mary Ann Castimore, the Vergennes Congregational Church found themselves serving a total of approximately fifty to sixty new families. People are struggling to find and hold steady jobs; feeding their families continues to be growing concern. Corresponding with the current economy, the United States could certainly do more to address the concerns of the young people. With the lack of vacant positions in the working world, young adults are learning quickly that it does not matter so much what they've majored in, but what is available. As a high school student of Vermont, I have become increasingly aware of my school advisor's push for me to look into which fields are in need of laborers, rather than those that suit me best when determining an occupation. As the pursuit for jobs lengthens, it is important that the government restricts outsourcing jobs to other countries and create said jobs within the nation. Instead of outsourcing jobs, the United States should provide incentives to retain these positions in America. As the United States adapts to the most severe recession since the Great Depression, the American citizens' fear of a failing economy is justified. Major issues such as the nearing fiscal cliff or changes in Social Security are becoming more common parts of American conversation. As January approaches, politicians in D.C. are running out to time to make the decision of who will be taxed in the coming years. By taxing Americans making over two hundred and fifty- thousand dollars, more taxes can be gleaned by the federal government. Additionally, more citizens being taxed results in more equitable terms. As a federal insurance program, Social Security is praised highly for the benefits it provides the retired population. Since American citizens are now living into their eighties, a shortage in Social Security money has materialized. The inadequacy of funds has led to an extended retirement age which is predicted to continue increasing into the future. The United States must continue to raise the retirement age in order for Social Security to continue operating. It takes time and multiple strategies to solve any major issue: there is no one perfect solution. Jonah Blatt, Milton High School (Finalist) Good Evening America, There are several issues that need to be addressed here tonight that will benefit our nation in one way or another. First off, I'd like to touch on the topic of unemployment. The unemployment rate has dropped significantly. The rate was 10% in November of 2009, which was the highest from January 1st 2009 to January 1st 2013. In the middle of that, the rate bounced up and down between 9% and 9.5% from 2010 to 2011. Now here we sit today on a continuous, steady decline all the way down to 7.7%, and I assure you it is not over. Jobs were being created at a rate of 151,000 per month in 2012 and we look to raise that number this coming year. My new plan allows workers who have lost their job to be placed on temporary jobs as trainees for short periods to retain their skills or gain new ones while still receiving benefits. This was released on April 19th where the unemployment rate was 8.2% and now it is 7.7%. It's working, America. Cannabis, or better known as marijuana has become a major topic of discussion these days in America. Is it a medical miracle or an addiction amongst many? The Office of National Drug Control Policy and I have stated that we oppose the legalization of marijuana and other drugs since legalization would increase the availability and use of other illegal drugs. Their legalization would bring more health and safety risks closer to your homes. The legalization and selling of marijuana could bring some positive to our attention. A potential boost for the economy if it was sold and taxed heavily. However in the end I strongly oppose the legalization process and it should only remain available for medical use only. The risks strongly outweigh the positives. Over 50 years ago we created a strong, close relationship with Israel. We have done joint military planning along with military research and weapons development. We have continuously assisted Israel with $3.1 billion in security assistance and I will not be the president to stop that trend. The only way for Israel to achieve peace with their neighbors is to begin with a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel. They are also a big export consumer to our economy. We must stand by our ally through these tough times between them and the Palestinians. We will look to both sides to find a common ground to install peace back into the world between these rival nations. I am in support of resumption of the aid to the Palestinian government with a condition that the government renounce terrorism. Israel has a right to defend themselves from these Palestinian rocket attacks, but we will look to peace first in order to draw this to an end. Israel is an important ally in all perspectives. We must help them. Thank you and good night America. Allie Bull, Champlain Valley Union High School (Finalist) The United States of America is known as the land of profuse opportunity for all who come here. Throughout the history of this country, there have been events to be proud of and events that were not too glorious. As the world prepares for the new year of 2013, it is a good idea to reflect as we explore the state of this union, and gain insight into how this country is running. Congress is seemingly dysfunctional right now. The current Congress has passed the least number of bills in history. This statistic is shocking and embarrassing. The system of checks and balances within our democracy is designed to prevent an abuse of power. It is also a known fact that our system takes longer to pass bills and get things done; however, the current state of gridlock is not okay. The nation is frustrated with the leaders and the lack of compromise in Washington. Congress needs to become a leader of the whole nation, and not individual leaders of each political party. The wall between each party needs to be let down and national issues need to be addressed. It is hard for congressmen to make decisions that could affect reelection; yet, the lack of progress being made is not making the constituents any happier. It is better for these leaders to leave the nation stronger and prosperous than when they arrived, as opposed to an unchanged, struggling country. In the shadow of the Sandy Hook Massacre, gun control debates have resurfaced. This is a topic that needs to be addressed, swiftly and promptly. Semi-automatic weapons are completely and utterly unnecessary in the United States of America. There is no reason that a person should need or desire to own one. These weapons are killing machines and should be banned. Americans have the right to bear arms, but there is no need for weapons other than hunting weapons. Any weapons that do remain legal in this country need to be regulated and controlled with very thorough background checks. However, the fact that semi-automatic weapons are available isn't the only cause of these tragedies. Hollywood portrays gun violence as exciting and desirable. That, in combination with violent video games, leaves imprints in the brains of impressionable young people (including the mentally ill). Semi-automatic weapons should be banned, and violence movies and games should be regulated. In this country there is freedom of speech and expression, but the production of these movies and games results in harm to other citizens. All of these factors need to be addressed. Politicians who agree with this stance need to step up and speak out despite the possible damage to their reelection. The safety of the people should be more important than reelection. America is a bright and prosperous place. There are a few issues dragging it down, but with the known strength of this nation, these problems can be solved. The only way to fix big problems is to lay down political barriers and work together, hand-in-hand. Emma Davitt, Champlain Valley Union High School (Finalist) The current state of our Union is multifaceted, filled with diverse opinions and numerous obstacles. Our Union faces an interesting future ahead, either a prosperous and promising future, or a destructive and deleterious future. It is up to us, the people of the United States, to do everything we can to ensure a brilliant future, to promise fortuitous and successful lives for our succeeding generations. We are currently coping with the most intense, severe recession in our country since the Great Depression. 7.9% of the people in the United States are out of work, struggling to find jobs and earn a living. Detrimental taxes are traumatizing families, college graduates' degrees are rarely helping them secure jobs and, throughout these unfortunate situations, many Americans are still focusing on abortions and gay marriage rights. It is time for our nation to accept individuality, embrace the freedom our country was founded upon, and fix the major problems facing the people of the United States of America. The unemployment rate is uncomfortably high. In 2008, many businesses closed, numerous workers were laid off and the unemployment rate began to rise. As a result, jobs have become more valuable, and at a time where few were comfortable with their living situations and current bank accounts, taxes rose. To address this situation, taxes must be lowered for the lower and middle-class families while returning the economy to a peaceful state, encouraging businesses to grow and expand in the United States. The economy is not only affecting the working class of our nation, but also the children--the future. If children watch their parents and older siblings with college degrees struggle to find a job, what will make them want to go to college? What will convince them that attending college is a wonderful and beneficial experience? The young members of our national community will one day be responsible for our country and our only option to ensure a bright and promising future is to nurture, teach and help this younger generation. With this in mind, it should be of great importance to the United States to make college education more affordable for the young population. Through grants, aid and scholarships, many more students will have the opportunities to attend universities, and with an economy on the mend, we can look to the future with great hope in the highly educated body that will one day run the country. Contemplating these issues, our Union has a lot to focus on. We have run ourselves into a deep economic and educational rut and it is our job to work together to climb out of it. The future of our country rests solely in the hands of the upcoming generation, however, how can we have faith in the subsequent decades if our current society struggles to find jobs and attend college? The answer is rather simple, the young people of our country have the chance to make groundbreaking decisions and be amazing leaders, if given the opportunities. Taryn Druge, Champlain Valley Union High School (Finalist) In an idealistic world we would work for a common good. Countries wouldn't consider money, land, or rivalry. They would only see how they could create peace and maintain it. As Franklin D. Roosevelt said, ``A point has been reached where the peoples of the Americas must take cognizance of growing ill-will, of marked trends toward aggression, of increasing armaments, of shortening tempers--a situation which has in it many of the elements that lead to the tragedy of general war . . . Peace is threatened by those who seek selfish power.'' It is my opinion that, in this world, we are not driven by the ambition for peace but instead by the ambition for wealth and power. We, the U.S., are no different, as much as we would love to believe otherwise and see ourselves as the peace bearers of the world. We must open our eyes to the truth. Wealth and power must be relevant in our dealings with foreign nations because these are some of the only factors that will drive negotiation. An example of the struggle for wealth and power is the United States relationship with China. Currently, the U.S. is deeply uneasy about China, to whom we are deeply indebted, for they are our greatest supplier of goods. It is frightening to think that China's withdrawal could destroy our entire economy, yet our withdrawal from China would cripple them as well. Instead of the dependence creating unity among our nations, it has created discomfort and hostility. The power complex each country has creates the belief that dependence upon one another weakens us. When Thomas Jefferson said, ``Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition,'' Jefferson could never foresee that U.S. dependence would extend overseas due to our economies' desire to manufacture cheaper and thus more profitable products. China and the U.S are two great superpowers, and each is just as self-destructive as the other. Without a strong and desirable alliance with China, the U.S. becomes weakened to possible foreign attacks and a collapse of the economy. The U.S. is feeling out of balance right now: so many goods are being manufactured overseas at the expense of U.S. jobs being taken away. This balance could be found when the U.S comes to the realization that we cannot completely isolate China, and, at the same time, we must create a political environment that nurtures U.S. businesses that manufacture products domestically. In an ideal world the bonds and alliances of countries would surpass the separation of race, religion, class and culture. We must work towards this ideal world, because in it we will find a far better future we could not possibly foresee today.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record winning essays written by Vermont High School students as part of the Third Annual ``What is the State of the Union?'' Essay contest conducted by my office. The essays follow. Caroline Braun, Champlain Valley Union High School (Winner) There is no simple cure for the abundant issues plaguing our nation. Not only are we recovering from a recession, but we also are confronting challenges related to climate change, healthcare, and education. While our efforts to address these issues are noble, our failure to solve them reflects a more concerning societal problem. On December 14, 2012, twenty children and six faculty members were fatally shot in Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. Not only did this devastating tragedy leave close friends, family, and the local community in shock, but also the nation. Though it is remarkable that our country embraced the friends and families of those killed, we only seem to value such a strong sense of community after a crisis. The dramatic increase in violence in the past decade raises new questions about our current societal values and priorities: have we forgotten what's truly important in this new age? While we enjoy the many luxuries that accompany technology and contemporary life, has the lure of modern convenience eclipsed our fundamental human need to take care of and support each other, our families, and our communities? Perhaps it is time we recalibrate who we are and who we want to be as a country so that the fundamental values on which our country was founded can once again flourish. How can one pursue happiness without access to basic healthcare, food, or the ability to spend time with the ones we love? Certainly when our forefathers declared our right to bear arms, their intent was not for corporations and special interest groups to profit from its citizens being armed with assault weapons intended for war. Instead of unbridled greed and big business dominating our economy, it is imperative we support small businesses so they can thrive once again. Environmentally, we have yet to replace our dependence on oil with renewable energy resources and reduce our effects on climate change. And while we all agree educating our children is a requisite investment in our future, teachers continue to earn, on average, 12 percent less than other workers with similar education and work experience. As a world leader and role model for democracy and peace, we need initiatives that not only connect people and communities, but also ones that will act as catalysts for change. Increasing awareness of issues related to social justice will spark larger movements for societal change; whether it is reducing community violence, practicing business ethics, implementing renewable energy sources, advocating for mental health care, or investing in our teachers and schools. Instead of businesses and special interest groups being the sole influence on policies and the direction of our country, now is the time, once again, for all citizens to be heard, cared for, and respected. Although as a nation we have made and continue to make advances that were inconceivable just a century ago, our penchant for the new shouldn't trump our commitment to older values and fundamental human rights. Emily Ellsworth, Colchester High School (2nd Place) Social mobility is essential to the development of the American character. The ability to overcome class distinctions and succeed economically through hard work equates to opportunity. Yet current U.S. taxation policies are harming the middle-class and widening the gaps of income inequality, thus narrowing the window of opportunity for Americans. Federally enforced legislation such as the Bush Tax Cuts and the income tax on capital gains provide a disproportionate amount of benefits to the wealthiest Americans. This leaves a majority of citizens possessing less means to increase their income, obtain education for higher paying occupations and provisions for the next generation. It is necessary to consider the purchasing function and the insurance function of wealth. The quality of a child's education and neighborhood is dependent upon the volume of wealth the parent has access to. Children also receive a very different set of choices and opportunities upon entering the adult world depending on their family's economic status. To combat the further detriment to future generations, taxes must be raised in areas which will inflict minimal harm, and produce the most beneficial results. America is experiencing the largest disproportion of wealth since 1928, and current taxation policy not only aids in widening the income gap, but harms the accumulation of government tax revenue. The sale of stocks and bonds are called ``capital gains.'' Until the 1990's, the capital gains tax was at 28%. Today its current level is 15% which enables less revenue gained from any individuals whose main source of income comes from stocks and bonds, such as wealthy businessmen. In 2006, for instance, Warren Buffett paid 17.7 percent in taxes on the $46 million he booked that year, while his secretary paid 30 percent of her $60,000 salary to the government. Simple practices such as restoring tax rates to past levels are essential to the aid of our country's recovery and to improve the state of the Union. Gena Chiola, Mount Abraham Union High School (3rd Place) Today, we face problems concerning the environment, war and conflict, as well as lack of resources. In these times, more than ever before, the solution to these problems lies in global communication. If we put our heads together, and help each other, we can create a plan to reduce climate change. If we increase our efforts to work out conflicts between countries, through effective communication, less people will lose their lives through unnecessary wars. Sharing of resources can occur when we effectively communicate between countries, which will reduce poverty worldwide. All it takes is effective global communication to resolve global issues. One major global problem is conflict between nations. There will always be conflicts between people, it is part of being human, but how we deal with these conflicts is what makes the difference. Today, approximately 60 countries are involved in a war. Millions of people die each year from these conflicts. This fighting and killing is indeed a form of communication, but it is not effective in solving world problems. We accomplish nothing by killing people. We need to stop thinking of ourselves as being separated by national boundaries and focus on how to break down these walls. By communicating and working towards the same common goal, we will improve the planet. If we think globally, we will have more of a chance of communicating globally, and resolving conflicts through peaceful means, rather than war. Enter Climate Change conundrum. Climate Change is the increased temperature of the atmosphere due to human carbon emissions. Our use of gasoline to run cars, and oil to heat our homes contributes to the heating of the climate. We are slowly destroying our environment, and creating an increasingly dangerous habitat for all living thing. It is no question that this is a dangerous issue that needs addressing. And in order to address it, we must work together. Bill Mckibben, of Vermont, helps us do this. He organized 350.org, which is a global campaign to solve climate change. The mission of 350.org is ``building a global grassroots movement to solve the climate crisis.'' He organizes global rallies and projects to bring the world together in the face of this crisis. He helps us communicate as a world to get the job done, since it can be done no other way. Earth's lack of resources needs to be addressed and solved through global communication. 25,000 people die from hunger every day. Other poverty induced diseases, like AIDs, cause millions of deaths worldwide. However, by globally communicating, we can reduce poverty. Global communication can help us redistribute the resources. Some places are brimming over with resources, such as fresh food, water, and technology while others suffer. The U.S.A. has an abundance of resources. If we use global communication to be at peace with one another, we can share what we have, so that less people suffer. If the United States were to share resources with poverty stricken countries of Africa, people in Africa would have happier lives, while people in the United States would still have enough to live comfortably. This can all be achieved through effective global communication. Global communication is the answer. If we all put our hearts and heads together, and forget our differences, we can change the world for the better, which is always the ultimate goal. Whether it's to prevent wars, bring the temperature of the atmosphere down, or to redistribute resources, it's undebatable that communication is what we need. Let us come together, and work together and never forget the importance of global communication. Bibliography Mckibben, B. 350.org. January, 2013, http://www.350.org/en/ mission Poverty.com. January, 2013, http://poverty.com/ Wars in the World, January 2013, http:// www.warsintheworld.com/?page=static1258254223 Statistic Brain, World Poverty Statistics. January, 2013 http://www.statisticbrain.com/worldpoverty-statistics/ Henson, Robert. The Rough Guide to Climate Change: page 1- 10. New York, USA: Rough Guides Ltd, September 2006.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as incoming chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, one of my top priorities will be to evaluate and improve the training and employment programs afforded to our Nation's servicemembers and veterans. Every day, far too many young veterans face the harsh realities of unemployment. These are brave men and women who have put their lives on the line defending our country who now struggle to find employment and provide for their families. The Putting Our Veterans Back to Work Act of 2013 will ensure we provide them with much needed support. This legislation would reauthorize several of the transition, retraining, and employment services created by the VOW to Hire Heroes Act of 2011. That legislation is making a real impact in the lives of countless veterans by providing them with the training opportunities they need in order to secure meaningful employment. Too often I hear from veterans that the government provides great resources for them to find training and employment opportunities, but they are not sure where to start in order to tap into those resources. Those Departments charged with helping to provide veterans with employment assistance must make certain that they are conducting appropriate outreach so that veterans know where to turn when they need help. Assisting in this effort, the Putting Our Veterans Back to Work Act would also provide veterans with a new, unified, online employment portal for veterans seeking information regarding employment and job training resources. This online portal would make it easier for veterans to take advantage of the services and opportunities available to them. At a time when 85 percent of law enforcement agencies were forced to reduce their budget, according to a 2011 survey by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, answering the Nation's public safety needs is also a priority. That is why this legislation would provide potential employers with additional grants for first responder hiring and re-hiring needs. This legislation would also direct agency heads to favorably consider contractors that employ a significant number of veterans for all contracts over $25 million. This provision would ensure that contractors, who are doing their part to help veterans find good paying jobs, have a competitive advantage when doing business with the Federal government. Finally, the Putting Our Veterans Back to Work Act would strengthen our commitment to protecting the employment rights of servicemembers and veterans. These commonsense provisions would build upon existing law by providing the government with additional tools to carry out its obligation to safeguard veterans' employment rights. This legislation would enable the Attorney General to investigate and file suit against a pattern or practice in violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act and to issue limited civil investigative demands for relevant documentary material. It would also allow Federal agencies to suspend and debar contractors who repeatedly violate the employment and reemployment rights of members of the uniformed services. Finally, it would provide the Special Counsel with authority to subpoena attendance, testimony, and documents from Federal employees and agencies in order to carry out investigations related to USERRA. Mr. President, there are a number of great training and employment programs available to veterans. This legislation would strengthen such programs and make certain that veterans have and maintain access to those programs. That is what our veterans are entitled to and that is what we must deliver.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate Ken Squier, of Stowe, VT, for his historic contribution to motor sports and to broadcasting, and for his deep and abiding commitment to the people of Vermont. On November 29, 2012, NASCAR presented Ken with the prestigious Buddy Shuman Award, given to ``an individual who has played a key role in the continued growth and success of Cup racing.'' Most Americans know Ken Squier as the ``Voice of the Daytona 500.'' In 1979, Squier convinced CBS Sports to broadcast the Daytona 500 in its entirety. This event was a seminal moment for stock car racing in the United States, later described by ESPN as ``NASCAR's most revolutionary event,'' the one that convinced the national networks that NASCAR had a very wide following around the country. When he was 14 years old, Ken Squier announced his first race at a small dirt track in northern Vermont--from the back of a logging truck. In 1960, he opened Thunder Road SpeedBowl, a quarter-mile racetrack in Barre, VT. In summer, the track has hosted stock car races every Thursday night for the last 50 years. These events have become fixtures in the culture of northern Vermont. As NASCAR developed a national following, Ken Squier became one of its most celebrated personalities. He pioneered the use of in-car cameras during broadcasts, putting viewers right next to the driver during the race. Ken's voice became inseparable from the sport, providing turn-by-turn coverage of all CBS-broadcast races for almost two decades. This included the sport's most prestigious event, the Daytona 500. Ken Squier is not at all defined solely by his importance to racing. He has deep roots in northern Vermont. In 1969, he became president of Radio Vermont, Inc., a family business that is one of the only independent, family-run radio companies left in the United States. Radio Vermont's stations provide a variety of music, sports, and news; in particular, they focus on local events, the happenings that bind communities together and give them identity. Over the years, Ken has staunchly opposed corporate consolidation of the media because he believes, strongly, that radio stations should serve the community and provide vital conduits for local information. He has practiced what he preaches. Radio Vermont's immense value to the communities it served was proven during the aftermath of Tropical Storm Irene in August 2011. Irene was the most destructive storm to hit Vermont in decades. Torrential rains and Vermont's mountainous terrain brought flooding on a vast scale, wiping out houses, businesses, and historic downtowns. Roads and bridges were washed away, cutting dozens of towns around Vermont off from the outside world. Ken and his staff, Eric Michaels, Lee Kittell, Tom Beardsley, meteorologist Roger Hill, and others kept the station on the air 24 hours a day in the weeks after the storm to ensure vital emergency information reached Vermonters in towns that had been cut off. With the State of Vermont's emergency communications equipment washed away, Radio Vermont proved that local radio stations are fundamentally important to their communities. Ken Squier has helped change sports in America, but even more significantly, he has been a true exemplar of a good citizen. Vermont is, and will remain, deeply in his debt.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. What the chart shows is that at age 75 the cut would be $653, a 3.7-percent cut; at age 85 it would be $1,139, a 6.5-percent cut; and at age 95, it would be $1,1611, a 9.2-percent cut. The rich are getting richer. We have growing wealth and income inequality in America. The wealthiest people in this country are paying the lowest effective tax rate in decades. We are going to balance the budget on the backs of seniors trying to get by on $15,000, $18,000 a year? Is that what this Congress stands for? I certainly hope not. The fact of the matter is, the current formula for calculating COLAs is not too generous. And whenever I speak in Vermont, I say to seniors--and I speak to them quite often--there are some folks in Washington who think that your COLA--the formulation and how we reach a COLA for you--is too generous. Do you know what happens. They laugh. They invariably break out in laughter because they know that in the last 3 years, two out of those years they got zero COLA. They know this year they are going to get a 1.7-percent COLA, which is one of the lowest COLA increases ever. They also know the current formulation for a COLA does not fully take into account the escalating costs of prescription drugs and health care, which is where most seniors spend their money. They are not spending their money on flat-screen TVs or iPhones or iPads. They are spending their money heating their homes, buying food, paying for prescription drugs, and paying for health care. These costs are going up much faster than general inflation. I think what most economists would tell you is that the current formulation for determining COLAs with Social Security is inadequate, too low, rather than, as the advocates of the chained CPI would suggest, that they are too high. Furthermore--this has not been widely discussed--moving to a chained CPI would also result in an across-the-board tax increase of more than $60 billion over the next 10 years that will disproportionately hurt low-income and middle-income families the most. In fact, two-thirds of the tax increase under a chained CPI would impact Americans earning less than $100,000 a year, and many would be impacted by losing the earned income tax credit and the childcare tax credit. Maybe I am missing something, but I thought I heard from the White House and here on the floor of the Senate that we are not going to raise taxes for people earning less than $250,000 a year. Maybe I am wrong. But I thought I heard that many times. Well, if you vote for the chained CPI, in fact you are raising taxes on a whole lot of people, including low-income working families. Under the chained CPI, low- income workers would see their taxes go up by 14\1/2\ percent, mainly by cutting the earned income tax credit and the refundable childcare tax credit. So if we are going to keep faith with what we have said here, I say to my Democratic and Republican friends: No tax increases for workers making less than $250,000 a year. We better reject this chained CPI. Furthermore, I must tell you that I am disappointed, because I thought I heard a few weeks ago my friends in the White House telling us that Social Security--telling us truthfully, correctly--has nothing to do with deficit reduction, because Social Security is funded by the payroll tax, and that Social Security should be off the table in terms of deficit reduction. I heard that many, many times. So I wonder how Social Security has suddenly gotten back on the table, including a chained CPI, with devastating cuts to seniors and disabled vets. I think we should deal with Social Security. I think Senator Dick Durbin made a good point: Let's deal with it. Let's deal with it separately. Let's determine how, in a fair way, we can make Social Security solvent for the next 50 or 75 years without cutting benefits. I have ideas on that, Senator Begich has ideas on that, Senator Harkin and others. And the Presiding Officer has been thinking about ways that we make Social Security solvent and strong for 75 years without cutting benefits. Let's have that discussion, but not as part of a deficit reduction bill when Social Security has had nothing to do with deficit reduction. I do not often quote Ronald Reagan, but this is what Ronald Reagan said on October 7, 1984. He was absolutely right. Ronald Reagan: Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit. Social Security is totally funded by the payroll tax levied on employer and employee. If you reduce the outgo of Social Security, that money would not go into the general fund to reduce the deficit, it would go into the Social Security Trust Fund, so Social Security has nothing to do with planning the budget or erasing or lowering the deficit. October 7, 1984. Reagan was right. I have to tell you that when Barack Obama was campaigning for President in 2008, he told the AARP on September 6, 2008, that: John McCain's campaign has suggested that the best answer for the growing pressures on Social Security might be to cut cost of living adjustments or raise the retirement age. Let me be clear. I will do neither. September 6, 2008, Barack Obama. One of the astounding things about Congress and the inside-the-beltway mentality is how out of touch it is with what the American people are thinking and what the American people are believing. Yesterday there was a poll in the Washington Post. I ask unanimous consent that that poll be printed at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as we continue to debate how to prevent this so-called fiscal cliff and how to go forward in deficit reduction, my Republican friends, apparently, want the American people to believe that making the wealthiest people in this country pay a few dollars more in taxes would amount to some kind of terrible sacrifice, and they are vigorous and unanimous in opposing the President's initial proposal to do away with all of Bush's tax breaks for people making $250,000 a year or more. I guess their new proposal coming out of the House is that only people making $1 million a year or more would see their tax rates go up. Let me say a word about hardship and a word about sacrifice and it is not about the problems of millionaires and billionaires who are doing phenomenally well and who are being asked to pay a few dollars more to help us deal with deficit reduction, at a time when their tax rates are at a historically low rate. Let me tell you about sacrifice, and let me tell you about on whom we should not be balancing the budget. This morning, in the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I held a press conference, which included every major veterans organization in this country, representing millions and millions of veterans, people who have put their lives on the line to defend our country and many of whom have suffered as a result. The organizations that were there with me to say no to the so-called chained CPI--which would cut benefits for disabled veterans, which would cut benefits for widows and kids who lost their husband or their father in Iraq or Afghanistan and would see a chained CPI cut back on their limited benefits--we had at this press conference the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Disabled American Veterans, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Blinded Veterans Association, the Wounded Warrior Project, the Military Order of the Purple Heart, the National Military Family Association, the Vietnam Veterans of America, the National Guard Association, the National Association of Uniform Services, the Jewish War Veterans, the Military Officers Association of America, AMVETS, the Association of the United States Army, the Commissioned Officers Association of the U.S. Public Health Service, the Naval Enlisted Reserve Association, the United Spinal Association, VetsFirst. What all of them said--and some of them made this statement far more poignantly than I can--is when we talk about sacrifice, they are there; they have already done it. Some of them have come back from our wars without arms or legs or maybe they have lost their eyesight. They have sacrificed, and it is morally absurd to be equating on one hand the sacrifice of a multimillionaire, asking him to pay a few dollars more in taxes, with asking people who have lost their limbs defending this country to make a sacrifice. That is not equivalent sacrifice. Let me talk about this so-called chained CPI. I know there are some folks out there--and I think we have had Wall Street CEOs worth hundreds of millions of dollars, who were bailed out by the taxpayers of this country, who have the most extravagant retirement benefits imaginable--they have come to Washington, DC, to tell Congress we should cut Social Security benefits for disabled veterans, raise taxes on low-income workers. Let me tell you what this--what some call a tweak--would do. In terms of the chained CPI, more than 3.2 million disabled veterans receive disability compensation from the Veterans' Administration--3.2 million veterans. They would see a reduction--a significant reduction--in their benefits. Under the chained CPI, a disabled veteran who started receiving VA disability benefits at age 30 would have their benefits cut by more than $1,400 at age 45, $2,300 at age 55, and $3,200 at age 65. Does anybody in their right mind think the American people want to see benefits cut for men and women who sacrificed, who lost limbs defending their country? Are we going to balance the budget on their backs? I challenge anyone who supports a chained CPI to go to Walter Reed hospital, visit with the men and women who have lost their legs, lost their arms, lost their eyesight as a result of their service in Afghanistan or Iraq. Come Veterans Day and come Memorial Day, all the politicians go out and give speeches of how much we love our veterans. It is great to give a good speech on Memorial Day or Veterans Day but what about standing up for them now? I know the Wall Street CEOs and the big money lobbyists are descending on Washington trying to protect the wealthy and the powerful. But maybe now is the time--not just Veterans Day, not just Memorial Day--that we stand with veterans, we stand with disabled veterans. They have sacrificed, and I think it is unseemly, I think it is immoral to be balancing the budget on their backs. We have also made a commitment to the surviving spouses and children who have lost a loved one in battle by providing them with Dependency Indemnity Compensation benefits that average less than $17,000 a year. Do my colleagues truly think we should be cutting benefits for surviving spouses who lost their husband in Iraq or Afghanistan? Further, we have made a promise to every American; that is, that above and beyond benefits for disabled vets, what we have said is a couple things: For those who are older, we have said Social Security will be there for them in their old age, in their time of need or if they become disabled, and we have said those benefits will also keep up with inflation. Today, over 9 million veterans receive Social Security benefits as part of the tens of millions of Americans who receive Social Security, and more than 770,000 veterans receive Social Security disability benefits. We are talking now about the ``Greatest generation,'' the people who saved this country in World War II. I just met last week--and it chokes me up every time I meet these guys--a fellow from Winooski, VT, who was in the Battle of the Bulge, that hugely important battle at the end of World War II to stop the Nazi advance. He was also at Normandy. Do you truly want to balance the budget on his back? We are talking about the brave men and women who served in Korea, Vietnam, and other conflicts as well. Let us be clear what this chained CPI would do because I think there are some people--I guess if someone is a Wall Street CEO guy and is making millions of dollars a year and has a great retirement package, when we are talking about hundreds of dollars a year, that is what they use for lunch. They do not have to worry about keeping their house warm or buying food. That is not within their world view. Under the chained CPI--we should all understand this is no small tweak; this is not some administrative issue--under the chained CPI, average seniors who retire at age 65 would see their Social Security benefits cut by about $650 a year when they reach age 75. Again, I understand if someone is a Wall Street CEO, if one is a millionaire, hey, $650 a year is not a lot of money. But let me tell you, if you are a senior citizen living in Vermont or Minnesota and you have to worry about heating your home, you have to worry about putting gas in your car, you have to worry about prescription drugs, $650 a year is a lot of money, if you are living on $15-, $16-, $18,000 a year of income, most of that coming from Social Security. So if you retire at age 65, it is about a $650 cut when you reach age 75, and it is more than $1,000 a year when you turn 85. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a chart which talks about annual cuts in Social Security benefits under the chained CPI.

Mr. SANDERS. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico.) The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I rise today to take note of the death of a remarkable resident from my State of Vermont, Dr. Marshall London. Dr. London was one of the most prominent citizens in Burlington, VT. A deeply beloved physician, he was also a lifelong progressive and a liberal. A native of Vermont, he attended the University of Vermont, where in 1948 he served as the campus organizer for the Progressive Party nominee for President, Henry Wallace. He served as a flight surgeon in the US Air Force from 1961-1963. In the late 1960s, Marshall London and his family volunteered in support of Caesar Chavez's United Farm workers. He provided medical services to migrant workers in Delano, CA. In 1970 he returned to his native Burlington with his wife and children. A lifelong supporter of universal health care, Dr. London was committed to serving the underserved and the elderly. Not only did he make house calls, but in addition to his medical bag he regularly carried plumbing and electrical tools to make home repairs for his patients. In the early 1990s, Dr. London, as President of the Jewish Community Council of Burlington, worked to resettle emigres from the former Soviet Union. He never severed his ties to the UVM Medical School, where he continued to serve as a mentor and teacher at the Fletcher Allen Hospital, even after he retired in 1997. In a time when corporate values have spread beyond business to such areas as education and health care, Marshall London serves an enduring example that there are other values which can guide human life. He was a caring physician, one who always charted his course by paying attention to those most in need, and always depending on an exemplary social conscience. He was dedicated to his family. And he did not restrict his life to work. Dr. London was an alto saxophone player in the Vermont Catamount Band and Burlington City Band. He was also an avid tennis player and skier. Like so many Vermonters--and he was a fifth-generation Vermonter--he was also a loyal Red Sox fan. Dr. Marshall will be missed, though the example of his life and values will endure. I ask that Dr. London's obituary be printed in the Record. The obituary follows: [From the Burlington Free Press, Dec. 13, 2012] Marshall G. London Burlington.--Marshall G. London, a fifth generation Burlingtonian, beloved family man and dedicated local physician who made house calls an integral part of his practice, died at home on Dec. 12, 2012. He was 83. The grandson of a founding member of Burlington's first synagogue, Ahavath Gerim, Marshall was a featured participant in the recent Vermont Public Television documentary ``Little Jerusalem.'' He took pride in his local roots and Jewish heritage, and had an enduring passion for Jewish history, and a strong commitment to Israel. He was born and raised in Burlington's Old North End. He graduated in 1951 from the University of Vermont, where he was president of the Tau Epsilon Phi Fraternity. Always staunchly liberal in his politics, Marshall was a campus organizer of the 1948 presidential campaign for Progressive Party candidate Henry Wallace. He and Susanne (Sue) Abrams were married in 1953 and had six children. Marshall began his medical career with an internship at the Mary Fletcher Hospital, followed by a residency at Mount Zion Hospital in San Francisco, Calif. Subsequently, he served as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force in South Carolina. From 1961 to 1963, he completed a rheumatology fellowship at the Manchester Royal Infirmary in England, which included clinic visits across Europe. With children in tow, the London's camped in their VW bus from Lapland to Italy. After returning to Burlington from England, they moved to California, where Marshall joined a private practice in Los Gatos. During this time, he volunteered in support of Cesar Chavez's United Farm Workers, providing medical service to migrant workers in Delano, Calif. In 1970, Marshall and his family again returned to Burlington, where he opened a private practice on Orchard Terrace. A lifelong advocate of universal healthcare, he was committed to providing for the underserved and the elderly, and he volunteered as a mentor and teacher at the medical school for many years. He made house calls equipped with his medical bag, and sometimes with plumbing or electrical tools to assist with all manner of repairs. He retired in 1997, but continued, even in recent months, attending Grand Rounds at the hospital and visiting former patients in their homes. An alto saxophone player in the Vermont Catamount Band and Burlington City Band, he was also an avid tennis player, skier, and loyal Red Sox fan. He and Sue traveled frequently, visiting Israel and often tent-camping in Newfoundland and Labrador. They made many friends in their travels, and their 19th-century home bustles year-round with family and friends old and new. Like his parents and grandparents before him, Marshall was a devoted member of the Ohavi Zedek Synagogue for many years. He later joined Chabad of Vermont, where, closer to the traditional roots of his grandfathers, he found new spiritual and intellectual inspiration. He is survived by his wife, Susanne; children, Rebecca and Aaron Goldberg of Burlington, Saul and Georgette London of Highland Park, N.J., Sara London and Dean Albarelli of Northampton, Mass., Naomi London of Burlington, Daniel and Andrea London of Evanston, Ill., and Rachel London and Matt Bohner of Brooklyn, N.Y.; foster daughter, Linda and Jim Nyema-Davies of Greensboro, N.C.; grandchildren and great- grandchildren, Dinah and Joshua; Jesse and Emily; Tamar and Isaac; Ilana and Jonny, and children, Maya, Nitzan and Yoav; Tova and Shmuel and daughters, Bracha and Tehila; Amalia and David, and son, Ruby; Ziva and Daniel, and son, Avromy; Jack, Matan, Yonah, Liora, Cooper and Cali.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, it is no great secret that the Congress has a very low favorable rating. Many people shake their heads and they wonder why this institution is so dysfunctional. There are a lot of reasons for that, but I suggest one of the reasons has to do with a lot of hypocrisy that we see in both bodies of Congress. I will give one example. As all of us know, during the recent Presidential campaign, Republicans attacked Democrats over and over for voting to cut Medicare as part of the Affordable Care Act. They ran a significant part of their campaign on saying: Democrats have cut Medicare. We Republicans are here to protect Medicare. In fact, this is exactly what Mitt Romney said on August 15, 2012. My campaign has made it very clear: the President's cuts of $716 billion to Medicare, those cuts are going to be restored if I become President and Paul Ryan becomes Vice President. The reality is that what we did under the Affordable Care Act resulted in zero cuts to benefits. We tried to make the system more efficient. But be that as it may, the Republicans posed as great champions of Medicare against those terrible Democrats who wanted to cut it. Meanwhile, Democrats went to town, taking on the Ryan budget which did make devastating cuts to Medicare and, in fact, wanted to voucherize that program. So we have Republicans beating Democrats for ostensibly--not accurately--trying to cut Medicare, Democrats attacking Republicans for, in fact--accurately--wanting to cut Medicare, and where are we today? If we read the newspapers we hear and we know as a fact that Mr. Boehner, the Republican Speaker, has proposed devastating cuts in Medicare--a month after the election where the Republicans said they were going to defend Medicare. They want to raise the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67. Frankly, I am concerned there may be some Democrats--not a whole lot, I hope none, but some Democrats--who may end up going along with that disastrous proposal. That is hypocrisy. Everybody during the campaign is saying the other guy wants to cut Medicare. The day after the campaign, our Republican friends are talking about devastating cuts and maybe some Democrats are prepared to support that. Raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67 would be an unmitigated disaster. It would cut Medicare benefits by $162 billion over the next decade and would deny Medicare to over 5 million Americans who are 65 or 66 years old. The American people, when asked how do you feel: We are looking at deficit reduction. Do you think it is a good idea to raise the Medicare age? The American people overwhelmingly say, no, that is a dumb idea, don't do it. According to a November 28, 2012, ABC News Washington Post poll, 67 percent of the American people are opposed to raising the Medicare eligibility age, including 71 percent of Democrats and, I suggest to my Republican friends, 68 percent of Republicans, 62 percent of Independents. While there may be division in the Senate or House, there is no division among the American people. They think it is a dumb idea and the American people are right. They are right for very obvious reasons. Think about some woman who is 66 years of age, not feeling well. She goes into the doctor's office and she is diagnosed with a serious health care problem. There is no Medicare there for her. What does she do? She goes over to a private insurance company. What do you think the private insurance company is going to charge this person who is already ill? An outrageous rate she cannot afford. What happens to this senior, that person who is 65 or 66? Do they die? Do they go bankrupt? Do they go to their kids who do not have the money to help them stay alive? It is a disastrous idea. Raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67 would leave at least 435,000 seniors uninsured every year. Imagine being 66 and not having health insurance. Easy for folks around here in the Congress to laugh. Easy for wealthy people to laugh about it. It isn't so funny when you are living on $15,000 or $20,000 a year and have no health insurance. It would increase costs to businesses by $4.5 billion. It would, of course, increase out-of-pocket costs for seniors; the estimate is about $3.7 billion. For the individual senior, the estimate is that for two-thirds of seniors age 65 to 66, they would pay an average of $2,200 more for health care. They are trying to live on $20,000, $25,000, $30,000 a year. Suddenly they are hit, on average--could be more, could be less-- $2,200 a year. On it goes. It would increase premiums by about 3 percent for those enrolled in the health care exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act because many 65- and 66-year-olds would be enrolled in the exchanges instead of Medicare. It would save the Federal Government $5.7 billion in 2014, but it would cost seniors, businesses and State and local governments $11.4 billion--double that, double what the Federal Government would save. I hope all those folks who, before the election--Republicans and Democrats--were running around the country and in their own States saying: We are for the middle class; we are going to protect Medicare-- I hope they go back and read their preelection speeches and stick to what they said before the election. That is one of the issues out there in terms of the so-called fiscal cliff or deficit reduction. Let me talk about another insidious one, in terms of raising the age of 65 to 67 on Medicare. That is a disaster, but it is pretty clear, everybody understands what it is about. There is now an underhanded way, an insidious way that some people are talking about doing deficit reduction, the so-called chained CPI, which nobody outside Washington, DC, has a clue as to what it is about. What it would do is change the formulation in terms of how we determined COLAs for seniors, disabled vets, and others. The bottom line is, in my view and the view of many economists, we underestimate the inflationary cost of what seniors are spending because a lot of their spending goes into prescription drugs, health care, and that has gone up faster than general inflation. What the chained CPI says is: Oh, no. What we have now is too generous and we have to cut back. We have to make the COLA skimpier. This is exactly what a chained CPI would do for people on Social Security. What it says is that somebody who was age 65 would see their benefits cut by $560 a year when they turn 75 and $1,000 a year when they turn 85. Again, I know we have CEOs from Wall Street who have huge salaries, who receive huge bonuses, who have the best care available in the world, they have great retirement programs--these guys who were bailed out by the working families of America when their greed nearly destroyed the financial system of the world--they are now coming to Capitol Hill and they are saying we have to cut Social Security and we have to cut Medicare and we have to cut Medicaid. For those guys, when we talk about $560 a year for somebody who is 75, that is not a lot of money and $1 thousand when you are 85--what is a thousand bucks? Let me tell you, $1,000 is a lot of money when you are trying to survive on $18,000 or $20,000 a year. We must not allow that to take place. There is something many people do not know; that is, the chained CPI would go beyond cutting benefits for seniors on Social Security. It would take a real devastating whack at disabled veterans. What about that? I want my Republican friends or any Democrats who support that to come to the floor of the Senate and tell the American people that when we send young men and women over to Afghanistan and Iraq and they got their arms blown off, they got their legs blown off, and we are now going to balance the budget on their backs by cutting benefits for disabled veterans--come to the floor of the Senate and tell the American people they support a chained CPI which would do exactly that. We have some folks here saying, yes, people are making billions of dollars, we don't want to cut their taxes. But, yes, we will cut benefits for disabled vets who lost their arms and legs in Afghanistan. That is an obscenity and I hope very much we do not go in that direction. When we talk about deficit reduction, we have to deal with it. It is a serious problem. There is a lot of discussion about the need to deal with $4 trillion over a 10-year period, and I support that. Let's talk about a way we can go forward without balancing the budget on the backs of the elderly, disabled vets, working families. First of all, we have to understand and acknowledge that in the deficit reduction debates of 2010 and 2011, the Republicans won, basically, those negotiations. We have to be honest about that. Republicans acknowledge that. Some Democrats do. Republicans are tougher than Democrats, Democrats cave, Republicans stand tall. We have to understand, despite the fact we have a growing inequality in this country, rich getting richer, middle class shrinking, after all the discussions about deficit reduction, the wealthiest people in this country have yet to pay one nickel more in taxes. But because the Democrats are not quite as tough as the Republicans, what has happened is that we have cut, in those two negotiations, $1.1 trillion in spending already. So if we are talking about a $4 trillion bill, understand that we have already cut $1.1 trillion, which leaves $2.9 trillion to be dealt with. I think the President is right, and I simply hope this time he sticks to his guns and does what he says. What I am suggesting is that there are ways to do deficit reduction that are fair. The first point, in terms of $4 trillion over a 10-year period, we have already cut over $1 trillion in terms of spending--$1.1 trillion. No. 2, I think the President is right in suggesting we have to ask for significant revenue from the wealthiest people in this country--the top 2 percent--without asking for any tax increases for the bottom 98 percent. That would add $1.6 trillion in revenue, bringing us somewhere around $2.7 trillion, so we have a $1.3 trillion problem. Over a 10-year period, that is not a difficult problem to solve. Let me throw out a few ideas, and I am sure other people have equally good ideas. Before we cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, we might want to address the reality that this country is losing about $100 billion every single year from corporations and wealthy people who are stashing their money in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, and other tax havens, and $100 billion is a heck of a lot of money. At a time when gas and oil prices have soared recently, when we know major oil companies have in recent years paid nothing, in some cases-- despite being enormously profitable--in Federal taxes, we can and must end tax breaks and subsidies for oil, gas, and coal companies. This country is now spending almost as much as the rest of the world combined in terms of defense. Our friends and allies in Europe provide health care for all their people. In many of these countries, college education is free. We are spending twice as much as part of our GDP as they spend on defense. I think it is time to take a hard look at defense spending, and I think we can make cuts there which will still leave us with the kind of military we need to defend ourselves. Instead of raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67, instead of cutting benefits, we can make Medicare and Medicaid more efficient. I believe we can save at least $200 billion over a 10-year period by eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse and lowering prescription drug costs for seniors. For example, the Medicare Part D prescription drug program prohibited Medicare from negotiating with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices. The VA negotiates, and other government agencies negotiate. Medicare should be able to do that. Fortunately, the war in Iraq is over. We are about to wind down in Afghanistan, and there are savings there. So before I give the mic over to my colleague from Vermont, I wish to conclude by saying, yes, we go forward on deficit reduction, but there are ways to do it. At a time of growing wealth and income inequality in America, we can move forward and make significant reductions in our national debt, in our deficit, without doing it on the backs of the elderly, the children, the sick, and the poor. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that an article from the Washington Post on the subject of increasing the age for Medicare eligibility be printed in the Record. [From the Washington Post, Dec. 11, 2012] Raising Medicare Age Could Leave Hundreds of Thousands Uninsured (By Greg Sargent) It looks increasingly possible that lawmakers will reach a fiscal cliff deal that includes a hike in the Medicare eligibility age--a concession to those on the right who seem determined to see very deep entitlement cuts, even if they take benefits away from vulnerable seniors. One argument for raising the eligibility age is that seniors who lose benefits can get insurance through Medicaid or the Obamacare exchanges. But a new report to be released later today undercuts that argument--and finds that up to half a million seniors could lose insurance if the eligibility age is raised. The report, by the Center for American Progress, points out a key fact that's been mostly missing from the debate: The hope of getting seniors who lose Medicare insured through Obamacare could be seriously compromised by the Supreme Court decision allowing states to opt out of the Medicaid expansion. This would inflate the number of seniors who could be left without insurance, because many would fall into the category of lower-income senior that would be expected to gain access to Medicaid through its expansion. (Jonathan Cohn has written about this extensively.) Here's how CAP reached its conclusion. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently concluded that a rise in the eligibility age could mean as many as 270,000 seniors are left uninsured in 2021. But that's assuming Obamacare is fully implemented in all states. The CAP report points out that 10 states have publicly declared they will opt out of the Medicaid expansion, and more are undecided. The CAP study then totaled up how many seniors below the poverty line live in states that may opt out of the Medicaid expansion, using 2011 data. The total: Over 164,000. This table shows how many of these seniors live in each of these states: Add these to the aforementioned 270,000 seniors, and you get a total of approximately 435,000 seniors who could be left without insurance annually by 2021. And this is a conservative estimate--it's based on 2011 data, and the population of seniors will grow significantly over the next decade. Now, it's very possible that many of these states will ultimately drop their bluster and implement the Medicare expansion. But Republican state lawmakers are also stalling in setting up the exchanges and resisting the law in other ways. With Obamacare implementation up in the air, it may be too risky to raise the eligibility age and hope Obamacare can pick up the slack. ``With opponents of the health care law still working to block it at every turn, many more seniors would become uninsured because they would have nowhere else to turn,'' CAP's president, Neera Tanden, tells me. ``As a result this misguided proposal would undermine the promise of affordable health care for all.'' On top of this, the report finds, raising the eligibility age could also undermine a key goal of Obamacare by inflating medical costs and health care spending, for a range of reasons: Cost shifting, tampering with the health and age levels in insurance pools, and an increased reliance on private insurance, which isn't as good as Medicare at controlling costs. In my view, the speculation that Dems will ultimately agree to raising the eligibility age has been a bit overheated-- it's not clear this is definitely on the table. But it's certainly possible. After all, some on the right seem determined not to accept any entitlement reform as ``real'' unless vulnerable beneficiaries are harmed, and Obama and many Dems prefer a deal to going over the cliff. So anyone who doesn't want to see this happen should be making noise about it right about now. And there are a range of alternative ways to cut Medicare spending without harming beneficiaries. I'll bring you a link to the report when it's available.

Mr. SANDERS. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I understand Senator Baucus and Senator Murray are on their way and wish 5 minutes each to speak relative to this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that between now and 1 o'clock, they be allocated 5 minutes each and that the amendment then still would be the pending amendment. I ask unanimous consent that we now proceed to the amendment of Senator McCain and that when those two Senators arrive and are recognized, they be allowed to speak for 5 minutes each on the Udall amendment.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, it is not a tentative agreement; there is a unanimous consent order that we are going to vote at 2 o'clock.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Webb be added as a cosponsor to Senator McCain's amendment that he is now going to offer.