Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. I thank the Senator for the good work he is doing. What I would like to do is just pick up on a point Senator Whitehouse just raised; that is, the record of history shows us that we cannot take the climate for granted. Our relatively limited experience of advancement over the last 10,000 years, during the time of stable climate on a planet that is billions of years old, has distorted our view of the Earth's complex climate system. A recent National Academy of Sciences report stated: . . . it seems clear that the Earth's future will be unlike the climate that ecosystems and human societies have been accustomed to during the last 10,000 years. . . . That is the point Senator Whitehouse just made, and that is according to the National Academy of Sciences. The reason is that human activities--primarily the burning of fossil fuels--are increasing greenhouse gas emissions and causing global warming. According to the U.S. Global Change Research Program, ``global warming is unequivocal and primarily human induced.'' We have altered the climate that has sustained humanity for the last 10,000 years. We are now at 392 parts per million of carbon dioxide, up from 280 parts per million in the 18th century. What an extraordinary increase in carbon dioxide in that short period of time. And greenhouse gas levels are rising steadily. In fact, carbon dioxide levels are increasing faster than at any time on record, according to our EPA. Maybe that 392 parts per million seems like an abstract number, so let me put it into context. According to UCLA researchers, the last time carbon dioxide levels were consistently this high--the last time-- was 15 million years ago--15 million years ago. The Earth, at that time, was warmer by 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit than it is today. At that level of warmth, there is no permanent sea ice in the Arctic and little, if any, ice on Antarctica and Greenland. That explains, in part, why sea levels at that time were 75 to 120 feet higher than today. If sea levels today even approached half that level, we would inundate--inundate--major coastal cities around the world and create hundreds of millions of displaced refugees. And that is what we are talking about. So let me repeat: The last time carbon dioxide levels were consistently this high was 15 million years ago, at which time the Earth was warmer by 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit than it is today. There is no doubt, if we do nothing to reverse global warming, we are doing more than just threatening harm to the environment. We are jeopardizing the future of our planet and much of humanity. All too often we talk about global warming as if the impact will be somewhere down the line--maybe in 100 years, maybe in 200 years, and isn't it too bad those polar bears are trying to get by on that little block of ice. The reality is that global warming is impacting our planet today, and the impact is devastating. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Minnesota is here. He has been very active on this issue, and I know he has some important points to be made, so I yield the floor for Senator Franken of Minnesota.

Mr. SANDERS

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I want to say a word about an issue I think has not gotten the kind of attention it deserves here in Washington or even among the general public; that is, the situation regarding our Postal Service. Right now, for a number of reasons, the Postal Service is facing financial difficulties. No. 1, it is no secret to any American that first-class mail has declined significantly because the American people are using e-mail and not first-class mail, and that decline in first-class mail has significantly impacted the revenue for the Postal Service. Second of all, not widely known is the fact that the Postal Service, every single year now, because of legislation passed in 2006, is forced to come up with $5.5 billion--every single year--for future health retiree benefits. To the best of my knowledge--and to the best of the knowledge of anybody whom I have talked to--there is no agency of government forced to come up with anything near this kind of onerous requirement, nor is any corporation in the private sector doing that as well. So the issue we face is whether we are going to save the U.S. Postal Service, whether we are going to bring about reforms which make the Postal Service strong and relevant to the 21st century and the digital age or whether we--as the Postmaster General has proposed--cut 40 percent of the workforce, shut down 3,700 post offices--most of them rural--end Saturday mail service, lay off or cut back on the workforce of the Postal Service by 40 percent--over 200,000 American workers, many of them, by the way, veterans who are now serving and working in the Postal Service. Let me start off again with what the Postmaster General has proposed. Let me talk a little bit about legislation which has been led by Senator Lieberman and Senator Carper, which I think will be coming to the floor, I expect, next week, and then talk about where I think, and a number of us think, we should be going to strengthen that bill. No. 1, this is what the Postmaster General has suggested that he needs to do in order to solve the financial problems facing the Postal Service. One, close down about 3,700, mostly rural, post offices. I will tell you, coming from a rural State, a post office is not just a post office. In many parts of Vermont, many parts of America, rural post offices serve many functions. If you get rid of those post offices, you are causing severe distress to the identity, the sense of self of small towns in rural America. No. 2, what the Postmaster General has suggested is the shutting down of about 252 mail processing facilities--about half of the mail processing facilities in this country. If you do that, there is no debate that you are significantly slowing down the delivery of mail in America. If you used to put a letter in a postal box, and it might get there in 1 day, now the talk is it may get there in 3 days. If today it gets there in 3 days, it might in the future, under these cuts, get there in 5 days. Here is the fear I have and many other Members of the Senate and House have: If the Postal Service is trying to compete against the instantaneous communications of e-mail, what does it mean that you are slowing mail service significantly? Many of us believe this is the beginning of a death spiral for the Postal Service in the sense that many consumers, many businesses will say: Hey, what is the sense of me working with the Postal Service if my mail or packages are going to get there in 3 days or 5 days? So we think shutting down 252 mail processing facilities, slowing down mail services, is laying the foundation for the destruction of the Postal Service as we know it. To my mind, the issue is not whether we make changes or maintain the status quo. The status quo is not working. The Postal Service has to change. In my view, and I think the view of many others, the Postal Service must become much more aggressive, much more entrepreneurial, must be going out to the business community, must be going out to consumers and saying: We have these services we can offer you. I will give you a few examples, and some of them, by the way, are included in the legislation brought forth by Senators Lieberman and Carper and Collins and Scott Brown. For example, in a rural State, if people would like to walk into a post office and get a letter notarized, they cannot do it today. If people walk into a post office and want to get 10 copies of their letter, they cannot do it today. The United States Congress has said they cannot do that. If somebody walks into a rural post office and wants to get a fishing license or a hunting license or fill out a driver's license, they cannot do that right now. So I think what we need is a new business model for the post office, much more entrepreneurial. I would suggest--and what is happening around the world is, clearly, the United States Postal Service is not the only postal service having to deal with the digital world. What we are seeing in Europe and throughout the world is countries responding by giving their postal services much more flexibility. One example: A lot of people are unemployed. A lot of people get unemployment checks. Sometimes in order to cash those checks they have to go to a payday lender. Why can't they walk into a postal service and cash that check at a minimal fee rather than paying 10, 15, or 20 percent to a payday lender? So I think one of the provisions that has to be included in any serious postal reform legislation is a blue ribbon commission made up of the best entrepreneurs we can find, those people within the Postal Service who have the most experience who will tell us what we can do and how we can raise additional revenue when we have thousands of post offices all over this country. Can they be renting out their space? What other services can they be providing? Right now we have our letter carriers delivering mail to about 150 million doors every single day, 6 days a week, all over the country. What more can they be doing? So the debate we are having is two visions of the future of the post office. No. 1, the Postmaster General is saying: Let's cut 40 percent of the workforce over a period of time. Let's slow down mail delivery service. That is the business model he is proposing. Some of us are saying, when we have a rural constituency, when we have senior citizens who live at the end of a dirt road who are dependent upon the post office in order to get their prescription drugs in the mail, when we have rural areas that very much depend on rural post offices, that the goal is to give more flexibility to the post offices so they can be more competitive, so they can raise additional sums of funding in order to deal with their financial problems. A couple of specific points: Almost everybody agrees now that the $5.5 billion required from the post office is absolutely onerous. I have talked to the Office of Personnel Management. They think $2.5 or $3 billion is quite enough, given the fact we have $45 billion already in the account. Talk to other people and they will say given the fact that $45 billion is already earning interest, that, in fact, we do not have to do anything. We do not have to add anything more into that account, and it will deal with all of the future health care retiree benefits the post office requires. So I believe we have to be very firm and say, No. 1, if the post office is going to survive in any significant way, we have to maintain 1- to 3-day delivery standards for first class mail. Second, we have to maintain 6-day delivery of mail, not end Saturday service. Third, we have to protect our rural post offices. Fourth, we have to significantly reduce prefunding requirements for future retiree health benefits, not to mention that there is also widespread agreement that the Postal Service has overpaid the FERS account, the Federal Employment Retirement Service, by some $11 billion. Obviously, that has to be dealt with. Lastly, in my view, as I said previously, we need to develop a new business model for the Postal Service, get them involved in the digital age, not run away from it--get them involved. Expand what they can do both with State and local governments as well as what they can do with the private sector. So in the coming days, this is an issue that a number of us will be working on. I look forward to the support of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask to have printed in the Record these essays written by Vermont High School students as part of the Second Annual ``What is the State of the Union?'' essay contest conducted by my office. The following essays were selected as ``Honorable Mentions.'' The Statements follow. Hannah Apfelbaum, Champlain Valley Union High School (Honorable Mention) [January 23, 2012] America is not living up to its full potential. We have one of the highest child poverty rates in the Western world, a high unemployment rate, and test very low in math and science compared to other developed countries. And that's not all--we also face environmental challenges and the decline of the middle class. We must use our differences to unite us by tackling all aspects of the issues we face. But America is asking how, specifically, do we solve these problems? First, we need to decide what problems not to solve. Iraq and Afghanistan are not in ideal condition. This does not mean, however, that we should be pouring all of our money into military efforts there. Instead, we need to make more money available for the most pressing issues in our own country. One way to make more money available is to stop giving the wealthiest people the biggest tax cuts. It is understandable that politicians are concerned about backlash from these influential citizens, but the majority of people in this country--the middle class--needs to be taken into account. With the national debt becoming greater and greater, these tax cuts simply are not sustainable. So where should our money go? The first priority should be education. Successful experiences in the early years of school make children much less likely to drop out or end up in prison--an entity that tax dollars pay for, with less than stellar results. Investment in public elementary schools benefits both the children and the general public. We also need to spend money on college financial aid programs. The most successful students who cannot pay their own tuition deserve to have this opportunity, and will most likely make a large contribution to society in their adult lives. All contributions to education will help make Americans qualified to obtain jobs that will provide them with comfortable wages, and stimulate the economy. We also need to spend money on healthcare. Every American has the right to ``life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'' Life, especially, is very hard to maintain without adequate healthcare. The right to be safe is something that needs to be provided to all citizens. It is simply not acceptable for a child in need of a treatment such as chemotherapy to not be able to access it. It is time that we live up to this responsibility. And in providing safety, a clean environment is also essential. Clean air helps reduce our risk of cancer, lung disease and numerous other health issues. America--now is the time to make choices for the benefit of our national community. We need to fund education. We need to fund healthcare. We need to take environmental action. It is time for each of us to advocate and actively work for these policies so that America can reach its full potential.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Senator Sanders pertaining to the introduction of S. 2037 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record these essays written by Vermont High School students as part of the second annual ``What is the State of the Union?'' essay contest conducted by my office. The following essays were selected as ``Runners Up.'' The Statements follow. Monica Allard, Milton High School (Runner Up) [January 23, 2012] The American Dream is adaptable. The ideals that we have long valued are admirable, but often contradicting or impossible to achieve with a large population. In today's economy, that translates to the right to a free market economy, conflicting with the practical need for government interference; the right to succeed for oneself, battling with the need to work together for today's and future generations. As long as our country is able to prosper without certain regulations, I encourage it to run free, but when the winter comes and there is no more grazing, the horse must accept the fence that accompanies the grain. It is imperative that Americans collectively work to solve problems with social security, our economy, and our political system in these troubled times. ``Maybe if we ignore it, it will go away'' has been the standard approach to growing concerns about social security in the last few years. Because of increasing life expectancy, more people are retiring than the system can support. When the newest generation retires, there won't be enough funds for everyone, unless something changes soon. A fixed rate retirement check is the logical solution, if we deduct money from the fixed rate check based on income. Working citizens would pay fewer taxes because only the people who need social security will be receiving it, and everyone else would have more money to put aside for their own retirement plans. The predominant issue of the 21st century has been the international recession. Unemployment rates are high, but what many young Americans don't realize is the shortage in technical workers. There is a national trend towards traditional four-year universities, but technical careers are the road to take if you are searching for job stability, demand, potential for advancement, and self-employment or a local employer in today's economy. Through ad campaigns and offering incentives to students enrolling in technical universities. This is a simple way to lower the unemployment rate, while promoting local businesses. Another important step in rejuvenating our economy is passing legislation that gives the national government more control over the stock market. Occupy movements have swept the country and it is time for Congress to respond, instead of hiring and appointing the same executives who were largely responsible for our economy's collapse. In order to move forward, we need to present a united front. Republicans and Democrats are rending our country in two because of partisan pressure. We need radical change in the political system: remove all party authority. Primaries and power distribution in Congress put too much emphasis on parties, cause corruption, and detract from the primary duty of Senators and Representatives to their states and country. As our soldiers rejoin their families at home we are forced to turn our focus inward. Reform is necessary. It is not a question of when nor is it a question of how. Rather, the question is whether or not we are willing to do what is necessary to save our great county. God bless America.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, it is no great secret that our country today faces many enormously difficult problems. We remain in the midst of a very serious recession. Real unemployment is at about 15 percent. Our middle class continues to decline. The gap between the very rich and everybody else is growing wider. Fifty million Americans have no health insurance. Millions of young people are struggling, trying to figure out how they are going to make it into college and pay for their college education. But in the midst of all of those problems, I hope very much that we do not forget about the problems facing one of the most vulnerable sectors of our society; that is, senior citizens. We are an aging population. That is no secret. Today, and every day, some 10,000 Americans reach the age of 65. If we as a nation do not begin to address the very serious reality of an aging population, we are going to be in a lot of trouble that we are not anticipating. One of the issues we have to understand is that not only are we an aging population, but many of those people who are becoming 65 and older are dealing with issues of poverty. Incredibly enough, 20 percent of the seniors in this country are living on average incomes of $7,500 per year--$7,500 per year average income for the bottom 20 percent of seniors in this country. Frighteningly, and embarrassingly, more and more seniors in this country are literally going hungry. Today, there are almost 1 million seniors who go hungry and many more who face the threat of hunger. That should not be happening in the United States of America. What America is supposed to be about is that when we age, we can live out our remaining years with security and dignity, not trying to find food in order to stay alive. Now, that is the bad news. The good news is that we have Federal legislation called the Older American Act which, to some degree, begins to address these very serious problems. I am happy to announce, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging, we are introducing legislation to reauthorize and improve the Older Americans Act. The legislation we are offering is going to do its very best to say senior citizens in this country will not go hungry. This legislation is going to significantly increase funding for senior centers all over this country, to provide congregate meal programs in senior centers. In my view, these congregate meal programs are enormously important, not only because they provide good nutrition to seniors all over our Nation but also they allow seniors to come together to socialize, to talk to each other, to get some of the professional help they need in their waning years. So we have to strengthen the congregate meal program, and that is what this bill does. In addition to that, there is another program which is almost life and death to some of the most fragile and vulnerable people in this country; that is, the Meals on Wheels Program. What Meals on Wheels is about--it takes place all over this country--is, you have people in senior centers and in other institutions who take meals--a good, quality, nutritious hot meal--to seniors, sometimes living at the end of a dirt road in Vermont or in Utah or in New Hampshire. These are people who cannot leave their homes, especially in the wintertime. These are people who, in some cases, would not survive if they did not have that Meals on Wheels Program. I wish to take this opportunity to thank the many volunteers from senior centers and other institutions who get in their cars and trucks to take these hot meals to seniors all over this country through the Meals on Wheels Program. What we are finding in my State of Vermont--and what we are finding around the country--is, many senior centers simply do not have the resources now to accommodate the growing number of seniors who need the Meals on Wheels Program. Let me further say to any of my friends who say: Senator Sanders, this is a good idea. It is going to cost money. Yes, it will. Increased funding for Meals on Wheels and congregate meals will cost additional revenue. But at the end of the day, the Federal Government will save money. We have had hearings on this issue. We have had physicians come forward, and they say one of the reasons seniors end up in the hospital, seniors end up in the emergency room, is because they are malnourished. Sometimes, literally, because of poor nourishment, they fall, break their hips, at great expense to Medicaid or Medicare. So not only is it the right and moral thing to do to keep seniors in this country from going hungry; in the long run, we save money by keeping them healthy. Furthermore, in this bill, we are going to do something I think is long overdue. There has been a lot of discussion in the Senate and in the House about Social Security. Some of my friends--often Republicans, sometimes Democrats--think we should cut Social Security, we should try to move toward a balanced budget by cutting funding for some of the most vulnerable people in this country. I strongly oppose that. One of the arguments brought forth to cut Social Security is: The COLA--the Consumer Price Index for the Elderly; how we determine what the COLA is--it is too generous. It is inadequate. When I tell that to senior citizens in Vermont, do you know what they do? They laugh. They literally laugh when I tell them there are people in Washington, DC, who believe the formulation as to how we determine COLAs is too generous, and they say: Bernie, we have not gotten a COLA for the last 2 years, so how is this too generous? They are, of course, right. The way we, in my view, formulate the COLA right now is inadequate, not because it is too generous but quite the contrary. The truth is, seniors' purchasing needs are different than the general population. Everybody knows that. Seniors spend a higher percentage of their income on prescription drugs. They spend it on health care. In cold-weather States such as mine and New Hampshire, they spend it on keeping warm. Senior citizens are not out there, by and large, buying flat-screen TVs or laptop computers or iPhones or iPads. Their money is going into health care. What has been happening in recent years is, while the cost of some products--electronics in general--has been going down, the cost of prescription drugs and health care has been going up. So when you tell seniors their COLA is too generous, they tell you that makes no sense at all because they are spending more and more on health care, prescription drugs, staying warm in the wintertime. So what we have done in this bill is requested that the Bureau of Labor Statistics improve the Consumer Price Index for the Elderly, or CPI-E, by including more of the items seniors spend money on, such as prescription drugs and other health care costs. We must have a more accurate measure for COLAs for seniors, and I believe this is the path to a fair COLA. I look forward to working with all the Members of the Senate to make sure we do right by our parents and our grandparents, that we make sure seniors in this country can live out their remaining years in security and dignity by reauthorizing a strong and fair Older Americans Act in the coming months. I especially want to applaud Senators Kohl, Mikulski, Casey, and Franken for introducing other thoughtful, innovative, and important Older Americans Act amendments. We are at a critical moment in American history. In the midst of all the other challenges we face, let us not turn our backs on those who sacrificed, who fought the wars, who built the economies that made this country great. Let us support a strengthened and improved Older Americans Act.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, it is no great secret that our country today faces many enormously difficult problems. We remain in the midst of a very serious recession. Real unemployment is at about 15 percent. Our middle class continues to decline. The gap between the very rich and everybody else is growing wider. Fifty million Americans have no health insurance. Millions of young people are struggling, trying to figure out how they are going to make it into college and pay for their college education. But in the midst of all of those problems, I hope very much that we do not forget about the problems facing one of the most vulnerable sectors of our society; that is, senior citizens. We are an aging population. That is no secret. Today, and every day, some 10,000 Americans reach the age of 65. If we as a nation do not begin to address the very serious reality of an aging population, we are going to be in a lot of trouble that we are not anticipating. One of the issues we have to understand is that not only are we an aging population, but many of those people who are becoming 65 and older are dealing with issues of poverty. Incredibly enough, 20 percent of the seniors in this country are living on average incomes of $7,500 per year--$7,500 per year average income for the bottom 20 percent of seniors in this country. Frighteningly, and embarrassingly, more and more seniors in this country are literally going hungry. Today, there are almost 1 million seniors who go hungry and many more who face the threat of hunger. That should not be happening in the United States of America. What America is supposed to be about is that when we age, we can live out our remaining years with security and dignity, not trying to find food in order to stay alive. Now, that is the bad news. The good news is that we have Federal legislation called the Older American Act which, to some degree, begins to address these very serious problems. I am happy to announce, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging, we are introducing legislation to reauthorize and improve the Older Americans Act. The legislation we are offering is going to do its very best to say senior citizens in this country will not go hungry. This legislation is going to significantly increase funding for senior centers all over this country, to provide congregate meal programs in senior centers. In my view, these congregate meal programs are enormously important, not only because they provide good nutrition to seniors all over our Nation but also they allow seniors to come together to socialize, to talk to each other, to get some of the professional help they need in their waning years. So we have to strengthen the congregate meal program, and that is what this bill does. In addition to that, there is another program which is almost life and death to some of the most fragile and vulnerable people in this country; that is, the Meals on Wheels Program. What Meals on Wheels is about--it takes place all over this country--is, you have people in senior centers and in other institutions who take meals--a good, quality, nutritious hot meal--to seniors, sometimes living at the end of a dirt road in Vermont or in Utah or in New Hampshire. These are people who cannot leave their homes, especially in the wintertime. These are people who, in some cases, would not survive if they did not have that Meals on Wheels Program. I wish to take this opportunity to thank the many volunteers from senior centers and other institutions who get in their cars and trucks to take these hot meals to seniors all over this country through the Meals on Wheels Program. What we are finding in my State of Vermont--and what we are finding around the country--is, many senior centers simply do not have the resources now to accommodate the growing number of seniors who need the Meals on Wheels Program. Let me further say to any of my friends who say: Senator Sanders, this is a good idea. It is going to cost money. Yes, it will. Increased funding for Meals on Wheels and congregate meals will cost additional revenue. But at the end of the day, the Federal Government will save money. We have had hearings on this issue. We have had physicians come forward, and they say one of the reasons seniors end up in the hospital, seniors end up in the emergency room, is because they are malnourished. Sometimes, literally, because of poor nourishment, they fall, break their hips, at great expense to Medicaid or Medicare. So not only is it the right and moral thing to do to keep seniors in this country from going hungry; in the long run, we save money by keeping them healthy. Furthermore, in this bill, we are going to do something I think is long overdue. There has been a lot of discussion in the Senate and in the House about Social Security. Some of my friends--often Republicans, sometimes Democrats--think we should cut Social Security, we should try to move toward a balanced budget by cutting funding for some of the most vulnerable people in this country. I strongly oppose that. One of the arguments brought forth to cut Social Security is: The COLA--the Consumer Price Index for the Elderly; how we determine what the COLA is--it is too generous. It is inadequate. When I tell that to senior citizens in Vermont, do you know what they do? They laugh. They literally laugh when I tell them there are people in Washington, DC, who believe the formulation as to how we determine COLAs is too generous, and they say: Bernie, we have not gotten a COLA for the last 2 years, so how is this too generous? They are, of course, right. The way we, in my view, formulate the COLA right now is inadequate, not because it is too generous but quite the contrary. The truth is, seniors' purchasing needs are different than the general population. Everybody knows that. Seniors spend a higher percentage of their income on prescription drugs. They spend it on health care. In cold-weather States such as mine and New Hampshire, they spend it on keeping warm. Senior citizens are not out there, by and large, buying flat-screen TVs or laptop computers or iPhones or iPads. Their money is going into health care. What has been happening in recent years is, while the cost of some products--electronics in general--has been going down, the cost of prescription drugs and health care has been going up. So when you tell seniors their COLA is too generous, they tell you that makes no sense at all because they are spending more and more on health care, prescription drugs, staying warm in the wintertime. So what we have done in this bill is requested that the Bureau of Labor Statistics improve the Consumer Price Index for the Elderly, or CPI-E, by including more of the items seniors spend money on, such as prescription drugs and other health care costs. We must have a more accurate measure for COLAs for seniors, and I believe this is the path to a fair COLA. I look forward to working with all the Members of the Senate to make sure we do right by our parents and our grandparents, that we make sure seniors in this country can live out their remaining years in security and dignity by reauthorizing a strong and fair Older Americans Act in the coming months. I especially want to applaud Senators Kohl, Mikulski, Casey, and Franken for introducing other thoughtful, innovative, and important Older Americans Act amendments. We are at a critical moment in American history. In the midst of all the other challenges we face, let us not turn our backs on those who sacrificed, who fought the wars, who built the economies that made this country great. Let us support a strengthened and improved Older Americans Act.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 24, 2012, at 9:45 a.m.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, democracy; that is, government of the people, by the people and for the people, does not thrive or even survive unless we have a well-informed and well-educated public who are thinking about, discussing and debating the important issues facing our country. In order to stimulate that goal, I have, for the last 2 years, sponsored an essay-contest asking Vermont's high school students what they think the United States should be doing to address the major problems we face as a nation. In other words, while tonight we hear the President's views about the State of the Union, the essays these students wrote reflect Vermont students' views about the State of the Union. I am delighted that 308 students, from 30 different schools throughout Vermont, thought about these challenges as they wrote their own State of the Union essay. And I want to thank each and every one of them for their participation in the contest and the time and effort they put into it. I also want to thank the five teachers who acted as judges for these contests. They are Brian Burgess of Hazen Union High School; Liz Lebrun of Poultney High School, Lois Little of Canaan Memorial High School; Joe Maley of South Burlington High School and Terri Vest of Twinfield Union High School. The winner, selected by a panel of five Vermont teachers, is Jennifer Sikorski, a senior at Winooski High School. In addition to Jennifer, 18 students were named as finalists. The four runners-up were: Monica Allard, Milton High School; Kayleigh Ehler-Vock, South Burlington High School; Kate Raszka, Champlain Valley Union High School; Karolina Sowulewska, Burr and Burton Academy. Because of the excellent quality of the essays, we also honored 14 other students with an honorable mention. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the winning essay be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the period for morning business be extended until 7 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. What is the sense on one hand in saying, we need to put money in the hands of the middle class through a tax cut, and, on the other hand, send a green light to employers all over this country who will now look at the Federal Government and then say to their employees: Hey, the Federal Government has frozen wages for a third year, cut back on pension programs, and we are going to do that as well. Lastly, but not least, for whatever reason, my Republican colleagues in the House have put into this mix of a payroll tax holiday a demand that the Keystone XL tar sands project be completed; that the President be forced, as I understand it, to make a decision on this within the next several months. The reality is that among many other factors, the inspector general of the State Department is currently investigating whether the State Department acted inappropriately in appointing a particular company to do the environmental study which, amazingly enough, given the fact that I think they had a conflict of interest, ended up in a very positive light. So the inspector general is now looking at a conflict of interest issue in terms of the environmental study which will take a bit of time. Furthermore, I think many of us understand that at a time when greenhouse gas emissions are rising rapidly in this country and all over the world, at a time when virtually the entire scientific community tells us that global warming is an enormously significant problem for the future of our planet, at a time when we are seeing increased floods and droughts and extreme weather disturbances, anyone who has studied the issue understands that in terms of global warming, the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is a very dangerous project. Producing energy-intensive tar sands oil emits 82 percent more carbon pollution and contributes more to global warming than conventional oil, according to the EPA. With that, let me conclude but just suggest that I think we need to be discussing publicly some of the issues that we may be voting on in a very short period of time. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, before I get to the Keystone issue, I want to suggest that at this particular moment, at the very end of the congressional session, before the end of the year's work, it is a strange moment in Congress because you have, behind closed doors, negotiators from the House and the Senate--Republicans and Democrats-- trying to put together large and complicated bills, and the concern I have--and I speak only for myself, but I think other Members in the Senate feel the same way--is we are suddenly going to be given a fait accompli, a complicated and long bill with many implications, many very important provisions, and then we are going to be asked to vote on it with not having had much input into the bill or even the ability to digest it fully and know what it means to our constituents. Let me touch on some of the issues that concern me, and let me also say that what I am going to be referring to are reports in the media. I do not know what will be in the final product. I am not sure anybody does. But here is some of what the media is reporting that might be in the payroll holiday tax bill--or what might not be in it, for that matter. One of the issues I believe very strongly about is that at a time when the middle class is disappearing, when poverty is increasing, and when more and more Americans understand that the wealthiest people are doing phenomenally well, and yet their effective tax rate is the lowest in decades--an issue Warren Buffett keeps reminding us about--that it is almost definitely going to be the case that while we continue to cut programs or raise revenue from the middle class and working families, the wealthiest people in this country will continue to avoid paying anymore in taxes. So we have a situation where the effective tax rates on the wealthiest people in this country are the lowest in decades, and yet, once again, as we talk about deficit reduction we are going to cut this program, we are going to cut that program, and yet the wealthy-- millionaires and billionaires--are not going to be asked to pay one nickel more in taxes. I think that is wrong, and people should understand that in all likelihood that is exactly what will happen again. Furthermore, we have major corporations, companies on Wall Street, oil companies that in recent years have made billions of dollars in profit and yet have, in some cases, believe it or not, not paid one nickel in Federal corporate income tax because of a wide variety of loopholes. We have a situation where we are losing tens and tens of billions of dollars--a hundred billion dollars--a year because of all kinds of tax havens which exist in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, other countries. Large corporations, wealthy individuals can shelter their money, not pay taxes, and then the result is revenue declines in the United States, and my friends in the Republican Party suggest: Cut this, cut that, go after Social Security, go after Medicare, go after Medicaid, go after education, go after environmental protection. Yet once again--once again--the wealthiest people in this country will not pay a nickel more in taxes, large corporations will continue to enjoy huge tax loopholes. Second of all, as somebody who believes it is absolutely imperative this country transform its energy system away from fossil fuel, away from greenhouse gas emissions, and moves to energy efficiency and sustainable energy, I am very concerned that in the legislation we will be dealing with today or tomorrow--or Sunday or whenever--there will not be an extension of important programs for renewable energy. One of the most important is the 1603 renewable energy extender. This is a Treasury grant program which helps provide financing for renewable energy projects by converting an existing tax credit into a grant. This one program, which costs barely more than $1 billion, has leveraged $23 billion in private investments. It supports 22,000 renewable energy projects in all 50 States of our country. It has created up to 290,000 jobs. If we do not include the 1603 program in legislation, it will expire at the end of this year. What we have seen, time and time again--whether it is wind, whether it is solar--is, if we do not extend these programs, investments in these technologies significantly decline, we lose jobs, we lose our ability to compete internationally in terms of becoming a leader in sustainable energy. I hope very much what I am hearing in the media and other sources is not correct. I hope, in fact, the 1603 Treasury grant program is included in any legislation that we vote on. That is an issue of major concern to me. We have today a declining middle class. We have 50 million people who have no health insurance. We have a lot of elderly folks who, despite Medicare, pay a great deal of money out of their own pockets for health care. What I am hearing--again, I do not know what will be in the final package, but what some media reports suggest is, there are proposals out there to increase Medicare income-related premiums by 15 percent, starting in 2017, and also that there are some ideas out there which would decrease the income at which beneficiaries pay these income- related premiums to $80,000 for an individual and $160,000 for a couple. What this would mean is that older people will have to pay more for health care. In some cases they cannot afford to do that. I hope very much that does not happen. When we talk about Medicare in this country, we have to talk about the overall health care crisis, which is not only that 50 million people are uninsured, it is not only that health care costs for all health insurance companies are soaring--or virtually all of them--but we have to ask why it is in the United States of America we end up spending almost twice as much per capita on health care as do the people of any other country. Yesterday in my office I had a member of the Australian Parliament. In Australia, all people have health care as a right. Prescription drug coverage is largely covered by the government. Their costs for prescription drugs are much lower because their national health care program negotiates prices with the drug companies. Yet in our country the situation is very different. What we want to do is not ask middle-income people to be paying more for their health care at a time when many of them are paying already more than they can afford. So the changes in Medicare which I have been reading about are something that concern me very much. There is another area out there which I think will have profound implications for our economy. The House Republican leadership passed a bill recently as part of this conference negotiation going on now to slash unemployment insurance in half and cut up to 40 weeks of unemployment benefits. If this legislation were to become law--and I certainly hope it will not--it could lead to the loss of 140,000 jobs and hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers, who lost their jobs through no fault of their own, losing their benefits. Here we have a situation where, in real terms, 25 million Americans are unemployed or underemployed, long-term unemployment is the longest on record, we have more people who are experiencing long-term unemployment than at any other time we can remember, and the solution our Republican friends want to bring about--after fighting to make sure millionaires and billionaires are not asked to pay more in taxes--is to slash unemployment insurance in a very significant way. Now, there is another issue dealing with employment above and beyond unemployment insurance; that is, that the House Republican bill, the ideas that they are bringing into the conference, would freeze Federal employee pay through 2015, and over a period of years reduce the civilian workforce by 10 percent, cutting some 200,000 decent-paying jobs. Now, let's be clear. For Federal employees there has already been a pay freeze for the last 2 years. Those are the nurses in our Veterans' Administration hospitals. Those are people who are making $30,000, $40,000 a year. There is now a proposal to once again extend the freeze to them. This is a real cut in real wages because inflation is going up for our Federal employees. But what concerns me equally is not only the impact this freeze would have on Federal employees, it sends a signal to every employer in America who says: Well, yes, I know you guys have not gotten a wage increase in a number of years. I know that I have asked you to pay more for health insurance. Yes, we have cut back on your pensions. But guess what. In Washington, the Congress says they are going to once again, for the third year, freeze Federal pay. In fact, they are going to ask Federal employees to pay more, too, for their pensions, which means a cut for many Federal employees. Well, if the Federal Government can do it, it says to private employers all over America so can they. One of the points President Obama has been making and why he last fought for a middle-class tax cut is that he wants to put more money into the hands of working families. I understand that. I agree with that concept. But what is the sense of providing tax breaks for the middle class on one hand--a concept which I support----

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

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I want to talk on a number of issues, but I would tell my friend from North Dakota, I very strongly disagree with him about this Keystone XL Pipeline. For those of us who are concerned about global warming, and all of the destruction that is currently taking place because of global warming, and will increase in years to come, this Keystone XL project is exactly what we should not be doing.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I want to reiterate the very important point that Senator Whitehouse has made. This struggle is not only to transform our energy system, to move away from fossil fuel, and to end the absurdity of importing over $300 billion a year in oil from Saudi Arabia and other foreign countries and move toward energy independence, this effort is to cut greenhouse gas emissions so that we save the planet. This effort also has to do with creating jobs in the midst of the worst recession since the Great Depression. I hope that every Member of the Senate is on the side of the American workers in helping us to grow sustainable energy companies so we create the jobs we need in this country rather than let China and other countries dominate those industries. Mr. President, I am very proud to give the floor over to the chairperson of the Environmental and Public Works Committee, certainly one of the great environmental leaders here in the Senate, Senator Barbara Boxer of California.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I understand that some of my colleagues here in the Senate and in the House as well do not believe global warming is real and they do not want to see our country and, in fact, other countries around the world take the necessary actions to deal with this issue. That is fine; everybody is entitled to their opinion. But it does seem to me to make a bit of sense that we listen to the leading scientists of this world, not only in our own country but throughout the world, and hear what they have to say about global warming and the need to respond. The National Academy of Sciences in our country, the United States, joined by academies of science in the United Kingdom, in Italy, in Mexico, Canada, France, Japan, Russia, Germany, China, India, Brazil, South Africa, have said ``climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated'' and the ``need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable.'' They are not talking about whether climate change is real or not real. What they are saying and what scientists all over the world are saying is that climate change is happening even faster than previously reported. Eighteen scientific societies, including the American Geophysical Union, the American Chemical Society, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science said: Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science. That comes from the American Geophysical Union, the American Chemical Society, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Further, it is not just scientists in our own country or throughout the world who are talking about climate change, who are talking about the need to respond vigorously to that crisis, but right within our own government, the U.S. Government, we have the Department of Defense saying: Climate change is an accelerant of instability. What that means is that when there is drought, when countries around the world are unable to grow the food they need, when there is flooding and people are driven off the land, and when people migrate from one area to another, this creates international instability, which is of concern to the Department of Defense. The CIA understands that ``climate change could have significant geopolitical impacts around the world, contributing to poverty, environmental degradation, and the further weakening of fragile governments,'' as well as ``food and water scarcity.'' That is from our own CIA. But it is not just scientists around the world, not just government agencies in the United States; you have a business whose life and death, whose profit margin depends upon understanding this issue and that is the insurance industry. If the insurance industry ends up paying out a whole lot of money when there are disasters, they are going to lose money. They have to understand climate change and the disasters, the weather disturbances that occur from that. This is what they say, in a report from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. They found there is ``broad consensus among insurers that climate change will have an effect on extreme weather events.'' These are guys whose profit margins depend upon that analysis. Many Americans and people around the world are concerned about the future impacts of global warming on our planet and what is going to happen 10 or 20 years down the line, and that is terribly important. We have to understand what climate change is going to do to our planet in years to come. But we do not have to just look at what may happen 20 or 30 years from today; we should be looking at what is happening right now, in the year 2011. The World Health Organization reports annual weather-related disasters have tripled since the 1960s, causing more than 60,000 deaths per year. The National Climatic Data Center shows that 26,500 record-high temperatures were recorded in weather stations across the United States this summer. Texas set the record for the warmest summer of any State since instrument records began in 1895. Oklahoma set a record for its warmest summer, exceeding records set during the Dust Bowl era of the 1930s. Drought in Texas has led to wildfires that destroyed more than 1,500 homes in Texas. A 2010 heat wave in Russia killed 56,000 people. The heat wave in Europe in 2003 killed 35,000 people. We can look at Pakistan, which in 2010 had a record 129-degree temperature. All of that is consistent with what scientists have been warning us about for years. NASA's James Hansen said climate change ``loads the dice'' in favor of more extreme weather events. Hansen said the answer to whether greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to these extreme weather disturbances is ``yes . . . humans probably bear responsibility for the extreme event. There is much to be said. I think a number of colleagues are coming to the floor. But I want to yield the floor to a Senator who has been an absolute leader on this whole issue, fighting for the environment, and that is Senator Whitehouse of Rhode Island.

Mr. SANDERS. That would be fine.

Mr. SANDERS. I wish to thank my friend from Rhode Island for his remarks and for his extraordinary effort in fighting for jobs and protecting our environment. If we read some headlines today in the media, we might think, especially the rightwing media, that renewable energy in America is on the verge of collapse. Quite literally--this is quite literally the case. A recent headline from FOX News said: ``Entire solar industry on brink of collapse.'' The reality is quite the contrary. The fact is, not only is the solar industry not on the verge of collapse, the reality is the American solar energy industry is thriving, as is the renewable energy industry more broadly. We have doubled the number of solar jobs in America since 2009. It does not sound to me like that industry is collapsing. It sounds to me like it is doing extraordinarily well. Today, more than 100,000 Americans work in the solar industry, at more than 5,000 companies in every single State in our country, and that includes manufacturing, installation, and supply chain jobs. Mr. President, last year we installed nearly 1,000 megawatts of solar power in the United States--more than double the amount installed in 2009. That doesn't sound like an industry that is collapsing to me. With the solar industry growing at a rate of 69 percent annually, it is one of America's fastest growing industries and is creating jobs all over our country. The cost of solar panels has fallen 30 percent over just the last 2 years, continuing a long-term decline in the price of solar and making it more and more competitive with other energy technology. (Mrs. HAGAN assumed the Chair.) Madam President, everyone, from Walmart to the U.S. Marine Corps, is looking toward a future in solar. Walmart is installing solar panels at 130 stores in California, and they say: Walmart has reduced energy expenses by more than a million dollars through our solar program. The military--the U.S. Department of Defense--is using solar energy with battery storage to fully power forward operating bases in Afghanistan. Marine COL Bob Charette said: For the Marines, renewable energy is about saving lives by reducing the number of dangerous fuel convoys needed for resupply. The reason I am making these points is that many people don't know the extent to which we are already making progress in sustainable energy. We are on the verge of something extraordinary. But it is important to understand where we are today and to refute those people who suggest that solar and wind are not the technologies for the future. In terms of wind, that technology is growing rapidly. Texas alone has more than 10,000 megawatts of wind energy installed. That is equal in capacity to 10 nuclear powerplants--in Texas alone. Iowa now gets 20 percent of its electricity from wind. There are 75,000 wind energy jobs in America today and more than 400 manufacturing facilities in 43 States. The price of wind energy has dropped by 90 percent since 1980, and wind electricity today is competitive with fossil fuels at 5 to 6 cents per kilowatt hour. At the same time, we are increasing American manufacturing of wind turbines, and now 60 percent of turbine components installed in the United States are made in America, up from 25 percent in 2005. In the midst of this horrendous and painful recession, the story of renewable energy in the United States is actually a rare good news story. It is a good news story. Renewable energy is helping to cut pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, it is making our country more energy independent, and it is creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. But all of this could be significantly slowed down if we do not continue Federal support for the renewable energy industries at a fraction of the kind of support we are giving to fossil fuels. It is absurd that we even have to fight to extend renewable tax credits and grants when fossil fuel industries enjoy permanent subsidies. Mature industries, such as oil and gas, continue to reap billions every year in Federal subsidies and massive tax breaks that never expire, despite the fact that the top five oil companies earned nearly $1 trillion in profits over the last 10 years. So here we are struggling to help wind and solar--new technologies--and we are giving massive tax breaks to mature industries that are incredibly profitable. Contrast what we do for renewable energy to what we do with fossil fuel and specifically with regard to the production tax credit for wind energy, which was allowed to lapse three times in recent years--1999, 2001, and 2003--leading to an average dropoff of 81 percent in new wind energy installation each time the credit expired. The wind credit is set to expire again in 2012. The point here is the one Senator Cardin made a moment ago. Unless there is predictability, unless the industry knows these tax credits will be there, they are not going to start investing or working on new projects only to have the rug pulled out from underneath them. They need stability and predictability, which is why we have to move not only to extending these tax credits but to making them permanent. I also want to say a word about the Keystone XL Pipeline, and that is to say there are some in the House and some in the Senate who want to use year-end legislation to tack on a rider that says to the State Department: You have to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline within 60 days. Let's be clear about what we are talking about in terms of the Keystone XL Pipeline. What we are talking about is a 1,700-mile oil pipeline from Canada to the gulf coast that would carry tar sands oil. Tar sands oil is not like regular oil. It requires an energy-intensive process to get it out of the ground, extract it, and, in fact, to refine it. That means it emits approximately 82 percent more carbon emissions when produced compared to regular oil, according to the EPA. Tar sands oil is also hard to clean up when it spills. Refining tar sands also produces more toxic air pollution compared to conventional oil. A tar sands spill in the Kalamazoo River in Michigan that happened in 2010 is still being cleaned up, at a cost now exceeding $700 million. In my view, the last thing we need is to eliminate the environmental and safety reviews now taking place and fast-track approval of this pipeline. I also note to my colleagues who want to fast-track Keystone XL that I, along with several other Senators and Congressmen, asked the State Department inspector general to look into allegations of conflicts of interest in the preparation of the environmental impact study of Keystone XL. The contractor the State Department used for the impact study, Cardno Entrix, has financial ties to the project developer, TransCanada. Those ties need to be investigated to ensure that the Federal environmental and safety reviews were done correctly and without bias. That inspector general special review is under way right now. I think it is completely inappropriate to try to fast-track this pipeline when we have not even heard back from the inspector general about potential conflicts of interest. I urge my colleagues to allow that special review to play out before any decisions are made. I will conclude my remarks this morning by thanking my colleagues for joining me--Senators Whitehouse, Boxer, and Cardin--who speak for many other Members of Congress and I think who speak for tens of millions of Americans, who see an energy future in this country in which we break our dependence on foreign oil, in which we no longer spend over $300 billion a year for oil from Saudi Arabia and other foreign countries; who see a future in this country where we move toward energy independence; who see a future in this country where the United States is a leader in reversing global warming by not only cutting greenhouse gas emissions in America but providing technology and expertise for countries all over the world, for them to do the same; and also understand that, as we move to energy efficiency--and I have to tell you that in Vermont we are leading the country in energy efficiency. What we are seeing as we weatherize homes is fuel bills going down for the middle-class, working-class people by 30, 40, 50 percent. We are investing in weatherization, and the payback is pretty good. It takes place over a very few years, when you cut fuel prices 30 to 50 percent. In Vermont, we are probably doing as well as any other State in that area, but we can and will do a lot better. Tens of thousands of homes in our State can be weatherized. When we do that, we not only cut greenhouse gas emissions, we not only reduce the need to import foreign oil, we also create jobs. We create jobs for those people who are producing the insulation, the new doors, the windows, and the new roofing that makes homes and buildings more energy efficient. Furthermore, in our State and around the country, we are seeing, as I indicated a moment ago, significant progress in moving to sustainable energy--the solar industry, growing very rapidly; wind energy, growing very rapidly; other technologies, growing very rapidly. As a nation, we should be proud of the change that is taking place. But understand that we have a long way to go to be the kind of energy efficient and sustainable energy Nation we know we can become and to help lead the world in a new energy direction. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 13, 2011, at 10 a.m.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 13, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on December 13, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations.''

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs' Subcommittee on Housing, Transportation, and Community Development be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 13, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Helping Homeowners Harmed by Foreclosures: Ensuring Accountability and Transparency in Foreclosure Reviews.''

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to engage in a colloquy with my colleagues for the remainder of the Democratic time in morning business.