Floor Statements

Mr. President, S. Con. Res. 14, the fiscal year 2022 congressional budget resolution, included a reserve fund in section 3003 to allow the chairman of the Committee on the Budget to revise budget aggregates and committee allocations for legislation that would not increase the deficit over the period of fiscal years 2022 to 2031.

The Senate will soon consider S. 2938, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, as proposed to be amended by Senate Amendment No. 5099, which meets the condition of not increasing the deficit over the relevant 10-year period. As such, I am filing a revision to the aggregates and committee allocations under the budget resolution, which were last revised on April 7, as well as the Senate pay-as-you-go scorecard. Specifically, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that Division A of the bill would increase 2022 budget authority by $7.5 billion and increase 2022 outlays by $1 million but decrease spending over the 5- and 10-year windows. Over the 2022-2026 period, the bill would decrease spending by $5.7 billion and increase revenues by $4 million. Over the 2022-2031 period, the bill would decrease spending by $5.3 billion and increase revenue by $10 million. Division B of the bill appropriates additional discretionary spending, but that spending is designated as an emergency and not subject to budget enforcement.

I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying tables, which provide details about the adjustment, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, at 5:15 this afternoon, we will be voting on a budget resolution written by my colleague Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky. As chairman of the Budget Committee, I urge a very strong ``no'' vote.

At a time of a massive incline in wealth inequality, at a time when two people in our country own more wealth than the bottom 42 percent of our population, at a time when the top 1 percent owns more wealth than the bottom 92 percent, at a time when we are looking at more income and wealth inequality than at any time in American history, this budget resolution offered by Senator Paul would move us in exactly the wrong direction and make a bad situation worse.

Senator Paul's resolution would make the very wealthiest people in this country even wealthier, while at the same time, it would make tens of millions of middle-class Americans--people in the middle class, people in the working class, lower income Americans--even poorer.

We remain, sadly, the only major country on Earth not to guarantee healthcare to all people as a human right. We pay the highest prices by far in the world for prescription drugs. Half of our people are living paycheck to paycheck, and millions are working at 8, 9, 10 bucks an hour because we still have a disastrous, starvation minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. Many millions of Americans today, as housing prices soar, are spending half or more of their limited incomes on housing. Forty-five million people in our country are struggling with student debt. At a time when half of older Americans have no savings--people have worked their entire lives, and they have no savings to prepare themselves for retirement. The Social Security benefits that they will receive are inadequate to allow them to live out their remaining years in dignity.

What this budget resolution brought forth by Senator Paul does is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing. Instead of expanding Medicare to make sure that every man, woman, and child in this country has healthcare as a human right, this is a budget that would lead to devastating cuts to Medicare, cuts to Medicaid, and cuts to other public health programs.

Senator Paul's budget resolution would cut nutrition assistance at a time when there are children in America today who are going hungry. It would cut Federal aid to education at a time when schools are looking for funding to pay the teachers they need adequate wages. But in the midst of this budget that cuts healthcare, that cuts education, that cuts Social Security, that cuts every benefit needed by ordinary Americans, this is a budget that would give massive tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this country.

So you have a situation where, right now, we have a tax system which is broken, which is corrupt, which allows some billionaires in a given year to pay zero in Federal income taxes--zero. Some of the richest people in this country in a given year do not pay a nickel in Federal income tax. We have a tax system which allows dozens of major, profitable corporations making billions of dollars a year in profit to pay in a given year zero in Federal income tax. We have an effective tax rate today in which billionaires pay a lower effective rate than nurses and firefighters. That is what we have today. Senator Paul's budget--well, you guessed it. You are right. It would give even more tax breaks to the 1 percent and to the billionaire class.

Unfortunately, the vision of America that Senator Paul's budget puts forward--balancing the budget on the backs of working families, the elderly, the children, the sick, and the poor in order to make the richest people in America even richer--is not just the vision of Senator Paul. I wish it was just his vision, and I have to applaud his honesty for coming forward and putting his vision on paper. Unfortunately, it is the vision of many, many people in the Republican Party, and this is what they want.

Senator Paul and many in the Republican Party do not believe that it was good enough to provide over $1 trillion in tax breaks to the top 1 percent and large corporations, as they did when Trump was President-- not good enough. The budget that we are debating today, Senator Paul's proposal, would make those tax breaks for the wealthy and the powerful permanent--permanent--at a cost of more than $2 trillion over the next decade, cutting nutrition programs for hungry children, throwing millions of people off of Medicare and Medicaid, but providing $2 trillion in tax breaks for the very wealthy.

Under Trump, Republicans came within 1 vote of passing a bill that would have thrown up to 32 million Americans off of health insurance and eliminated vital protections for people with preexisting conditions like cancer or diabetes and substantially increased premiums for older workers. That was the bill that the Trump administration tried to get passed. It failed by one vote--the late Senator McCain.

Senator Paul and many Republicans who support this budget resolution believe that what they tried to do a few years ago in decimating the Affordable Care Act--hey, that didn't go far enough.

So the budget that we are talking about right now, Senator Paul's proposal, would throw up to 35 million Americans off of Medicaid.

So what do you do in the middle of a pandemic when you have no health insurance? Well, right now, as a nation today, there are estimates that about 60,000 people a year die because they don't get to a doctor on time. Throw 35 million people off Medicaid, that number will escalate. We are talking about tens and tens of thousands of people who would die because they wouldn't have Medicaid, wouldn't be able to go to a doctor when they are sick.

When Donald Trump was in office, he proposed a budget that would have cut Medicare by nearly $845 billion. Senator Paul and the Republicans who

will support this budget do not believe that those cuts went far enough--only $845 billion in cuts to Medicare. The budget we are debating today would cut Medicare by up to $3.9 trillion over the next decade and throw some 29 million senior citizens and persons with disabilities off of Medicare.

At a time when tens of millions of Americans struggle with hunger, Senator Paul and the Republicans who support this budget want to cut the SNAP program by $300 billion, throwing some 13 million people off of that program.

I don't know what a nation stands for if we cannot feed the hungry and if we cannot provide healthcare to people who need it, but that is what this budget does. Overall, Senator Paul's budget would make $15 trillion in cuts over the next 10 years, slashing the Federal budget by nearly 40 percent by the end of this decade.

So that is where we are today, Mr. President. And, again, I would reiterate that this is not just Senator Paul's budget. And I applaud him for his honesty. He is an honest guy; he is a straightforward guy; and he comes forward and he says: This is what I believe.

It would be bad enough if this were just the views of one U.S. Senator. Unfortunately, it is not. These are the views of many in the Republican Party.

So, Mr. President, it is absolutely imperative that this budget proposal of Senator Paul be defeated and that we move this country forward in a very different direction. It is a direction which says that the U.S. Government should be representing the needs of all of the people, not just the wealthy and the powerful and Big Money campaign contributors. It is a vision in opposition to Senator Paul that says that healthcare is a human right, that we have to stand up to the pharmaceutical industry and cut prescription drug costs in this country in half. It is a vision which says that, no, we should not be cutting Social Security; we should be lifting the cap on taxable income, which today is at $147,000, meaning that somebody making $10 million pays the same amount into Social Security as somebody making $147,000. We should be lifting that cap so that we can increase Social Security benefits for all seniors.

So, Mr. President, this is not just a budget resolution on the part of the Senator from Kentucky, Senator Paul; this really is a contrasting vision of where we want this country to go. Do we want to move into an oligarchic form of society where a handful of people on top have enormous wealth and enormous political power while, at the same time, the middle class continues to become small and we have more and more people living in poverty?

So these are contrasting visions of the future of America, and I hope very much that Senator Paul's resolution will be soundly defeated.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the PACT legislation that we are now considering.

As a former chair and longtime member of the Senate Veterans' Committee, one of my highest priorities is to make certain that every veteran in this country, people who have put their lives on the line to defend us, get the quality healthcare and benefits that they have deserved.

This is an important piece of legislation, and I want to congratulate Senator Tester, chair of the committee, and Ranking Member Moran for their hard work on this. This legislation will improve healthcare, research, and resources for veterans who were exposed to deadly toxic substances and environmental hazards, including open-air burn pits, during their military service. This legislation will finally recognize and treat toxic exposure as a cost of war for the millions of veterans Congress has ignored for far too long. And we do that by adding 23 burn pit and toxic exposure-related conditions to the VA's list of service presumptions. This will mean that some 3.5 million veterans will now be eligible for VA healthcare, and that is very, very important.

It goes without saying that in the wealthiest country on Earth, where we spend more on defense than the next 11 nations combined, no veteran should be without the healthcare that they are, in my view, entitled to. I understand there is not the political support for this in Congress right now, but I happen to believe that in a world in which nation after nation guarantees healthcare to all of their people as a right--in fact, we are the only major country on Earth not to do that-- that the very least we could do is to make certain that every man and woman who has put the uniform of the United States of America on, put their lives on the line, are, in fact, entitled to healthcare because they served our country. That is my view. This bill does not do that, but this bill does at least enroll 3.5 million more people for VA healthcare, and it is a step forward.

In terms of this bill, clearly, it is unacceptable that we have exposed our military members to toxic burn pits and other dangerous substances on the battlefield. For decades, the Pentagon has utilized open-air burn pits to dispose of a wide variety of waste, including medical, human, and hazardous waste.

Way back in 2009, when he led the U.S. Central Command, GEN David Petraeus sounded the alarm ``about the effects of burn pits and airborne toxins on our servicemembers and civilians.'' Despite those concerns, DOD continued to expose U.S. forces to burn pits, leaving the VA with the responsibility of dealing with the consequences of these dangerous and deadly actions.

So the bottom line is, I am deeply supportive of this legislation. It is a step forward. But we can significantly improve this bill, and that is why I have introduced four amendments to this important bill that I hope will be supported by the Senate.

First, this first amendment that I have offered will expand permanent access to VA healthcare to members of the National Guard and Reserve who are not otherwise eligible. Right now, National Guard men and women who are activated on Presidential orders are eligible for VA healthcare, and that is good, but that turns out to be only a very small percentage of people who are in the National Guard and Reserve. And I happen to believe that if you are in the National Guard or Reserve and you could be called up at any moment to put your life on the line, I think you should be entitled to VA healthcare. And that is what that amendment does.

The second amendment deals with--what can I say--a pathetic and laughable bureaucratic nightmare that currently exists in the VA. And Rube Goldberg would have a hard time coming up with a system like this. This is really quite amazing. And that is, within the VA bureaucracy, which is itself difficult to overcome for many veterans, you have a system which now has over 3,000 income eligibility standards based on ZIP Codes.

So a veteran out there watching this says: You know, I would like to apply for VA healthcare. I served my country honorably. How do I do it?

Well, it turns out that, depending on your income and depending on the ZIP Code that you live in, you may or may not be eligible for VA healthcare. So, in other words, in Vermont you can have one veteran with an income of X living across the street from another veteran who has an income of Y, $3,000 more or less. One veteran will be eligible for VA healthcare; another will not. In a large State like California, you have literally hundreds of different income eligibility standards that veterans are going to have to overcome.

So if people go to a service officer in the VFW or the American Legion and ask: Am I eligible, it takes a lot of research to determine whether you are eligible. Look at the eligibility standards for San Francisco versus Los Angeles, for example. There are many, many thousands of dollars in differential. So you could be eligible in San Francisco--rather, eligible in Los Angeles and not in San Francisco. It really makes no sense. It is a nightmare.

This amendment simplifies it. It simply says that every State in the country takes the highest level of income eligibility and that is the standard. So you will have 50 standards rather than 3,000 standards, and I think that will make it a lot easier for veterans to access VA healthcare.

My third amendment is a pretty simple one. It says that the VA should

maintain a dental clinic in every State in the country to provide necessary dental services for veterans. Right now, there are very few States that do not have at least one dental clinic. My own State of Vermont is one of those States, and I think every State should have that.

My fourth amendment again deals with the issue of dental care. One of the many, many crises facing the American dysfunctional healthcare system is that, by and large, we do not recognize dental care as being healthcare, and the result of that in the general public is there are many, many, many millions of people who cannot afford the outrageously high cost of dental care. These are people, including many seniors, who literally lose all of the teeth in their mouth; they can't chew their food properly. For younger people, they can't go out and get a job successfully because if you open your mouth and you don't have any teeth in it, it is kind of hard to get hired under those conditions.

Currently, out of the 8.9 million veterans enrolled in VA healthcare, only 16 percent--or 1.4 million veterans--are eligible for dental care, and that is because, within the VA, almost the only people eligible for dental care are those with service-connected problems. In other words, if you have a service-connected issue with your mouth, with your teeth, you are eligible for VA healthcare, but if you don't, if you are simply a veteran whose teeth are rotting in his or her mouth, sorry, you are not eligible.

And the limitations of that approach are not only that dental care should be considered as healthcare in general; if somebody is suffering with poor dental care, we should take care of that person because it is healthcare. But there is no question that dental problems, oral problems--infections, et cetera--have an impact on our overall health.

According to the VA, there are roughly 3.9 million veterans who have chronic diabetes and heart disease who are enrolled in the VA--3.9 million. Most of the veterans diagnosed with diabetes were exposed to Agent Orange during their service in the Vietnam war. Furthermore, the overwhelming healthcare consensus is that poor oral health worsens the symptoms of diabetes and heart disease. So what that means in English is that you have veterans out there who are struggling with diabetes, struggling with heart disease, and their problem is exacerbated by poor dental health, poor oral health; and yet they can't get the dental care they need, which not only should be an end in itself, but it also impacts their overall health.

So, without going into great detail, I would say that providing dental care to veterans not only eases pain, not only addresses overall healthcare concerns, but it ends up being a very cost effective approach. In a 2019 report to Congress on the cost of expanding dental care--something that I asked for--the VA stated--and I quote:

. . . the provision of dental services could result in some

reduction in total health care costs.

Neglecting oral health can contribute to health problems

including bacterial pneumonia, cardiovascular disease, and

oral cancer.

In other words, when you treat oral problems, you are treating overall health issues; and you can keep people healthier and not have to expend a whole lot of money dealing with the health problems of those veterans.

During a VA briefing earlier this month, the VA's office of dentistry stated unequivocally that ``dental care is essential to overall health care'' while simultaneously advocating to maintain VA's dental eligibility status quo.

The bottom line is that it is not complicated; dental care is healthcare. By ignoring dental care, we cause other healthcare problems and we increase expenses to the VA.

So those are the four amendments, and I hope the Senate will give them serious consideration.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, the recently leaked draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization signals what many of us have feared would happen: At least five rightwing Supreme Court Justices seem poised to overturn Roe v. Wade and abolish the constitutional right of women to have an abortion.

In my view, the U.S. Senate cannot and must not allow that to happen. We cannot go back to the days when women had to risk their lives to end an unwanted pregnancy. We cannot go back to the days of back alley abortions. We cannot go back to the days of forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy or go through a childbirth that could cause her illness or death. That, we cannot go back to.

In America today, it is estimated that one out of every four women will choose to have an abortion by the time she turns 45. In 2019, over 625,000 women in America chose to have an abortion. While no one can say with any degree of certainty how many deaths there will be if abortion is made illegal and women are forced to carry unsafe pregnancies to term, there is no doubt that, over a period of time, many thousands of American women will die.

Now, I get very tired of hearing the hypocrisy from the extreme rightwing, who say to ``get the government off our backs.'' How often have we heard that--``get the government off our backs; we want small government''?

Well, I say to those rightwingers: If you want to get the government off the backs of the American people, then understand that it is women who control their own bodies, not politicians.

During the COVID crisis, how many times had we heard on this floor and throughout this country the extreme rightwing say: The government must not force us to wear a mask. How dare the government do that. Government must not force us to have a vaccine. We

have the right to do what we want with our bodies?

Well, hypocritically, these very same rightwing politicians who worry so much about their masks and vaccines now want the Federal Government, the State governments, and their own local governments to mandate what women cannot and can do with their bodies. How hypocritical can you be?

The decision about an abortion must be a decision for the woman and her doctor to make, not the government. That is why I rise this evening in strong support of the Women's Health Protection Act.

This legislation would make Roe v. Wade the law of the land. This legislation would begin to put an end to the relentless assault on the reproductive rights of women that is taking place all across this country.

But let me be as clear as I can be: It is not good enough to just talk about passing this bill. If there are not 60 votes in the Senate to pass this legislation--and there are not--we must end the filibuster and pass it with 50 votes.

You know, I hear a lot of talk from my Democratic colleagues about the need for unity. Well, if there were ever a time for unity, now is that time.

According to poll after poll, year after year, 60 percent of the American people believe that Roe v. Wade should be upheld. Moreover, according to a recent Washington Post-ABC poll, 75 percent of Americans say decisions on abortion should be left to a woman and her doctor, including 95 percent of Democrats, 81 percent of Independents, and 53 percent of Republicans.

In other words, if the U.S. Senate were truly a representative body of the American people--which for a variety of reasons, clearly, it is not--we would easily have 60 votes to pass this bill, and women would be protected.

It is important for us to remember how we got to where we are today.

Five years ago, Senator Mitch McConnell--the Republican leader--and the Republican Party in the Senate ended the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees in order to do what they could not do legislatively, which was to make abortion illegal. They didn't have the votes to do that. So, in order to get Supreme Court Justices nominated, they ended the filibuster.

Candidate Donald Trump promised that he would only nominate Supreme Court Justices who supported overturning Roe v. Wade. Unfortunately, out of the many lies--endless number of lies--that Trump made during his campaign and Presidency, it turns out that this is the one promise that he kept, the one honest statement that he made.

Further, while it looks like, in this rare instance, Trump kept his promise, the Republican Supreme Court Justices, during their Senate confirmation hearings, did not. In fact, Justice Alito and the three Justices nominated by President Trump, all called Roe v. Wade an ``important precedent'' during their confirmation hearings.

Let me quote Justice Alito at his Senate confirmation hearing on January 11, 2006:

Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court.

It was decided in 1973, so it has been on the books for a

long time. It is a precedent that has now been on the books

for several decades. It has been challenged. It has been

reaffirmed.

That was Alito.

In 2017, Justice Gorsuch said at his confirmation hearing:

Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United

States Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. A good judge

will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court,

worthy of treatment as precedent like any other.

In 2018, Justice Kavanaugh said at his confirmation hearing:

I said that [Roe v. Wade] is settled as a precedent of the

Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles of stare

decisis. And one of the important things to keep in mind

about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times

over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently,

most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey

in 1992.

That was Justice Kavanaugh.

But, today, it has become increasingly clear that, despite these statements to the contrary, the three Justices nominated by Trump were hired specifically to overturn Roe v. Wade, and with Justice Alito at the helm, nominated by President George W. Bush, that is precisely what it appears they are set to do.

These are four Justices, all appointed by Presidents who lost the popular vote. Is it any wonder why Americans all over our country are losing faith in their democracy?

Well, you know what I believe: If Republicans can end the filibuster to install rightwing Justices--nominated by Presidents who lost the popular vote--in order to overturn Roe v. Wade, Democrats can and must end the filibuster to make abortion legal and safe.

Let's be clear: If the Supreme Court strikes down Roe v. Wade, abortion bans will immediately go into effect in 22 States throughout America, with 4 others likely to follow suit. In 10 of these States, it will be illegal to have an abortion even in cases of rape or incest.

For example, in the State of Texas, if Roe v. Wade is struck down, it will be considered a felony for any Texas doctor to perform an abortion on a woman who is raped or impregnated by a family member. Furthermore, that law would actually criminalize abortion, punishing both women and doctors, who could face years in prison if they are found guilty.

Other States have passed similar types of legislation. Mississippi's Governor has even refused to rule out the banning of contraception as a next step--the banning of contraception.

Let us be clear: The Supreme Court, no matter how it ends up ruling, will not be able to ban abortion.

If you are wealthy and if you have the means to get on an airplane or drive hundreds of miles to a clinic, you will have access to a safe abortion. But if you are poor or a member of the working class, it is likely that you will not. The reality is that overturning Roe v. Wade would be devastating to low-income and working-class women, who do not have the means to travel long distances to get an abortion.

The issue we are discussing tonight is often framed as a ``woman's issue.'' I disagree. This is a human rights issue. And if there has ever been a time in American history when the men of this country must stand with the women of this country, this is that moment.

I do find it somewhat amusing that the loudest voices in the Republican Party demanding that women be forced to give birth against their will are exactly the same people who oppose virtually every effort here in Congress designed to improve life for children and their mothers.

These Republicans are opposed--and some Democrats are opposed--to paid family and medical leave in America. They literally believe that it is acceptable for an employer to force a mother to go back to her job a week after giving birth. Some Republican colleagues want women, regardless of what they believe, to have a baby, but they could care less about those babies once they are born.

These same Republicans, without exception, are opposed to extending the $300 a month child tax credit that expired in December and went a long, long way to making it easier for working-class families to raise their children with dignity. These same Republicans are opposed to universal childcare and free pre-K.

It is no great secret that women throughout the history of our country have had to fight valiantly for their basic human rights against all forms of patriarchy. Let us never forget that when our country was formed, women were not just second-class citizens; they were third or fourth class citizens.

Women have been fighting for equal rights in this country since the 1800s. They didn't receive the right to vote until 1920. If you can believe this--and people don't know this--women needed a male cosigner on bank loans until 1974. Women had to get a male cosigner for a bank loan until 1974.

Throughout the 1960s and 1970s--and way, way before that--women had to fight for entry into certain professions from which they were barred. The fight for equal pay continues to this day.

Let us be clear. When it comes to the rights of women, we cannot go backward. We must go forward. We cannot go back to the days when women could not have full access to birth control. We cannot go back to the days of wide-scale domestic violence against women. The time has come for all of us to protect and expand women's rights in America.

I yield the floor.

I call up my motion to instruct, which is at the desk.

Mr. President, no one disagrees that we need to manufacture more microchips here in the United States, but we should not be providing a $53 billion blank check to the highly profitable microchip industry with no protections for the American taxpayer.

The five companies that will likely receive the lion's share of this funding: Intel, Texas Instruments, Samsung, Micron Technology, and Global Foundries made over $75 billion in profits last year and spent over $18 billion on stock buybacks.

We have strange priorities here in the Senate. We can't extend the child tax credit to combat child poverty. We can't deal with the crisis in childcare. We can't provide dental care to seniors on Medicare. We can't deal with climate change. But somehow we can provide a massive amount of corporate welfare to a handful of corporations.

The motion I am offering today would instruct the conferees to impose the following conditions on companies receiving this assistance: They must agree to issue warrants or equity stakes to the Federal Government.

If private corporations are going to benefit from $53 billion in taxpayer welfare, the financial gains must be shared with the American people--not just wealthy stockholders. Further, these companies must agree to not buy back their own stock, not outsource American jobs, not repeal existing collective bargaining agreements, and remain neutral in union organizing efforts.

What we are talking about here is not a radical idea. These exact conditions, word for word, were included in the bipartisan CARES Act, which passed the Senate 96 to 0.

Mr. President, may I have 30 seconds in response?

No one debates the need for chips. But to my friend from Ohio, I would say: You are right. We lost tens of thousands of jobs over the last 20 years. You know why? Because the same microchip companies shut down plants in America to go for cheap labor in Asia, and now we are rewarding them with $53 billion in corporate welfare.

For all of my friends who talk about the deficit and how we can't fund the needs of our children or the elderly, $53 billion going to some of the most profitable corporations in America without any taxpayer protection is an absolute outrage.

Let's vote for this proposal.

Vote on Motion

Mr. President, recent polls suggest that Congress has a 19-percent favorability rating, and I find that shocking. Clearly, if that 19 percent had any inkling as to what goes on here in the Senate, that number would be much lower.

Over and over again, I hear Members of the Senate express their deep concerns about the deficit. ``Oh, my God, our deficit.'' We can't maintain a child tax credit to cut child poverty, and we can't make sure that senior citizens on Medicare have teeth in their mouths--we just can't afford it--but, apparently, we can afford to provide $125 billion in tax breaks over the next 4 years to some of the most profitable corporations in America, including Amazon, Intel, AT&T, Boeing, you name it.

This amendment would repeal--now, this is amazing, and I say this to my Democratic colleagues. This amendment would repeal a modest tax increase on profitable corporations that President Donald Trump pushed to partially offset the cost of his massive tax giveaway to the rich a few years ago. This was Trump's initiative to kind of cover the tax breaks he gave to billionaires and large corporations. If this amendment were enacted, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon would receive a $2 billion tax break each year, and Northrop Grumman would receive a $1 billion tax break.

Is that what we are in the business of doing, telling working families we can't help them but that we are giving huge tax breaks to some of the wealthiest and most profitable corporations in America?

I urge my colleagues to vote against this motion.

Mr. President, I call up my motion to instruct, which is at the desk.

Mr. President, this motion is cosponsored by Senator Johnson of Wisconsin, and I have to say that we are on a roll tonight.

We have already voted to give $53 billion in corporate welfare to the microchip industry. We voted to give $125 billion in tax breaks to some of the wealthiest corporations in the country.

But now we have the opportunity to do even better. We can give $10 billion to Jeff Bezos, the second wealthiest person in this country, who is the owner of the space company Blue Origin.

Clearly, Mr. Bezos desperately needs this Federal assistance. He is only worth $150 billion, and with all of his lawyers and accountants, in a given year, he pays nothing in Federal income taxes.

He is the owner of Amazon, which in a given year also pays nothing in Federal income taxes.

Mr. Bezos has enough money to buy a $500 million yacht, $175 million estate in Beverly Hills, and a $23 million mansion here in Washington.

I am sure that your constituents will be very excited to hear that you are going to give him this $10 billion, which he clearly desperately needs.

Further, for those people here who believe in trade unions, Mr. Bezos has spent millions of dollars at Amazon preventing workers at Amazon from exercising their constitutional right to form a union.

He is part of Amazon, a company that has been fined over and over again for violating the law.

Mr. President, at a time when 70 million are uninsured, when 600,000 people are homeless in this country, when we are seeing a growing gap between the very rich and everybody else, it does not make a lot of sense to give $10 billion to the second wealthiest person in this country.

I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this motion.

Mr. President, you know, I hear this word ``competition,'' but I want everybody to know what the competition is in the space program.

The competition is between Mr. Musk and SpaceX. Musk is the wealthiest guy in the country, and Jeff Bezos and Blue Origin, the second wealthiest guy in this country.

Is that really the kind of space program that the American people want? I think not.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I wish to submit to the Senate a budget scorekeeping report. The report, which covers fiscal year 2022, was prepared by the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 308(b) and in aid of section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended. This information allows the Senate Budget Committee to determine if budgetary

points of order lie against pending legislation.

The report shows the effect on spending and revenues of congressional action through April 25, 2022, as compared to the levels the Senate agreed to in the budget resolution for fiscal year 2022, S. Con. Res 14. I have revised the levels in the budget resolution five times for legislation, as authorized by the resolution. The report shows the effects of the 11 laws signed by the President since the passage of the budget resolution with significant effects on budget authority, outlays, or revenues.

Tables 1 and 2 show that for fiscal year 2022, current law budget authority is $27 billion below the maximum allowed in the revised budget resolution, outlays are $18 billion below the allowed maximum, and revenues are $0.1 billion above the allowed minimum. They also show there has been no net change for Social Security.

The third table shows the Senate pay-as-you-go scorecard tallying enacted legislation with significant effects on mandatory spending and revenues. The scorecard shows a savings of $7.8 billion in 2022, $74.8 billion over the 2022-2026 period, and $139.9 billion over the 2022- 2031 period. When compared to the allowable amounts on the PAYGO scorecard last adjusted on March 2, there is a deficit of $668 million on the scorecard for 2022, a deficit of $687 million over the 2022-2026 period, and a surplus of $1.09 billion over the 2022-2031 period.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter and accompanying tables from CBO be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, the American people are increasingly outraged by the level of corporate greed that we are seeing in this country. As you know, while prices are rapidly increasing, corporate profits are soaring: in the oil industry in what we pay at the gas pumps; in the food industry in what we pay in grocery stores; in housing and in so many other areas. Meanwhile, while the very, very rich get richer, because of inflation, many workers are now seeing a decline in their real wages.

During this pandemic, unbelievably--and I hope that everybody knows this--while workers have been struggling, the billionaire class, people who are worth at least $1 billion, have seen a $2 trillion increase in their wealth; and the level of income and wealth inequality today is the highest that it has been in over 100 years.

Two people--Mr. Musk and Mr. Bezos--now own more wealth than the bottom 42 percent of American society--over 130 million people. Two people own more wealth than the bottom 130 million Americans.

In the midst of all of this--inflation, inequality, corporate greed-- working people have declared loudly and clearly that enough is enough. We must end the corporate greed that is hurting so many of our families. Workers are now fighting back in a way that I have not seen for a very long time to improve their standard of living, to get the wages and benefits they desperately need, and to get a seat at the negotiating table in a way that has not taken place in a very, very long time.

Workers throughout this country are now in the process of organizing unions at a grassroots level and are prepared to go out on strike when the greed of large corporations prevents them from receiving decent wages and decent benefits. During the last couple of years, I have personally been involved in a number of union-organizing campaigns and strikes throughout the country--from John Deere, Nabisco, and Kellogg's in the Midwest to the Warrior Met strike in Alabama--which continues today--to the Kroger grocery store strike in Colorado, and many others--and I have to say that I have been incredibly impressed by the solidarity and the courage of those workers who are prepared to stand up for justice against very powerful corporate interests.

As I am sure the Presiding Officer knows, a historic union victory was achieved nearly 1 month ago by Amazon workers in Staten Island. Amazon is one of the most profitable and one of the most powerful corporations in America. It is also one of the largest employers in our country, with close to a million workers.

We are talking, when we talk about Amazon, about a company that made a record-breaking $36 billion in profit last year--$36 billion. And that was a 453-percent increase from where it was before the pandemic. In other words, Amazon today is doing unbelievably well, and, in fact, it is doing better as a company than it has ever done before.

We are talking about a company that is owned by Mr. Jeff Bezos, the second wealthiest person in America, worth $170 billion. Let me repeat that. He is not the wealthiest; he is only the second wealthiest, worth $170 billion.

And here is something that is interesting and tells you about our corrupt political system and our regressive and unfair tax system. We are talking about a company--Amazon--that makes huge profits, that paid nothing--zero--in Federal income taxes in 2017 and 2018 and paid a lower tax rate, Federal tax rate, than a nurse or a firefighter last year, after making billions in profits. The average nurse, firefighter, or grocery store worker has an effective tax rate that is higher than what Amazon's was last year.

We are also talking about Mr. Bezos as an individual, who, in a given year, despite his extraordinary wealth, has also paid zero--nothing--in Federal taxes.

It is funny. On Sunday, I was in New York City, and I stopped in a McDonald's and was talking to one of the guys who works there. I asked him how much money he made. He makes $15 an hour. And then he came back and said: Well, they take out over a dollar in Federal taxes. So a guy working in McDonald's for $15 an hour probably has a higher tax rate than the second wealthiest person in this country.

That is what happens here in Washington when you are somebody like Mr. Bezos or some other billionaire and you make a lot of campaign contributions and you have an army of accountants and lawyers who help you avoid your tax responsibilities.

Mr. President, during the pandemic the last several years, Mr. Bezos, like

many other billionaires, did very, very well. In fact, since March of 2020, Mr. Bezos became $65 billion richer, in just a couple of years-- huge increase in his wealth. So, Mr. President, if you ask me why people in this country are really, really angry, I will tell you, and that has a lot to do with the reality that, in the midst of the pandemic, in the midst of the massive economic dislocation that we have seen, we have lost tens of thousands of essential workers, people who live paycheck to paycheck, who had no choice. They had to go into a warehouse. They had to go into a grocery store. They had to drive a bus. They had to do all of the things that keep America going; and as a result of that, having to go to work, thousands of them contracted COVID and many thousands actually died. That is what happens when you are an ordinary worker in America living paycheck to paycheck. You don't have a choice. You have got to go to work to feed your family.

And during that same period, the billionaires and Mr. Bezos made out like bandits. Bezos himself became $65 billion richer. Jeff Bezos has enough money to own a $500 million yacht--$500 million yacht. He has enough money to afford a $175 million estate in Beverly Hills. He has enough money to afford a $78 million, 14-acre estate in Maui. He has enough money to own a $23 million mansion right here in Washington, DC, which has 25 bathrooms. So if you are in Washington, DC, and you have to go to the bathroom, you know someplace that you can possibly go. Mr. Bezos has enough money to buy a rocket ship to blast William Shatner to the edge of outer space.

Yet even though Mr. Bezos can afford all of these mansions and his $500 million yacht and his rocket ship, Mr. Bezos refuses to pay his workers at Amazon decent wages, decent benefits, or provide decent working conditions.

That, Mr. President, is what excessive greed is all about, and that is why the American people are saying enough is enough. The American people want action from the President; they want action from Congress; and we have got to deliver.

From the very beginning of the union-organizing effort until today, Mr. Bezos and his company have done everything possible--legal and illegal--to defeat the union effort. In fact, Amazon cannot even come to grips with the reality that workers in Staten Island won their union election fair and square. In order to stall the process out, Amazon's lawyers have appealed that election result to the NLRB. Their strategy, as is often the strategy of corporate interests confronting unions, is to use their incredible resources, their unending amount of money, to stall, stall, and stall.

In every way possible, Amazon is refusing to negotiate a fair first contract with the Amazon Labor Union. In fact, Amazon has been engaged in a massive attempt to undermine the union organizing drive in direct violation of labor laws and regulations.

Let's be clear. Amazon has already been penalized more than $75 million for breaking Federal discrimination and labor laws. Amazon is currently being sued by the National Labor Relations Board to reinstate a worker who was illegally fired for organizing a union. To date, there are currently 59--59--unfair labor cases against Amazon pending at the National Labor Relations Board. Several current and former employees at Amazon have alleged that the company has engaged in illegal harassment and discrimination based on race, gender, and sexual orientation.

Amazon misclassifies delivery drivers as independent contractors rather than employees in order to evade tax, wage, and benefit responsibilities.

Amazon's inadequate workplace safety policies also pose grave risks to workers. If you can believe it--and this really is quite unbelievable--according to a New York Times investigation, Amazon warehouses have a 150-percent turnover rate--150 percent a year. Workers come into the warehouses; they are worked as hard as humanly possible. And then after they are exhausted and physically broken down, they leave and then a whole new set of workers comes in and the process continues. Further, in some locations, their workplace injury rates are more than 2\1/2\ times the industry average.

I was in Staten Island on Sunday talking to some Amazon workers, and they tell me that injuries take place every single day, and many of them go unreported. Last December, six Amazon workers died after they were required to continue working during unsafe weather conditions in a warehouse that did not have appropriate safety facilities or policies.

It is abundantly clear that time and time again, Amazon has engaged in illegal anti-union activity. Amazon may be a large and profitable corporation, it may be owned by one of the wealthiest people in America, but it cannot be allowed to continue to violate the law and the rights of its employees. If working people are asked to obey the law, they do it, or they get punished. That same principle must be upheld for a large and powerful corporation like Amazon.

That is why this morning, I sent a letter to President Biden urging him to sign an Executive order to prohibit companies like Amazon that have violated labor laws from receiving Federal contracts paid for by the taxpayers of America.

Let me quote directly from the letter:

Dear President Biden, last September, I was delighted to

hear you State that you ``intend to be the most pro-union

President leading the most pro-union administration in

American history.''

That is from President Biden.

At a time of massive income and wealth inequality, where

too many workers are falling behind, your sentiment [Mr.

President] is exactly right. We need to build the trade union

movement in America and allow [more] workers to engage in

collective bargaining.

One of the most effective ways for you [President Biden] to

begin accomplishing this important goal would be to ensure

that no corporation that is engaged in illegal anti-union

activities receives a contract paid for by the taxpayers of

the United States.

That would be enormously effective in curtailing the illegal activities of companies like Amazon. I then continued in saying in my letter to the President:

As you will recall [Mr. President], during the presidential

campaign you promised to ``institute a multi-year federal

debarment for all employers who illegally oppose unions'' and

to ``ensure federal contracts only go to employers who sign

neutrality agreements committing not to run anti-union

campaigns.

That is what President Biden said as a candidate for President.

Then I say in my letter:

That campaign promise was exactly right. Today, I am asking

you to fulfill that promise . . . As you may know, Amazon,

one of the largest and most profitable corporations in

America, is the poster child as to why this anti-union

busting Executive Order is needed now more than ever.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, President Biden, more than any other President I can recall, has talked over and over again about being pro- union. I appreciate very much what the President has said, and I know him to be absolutely sincere when he says it. But just this afternoon, in an article published in POLITICO, an article that dealt with my letter to the President, this is what the article said:

A White House official said that the President ``has stated

consistently and firmly that every worker in every state must

have a free and fair choice to join a union and the right to

bargain collectively with their employer.'' The official, who

declined to be named, added that Biden believes ``there

should be no intimidation, no coercion, no threats, and no

anti-union propaganda from employers while workers are making

that vitally important choice about a union.''

That is a statement from a White House spokesman this afternoon.

What I would say is that what this official said that President Biden doesn't want is precisely what is happening in Amazon right now. There is intimidation. There is coercion. There are threats and anti-union propaganda. In fact, what President Biden says should not be happening is precisely what is happening at Amazon.

Therefore, it is my view that the time for talk is over. The time for action is now. Taxpayer dollars should not go to companies like Amazon and multibillionaires like Jeff Bezos who repeatedly break the law. No government--not the Federal Government, not the State government, and not the city government--should be handing out corporate welfare to union busters and labor law violators.

Today, I say to President Biden: You promised to prevent union busters like Amazon from receiving lucrative contracts from the Federal Government. Keep that promise.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, S. Con. Res. 14, the fiscal year 2022 congressional budget resolution, included authority in section 4004 to allow the chairman of the Committee on the Budget to adjust budget aggregates and committee allocations related to program integrity, disaster relief, wildfire suppression, and veterans medical care funding.

H.R. 2471, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, was enacted on March 15, 2022, and designates funding eligible for several of these adjustments. Specifically, the bill provides $18.9 billion in budget authority for disaster relief, $2.1 billion in budget authority for program integrity activities to combat waste, fraud, and abuse, and $2.5 billion in budget authority to fight wildfires. Accordingly, I am adjusting the allocation to the Committee on Appropriations and the spending aggregates upward by these amounts and by the amount of outlays flowing therefrom.

I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying tables, which provide details about the adjustment, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I look forward to offering two rollcall votes on motions to instruct conferees to the so-called ``competitiveness'' bill based on the assurances given to me by the majority leader. I am not quite sure when we are going to get to that, but I look forward to offering those two rollcall votes.

The first motion would instruct the conference committee not to provide $53 billion to the highly profitable microchip industry without protections for the American people.

The second motion would instruct conferees not to provide a $10 billion bailout to Blue Origin, a space company owned by Jeff Bezos, the second-wealthiest person in America, who is also the owner of Amazon. Amazon is a company which, in a given year, pays nothing-- zero--in Federal income taxes after making billions in profits; and, by the way, in a given year, Mr. Bezos himself, one of the wealthiest people in the country, has paid nothing in Federal income taxes despite being worth nearly $200 billion.

Let me be very clear. Mr. Bezos has enough money to buy a very beautiful $500 million yacht. It looks very nice to me, not that I know much about yachts; but that one looks very nice. Mr. Bezos has enough money to purchase a $23 million mansion with 25 bathrooms. I am not quite sure you need 25 bathrooms, but that is not my business--and here is that mansion. So, no, count me in as somebody who does not think that the taxpayers of this country need to provide Mr. Bezos a $10 billion bailout to fuel his space hobby.

When all is said and done, both of these motions are--the one on $53 billion for the microchip industry and $10 billion for Mr. Bezos--touch on an extremely important issue that is very rarely discussed in the corporate media or on the floor of the Senate, and that is how we proceed--how we go forward with industrial policy in this country.

I should be very clear in saying I believe in industrial policy. I believe that it makes sense on certain occasions for the government and the private sector to work together in a mutually beneficial way to address a pressing need in America.

Industrial policy, to me, means cooperation between the government and the private sector--cooperation. It does not mean the government providing massive amounts of corporate welfare to extremely profitable corporations without getting anything in return: Here is your check. Do what you want. Have a nice day.

In other words, will the U.S. Government develop an industrial policy that benefits all of our society or will we continue to have an industrial policy that benefits just the wealthy and the powerful?

In 1968, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said:

The problem is that we all too often have socialism for the

rich and rugged free enterprise capitalism for the poor.

I am afraid that what Dr. King said 54 years ago was not only accurate back then but is even more accurate today.

We hear a lot of talk around here about the need to create public- private partnerships. That all sounds very good, but when the government adopts an industrial policy that socializes all of the risk and privatizes all of the profits, whether it is handing the microchip industry a $53 billion blank check or giving Mr. Bezos a $10 billion bailout to fly to the Moon, that is not a partnership. That is the exact opposite of a partnership. That is corporate welfare. That is crony capitalism.

Each and every day, I have heard my Republican colleagues and some corporate Democrats blame inflation on runaway government spending. In fact,

one of my colleagues in the Democratic caucus has even suggested that we need to take a strategic pause when it comes to making urgent Federal investments in childcare, healthcare, education, affordable housing, paid family and medical leave, and home healthcare--policies that would substantially improve the lives of the American people. Well, you know what I believe. I believe that maybe--just maybe--the time has come to take a strategic pause when it comes to providing tens of billions of dollars in corporate welfare to some of the most profitable corporations and wealthiest people on this planet.

The American people are becoming increasingly sick and tired of corporations making recordbreaking profits while ordinary people struggle to pay outrageously higher prices for gas, for rent, for food. They are sick and tired of the high cost of prescription drugs, childcare, housing, groceries. They are sick and tired of CEOs making 350 times more than the average worker while over half of our people live paycheck to paycheck. The American people are sick and tired of the wealthiest people in our country and the most profitable corporations in some cases not paying a nickel in Federal income tax.

What does this so-called competitiveness bill do? Instead of addressing any of these issues, this bill provides $53 billion in corporate welfare to the microchip industry, with no protections for the American people, and a $10 billion bailout to Mr. Bezos. Now, that may make sense to Mr. Bezos, and it may make sense to other corporate leaders, but it does not make sense to me nor do I think it makes sense to the American people.

In terms of the microchip industry, the American people should know the truth. We are talking about an industry that has shut down over 780 manufacturing plants in the United States and eliminated 150,000 American jobs over the last 20 years as a result of moving their productions overseas. They have shut down plants in America and moved them overseas for cheap labor.

In other words, in order to make more profits, these companies closed plants in America and hired people--sometimes at starvation wages--in other countries, and now, believe it or not, these very same people, these very same companies, are in line to receive $53 billion in corporate welfare to literally undo the damage that they caused.

Now, some of my colleagues make the point that the microchip industry is enormously important for our economy and that we must become less dependent on foreign nations for microchips. I agree. There is no argument about that. But we can and must accomplish that goal of breaking our dependence on foreign countries for microchips without simply throwing money at these huge corporations while the taxpayer gets nothing in return.

I suspect five major semiconductor companies will likely receive the lion's share of this taxpayer handout. They are Intel, Texas Instruments, Micron Technology, GlobalFoundries, and Samsung. These five companies that are in line for a $53 billion bailout made over $75 billion in profits last year.

The company that will likely benefit the most from this taxpayer assistance is Intel. I have nothing against Intel. I wish them the very best, but let us be clear: Intel is not a poor company. Intel is not going broke--far from it. In 2021, Intel made nearly $20 billion in profits. We are talking about a company that had enough money to spend over $14 billion during the pandemic not on research and development but on buying back its own stock to reward its executives and wealthy shareholders. We are talking about a company that could afford to give its CEO, Mr. Pat Gelsinger, a $116 million compensation package last year. We are talking about a company that could afford to spend over $100 million on lobbying and campaign contributions over the past 20 years. Does it sound like this company, as well as the others, really needs corporate welfare? I don't think so.

Another company that would receive taxpayer assistance under this legislation is Texas Instruments. Last year, Texas Instruments made $7.8 billion in profits. In 2020, this company spent $2.5 billion in buying back its own stock while it has outsourced thousands of good- paying American jobs to low-wage countries and spent more than $40 million on lobbying over the past 20 years. That is Texas Instruments.

And on and on it goes.

So the first amendment that I would like a vote on and expect a vote on would instruct the conference committee to prevent microchip companies from receiving taxpayer assistance unless they agree to issue warrants or equity stakes to the Federal Government. If private companies are going to benefit from over $53 billion in taxpayer grants, the financial gains made by these companies must be shared with the American people, not just wealthy shareholders.

In other words, all this amendment says is that, if these investments turn out to be profitable as a direct result of these Federal grants, the taxpayers of this country have a right to get a return on that investment.

This is by no means a radical idea. These exact conditions were imposed on corporations that received taxpayer assistance in the bipartisan CARES Act, which, as you will recall, passed the Senate 96 to 0. In other words, every Member of the U.S. Senate has already voted for the conditions that are in this amendment.

In addition, this amendment would instruct the conference committee to require these highly profitable companies not to buy back their own stock, not to outsource American jobs, not to repeal collective bargaining agreements, and to remain neutral in any union-organizing efforts.

Again, this is not a radical idea. All of these conditions were imposed on companies that received funding from the CARES Act, and that passed the Senate by a vote of 96 to 0.

The second motion that I have introduced touches on an issue that we have very, very rarely discussed on the floor of the Senate. Unbelievably, the so-called competition bill would provide some $10 billion in taxpayer money to Jeff Bezos, the second wealthiest person in America, for his space race with Elon Musk, the wealthiest person in America. So we are looking at a space race between the two wealthiest guys in America.

You know, when I was a young man a few years ago and Neil Armstrong went to the Moon, I recall like yesterday the kind of incredible joy and pride in this country because the United States of America did something that people never ever thought would be possible. Who would have dreamed of sending a man to the Moon? Extraordinary. The entire world, not only people in America, watched that event with bated breath. All over the world, TV sets were on on every continent on Earth. It was just an extraordinary accomplishment for all of humanity. That is what Neil Armstrong said when he stepped onto the Moon--that it was not just for the United States--but we, of course, our Nation, took special pride because that was an American project.

I worry very much that what we are seeing now is not a space race between the United States and other countries as to which nation will return to the Moon or perhaps get to Mars but, rather, a space race between Mr. Musk and Mr. Bezos--the two wealthiest people in America-- as to who will gain control over NASA and future space explorations.

In other words, if we are able to accomplish the unbelievable, extraordinary goal of sending a person to Mars, I want the flag that will be flying on that planet to be the flag of the United States of America, not the flag of SpaceX or Blue Origin.

Let us be clear: The $10 billion in this bill for Jeff Bezos and his space company, Blue Origin, is just the tip of the iceberg. The reality is that the space economy, which today mostly consists of private companies using NASA facilities free of charge to launch satellites into space, is already very profitable and could become and will likely become even more so in the future.

Bank of America predicts that by 2030, the space economy will triple in size to $1.4 trillion. That is ``trillion'' with a t.

According to the most recent data, private corporations made over $94 billion in profits a year for goods or services that are used in space--profits

that could not have been achieved without the assistance of NASA, a government Agency funded by the taxpayers of America.

And while we are talking about the profitability of satellites today--and that is already a very profitable industry--sometime in the future--not next year, not 10 years from now, but sometime in the future--the real money may come to those who not only provide satellites but those who figure out how to mine lucrative minerals or asteroids. Does this sound like science fiction? It is not. This is exactly what is being worked on right now, mining lucrative minerals on asteroids.

In 2015, the famous astrophysicist, Neil deGrasse Tyson, predicted:

The first trillionaire there will ever be is the person who

exploits the natural resources on asteroids . . . . There's

this vast universe of limitless energy and limitless

resources. I look at wars fought over access to resources.

That could be a thing of the past, once space becomes our

backyard.

End of quote, Mr. deGrasse Tyson.

Who gets to own the resources discovered by private corporations in space?

Well, as a result of a little-known 2015 SPACE Act that passed the Senate by unanimous consent with virtually no floor debate, private corporations are able to own all of these resources. In other words, the taxpayers of this country will get a zero-percent return on the investment they made in these private enterprises, which could turn out to be unbelievably lucrative.

Is that what we want space exploration to become? Do we really think that it is acceptable for NASA to hand out billions of dollars to some of the wealthiest billionaires in America today to make them even wealthier? Or do we want to use space exploration to benefit all of the American people and improve life here on the planet for everyone?

It is time that we had a serious debate on the future of NASA, instead of just handing out $10 billion to Mr. Bezos.

Let me conclude by saying that I happen to believe and support space exploration. I think the benefits could be extraordinary for the American people and for people all over the world. But if we continue down the path of privatizing space exploration, it also has the potential to make the obscenely rich even richer and more powerful than anyone can possibly imagine today. In my view, we cannot and must not allow that to happen.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me begin by congratulating the workers at Amazon in Staten Island, NY, who, for the very first time, were able to win a union organizing campaign against that giant corporation, which is owned by Jeff Bezos, the second wealthiest person in America.

Amazon spent over $4 million in trying to defeat the union organizing drive in Staten Island and in Bessemer. The independent union, the Amazon Labor Union, had almost no money at all for their grassroots campaign but ended up with 55 percent of the vote.

Congratulations, Amazon Labor Union, for your extraordinary and important victory.

(Ms. DUCKWORTH assumed the Chair.)

Madam President, I also want to congratulate the workers at Starbucks for their incredible union organizing efforts.

Starbucks has coffee shops in some 15,000 locations all across America, and until a few months ago, none of them were organized. Then, in December, workers in two shops in Buffalo, NY, voted to join a union, and that union organizing effort at Starbucks is spreading like wildfire all across the country. In fact, last Friday, workers in New York City successfully voted to form the first Starbucks union roastery and 10th union Starbucks coffee shop in the country. And in the coming weeks and months, Starbucks workers in some 170 other coffee shops in 27 States will be holding union elections.

What makes these union victories so impressive is that from start to finish, they were accomplished by a grassroots movement with very little financial resources.

Now, why is it important that we support these union organizing efforts at Starbucks and in other companies throughout the country? The answer is pretty simple. We live in a time of massive income and wealth inequality, where CEOs make 350 times more than the average worker, where two people--two people--own more wealth than the bottom 42 percent of Americans.

We live in a time where the billionaire class is becoming much, much wealthier, while real weekly wages for American workers are $40 lower today than they were 49 years ago. In fact, we are seeing more income and wealth disparity now than we have seen in 100 years. And what we are witnessing is a massive, massive transfer of wealth from working families and the middle class to the top 1 percent--people on top doing phenomenally well, while millions and millions of working-class families are falling behind. And that has been going on for almost 50 years.

According to the RAND Institute, since 1975, 50--5-0--trillion dollars in wealth has been redistributed from the bottom 90 percent to the top 1 percent. Now, I know we don't talk about it too much in corporate media; we don't talk about it too much on the floor of the Senate, but that is an astounding reality, and that is a reality that we have got to address. It is not acceptable that since 1975, $50 trillion in wealth has been redistributed from the bottom 90 percent to the top 1 percent.

Listen to this, which really says it all. During this terrible pandemic, where we have lost almost a million American lives, when thousands of essential workers died--people going to work and had no choice about it--during that entire period, some 700 billionaires in America became nearly $2 trillion richer.

Today, multibillionaires like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Richard Branson are off taking joyrides on rocket ships to outer space, buying $500 million superyachts, and living in mansions with 25 bathrooms. That is what is going on with the people on top. But for working families, there is a continuous struggle to pay the rent, to provide healthcare, and to make sure their kids are able to get a decent education.

Let us be very clear. It is not just income and wealth inequality that we are talking about; it is economic and political power--power-- power.

In America today, just three Wall Street firms--Black Rock, State Street, and Vanguard--control assets of over $21 trillion, which is essentially the GDP of the United States, the largest economy on Earth. Can you imagine that?

Now, I know we don't talk about it, but you have got three Wall Street firms that control assets equivalent to the GDP of the United States, the largest economy on Earth. That is power.

And these firms have power over hundreds and hundreds of corporations in every sector of our society and many millions of workers.

So why do we want to see the trade union movement grow? Why do we want to see more and more workers entitled to negotiate decent contracts? The answer is pretty obvious, and it is because unions provide better wages, benefits, and working conditions for their members. That is what unions do--not complicated.

In fact, union workers make, on average, wages that are about 20 percent higher than their nonunion counterparts. They also have much better healthcare benefits and far better pension plans than nonunion employees. That is why it makes sense to join a union and why it makes sense for us to do everything that we can to grow the trade union movement in this country.

I know there are some folks out there who are not union members, and they are saying: Well, it doesn't really impact me.

You are wrong. It does--because when unions gain better wages and better benefits, it means that companies in the nonunion sector have got to begin to some degree to match them. So when wages go up for union workers, they go up for all workers in this country.

Further, unions give workers some degree of control over their work lives and make them more than just cogs in a machine. Today, millions and millions of people go to work, and they have no power whatsoever about what happens to them on the job. They can be fired arbitrarily. They can learn that they have to come to work the next day, when they thought they had that day off, and they have no say in any of that. So what unions do is end the ability of companies being able to arbitrarily fire workers for any reason and to impose any schedule that they want on their employees. In other words, unions give workers some degree--some degree--of control over their work lives.

Similarly, when large corporations have enormous political power through the many billions of dollars they spend on lobbying, on campaign contributions to both political parties, and on advertising, unions have the capability--because there are many millions and millions of people involved--to fight back and create a legislative agenda here in Washington and in State capitals that work for all Americans and not just the few.

What these recent union victories tell me is that working people all over this country are sick and tired of being exploited by corporations that, today, are making recordbreaking profits. They are sick and tired of billionaires like Jeff Bezos and Howard Schultz--the founder of Starbucks--becoming obscenely richer during the pandemic while they, the workers, put their lives on the line working for inadequate wages, inadequate benefits, and unfair working conditions and schedules.

Let us be clear. If you think that the union victories--recent victories--at Amazon and Starbucks are an aberration, you would be sorely mistaken. During the last year, I have been proud to work with and stand in solidarity with courageous workers all across this country who have been on strike or who are engaged in union organizing efforts. I am talking about the United Auto Workers which went on strike at John Deere in Iowa, Illinois, and Kansas to protest against massive cutbacks to retirement benefits and totally inadequate pay raises. I am talking about the United Steelworkers that went on strike at Special Metals in West Virginia--a company owned by Warren Buffett, worth $127 billion. They were on strike to fight for decent wages and decent benefits.

I am talking about bakery workers who went on strike at Kellogg's, Nabisco, and the Jon Donaire ice cream cake factory in California, fighting for justice, dignity, and respect.

I am talking about the United Mine Workers who are still on strike at Warrior Met in Alabama, a company owned by BlackRock, the largest Wall Street investment firm in this country, managing $10 trillion in assets.

I am talking about United Food and Commercial Workers who went on strike at the King Soopers grocery store chain owned by Kroger's in Colorado.

I am talking about graduate students and adjunct professors at MIT who are waging a strong union organizing effort on that campus.

Today, I want to continue to express my support and admiration for these workers who are not only organizing for themselves and for their coworkers but, in fact, are organizing for all of us, because when you have a strong union movement in this country, you stand the possibility of having a strong middle class.

While we may not hear much talk about the struggles of the working class in communities all across this country, what we should be clear on is that these struggles are real and are gaining momentum.

The union struggles that we are witnessing have taken place against corporate greed, which determine whether or not workers in our country have decent wages, decent benefits, and decent working conditions. It really is, I have to say, a bit obscene to take a look at these companies, owned by some of the wealthiest people in this country, who are becoming much, much richer, and all the while, they are trying to lower wages and take back benefits. It really is absolutely disgraceful.

So, Madam President, as a strong defender of the trade union movement, what I understand is that when unionized workers do well in raising the bar for economic and social justice, we all do well. Their success is our shared success. And, as I said a moment ago, make no mistake about it, we will never have a strong middle class in this country, with decent wages and decent benefits, where workers can afford to pay the rent and send their kids to college and take a few weeks off with paid vacation--that is not going to happen unless and until we have a strong labor movement in this country.

This is the bottom line: In the year 2022, the United States and, in fact, the rest of the world face two very distinct political paths.

On one hand, there is a growing movement toward oligarchy, in which a small number of incredibly wealthy and powerful billionaires own and control a very significant part of the economy and exert enormous influence over the political life of our country, and that is precisely what we are seeing today. The rich get richer, and with their wealth, they buy and sell politicians, put huge amounts of money into the political process, huge amounts of money into lobbying, huge amounts of money into TV ads and other ways to influence people.

So that is one direction that this country can continue to move in, but there is another direction. That other direction is opposition to oligarchy and corporate greed, and it is the creation of a movement of working people and young people who are today, in ever increasing numbers, fighting for justice--economic justice, racial justice, social justice, environmental justice--and they are fighting for justice in a way that we have not seen in years. It is that growing trade union movement that makes me so very hopeful for the future of this country, and it is a movement that I hope all of us will strongly support.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, I am requesting votes on two very important issues regarding this competition bill: No. 1 to put the Senate on record in opposition to providing $53 billion in corporate welfare to the highly profitable microchip industry, with no protections for the American taxpayer; and two, to eliminate the $10 million bailout included in this bill for Blue Origin, a space company owned by Jeff Bezos, the second wealthiest person in this country who is now worth over $180 billion.

So, Mr. President, I ask the majority leader: Will you now give me your commitment to receive two rollcall votes next week on each of these motions to instruct at a simple majority threshold?

Mr. President, I appreciate the commitment of the majority leader to ensure that I will receive rollcall votes on these two issues. Having received the majority leader's firm commitment, I will not object.

I ask unanimous consent to address the body for 10 minutes.

Mr. President, let me thank the majority leader for his willingness to put my two motions to instruct on the floor next week for a vote. And I want to take a minute to explain to my colleagues and the American people what these amendments are about.

As I think most Americans understand, half of the people in our country are living paycheck to paycheck. They cannot afford the high cost of healthcare. They are often spending more than they can afford for housing. If they are fortunate enough to be able to have gotten a higher education, it is more likely than not that they are struggling with significant student debt. If they are young parents, they are probably finding it hard to locate quality, affordable childcare or pre-K. If they are older Americans, it is likely they are having a hard time paying for the dental care, the hearing aids, the eyeglasses, or the home healthcare that they desperately need.

Meanwhile, as many middle-class and working-class Americans fall further and further behind, there is another economic reality taking place in our country. We don't talk about it enough--but we should--and that is that the people on top, the very wealthiest people in our country, are doing phenomenally well and, in fact, have never had it so good.

Today in America, we have more income and wealth inequality than ever before. We talk a lot about Russian oligarchy--and that is certainly true--but anybody who thinks that we don't have an oligarchy in this country is surely mistaken.

In our country today, we have two people who own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of the American population, and the top 1 percent own more wealth than the bottom 92 percent.

And, unbelievably, during this terrible pandemic--which has cost us almost 1 million lives--when thousands of essential workers died, they died because they had to go to their jobs, and going to their jobs, they contracted the virus. During that same period of time, the billionaire class became much, much wealthier. In fact, over 700 billionaires in America became nearly $2 trillion richer during the pandemic. In other words, for the people on top, the pandemic has been a very, very good time economically.

But it is not just the increased wealth of the very rich that we are seeing. Corporate profits are at an alltime high, and CEOs have seen huge increases in their compensation packages. And a lot of this is happening because of the unprecedented level of corporate greed-- corporate greed that we are seeing.

Let me just give you a few examples of the corporate greed that is taking place right now. Everybody knows that the price of gas is soaring. Last I saw, it is averaging about $4.25 a gallon. Meanwhile, ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, and Shell made nearly $30 billion in profit last quarter alone. The price of gas is soaring and major oil companies are making huge, huge profits. Amazon recently raised the price of its Prime membership by 16.8 percent. Meanwhile, it increased its profits by 75 percent to a record-breaking $35 billion.

In terms of food, everybody knows food prices are going up. The price of beef is up 32 percent, price of chicken is up 20 percent, price of pork is up 13 percent. Meanwhile, Tyson Foods, a major producer of chicken, beef, and hot dogs, increased its profits by 140 percent last quarter to $1.1 billion. The price of food is soaring, and food companies are enjoying huge profits.

While Americans are finding it harder and harder to pay for the outrageous costs of prescription drugs--we pay the highest prices in the world for our medicine--last year Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and AbbVie, three major pharmaceutical companies--increased their profits by over 90 percent to $54 billion. People can't afford the price of prescription drugs, but pharmaceutical industry profits are soaring. Again, all of which kind of takes me to the legislation that is on the floor right now, the so-called Competitiveness Act.

Do we need to increase computer chip production in the United States? Yes, we do. But we need to do it in a way that does not provide massive amounts of corporate welfare to an already enormously profitable industry.

In my view, it makes zero sense to provide $53 billion in corporate welfare. That is a blank check: Here it is, microchip industry, no strings attached, no protections for the American taxpayer to the microchip industry.

And as part of this legislation, in addition--I don't know how many people know this--some may think I am actually kidding when I say this--but this legislation provides $10 billion in bailout to Jeff Bezos--the second wealthiest person in America who is worth over $180 billion--so that his company, Blue Origin, can launch a rocket ship to the Moon.

A word about the microchip industry. We are talking about an industry that has shut down over 780 manufacturing plants in the United States and eliminated 150,000 American jobs over the last 20 years, while moving most of its production overseas. Got that? So this is an industry that said: Hey, we are making money, but we can make even more money by going to low-wage countries. Let's do that. Let's throw 150,000 American workers out on the street. We are going to go abroad.

Now, in terms of this $53 billion bailout, nobody knows exactly who will be receiving that money. My guess is that the bulk of that money will go to five major semiconductor companies, and that is Intel, Texas Instruments, Micron Technology, Global Foundries, and Samsung. These five companies in line for tens of billions of dollars of corporate welfare made over $75 trillion in profit last year.

The American people are sick and tired of our government working for wealthy campaign contributors and for the Big Money interests. I know it is a radical concept to suggest, but maybe--just maybe--we might want to be working for ordinary working-class and middle-class Americans.

Let me talk a little bit about what our amendments would do. Our amendments are very simple.

The first amendment, obviously, would prevent microchip companies from receiving taxpayer assistance unless they agree to issue warrants or equity stakes to the Federal Government. If private companies are going to benefit from over $53 billion in taxpayer subsidies, the financial gains made by these companies must be shared with the American people, not just wealthy shareholders. In other words, all this amendment says is that if these companies want taxpayer assistance, we are not going to socialize all of the risks and privatize all of the profits. If these investments turn out to be profitable as a direct result of these Federal grants, the taxpayers of this country have a right to get a return on this investment.

This is not a radical idea. These are exact conditions that were imposed on corporations that received taxpayer assistance in the bipartisan CARES Act, which passed the Senate 96 to 0. It is not a radical idea.

I believe in industrial policy. That means the government works with the private sector. It does not mean that the government simply gives the private sector everything they want with no protection to the taxpayer. So if the result of these $53 billion in grants is these companies make money, that is good--that is good--but the taxpayers who helped invest in these new production facilities should be able to enjoy some of those profits as well and get some of that money returned to them.

The second amendment is really a very, very simple one. It asks: Why in God's name would we be giving $10 billion to a company owned by the second wealthiest person in this country, Jeff Bezos? If Mr. Bezos wants to go to the

Moon, if he wants to go to Mars, he wants to go to Saturn, that is his business. He has every right in the world to do that, but he does not have a right to ask the taxpayers of this country for $10 billion to help him make his trip to outer space. This second amendment simply eliminates that $10 billion grant that goes to Mr. Bezos.

I look forward to winning the support for these two important amendments, which I think are strongly supported by the American people.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, at a time of massive and growing income and wealth inequality, the American people are outraged at the unprecedented level of corporate greed that is taking place all around them.

Today, while the working class of this country is struggling with higher gas prices, higher food prices, and higher housing prices, the billionaire class and large corporations are doing phenomenally well and, in fact, have never ever had it so good.

In the United States today, while the average worker is making $44 a week less in inflation-accounted-for dollars than he or she made nearly 50 years ago, corporate profits are at an alltime high, and CEOs have seen huge increases in their compensation packages. We have never seen in this country the level of corporate greed that we are seeing right now--unprecedented.

Now, let me just give you a few examples. While the price of gas has soared--it is now $4.25 a gallon on average--ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, and Shell made nearly $30 billion in profit last quarter alone--just last quarter. Meanwhile, Big Oil CEOs are on track to spend $88 billion this year--not to produce more oil, not to address the crisis of climate, but to buy back their own stock and hand out dividends to enrich their wealthy stockholders.

Here is more corporate greed. In fact, it is never-ending. Amazon raised the price of its Prime membership by 16.8 percent while it increased its profits by 75 percent to a recordbreaking $35 billion-- and, by the way, managed to avoid paying $5.2 billion in taxes. Meanwhile, the founder of Amazon, Jeff Bezos, became $81 billion richer during the pandemic and is now worth some $186 billion. That is his worth.

More corporate greed: The price of beef is up 32 percent; the price of chicken is up 20 percent; and the price of pork is up 13 percent. Meanwhile, Tyson Foods, a major producer of chicken, beef, and hot dogs, increased its profits by 140 percent last quarter to $1.1 billion and gave its CEO a 22-percent pay raise last year to $14 million. Meanwhile, the owner of the company, John Tyson, nearly doubled his wealth during the pandemic and is now worth some $3 billion.

Do you want more corporate greed? Here it is. We are looking at outrageously high prices for prescription drugs, and, in fact, we pay by far the highest prices in the world.

Last year, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and AbbVie, three giant pharmaceutical companies, increased their profits by over 90 percent--a 90-percent increase in profits--to $54 billion. Meanwhile, the CEOs of just eight prescription drug companies made $350 million in total compensation in 2020.

When we talk about corporate greed, we are also talking about massive levels of income and wealth inequality. In our country today, the 2 wealthiest people own more wealth than the bottom 42 percent of our population, and that is more than 130 million people. Two people own more wealth than 130 million Americans.

The top 1 percent now owns more wealth than the bottom 92 percent. Since the Wall Street crash of 2008, about 45 percent of all new income has gone to the top 1 percent. In other words, over the last many decades, there has been in this country a massive redistribution of wealth. Unfortunately, that redistribution has gone in the wrong direction: It has gone from the middle class and working families to the top 1 percent.

Now, I understand that is not an issue we talk about much here on the floor of the Senate, and that is not an issue we talk about much in the media, but it is an issue that must be talked about and, more importantly, must be dealt with.

Now, listen to this, which I think really says it all: During this terrible pandemic when many thousands of essential workers died on the job--they went to work in order to feed their families; they contracted the virus; and thousands of them died. During that same period of time, over 700 billionaires in America became nearly $2 trillion richer. Working people die on the job because they have to feed their families, and 700 people--not a whole lot of people--became $2 trillion richer. So that is where we are today. Desperate workers are dying because they are forced to go to work to provide for their families while the people on top are doing unbelievably well.

Today, billionaires like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Richard Branson are zooming off in their spaceships to outer space; they are buying $500 million superyachts; and they are buying mansions with 25 bathrooms while half of our people live paycheck to paycheck. Is that really what America is supposed to be about?

We are discussing now, in the midst of this horrific, horrific war in Ukraine--there has been a lot of discussion about the Russian oligarchy,

and that is absolutely appropriate because in Russia, you have a handful of billionaires attached to Putin who own unbelievable wealth. But what do we think we have now in this country? It is an American oligarchy, as the distribution of wealth and income becomes worse and worse every day.

The American people want those of us in Congress to take action to address the unprecedented level of corporate greed and income and wealth inequality that we are seeing right now. They are sick and tired of large corporations making record profits and in a given year paying nothing--zero--in Federal taxes. They are sick and tired of billionaires paying a lower effective tax rate than a teacher, a nurse, a truckdriver, or a firefighter.

The American people want Congress to address corporate greed and make certain that the wealthiest people and most profitable corporations pay their fair share of taxes. Yet, this week, right now, what are we debating here on the floor of the Senate? We are debating legislation to provide some $53 billion--billion dollars--in corporate welfare, with no strings attached, to the highly profitable microchip industry.

And, yes, if you can believe it--and I suspect there are people out there who really don't believe it, but I am telling you the truth--this legislation also provides a $10 billion bailout to Jeff Bezos so that his company, Blue Origin, can launch a rocket ship to the Moon.

In terms of the microchip industry, let us be very clear. We are talking about an industry that has shut down over 780 manufacturing plants in the United States and eliminated 150,000 American jobs over the last 20 years while moving most of its production overseas. In other words, in order to make more profits, these companies shut down plants in the United States and hired cheap labor abroad.

And now, believe it or not, these very same companies that sold the American worker out, they are now in line to receive $53 billion in corporate welfare to undo the damage that they themselves caused.

Do we need to expand the enormously important microchip industry in this country so that we become less dependent on foreign nations? The answer is, yes, absolutely. But we can accomplish that goal without throwing huge sums of money at these companies with zero, no protections, for the taxpayer--just here it is; take the money.

We are the only major country on Earth that does not guarantee healthcare to all of our people. Apparently, the American people are not entitled to healthcare.

We have the highest child poverty rate of almost any major country on Earth, which has gone up by 41 percent since January because of the refusal of some to extend the child tax credit. Apparently, our working families are not entitled to raise their kids in security and dignity.

We have 45 million Americans struggling with student debt because of the outrageous cost of higher education. Apparently, our young people are not entitled to quality education without undergoing financial distress or, in some cases, decades.

Those people are not entitled, but here we are today on the floor of the Senate because many of my colleagues think that the enormously profitable microchip industry is entitled to a massive amount of corporate welfare.

My guess is that five major semiconductor companies will likely receive the lion's share of this taxpayer handout. They will likely be Intel, Texas Instruments, Micron Technology, GlobalFoundries, and Samsung. These five companies, in line for a massive welfare check, made over $75 billion in profits last year--made $75 billion in profits--and now they are in line for $53 billion in corporate welfare.

My understanding is that the company that will likely benefit the most from this taxpayer handout is Intel, and let us be clear, Intel is not a poor company. It is not going broke. It is not in a desperate financial condition; quite the contrary, in 2021, Intel made nearly $20 billion in profit. We are talking about a company that had enough money to spend $14.2 billion during the pandemic, not on research and development but on buying back its own stock to reward their executives and wealthy shareholders. We are talking about a company in line for a major welfare check that could afford to give its CEO, Pat Gelsinger, a $116 million compensation package last year.

There are working-class people all over this country working 50 or 60 hours a week trying to keep their families afloat, paying their fair share of taxes, and providing $53 billion in corporate welfare, a lot of which will go to a company that pays its CEO $116 million in compensation and provided billions in stock paybacks.

We are talking about a company, Intel, whose CEO in 2003, Andy Grove, said that he had ``no choice'' but to continue to move jobs overseas as he predicted the United States would lose the bulk of its information technology jobs to China and India--which we have.

Now, do we really think that a highly profitable corporation like Intel needs a taxpayer bailout worth many billions of dollars with no strings attached?

But it is not just Intel. Another company that will likely receive taxpayer assistance under this legislation is Texas Instruments. Last year, Texas Instruments made $7.8 billion in profits. In 2020, this company spent $2.5 billion buying back its own stock while it has outsourced thousands of good-paying American jobs to low-wage countries and spent more than $40 million on lobbying over the past 2 years.

But it is not just Intel. It is not just Texas Instruments. It goes on and on and on.

Providing $53 billion in corporate welfare to an industry that has outsourced tens of thousands of jobs to low-wage countries and spent hundreds of billions on stock buybacks with no strings attached may make sense to some people, but it does not make sense to me--nor do I think it makes sense to the American people.

Now, I understand that there will be a major effort to pass this bill as quickly as possible in order to move it to a conference committee and send it to the President's desk. So let me be very clear. I will not support any unanimous consent request to speed up the passage of this bill unless I receive a rollcall vote on two extremely important amendments that I have introduced.

The first amendment would prevent microchip companies from receiving taxpayer assistance unless they agree to issue warrants or equity stakes to the Federal Government. If private companies are going to benefit from over $53 billion in corporate welfare, the financial gains made by these companies must be shared with the American people, not just wealthy shareholders. In other words, all this amendment says is that if these companies want taxpayer assistance, we are not going to socialize all of the risks and privatize all of the profits. If these investments turn out to be profitable as a direct result of these Federal grants, the taxpayers of this country have a right to get a return on that investment. That is not complicated nor is it a radical idea.

These exact conditions were imposed on corporations that received taxpayer assistance in the bipartisan CARES Act, which passed the Senate 96 to zero. In other words, every Member of the U.S. Senate has already voted for the conditions that are in my amendment.

Further, the CARES Act was not the first time that Congress passed warrants and equity stakes tied to government assistance. During the 2008 financial crisis, Congress required all companies taking TARP funds to issue warrants and equity stakes to the Federal Government.

In addition, this amendment would also require these highly profitable companies not to buy back their own stock, not to outsource American jobs, not to repeal existing collective bargaining agreements and to remain neutral in any union organizing effort. Again, this is not a radical idea. All of these conditions were imposed on companies that received funding from the CARES Act and passed the Senate by a 96- to-zero vote.

The second amendment that I have introduced would simply eliminate the $10 billion bailout to Jeff Bezos to fly to the Moon. If Mr. Bezos wants to go to the Moon, good for him. He has $186 billion in personal wealth. He became $81 billion richer during the pandemic. He is the second wealthiest person in America. In a given year, Mr. Bezos has paid nothing in Federal income taxes.

If Mr. Bezos wants to go to the Moon, let him use his own money, not the taxpayers'.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, since 2010, I have sponsored a State of the Union essay contest for Vermont high school students. This contest gives students in my State the opportunity to articulate what issues they would prioritize if they were President of the United States.

This is the contest's 12th year, and I would like to congratulate the 409 students who participated. It is truly heartening to see so many young people engaged in finding solutions for the problems that face our country. To my mind, this is what democracy is all about.

I am very proud to enter into the Congressional Record the essays submitted by these Vermont high school students.

The material follows:

Winner, Sasha Lann, Brattleboro Union High School, Sophomore

Citizens' rights to vote may be the most fundamental aspect

of our democracy, but there is a growing effort to limit it.

Increasing voter suppression and restrictive voting laws is

an issue that must be addressed, as it has grown from a

gradual build to a rush of constant new legislation that

could do permanent damage if ignored. Voter suppression is

one of the United States' biggest threats to democracy, and

the way to address it may be to enact legislation that

ensures all Americans have equal access to voting and have

their votes counted.

Recently, the United States has seen a massive uptick in

legislation restricting voting in large sections of the

country. In 2021 alone, 99 bills were introduced in 31 states

to restrict voting. 34 were passed into law. The laws

strengthen ID requirements, limit drop boxes and mail voting,

increase opportunities for voter purges, and introduce

criminal penalties for election officers who help voters

return mail ballots. These laws excessively target BIPOC

communities. Young voters are also made vulnerable by this

legislation. This attack on our voting system, though

disproportionately affecting communities of color, will harm

the entire country and make us vulnerable to authoritarianism

and the collapse of our democracy altogether.

Enacting effective voting rights legislation can be a

lengthy and difficult process. There are already bills in

progress that have passed the House, but are being blocked by

Republicans via the filibuster. As soon as the filibuster can

be changed, we can continue to make progress. In the

meantime, the best solution may be to do what we can to

prevent lawmakers from signing more restrictive legislation

into law. Part of this solution relies on companies ending

support and campaign contributions for lawmakers responsible

for this legislation. Companies and businesses could play an

essential role in standing up to these efforts. However,

community and business support will not be enough to prevent

suppressive legislation for long.

There are several solutions that could stop the onslaught

of voter restriction laws long term, starting with federal

legislation to protect voting rights and remove obstacles for

those facing difficulty casting votes. There should be laws

to enforce automatic registration, restore voter rights for

former prisoners, and increase resources for election boards

to ensure security. Election Day could also be made a holiday

so citizens have free time to vote, and each state should set

up independent redistricting commissions to avoid

gerrymandering. If used together, these methods will greatly

improve access to voting. Voter suppression and restrictive

voting laws are threatening the integrity of our democracy,

and we can counteract them by passing legislation that

protects citizens' say in the course of the country through

their votes. If nothing is done, we may see the fall of our

democracy as we know it. These are the steps needed to be

taken to preserve this cornerstone of our country.

Second Place, Eva Frazier, Champlain Valley Union High School, Senior

In the past few months, millions of people have lost rights

over their bodies, their health, and their futures. As

countless states across the country move to almost totally

limit abortion, I fear for all people who may become pregnant

in these affected areas. I fear for those without money to

travel to obtain a safe abortion, for those expectant mothers

experiencing a medical condition forced to choose between

their life or their child's, and for the youth without proper

education, suddenly finding themselves with no choice over

their lives.

Two things happen when politicians ban or block abortions:

unsafe abortions or children being born to people who can't

take care of them. Many will die, and it is almost always

poor, BIPOC, and marginalized people. The state of

reproductive rights in this country is an aggressive

violation of human rights.

To combat the alarming issues affecting reproductive rights

locally, nationally, and internationally, I would propose a

three-tiered approach to provide reproductive services to all

who need them. First, at the state level, Vermont needs to

amend our state Constitution, and protect the right to

abortion, without barrier, forever. If Vermont state

legislators succeed in passing this amendment, currently

known as Prop 5, Vermont will become the first state to

protect the right to reproductive health care access. In

addition to legally protecting the right to abortion, Vermont

state legislators must increase the budget for health care

centers that perform abortions.

Nationally, Congress must pass two pieces of legislation.

First, Congress must repeal the Hyde Amendment. As the ACLU

states, ``Passed by Congress in 1976, the Hyde Amendment

excludes abortion from the comprehensive health care services

provided to low-income people by the Federal Government

through Medicaid.'' Low-income people are the least likely to

have transportation and funds to obtain an abortion, and the

Hyde amendment keeps low income people from having equal

access to determine their futures.

Reproductive rights are not only at stake nationally, but

internationally. Currently, the U.S. will not fund any

international health care centers that provide abortions,

which often then prohibits them from providing lifesaving

treatments for malaria, HIV/AIDS, and other medical care.

This draconian policy, known as the Global Gag Rule, was

first introduced by President Reagan, and recently reinstated

by President Trump. U.S. congressional representatives have a

duty to pass legislation, known as the Global HER Act, that

would overturn the Global Gag Rule, and cement the U.S. as a

country that provides necessary foreign aid, instead of

risking millions of lives.

As people turn to illegal abortions, it is crucial that

lawmakers work to protect their citizens by passing federal

law and upholding the International Human Rights declaration,

giving humans freedom over their bodies and health care

choices.

Third Place, Samuel Leggett, Woodstock Union High School, Junior

Throughout history, America has been plagued with the

complex issue of food insecurity. Moreover, the children of

our nation--the ambassadors to our future--seem to experience

it more severely. According to Feeding America, one in every

eight adults

currently faces hunger, and the same can be said for one in

six children. Furthermore, hunger in our youth has only

festered with the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic. Compared

to 10 million previously, the number of food-insecure

children in America has increased to approximately 12

million. Notwithstanding our nation's immense prosperity and

value for education, our students experience inaccessibility

to affordable, nutritious food, and are seldom provided with

the assistance they need.

Though the discussion of universal free meals has long

existed, the pandemic proved to be the catalyst for its

execution. Through action on behalf of the U.S. Department of

Agriculture, our government will provide free breakfast and

lunch to schools nationwide throughout the 2021-2022 school

year. Students now have the opportunity to be created equal

in their education and wellbeing. Recent studies from the

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation have concluded that the

initiative has even improved both student behavior and

performance. Though abundant are the benefits of this Covid-

mitigation strategy, the implementation of universal school

meals is still seen as a temporary measure. Even long after

these challenging times, however, the pandemic's

repercussions will persist, if not worsen, if not addressed.

Though they may initially seem like a significant financial

hurdle, universal school meals are a progressive, bipartisan,

and necessary first effort in resolving the issue of food

insecurity.

One significant advantage to implementing universal free

meals is that it would permanently eliminate the nation's

preexisting free and reduced lunch system--an inequitable,

stigma-inducing program designed to assist students facing

hunger. With strict eligibility requirements, free and

reduced meals were rarely provided to all those who needed

them, and the income-based aid system couldn't accurately

account for criteria-meeting households that were

nevertheless food insecure for other reasons. Additionally,

applications for the program were not required, which

excluded many more who potentially qualified, yet didn't

apply. The program offered no way to adequately gauge whether

or not one needed assistance.

Nonetheless, there remains one primary barrier to the

support of universal free meals: their funding. Taxpayers

fear they would wholly assume the burden of a potentially

expensive feat. However, only 0.3 percent of the federal

budget is currently reserved for child nutrition programs,

and this cost is distributed nationwide among taxpayers.

Evidently, reapportionment of the budget to increase this

expenditure would neither reduce spending allocated to other

departments nor increase local tax rates greatly.

We must allow ourselves to imagine an America where a free

meal, despite the traditional adage, is indeed possible; an

America that ensures our youth's prosperity, during and

following times of crisis. We must consider the future, and

pass sustainable, logical legislation; legislation providing

every student with the baseline liberty of a satisfied

stomach in their daily pursuit of knowledge.

Finalists

jackson bennett, vergennes union high school, junior

We have all seen the images; sea turtles with straws jammed

in their noses, fish entrapped within plastic six-pack yokes,

even whales with bellies full of plastic trash. There is no

doubt that our plastic pollution is not just a problem, it is

a calamity. According to USA Today, ``Different kinds of

plastic take anywhere between 400 and 1,000 years to degrade

in a landfill . . . So much plastic is thrown away every year

that it's enough to circle the Earth four times.'' That means

at least 6.3 billion metric tons of plastic waste is being

added by the day. Something must be done, but what? I believe

that there should be a national ban on plastic, or some other

government-controlled incentive to switch to plastic

alternatives.

There are many existing plastic alternatives already

available, but extensive use of and investment in them has

not yet been seen. On Eartheasy, a site that lists plastic

alternatives, they note that, ``finding alternatives to

common items like plastic bottles and plastic packaging is

becoming increasingly easier--and not a moment too soon for

our plastic-choked planet.'' Examples of these plastic

alternatives include, but are not limited to, bamboo,

seaweed, wood, cloth for bags, and for multi-use but non-

biodegradable substances, glass and stainless steel for

replacing one-use items. The possibilities are limitless on

what ways we can replace plastic, and our technology and

innovation provide us with new, sustainable options, but how

do we convince the world to use these alternatives?

If we really want to make progress against our plastic

pandemonium, we cannot leave it up to individual people to

consider plastic alternatives. This is a collective issue we

need to address first as a nation, and then the world. Many

solutions to this problem have been given, including taxation

on plastic products, and even total bans, but no clear

decision has been reached. Taxes would mean a smoother

transition, and the money made off of plastic usage would go

towards discouraging that same occurrence, as well as

cleaning up plastic pollution. A ban would outright prevent

companies and individuals from consuming plastic, which may

negatively impact people's lives. I believe that a nationwide

ban is the best solution. Taxation would slow the problem,

and raise money for the government, but the problem would

still exist. Banning plastic, though tough, would force

ourselves to use alternatives, and without the incoming

waste, we could focus on cleaning the ocean.

Though plastic bans would offer one solution, there is no

one right answer to this issue. As long as we continue the

conversation and look for ways to prevail and take action, we

still have the devotion to overcome this problem. With our

advances in science and technology, and the combined help of

our government and fellow citizens, we can conquer our

carelessness and restore this beautiful planet we inhabit to

its former glory.

penelope derosset, burlington high school, freshman

Some people in this country see no need for feminism. They

say: ``Men and women are equal. They have the same rights

under law.'' But that isn't true. The only right the

Constitution explicitly grants to both men and women is the

right to vote. And the few rights women have, the right to

abortion for one, are constantly called into question. The

solution? An amendment introduced in 1923. Ratifying the

Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which explicitly grants all

rights equally to all genders, would grant a layer of legal

protection to women's rights which are so often under threat.

Laws protecting women's rights are constantly limited in

their ability to protect women at all. By mid-2021, a record

amount of anti-abortion legislation had already been enacted

by states. Limitations requiring parental consent or banning

abortion past a certain point in pregnancy make it impossible

for many women to get an abortion. This may endanger the

pregnant person's life. If a woman chooses to stay pregnant,

she may face challenges such as pay discrimination, employers

refusing to accommodate her temporary disability, or being

fired. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), the only

federal law against workplace pregnancy discrimination, is

consistently interpreted too narrowly to be adequate

protection. A report by the Center for Employment Equity at

UMass Amherst says: ``Activists and politicians have argued

that by only providing a comparative, rather than absolute,

right to accommodation, current laws stop short of

guaranteeing protection for all pregnant workers.'' While

women may appear to be protected by law against workplace

pregnancy discrimination the truth is many are not. This

leaves large numbers of people vulnerable. We must work to

defend these rights or risk them disappearing.

The ERA would solve this issue by explicitly stating a

constitutional position against gender discrimination. Some

states have already passed equal rights amendments or have

ERA-like language in their state constitutions, and using

these, Connecticut and New Mexico have found laws restricting

Medicaid coverage of abortion unconstitutional. With regards

to pregnancy discrimination, an article by Robin Bleuweiss

published by the Center for American Progress states: ``The

ERA could provide additional reasoning, grounded in

constitutional protections, to challenge policies that

effectively exclude individuals seeking pregnancy

accommodations from the protection of the law, as well as to

ensure equitable treatment and better conditions for pregnant

workers.'' With the added support of constitutional

protection, policies currently legal under the PDA could

change and finally grant pregnant women equality.

There is no doubt adding the ERA to the Constitution would

have a big impact on the essential rights of women.

Implementing this solution would be simple. All the states

required to ratify this amendment have. The only obstacle is

the time limit. Congress has already exercised its power to

extend the time limit once before, so why couldn't it do so

again? To quote Alice Paul, revolutionary suffragist and the

first to propose the ERA, ``To me, there is nothing

complicated about ordinary equality.''

jocelyn dunn, essex high school, junior

On September 1, 2021, a law banning abortion from as early

as six weeks into pregnancy went into effect in Texas. The

Supreme Court's failure to stop Texas Senate Bill 8 has paved

the way for other states to mimic actions with similar bills

that directly challenge Roe v. Wade. In December, the state

of Mississippi asked the Supreme Court to uphold its outlaw

on abortion at 15 weeks of pregnancy in the case of Dobbs v.

Jackson Women's Health Organization. The new reality of

abortion access is a terrifyingly imperative issue, and the

nation's highest court has never been so close to upholding a

ban that so blatantly ignores the precedent set by Roe v.

Wade. Political shifts that threaten to undermine Roe v. Wade

will harm many, and simply should be unacceptable to anyone

who cares about the health of women.

Since 1973, Roe v. Wade has provided safe, accessible

abortion services to women throughout the country. The

precedent set by Roe v. Wade affirms that it is a woman's

right to have an abortion under the Fourteenth Amendment

without excessive government restriction. Since the case

decision, the Supreme Court has been continuously called upon

to decide whether specific abortion statutes violate a

woman's right to privacy. However, under the current process

of examination, many abortion restrictions have been upheld

and the lasting constraints

of these harmful laws have opened the door to limits on the

ability of women to make the personal decision of ending a

pregnancy. The Supreme Court's upcoming decision in Dobbs v.

Jackson Women's Health Organization has left the future of

Roe v. Wade at risk. According to Planned Parenthood, if Roe

v. Wade is overturned, 26 states in the country could

immediately act on banning abortion through existing

policies. This means that 36 million women could soon live in

a state that criminalizes almost all abortion services.

With the increasingly likely overturning of Roe v. Wade on

the horizon, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has announced that the

Senate will soon hold a vote on legislation that would ensure

a nationwide right to abortion. In September 2021, the House

of Representatives passed the Women's Health Protection Act

(WHPA). If the WHPA becomes a federal law, abortion access

would be protected from not only bans but also medically

unnecessary restrictions such as mandatory ultrasounds,

biased counseling, and waiting periods. The WHPA would create

a statutory right for health care providers to perform

abortion services, and a corresponding right for their

patients to receive those services, free from invasive

restrictions.

The United States is on the brink of an unprecedented

crisis regarding women's health. Restrictions on Roe v. Wade

have plagued American women for decades and the right to make

private decisions free from barriers is more crucial than

ever to the personal dignity and autonomy of women.

Eliminating health care restrictions is imperative to

reproductive justice and passing the WHPA is an essential

step toward safeguarding access to abortion.

samantha haselman, bellows free academy fairfax, senior

The opioid crisis and incarceration for nonviolent

offenders isn't the solution for these addicts. It has an

emotional, physical, and economical struggle many are facing

and have been facing. People need to have compassion and

understand that addiction is a disease, not a choice.

Children, youth, and families are affected by opioid use. No

one chooses drugs over their own children, no one chooses to

steal from their loved ones, no one chooses to physically

harm themselves, no one chooses to have their children taken

from them.

There are many issues and concerns that exist within this

topic. I can relate to this very well. In 2009 my mother

developed her relationship with heroin, what most call the

``devil''. My mother was a kind, hardworking, funny,

determined, confident woman. But since this disease has taken

over her, she's not as present. Watching my mother struggling

on a daily basis from being sick to running out of the home

scrounging for the next ``fix''. It affected not only her,

but it affected her family who were a witness to this. Many

legal systems knew about her addiction but didn't support her

nor did they provide her with the necessary resources. They

focused more on removing things from her life and punishing

her for something that was controlling every part of her.

There is a story that stands out to me called ``Hooked''.

It was about a vulnerable woman who was prescribed opioids,

she instantly became an addict. She was clean for a while,

but relapsed multiple times. She was incarcerated, denied

medical attention, and then died. Incarceration for these

addicts is not helping them. Incarceration does not prepare

them for sobriety when released. They need affordable

treatment and support from a substance abuse counselor, and

resources that will set them up for success.

There needs to be more resources and affordable treatment

for individuals struggling to beat opioid addiction. I will

continue to speak on this until there's a significant change

our government takes far beyond what's been done. I know that

Senator Sanders introduced amendments to strengthen the

opioid crisis response in 2018. In addition to your

amendments to the opioid bill, I believe Congress should also

continue to provide additional funding like the Comprehensive

Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016. The law focuses on

treating people rather than incarcerating people. Congress

passed the bill giving only $181 million in funds for opioid

programs. The federal government was expecting $920 million

to help expand their treatment capacity with each state

receiving money depending on the severity of the epidemic.

Having funding would strengthen and support prevention,

treatment, and medication access. We must continue to help

those who are like my mom and we must honor these families

who are waking up daily facing the nightmare of opioid

addiction. This disease does not discriminate, it can be the

lawyer, the doctor, the son, the daughter, the mother, and/or

the father. This is all the more reason to stay focused on

this and make a change.

anna pringle, essex high school, junior

Not only is America experiencing a Covid pandemic, but

America is also experiencing a loneliness epidemic. While

loneliness is not diagnoseable medically or psychologically,

it's associated with a variety of disorders and health issues

such as depression, anxiety, and concurrently, increased

suicide rates. As said in the Harvard Graduate School of

Education Report, 61 percent of young adults feel serious

loneliness after the pandemic.

As Covid continues, people all over the U.S. are accepting

isolation. There are simple solutions to this loneliness

epidemic, for example, a simple phone call or Facetime to a

friend. There are also more complex solutions; an example

being in the grocery store. According to Vice, the

Netherlands is introducing chat registers; registers where

employees will be trained to create small talk with customers

who aren't in a rush. This is an effort sponsored by the

Netherland government in hopes to help battle loneliness. The

Netherland government also created a 24/7 loneliness hotline,

both the registers and hotline are a part of the ``one

against loneliness'' program. This is a great example of a

country doing more to help people in need.

In America, mental health is not a top priority, but the

impacts of mental health are astronomical. American citizens

are suffering at an increasing rate because they are so

isolated due to Covid. Since being lonely can be chronic, the

U.S. needs to do more to help. It is not possible for one

solution to single-handedly end the epidemic of loneliness;

instead many solutions will have to come together. Some

examples of solutions are following what the Netherlands did,

creating a hotline or chat registers. Another solution is

bringing awareness to this topic of how quarantining from

Covid has impacted mental health. This could inspire people

to call a loved one; especially the ones that live alone.

Simple actions like calling a loved one could have a huge

impact, this could remind a lonely person that they have

people to talk to and therefore it can make someone feel less

secluded. Social media is a huge part of everyone's life,

putting information out there on the impact that loneliness

has on people could one hundred percent make a difference.

Mental health issues are substantial in America today.

There are many ways that America can do more for the

loneliness crisis, creating a healthier, happier country.

isabelle tupper, brattleboro union high school, sophomore

As James Earl Jones reveals, ``One of the hardest things in

life is having words in your heart that you can't utter''.

Nowadays, black Americans (nationwide) are suffering from

declining mental health; one in every three black people seek

assistance when struggling, and roughly 1.4 million black

people are experiencing crises. As a result, suicide rates

are increasing and citizens are silently suffering.

Therefore, black mental health must become a priority.

In predominantly black communities, mental health is

overlooked--despite its damaging impacts. Injustices are

amplified by unforeseen circumstances that deplete one's

quality of life. For instance, ``Anxiety and depression

symptoms have more than tripled since 2019, [ . . . ]'' and

pandemic-related homelessness and unemployment left ``[ . . .

] black Americans shouldering the heaviest burden'' (Fowers

and Wan). Additionally, the murder of George Floyd resurfaced

trauma for countless black Americans and caused mental health

issues to spike five percent. Lastly, black people with

mental health issues struggle to gain relief due to stigma

and insufficient BIPOC medical professionals. Consequently,

this urgent matter generates despondency, leading black

individuals to isolate themselves.

Provisionally, this country must fulfill black individuals'

needs whilst identifying propitious resources. Through

survey, the public shall expunge injurious practices and

distribute assets alongside governmental advisors. Parties

must consider privileges of non-black people and prioritize

equality. Schools must incorporate free courses--run by

qualified educators--to help young people identify mental

illness. Classes must be accessible and non-discriminatory,

and identity must not prevent admittance. School-based

clinicians will best ensure students' access to counseling;

psychiatrist David Henderson, reports ``about 25 percent of

African Americans seek mental health care, compared to 40

percent of whites'' because of impediments regarding

accessibility (McLean Harvard Medical School Affiliate).

Progressively, the government must accommodate affordable

healthcare. Mental health must be covered by insurance and

funds shall be supplied by the one percent of taxpayers. All

remaining funds must go towards mental health facilities in

need. Assuming that demands are met, progress will ensue.

Over time, it will be crucial to break the stigma

surrounding black mental health. Once honest conversations

commence, politically-correct terminology must be applied and

blatant irreverence shall be condemned. Publicly, black

mental health advocates shall assemble and enlighten

uninformed individuals, and mental health care providers must

advertise openly. Simultaneously, the mental health field

must employ more people of color. BIPOC positions will be

filled when salaries are livable, staff is receptive, and job

openings have renowned availability. Hired professionals must

have ample training, prior to or upon their employment.

Finally, if employees of color exit, all businesses must hire

new BIPOC staff to diversify America's perspectives.

Black mental health is a nationwide concern and all people

must fight to restore it. Due to Covid losses and natural

disasters, this country is facing a level of despair that

only multiplies when considering mental health. In black

communities, conditions are abysmal and there is dire need

for improvement. If circumstances do not ameliorate, tragedy

will only continue. Nevertheless, this country shall work

diligently together and utilize its power to create immense

change.

luna wood, champlain valley union high school, senior

The single most threatening issue our world must deal with

today is climate change. It is crucial that our government

doesn't ignore climate change and its impacts that will

affect everybody. Climate change is going to become much

worse in the upcoming years and we have already started to

face devastating effects. Extreme weather has destroyed

communities and will not stop any time soon. Tropical storms

and sea levels rising on the coasts will soon make towns and

cities uninhabitable. Health risks will become worse and

worse such as deaths from extreme weather storms, air

pollution, water and food supply impacts. The downfall of

countless communities will affect economic prosperity.

Extreme weather such as hurricanes and flooding will wipe out

entire communities, leaving them in poverty. Droughts have a

negative impact on harvests and will increase food

insecurity. As migration increases due to the adaptation of

sea levels rising, resources will become more and more

limited. As a nation, we cannot ignore climate change

anymore.

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders' Green New Deal would give

our nation the step in the right direction of taking an

action that will sustain our planet for generations to come.

Our federal government has not allowed the passage of this

deal despite its immense benefits for our country. It is

stated to create 20 million jobs, which would improve our

country's unemployment issue greatly.

The deal suggests using solutions such as only renewable

energy will catapult our progress. We need to stop sending

our nation's tax dollars to fossil fuel companies in the form

of subsidies. Instead, we can invest that money into clean

forms of energy such as solar. Fossil fuels are the reason

why our earth has been increasingly warming up. The carbon in

the air needs to be taken out of our atmosphere and put back

into the ground where it came from.

We can help this process in our own state of Vermont by

stopping the overuse of chemical fertilizers and pesticides

on our farmland. This use of chemicals is killing habitats in

our soils and causing pollution. If we adopt more organic

methods of farming and take care of our soil, the crops,

plants and organisms living in the soil can help sequester

carbon from the air. Another simple solution to drawing

carbon from the air is planting many, many trees. Other

countries have already implemented this solution and there is

no reason why we can't as well.

Yes, applying these solutions will take time, money, and

resources. But the positive outcomes from this deal are

necessary and worth it. This should be the main focus of our

government right now because it is a global emergency and

soon it will be too late.

Madam President, I join with Vermonters across our State to give a huge congratulations to Megan Nick for her incredible achievement in winning a bronze medal at the Winter Olympics in Beijing in women's aerials. Megan is an inspiration to so many Vermonters, and we are tremendously proud of her. Megan credits her parents, Jeff and Colleen Nick, for instilling in her the value of hard work, which certainly showed all throughout the 2022 Olympic Games.

Growing up in Shelburne, Megan was a competitive gymnast and spent more than 10 years training at the Green Mountain Training Center in Williston. The similarities between the two sports, along with her drive for perfection, drew Megan to skiing. Then ahead of her senior year at Champlain Valley Union High School, Megan was challenged to try aerial skiing and found a new passion. In talking about the transition to becoming an aerial skier, Megan gives credit to her gymnastics coach, Stefan Hruska, for teaching her the spatial awareness required to be successful in the sport.

While she learned key skills in the gym, it was at Cochran's Ski Area--a small, family-operated, nonprofit ski area in Richmond, VT, and home to another Beijing Olympian--that Megan learned to ski. That is what our small State is all about: communities coming together to help young people achieve their goals in a supportive, encouraging environment.

Like many Vermonters, Megan grew up loving the outdoors. As she said herself in a recent interview following her Olympic medal, her Vermont upbringing taught her ``the importance of sustainability and the role that we can play in helping our environment while also being able to play in it,'' something that she finds particularly important as an aerial skier.

This was Megan's first Olympic Games, and she took bronze in her first event. Megan showed everyone that with courage and hard work there is nothing you can't accomplish. I heartily applaud Megan for the positive impact she has had not only on Vermonters, but on young people all over the country who have a dream. Megan is an inspiration to us all and is a true testament of hard work leading to success.

Megan's level of commitment and accomplishments deserve all of our sincere admiration. Vermont is remarkably proud of Megan, and we know she is going to continue to be among our brightest hopes for a better tomorrow--both on and off the slopes.