Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record some of the finalist essays written by Vermont High School students as part of the ninth annual State of the Union essay contest conducted by my office.

The essays follow, in alphabetical order according to the finalists' names.

Isabelle Desroches, Burr and Burton Academy, Senior, Finalist

Civility in local politics is a topic of increasing importance. As we attempt to compromise on enormous national issues such as immigration, health care, and foreign policy, intense polarization has created unbearable tension between parties, and leads almost daily to an absence of civil discourse. Even more terrifying a sight in recent years is the aggression and polarity that has seeped into local elections through overly-aggressive yard signs, tempestuous town meetings, and neighborhood altercations that craft rifts in our communities. Hopefully, we can shift these themes before courtesy in both national and local politics dies, and my generation is left sans civility in our system.

We seem to be coming upon an age of wildly strong convictions. Although history classes dive into both pros and cons of political circumstances (such as the eras of Andrew Jackson or Lincoln), citizens and politicians are more resistant than ever to accept the yin/yang relationship that can be found in any political situation. Anyone who follows news is chronically frustrated by this double standard. What we must come to accept as a nation is that none of the pressing issues that face us today can be solved without a common language of civility.

Rollo May, an existential psychologist, wrote about conviction in The Courage to Create. ``The relationship between commitment and doubt is by no means an antagonistic one. Commitment is healthiest when it is not without doubt, but in spite of doubt,'' he wrote. May understands what we must come to embrace and apply to our politics: our convictions are strongest when we can cast doubt upon our own stance. A position without doubt causes ignorance and paralyzation of thought. It is courageous to doubt yourself and keep an open mind. We learn this in school, yet students are often hard-pressed to find admirable examples of these philosophies in our lives and on the national stage. As politics become increasingly heated, we can agree that it is more important than ever to preserve integrity and traditional decorum in local elections as well; movements like this must initiate in the strong roots of our society--our tight-knit communities. Our government must set a precedent of positive influence and etiquette so that progress and compromise can finally begin. We must work to create a climate of dialogue instead of hostile debate, both in communities and gradually on a national scale. Civility in politics is the foundation of the progress we need to make in the coming years. Actively working towards an attitude in politics that allows us to work in a bipartisan fashion, and incorporate doubt in our convictions and empathy in our approach is the only way we can ensure the survival of our American political system as it was intended.

Livia Greenberg, Stratton Mountain School, Junior, Finalist

The chest closes as the throat tightens like a python strangling its prey, the skin burning as it breaks out in angry hives and rashes, forcing one to claw at their body as a lack of oxygen begins to shut down vital organs. This is an allergic reaction--one that can be experienced by the 15 million Americans with food allergies, one of whom sent to the hospital due to a reaction every three minutes. The device used to stop reactions, called an EpiPen, can be made for thirty dollars; however, the lifesaving instrument retails for 600 dollars. The exorbitant price of the EpiPen is a result of domination over the healthcare market, with nothing stopping the company from raising prices exponentially. Unfortunately, the EpiPen is not the only example of why monopoly capitalism is an immoral system that abuses the consumers who are in need of medical help. Multiple monolithic companies are forcing those with medical needs to pay prodigious amounts for necessities, a practice that must be broken apart with government intervention.

Shattering medical monopolies needs to be one of the country's priorities, and the most feasible solution to do so is to create a new act that would outlaw inflexible patents and bolster smaller companies financially. The federal government currently uses three anti-trust acts as a guideline for what is a legal or illegal trust, but because none of the acts address copyright, colossal companies have avoided punishment by patenting products or drugs in a manner that makes an alternative product illegal to sell. Even remotely similar products have been banned by the FDA and are not allowed to be sold. By creating a law that prohibits exceedingly unalterable patents, cheaper products would be allowed into the healthcare market. With a government loan, small-scale companies can develop the alternative competition, which would drive the companies that currently have a monopoly into lowering their prices in order to sell their product. In addition to reducing the cost of medical necessities, the consumers would have more freedom to choose which product they trust in case of an emergency and better access to medication essential for life.

While both an ethical and economic issue, trusts are a problem that can be solved with strong government action that keeps the wellbeing of the American citizens at the forefront of concern. No one in the United States should die because of an inability to afford medication due to corporate greed. Creating a new anti-trust act will allow for more companies to develop and sell vital medications at a more accessible price, and will stop companies from nailing in innocent people's coffins.

Seth Harte, Burlington High School, Freshman, Finalist

I'm the kid that dreams of writing movies but is reluctant because I've heard too many stories of writers that fail. I love soccer and want to play in the MLS but know how few make it. I want to be an attorney someday but all I hear is how expensive it is to go to law school. All of this noise makes me feel like there is no way to succeed. But can't I try? I am starting to believe that we close the door before we can open it because defeat feels inevitable. Our society does not see the beauty in failing so we instead we just quit. I believe this is because of our history, our grading systems, and social media.

We learn from an elementary school age that we should never fail and this philosophy is exhibited repeatedly throughout our schooling and into adulthood. We are taught that to mess up is the worst thing we can do because we have survived so long with a

mindset that believes we will succeed. Although believing in ourselves is good it makes it hard for us to fail with dignity and the knowing that messing up is okay. According to MedBroadcast, one of the main reasons for suicide is because of failure. We just can not handle failing, in fact, we cannot deal with it so much that we end everything because of a setback.

Our grading system has made it so only a specific type of learner will succeed. It has also taught us that the word failure means that we have been defeated or we did something wrong. The reality is that if we tried we didn't fail. I believe that children should not be punished for that. Psychology Today said that one of the leading reasons for stress for students was the need to get A's. I believe that Vermont should lean toward proficiency-based learning because it gets away from the letter grade and lets kids learn at their own pace.

Social media has taken the 21st-century teens by a storm. According to a 2015 study, the Washington Post said that teens consume nine hours a day of social media. As a teenager myself, I constantly see examples of people showing off their success which is nice; however, it makes a lot of people feel bad about themselves. We should work towards a goal of producing more positive content.

Our views of failure are false and missed interpreted, however, if you can treat failure as not what we've been taught all our lives but treat it as a way to improve as a human race and individuals we will grow tremendously know that one failure will not determine your life, getting straight A's are not needed to succeed and that there is more behind what looks like that perfect photo. If I can go through life believing this I know I will become that pro soccer player, that attorney or that writer.

Alexis Jablonski, St. Johnsbury Academy, Senior, Finalist

Aldous Huxley, the author of ``Brave New World,'' seems to have predicted the Trumpian era of disillusion and fear of immigrants. However, the basic idea of welcoming immigrants is central to our way of life; our diversity makes us stronger. Unfortunately, these values are being threatened. Current immigration policy is shifting toward exclusion of immigrant populations and has awakened an anti-immigrant sentiment that does not align with the historical importance of immigration in the U.S. These concepts are essential to America's identity of inclusivity, and they need to be protected as we have gone under such a dramatic shift in power and ideals. Trump continually spews blatant falsehoods which undermine that character of immigrant communities, in order to secure his campaign promise of a wall. It has become evident that our president will continue to use hateful rhetorical devices toward immigrant populations simply for his own benefit. When in fact, his beliefs and promises do not align with that of the American people. As demonstrated in Huxley's novel, when we isolate those we deem as the other, we are constricting our growth as a nation.

A prime example of an attempt to dehumanize and marginalize people through the news is Trump's commentary on the Migrants passage through Mexico. Trump has continually used fear tactics to dehumanize outsiders and justify our hostility toward them. The media typically presents the migrants through an overhead image of a crowd, thus neglecting their humanity. ``The Caravan'' is an excuse to not view people as human. According to our president, they are rapists, drug dealers, killers, deceitful, job stealing terrorists coming in by the thousands. This information is simply false, and aimed to incite fear among Americans. Unfortunately today, our President's hateful rhetoric toward outsiders has reframed our former charitable nature toward immigrant populations. The image of the migrant people must be adjusted. We must look at their faces to see their individual humanity, rather than a single entity.

We must remember the pillars by which our Nation was founded on, those of which make it great. The fundamental notion of inviting immigrants into our communities and providing them with equal opportunities to thrive is integral to our lifestyle. We have promised ourselves as Nation to provide stability to outsiders. We are an entire nation based on blended cultures and thoughts; these values are what offer us strength.

During Donald Trump's presidential campaign Americans were fascinated by his explosive personality. Unfortunately, over the past two years, we have learned that was not merely a campaign tactic. His continual attacks on American democracy have activated catalysts for change. We will no longer stand by, entranced and misinformed. We must encourage activism and open discussion to promote understanding, we must evaluate our media consumption and make educated decisions, and we must actively seek the truth, in a world that is overwhelming us with inflamed rhetoric. Only then, will we escape this self-inflicted Brave New World.

Simon Rosenbaum, Vermont Commons School, Freshman, Finalist

When I was thirteen, I had twenty-one cents thrown at me. For a moment, I didn't process what was happening. I looked up to see one of my classmates looking back at me, waiting to see how I would react. I left the change on the table, and left the lunchroom in the direction of my next class. Instead, I shut myself in a bathroom stall and cried. My name is Simon Rosenbaum and I've been Jewish my entire life. I wear a yarmulke to school and often can't attend school events that are on Friday nights because they interfere with the sabbath. However, I haven't always practiced self-acceptance.

I began wearing a yarmulke halfway through seventh grade. I remember weeks of emotional preparation for the snide remarks and lost friends that were sure to come. Before the morning bell had even rung, my kippah had already been grabbed and torn off. This was the result of the few Jewish kids in the school pretending that they weren't Jewish for fear of retribution from their classmates. I'm sad to say that they were right. Vermont is an extremely non-diverse state. According to Pew Research Center, over 93% of Vermonters are white, and approximately 94% of Vermonters are Christian or have majority Christian heritage. Approximately two percent of Vermonters are Jewish, out of the eight to eleven percent of Vermonters that practice non-Christian faiths. These non-diverse societies lead to non-tolerant kids.

When I was in eighth grade, a paraeducator made Mein Kampf required reading for students who she did not believe were working hard enough. I later learned that she only engaged in this behavior around Jewish students. To this day, she works in a Vermont middle school after a school investigation ``didn't find any incriminating evidence''. Anti- Semitic incidents are far more commonplace in schools today then most educators like to admit. According to a study for The Washington Post, in 2018 a study reported that 69% of young Jews in America said that they had ``personally experienced discrimination because of their faith''. This is up from 39% in 2013 from the same study.

We can solve the issue of anti-Semitism in our schools by a variety of actions. We should begin by instituting diversity experts as consultants on three month pilot periods in every Vermont school to observe systematic and ignorance based anti-semitism. Those consultants would then make recommendations in the changing of diversity education to the school board. If the board were to refuse the recommendations by the consultant, the consultant could then appeal to the State Board of Education. Another course of action we should be taking is to create a zero-tolerance policy on anti-Semitism both inside and outside of schools. If kids are shown the right examples while seeing the wrong ones punished, then the precedent will be set for an effective change in our diversity education. No educated child or adult would ever take joy from a thirteen year old crying in the bathroom.

Andy Siki, Winooski High School, Senior, Finalist

Climate Change

``It's not enough to think it's important. We must make it urgent,'' says Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a congresswoman from New York.

Vermont is taking action on global warming by reducing energy use and investing in clean energy. It is accomplishing these goals by using low carbon transportation, protecting farms,

making the community green and resilient, and recycling and composting. By 2050 Vermont should be using 90% of clean energy sources. I'm part of The Youth Lobby For Climate Change. We organize an annual rally at the State House to show legislators that young people care about their future. We talk about what we're doing right now, our future as a state, and what will help our communities.

In 2016 electricity made up 28% of emission in our environment. Solar power and other renewable energy sources can reduce that number. Vermont already started putting solar panels in homes, businesses, and schools to make a cleaner environment. Recently Elon Musk made a Tesla battery to store the energy from solar panels inside a house. The length of Vermont winters might make that storage difficult, but that's a problem we need to fix. By using solar energy, Vermont could reach the goal of using 90% renewable energy sources by 2050. Transportation makes up 28% of the CO2 emissions. And Vermont can reduce this greenhouse gas emission. We could have more bikes on the road, even an electric assisted bike and a bike path. Karl Kemnitzer works with solar bikes, and he said: ``Bikes and solar are a good combination, and it's also been a lot of fun! An average solar panel puts out around 16 watts per square foot . . . the bike is so efficient. I find that over a long term, I am using about 200 watts on average as I ride along.'' Kemnitzer now needs to fit enough solar panels on a bike. He's taking an engineering class and working on that problem.

Schools should start getting students involved in their community. Schools can help affect our environment by recycling, reducing, and composting food waste. At the Youth Climate Leaders Academy students from Vermont and New Hampshire came together to make goals for their schools. We worked on composting and made a goal to start composting by January 2019. We would start in our classrooms then move to the cafeteria.

Everyone wants to take action to change things but not everyone does. At the Climate Leaders Academy I learned that you have to start by making small changes and that will lead to big changes. If Vermonters fix the small problem in their communities, we can not only affect the whole state but also influence other states around us.

Ragulan Sivakumar, South Burlington High School, Junior, Finalist

The Waste Land

In the year 2015, the United States produced 262.4 million tons of waste, 130.63 million tons of which were landfilled. That is equivalent to 2.23 lbs./day/American person of waste landfilled. Landfilling at such a great rate requires us to create new landfills, taking away from scenic beauty while also requiring us to use more natural resources to create new products, costing us with long-term sustainability as well. To address the United States' waste problem, taxes must be put on the producers of materials that become waste, a governmental recycling program must be created, and stricter recycling laws must be imposed.

Firstly, a landfill tax should be imposed on producers to reduce the net amount of waste. Landfills they take up areas that could otherwise be used and lose us many recyclable components, making them a detriment economically. Environmentally, landfills enhance climate change by forcing decomposition to occur anaerobically, producing methane, which, according to the EPA, is over 25 times as efficient as carbon dioxide at trapping heat. Since landfills hurt economically and environmentally, a landfill tax should be imposed by ton of waste. This tax would cause producers to reduce their landfill waste while also creating an incentive for corporations to create more sustainable and effective waste management programs. As the United Kingdom has shown, a landfill tax can be incredibly effective, reducing the number of landfills by 2/3 in 8 years. With the passing years, the tax could progressively increase, further incentivizing the movement from waste, reducing our waste problem all the while.

Secondly, a governmental recycling program should also be created to complement the landfill tax. While the waste-reducing reasons are obvious, the other incentive is that recycling is a massive industry. As China has shown, recycling is a $200 billion industry. Thus, the United States could create its own governmental recycling program via some of the revenue from the landfill tax project, providing countless jobs while also alleviating our waste problems by making waste management feasible. Moreover, the recycling program would obtain the base materials for industry through recycling which could then be resold off, making the entire ordeal economically viable while also reducing our waste.

Lastly, stricter recycling laws must be imposed. According to the EPA, only 67% of paper is recycled, 26% of glass, 34% of metals, and 9% of plastics, making it is obvious that stricter recycling laws are needed. Imposing a fine for violators would ensure that recycling guidelines are followed. Since no one would want to incur a fine for something so menial, stricter recycling laws would enable the U.S. to tackle the waste problem.

In summation, the U.S. has a waste problem and must address the issue. We cannot continue with 130.63 million tons of landfilled waste each year. By implementing the policies noted above, our country would no longer be ``the waste land'': it would be a model for the rest of the world in waste management.

Fiona Therese, Compass School, Sophomore, Finalist

There is a picture of me on the wall, near our kitchen table. It was taken when I was five years old and entering kindergarten. I was wearing a yellow dress and wearing a big sun hat. The girl standing next to me, Ashley, was leaning on me and smiling. She was to become my best friend.

School is supposed to be safe and fun. It's supposed to be where you learn about new things and experiment with new ideas. It's supposed to prepare you for challenges in the future. But today, too many of us are scared of school because we don't know what might happen while we are there. I was ten when I heard about the shooting in Sandy Hook. It was the first time I realized that school might also be unsafe and that someone might want to harm us. The state of our country is one of confusion for us, as students. We are expected to go to school trusting that nothing can happen. But the truth is, every day across the country there are reports of gun violence. Even in my small school, we have drills so that we'll know what to do if someone comes to school to attack us.

In 2018, 113 people have been killed or injured in a school shooting. On average, a shooting takes place at least once every eight days that school is in session. After a shooting takes place, I have heard what people express their sympathy through `thoughts and prayers.' The time for prayers is over. We need change. Children should not fear going to school. I should not have to look around my classroom and plan a possible escape. I should be able to go to school with the same optimism that I had when I was five.

The state of our union is one of fear because our country has not passed adequate gun control. How many people need to speak out about their lost children, family or friends before a change happens?

Guns rights advocates argue that our right to bear arms is protected in the Constitution. I disagree. I believe that the Constitution is a living document, one that transcribes our aspirations and hope. In a letter to James Madison in 1789, Thomas Jefferson wrote: ``No society can make a perpetual constitution. The earth belongs always to the living generation and not to the dead.'' It is time to demand change. The state of our union might be one of fear, but I have also seen hope. The hope that I see comes not from our legislature in Washington, D.C., but in the protests across the country. My generation is on the move. We are working hard to make our country and our schools safe again. Although these are difficult times, I have seen that even young people can be powerful when they work together. The state of our union is in the hands of those who protest, those who march, those who write letters, and those who demand change. So what is the state of our union? It's one where fear must be met with strength and I'm proud to be a member of a generation who is rising up to meet the challenges that lie ahead.

Henry Wu, Essex High School, Junior, Finalist

It is the year 2060. You and your grandchildren are watching the charred Earth slowly recede from view within your space capsule. ``What happened?'' they ask. You breathe a deep sigh fraught with regret and anger as you reluctantly tell the story of the Earth's demise.``It all began in the 1970s . . . .''

When Exxon researchers learned that the burning of fossil fuels influences climate, they hid their findings from the public. Other fossil fuel companies were complicit in denying the existence of the greenhouse effect for decades. Today, the oil and coal industries are still the main drivers of carbon emissions, and $20 billion in annual U.S. government subsidies perpetuates our dependence on them.

``Our hunger for oil and coal was insatiable. We ate and ate, but it poisoned us. We loved our cars and our plastics, but they killed us . . . .''

The use of fossil fuels for transportation, electricity, and plastic production releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, trapping heat. Rising global temperatures and more severe and frequent natural disasters have already devastated human lives. In as few as twelve years, rising sea levels and droughts will lead to severe food shortages, heightened political instability, and widespread poverty. A recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report found that limiting global temperature increase to 1.5 deg.C, the target of the Paris Agreement, will still cause $54 trillion in damage.

``Back in Vermont, I was a teenager when I first noticed the unbearable summer heat that made breathing difficult and forgot what a white Christmas felt like. These were merely inconveniences, but that all change in a few years. The searing wildfires and crippling hurricanes that made headlines in California and the Carolinas soon became commonplace. Entire cities vanished from the map because they were submerged underwater. Could we have avoided this?''

The efforts of individuals--taking shorter showers, using public transit, going vegetarian--can only do so much, but it's large companies that wield influence over our government and society. A carbon tax that fines businesses for pollution is an effective method of keeping them in check. It's a regenerative economic measure that could fund renewable energy research and implementation.

However, ordinary citizens still must help avoid catastrophe. In the end, our politicians and business leaders have a say in our nation's energy infrastructure, but it is our duty to convince them to adopt necessary changes. We must write to our members of Congress and tell them to resist corporate power. We must elect officials who will champion a carbon tax, and we must fulfill our end of the deal in giving up fossil fuels for renewable energy sources. So, what story will we tell our grandchildren? A lament of despair and regret, or a tale of teamwork and hope? The decisions we make today will provide the answer. Breaking our fossil fuel addiction and investing in renewables are drastic yet necessary efforts. The best time for action was forty years ago, but the next best time is now.

Mr. President, all across our country--in Vermont, in Illinois, in California--all across this country, people are asking a very simple question. That question is, How does it happen that in the midst of the extraordinary wealth that exists in our country--how does it happen that so many people continue to hurt financially and struggle desperately to keep their heads above water economically?

Today, despite unemployment being relatively low, some 40 million Americans continue to live in poverty. We don't talk about poverty very much here in the Senate, but we have 40 million Americans living in poverty. Many of them are struggling to adequately feed their kids. Many of them are forced to go, despite working, to emergency food shelters just to stay alive.

Despite the United States having a GDP--gross domestic product--of more than $20 trillion, we in this country embarrassingly continue to have the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost any major country on Earth. We don't talk about that either. Children are obviously the future of America, and we continue to have one of the highest rates of childhood poverty of any major country, and that includes 29 percent of African-American children who live in poverty.

How does it happen that in a so-called booming economy--and we hear from President Trump every other day about how the economy is booming-- the bottom 40 percent of our population does not have $400 in cash in order to address a financial emergency? Think about that. The bottom 40 percent--almost half of Americans--don't have $400 in their pocket, in the bank to address a financial emergency. Maybe the car breaks down, maybe the kid gets sick, maybe one loses one's job, maybe one undergoes a divorce; something happens, and 40 percent of the American people don't have $400 in the bank to address that crisis.

In other words, today--and we saw this in the recent government shutdown; today in America, many, many millions of families live paycheck to paycheck in order to survive. That should not be happening in the wealthiest country on Earth, and it is time we begin to talk about that. It is not good enough to talk about a so-called booming economy, forgetting about tens of millions of families who are not seeing that booming economy but, in fact, are living under incredible financial stress.

How does it happen that, in the so-called booming economy, tens of millions of American workers today are working for wages that are so low they cannot afford the escalating cost of housing? Some of them are spending 40, 50 percent of their limited incomes on housing. For many of these people, there is no health insurance available; the idea of a vacation for the family is something not even to be thought about; and the idea of being able to send one's kids to college is something that is also not on the table. By the

way, many of these individuals are working two or three jobs, 50, 60, 70 hours a week, just to survive.

This, again, is the wealthiest country in the history of the world. Yet 30 million Americans today, as we speak, have zero health insurance--no health insurance at all; 41 million people are underinsured--which means their deductibles and their copayments are so high that even though they have insurance, they still can't afford to go to the doctor, and one out of five Americans today cannot afford the prescription drugs their doctors prescribe.

In my view--a view I have held for a very, very long time, and it is a view shared by people not only in this country in wide numbers, but all over the world--healthcare is a human right, not a privilege. Whether you are rich or whether you are poor, you have the right to go to a doctor when you get sick, and you have the right to know that if you end up in a hospital, you are not going to go bankrupt or suffer from financial distress.

We are an aging population--no great secret there. We are an aging population. In this Congress, instead of dealing with government shutdowns precipitated by the President, we should be talking about how we respond to the reality of an aging population. Yet what we don't talk about is that about half of older Americans--half of older Americans, those 55 and older--have no retirement savings and no idea about how they will retire with dignity.

Think about what that means. Somebody is 60 years of age, they are coming to the end of their work-life, and they have no money--or virtually no money--in the bank. Maybe all they are going to get is Social Security. They turn on the TV, and they hear folks around here talking about cutting Social Security. Talk about why people in this country are angry and why they are stressed out.

Here is the bottom line. We are the wealthiest country on Earth. In fact, we are the wealthiest country in the history of the world, but despite that wealth, a significant percentage of our population--our children, our elderly people, our working men and women--struggle each and every day to keep their heads above water economically. Not only are they struggling, I think the pain they are feeling has to do with the worry they have about the future for their kids because they know, as many of us know, that unless we make some bold changes in our economy, the younger generation today will have a lower standard of living than their parents.

Imagine that--a so-called booming economy, yet we are looking at a situation where the younger generation may well have a lower standard of living than their parents.

I want to also say a word about another reality that currently exists. While so many of our people are struggling, while so many of our children are living in poverty, while 20 percent of folks on Social Security are trying to live on less than $13,000 a year, there is another pervasive reality in American society today; that is, the people on top--the very wealthiest people in this country--have never had it better, and the gap between the very, very rich--I am not just talking about the rich; I am talking about the very, very rich--is growing wider.

Here is the simple truth, a truth that we virtually never talk about here in the Senate, a truth that is not heard much in the corporate media; that is, the United States of America today has the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of almost any major country on Earth, and that level of inequality is worse today than at any time since the 1920s, the so-called Gilded Age of American society.

Today, if you can believe it, the three wealthiest people in this country--three--own more wealth than the bottom half of America, 160 million people. Let me repeat that. The three wealthiest people in this country own more wealth than the bottom half of America, 160 million people. Today, the top one-tenth of 1 percent--not 1 percent; one-tenth of 1 percent--own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. Today, and since the Wall Street crash in 2008, about 46 percent of all new income goes to the top 1 percent. Roughly speaking, half of all new income goes to the bottom 99 percent, and half goes to the top 1 percent, and our great task here in the U.S. Senate is to keep the government open while Trump tries to shut it down. Maybe, just maybe, we should be talking about those issues. Maybe, just maybe, we should be talking about an economy that works for all of us, not just the people on top.

Today, the top 25 hedge fund managers on Wall Street--25 hedge fund managers--earn nearly double the income of all 140,000 kindergarten teachers in America.

What all of the psychologists tell us is that the most important years of a human being's development are 0 to 4. Those are the most impressionable years in terms of how we develop intellectually and emotionally, and our childcare workers, our kindergarten teachers play a very important role. Does anybody think it makes sense that you have 25 hedge fund managers on Wall Street who, today, earn nearly double what 140,000 of our kindergarten teachers make? By the way, public teachers in America are falling further and further behind other occupations.

Having stated that reality--the fact that the middle class is struggling and the fact that the people on top are doing phenomenally well--I think it is fair to ask what the views are of the Republican leadership here in the Senate--Republicans control the Senate--and what our Republican President, President Trump, is proposing to address these massive levels of injustice and inequality. Three people own more wealth than the bottom half of America. What does the President and what does Leader McConnell have to say about that? The sad truth is that the Republican leadership today wants to make an embarrassingly bad situation even worse.

After passing a $1 trillion tax giveaway for the top 1 percent and large corporations last year, Republican leadership is coming back and saying: Hey, we only gave 83 percent of the tax benefits to the 1 percent. That is not good enough. That is not good enough. We have to do even better for our billionaires and corporate sponsors.

This time, the Republican leadership and the President want a tax break of hundreds of billions of dollars that would go exclusively to the wealthiest of the wealthy. I am not talking about the wealthy; I am talking about the wealthiest of the wealthy--the top one-tenth of 1 percent, the wealthiest 1,700 families in America.

We have 127 million families in our country--a population of some 320 million people. As I have indicated, many of these families are struggling. Many of these families are hurting. Today, many of these families are wondering how they are going to pay their rent, pay their mortgage, keep their lights on. Yet the legislation to repeal the estate tax that Senator McConnell and President Trump are proposing would benefit less than the top one-tenth of 1 percent of them--99.9 percent would see no tax reduction from the legislation.

Can anyone actually imagine bringing forward a piece of legislation that does not help the bottom 99.9 percent? Can you imagine that? The middle class are struggling. The gap between the rich and the poor is growing wider. There are 30 million people without health insurance. Our infrastructure is crumbling. And they come forward with a piece of legislation that is designed to protect and benefit the top one-tenth of 1 percent. The legislation would be of no benefit to 99.9 percent of the people of this country.

I think it is clear that when the people of this country look at Congress and say ``Those folks in Washington are not representing me. They are representing their wealthy campaign contributors. They are representing the billionaire class,'' there can be no clearer example of that reality than this proposed legislation.

Once again, with all of the economic problems, all of the inequality we face, imagine legislation that comes forward from the Republican leadership and the President that benefits the top one-tenth of 1 percent--the 1,700 wealthiest families in this country.

It is no secret that our infrastructure--our roads and our bridges, water systems, airports, wastewater plants--is crumbling all over this country. All over this country, there are major infrastructural problems. But I hear over and over again: We don't have the

funding to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure and put millions of Americans to work at good-paying jobs rebuilding that infrastructure. We just don't have the money.

Our schoolteachers are underpaid, but we don't have the money to provide attractive salaries in order to get the best and the brightest to do the most important work in this country; that is, teaching our young people.

Today, we have veterans--people who put their lives on the line-- sleeping on the streets, but we don't have the money to house them.

Families in America cannot afford childcare, and public schools are underfunded.

We don't have the money to address those crises, but somehow we do have hundreds of billions of dollars available to provide tax breaks for the top one-tenth of 1 percent.

We apparently have enough money to provide the Walton family--the wealthiest family in America, the folks who own Walmart, the people who pay their own employees starvation wages--by repealing the estate tax, as Senator McConnell and President Trump would like to do, we have enough money to provide the Walton family, the wealthiest family in America, with a tax break of up to $63 billion. Veterans sleep out on the street, teachers are underpaid, and 30 million Americans have no health insurance. We can't address those issues, but we do have legislation that would provide up to $63 billion in tax breaks for one family.

We have, apparently, enough money available to provide the Koch brothers--a family who spent some $400 million during the midterm election to help elect Republican candidates; the Koch brothers, one of the wealthiest, most politically active families in America--we have enough money to provide them with up to a $39 billion tax break.

Under this legislation, we can provide a tax break of up to $27 billion to the Mars candy bar family and up to a $13.4 billion tax break to the Cox cable family.

In other words, at a time of massive needs in this country, we don't have enough money available to protect working families and the middle class, but we certainly have more money than we know what to do with in order to give incredible tax breaks to the richest people in this country.

The estate tax that we are going to be proposing does not give massive tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this country--quite the contrary. It says to those people that at a time of massive income and wealth inequality, instead of repealing the estate tax, we must substantially increase this tax on the multimillionaires and billionaires of this country and in doing that, not only come up with much needed revenue to address the needs of working families but also to reduce wealth inequality in America.

That is why this week I will be introducing legislation for an estate tax bill that would do exactly the opposite of what my Republican colleagues propose to do. Let me briefly explain what is in the legislation I am offering.

Under my bill, anytime someone inherits an estate in America of $3.5 million or less, that person will not pay one penny in estate taxes. They will get to keep that inheritance tax-free. That population includes 99.8 percent of the American people. The legislation I am proposing would not raise taxes by a penny on 99.8 percent of the American population.

If you are in the top two-tenths of 1 percent of the population--the population that inherits over $3.5 million--your taxes will, in fact, be going up, and they should be going up.

My legislation establishes a 45-percent tax on the value of an estate between $3.5 million and $10 million, a 50-percent tax on the value of an estate between $10 million and $50 million, a 55-percent tax on the value of an estate in excess of $50 million, and a 77-percent tax on the value of an estate above $1 billion. In other words, this bill begins to create a progressive tax system in America, which is based on ability to pay.

I know some may think otherwise, but the truth is, this is not a radical idea. From 1941 through 1976, the top estate tax rate was, in fact, 77 percent on estate values above $50 million. Back to 1976, the top estate tax rate was 77 percent.

This bill would also close tax loopholes that have allowed billionaire families, such as the Waltons, to pass fortunes from one generation to the next without paying their fair share of taxes.

Under this legislation, the families of all 588 billionaires in our country, who have a combined net worth of over $3 trillion, would pay up to $2.2 trillion in estate taxes.

Let me make a confession here. This idea, this approach, was not developed by Bernie Sanders. It is not a new idea. More than a century ago, a good Republican President named Teddy Roosevelt fought for the creation of a progressive estate tax to reduce the enormous concentration of wealth that existed during the Gilded Age.

What is really quite remarkable is that what Teddy Roosevelt talked about over 100 years ago during the Gilded Age of the 1920s, when little children were working in factories and fields and the wealthiest people were enjoying incredible wealth and luxury--the idea Teddy Roosevelt proposed then is as relevant today as it was back then. Let me quote what Teddy Roosevelt said more than 100 years ago:

The absence of effective state, and, especially, national

restraint upon unfair money-getting has tended to create a

small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful

men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power.

The prime need is to change the conditions which enable these

men to accumulate power. Therefore, I believe in a graduated

inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against

evasion and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the

estate.

That was Teddy Roosevelt over 100 years ago. What Roosevelt said then is absolutely true for today.

From a moral and an economic perspective, our Nation will not thrive when so few people have so much wealth and power and so many people have so little wealth and power. This wealth and income inequality is not only unjust and unfair; the truth is, it is a real threat to our economy and our democracy.

We need a tax system in this country that tells the billionaire class that they are going to have to pay their fair share of taxes so that we do not have 30 million people without health insurance, so that we do not have young people graduating college $50,000, $100,000 in debt, so that we do not have an infrastructure that is crumbling, and so that we do not see our great country moving toward an oligarchic form of society where a handful of families enjoy incredible wealth and power at the expense of everybody else.

In my view, the fairest way to reduce wealth inequality, to invest in the middle class and working families of our country, and to preserve our democracy is to enact a progressive estate tax on the inherited wealth of multimillionaires and billionaires. That is exactly what I will be proposing.

Mr. President, all across our country--in Vermont, in Illinois, in California--all across this country, people are asking a very simple question. That question is, How does it happen that in the midst of the extraordinary wealth that exists in our country--how does it happen that so many people continue to hurt financially and struggle desperately to keep their heads above water economically?

Today, despite unemployment being relatively low, some 40 million Americans continue to live in poverty. We don't talk about poverty very much here in the Senate, but we have 40 million Americans living in poverty. Many of them are struggling to adequately feed their kids. Many of them are forced to go, despite working, to emergency food shelters just to stay alive.

Despite the United States having a GDP--gross domestic product--of more than $20 trillion, we in this country embarrassingly continue to have the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost any major country on Earth. We don't talk about that either. Children are obviously the future of America, and we continue to have one of the highest rates of childhood poverty of any major country, and that includes 29 percent of African-American children who live in poverty.

How does it happen that in a so-called booming economy--and we hear from President Trump every other day about how the economy is booming-- the bottom 40 percent of our population does not have $400 in cash in order to address a financial emergency? Think about that. The bottom 40 percent--almost half of Americans--don't have $400 in their pocket, in the bank to address a financial emergency. Maybe the car breaks down, maybe the kid gets sick, maybe one loses one's job, maybe one undergoes a divorce; something happens, and 40 percent of the American people don't have $400 in the bank to address that crisis.

In other words, today--and we saw this in the recent government shutdown; today in America, many, many millions of families live paycheck to paycheck in order to survive. That should not be happening in the wealthiest country on Earth, and it is time we begin to talk about that. It is not good enough to talk about a so-called booming economy, forgetting about tens of millions of families who are not seeing that booming economy but, in fact, are living under incredible financial stress.

How does it happen that, in the so-called booming economy, tens of millions of American workers today are working for wages that are so low they cannot afford the escalating cost of housing? Some of them are spending 40, 50 percent of their limited incomes on housing. For many of these people, there is no health insurance available; the idea of a vacation for the family is something not even to be thought about; and the idea of being able to send one's kids to college is something that is also not on the table. By the

way, many of these individuals are working two or three jobs, 50, 60, 70 hours a week, just to survive.

This, again, is the wealthiest country in the history of the world. Yet 30 million Americans today, as we speak, have zero health insurance--no health insurance at all; 41 million people are underinsured--which means their deductibles and their copayments are so high that even though they have insurance, they still can't afford to go to the doctor, and one out of five Americans today cannot afford the prescription drugs their doctors prescribe.

In my view--a view I have held for a very, very long time, and it is a view shared by people not only in this country in wide numbers, but all over the world--healthcare is a human right, not a privilege. Whether you are rich or whether you are poor, you have the right to go to a doctor when you get sick, and you have the right to know that if you end up in a hospital, you are not going to go bankrupt or suffer from financial distress.

We are an aging population--no great secret there. We are an aging population. In this Congress, instead of dealing with government shutdowns precipitated by the President, we should be talking about how we respond to the reality of an aging population. Yet what we don't talk about is that about half of older Americans--half of older Americans, those 55 and older--have no retirement savings and no idea about how they will retire with dignity.

Think about what that means. Somebody is 60 years of age, they are coming to the end of their work-life, and they have no money--or virtually no money--in the bank. Maybe all they are going to get is Social Security. They turn on the TV, and they hear folks around here talking about cutting Social Security. Talk about why people in this country are angry and why they are stressed out.

Here is the bottom line. We are the wealthiest country on Earth. In fact, we are the wealthiest country in the history of the world, but despite that wealth, a significant percentage of our population--our children, our elderly people, our working men and women--struggle each and every day to keep their heads above water economically. Not only are they struggling, I think the pain they are feeling has to do with the worry they have about the future for their kids because they know, as many of us know, that unless we make some bold changes in our economy, the younger generation today will have a lower standard of living than their parents.

Imagine that--a so-called booming economy, yet we are looking at a situation where the younger generation may well have a lower standard of living than their parents.

I want to also say a word about another reality that currently exists. While so many of our people are struggling, while so many of our children are living in poverty, while 20 percent of folks on Social Security are trying to live on less than $13,000 a year, there is another pervasive reality in American society today; that is, the people on top--the very wealthiest people in this country--have never had it better, and the gap between the very, very rich--I am not just talking about the rich; I am talking about the very, very rich--is growing wider.

Here is the simple truth, a truth that we virtually never talk about here in the Senate, a truth that is not heard much in the corporate media; that is, the United States of America today has the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of almost any major country on Earth, and that level of inequality is worse today than at any time since the 1920s, the so-called Gilded Age of American society.

Today, if you can believe it, the three wealthiest people in this country--three--own more wealth than the bottom half of America, 160 million people. Let me repeat that. The three wealthiest people in this country own more wealth than the bottom half of America, 160 million people. Today, the top one-tenth of 1 percent--not 1 percent; one-tenth of 1 percent--own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. Today, and since the Wall Street crash in 2008, about 46 percent of all new income goes to the top 1 percent. Roughly speaking, half of all new income goes to the bottom 99 percent, and half goes to the top 1 percent, and our great task here in the U.S. Senate is to keep the government open while Trump tries to shut it down. Maybe, just maybe, we should be talking about those issues. Maybe, just maybe, we should be talking about an economy that works for all of us, not just the people on top.

Today, the top 25 hedge fund managers on Wall Street--25 hedge fund managers--earn nearly double the income of all 140,000 kindergarten teachers in America.

What all of the psychologists tell us is that the most important years of a human being's development are 0 to 4. Those are the most impressionable years in terms of how we develop intellectually and emotionally, and our childcare workers, our kindergarten teachers play a very important role. Does anybody think it makes sense that you have 25 hedge fund managers on Wall Street who, today, earn nearly double what 140,000 of our kindergarten teachers make? By the way, public teachers in America are falling further and further behind other occupations.

Having stated that reality--the fact that the middle class is struggling and the fact that the people on top are doing phenomenally well--I think it is fair to ask what the views are of the Republican leadership here in the Senate--Republicans control the Senate--and what our Republican President, President Trump, is proposing to address these massive levels of injustice and inequality. Three people own more wealth than the bottom half of America. What does the President and what does Leader McConnell have to say about that? The sad truth is that the Republican leadership today wants to make an embarrassingly bad situation even worse.

After passing a $1 trillion tax giveaway for the top 1 percent and large corporations last year, Republican leadership is coming back and saying: Hey, we only gave 83 percent of the tax benefits to the 1 percent. That is not good enough. That is not good enough. We have to do even better for our billionaires and corporate sponsors.

This time, the Republican leadership and the President want a tax break of hundreds of billions of dollars that would go exclusively to the wealthiest of the wealthy. I am not talking about the wealthy; I am talking about the wealthiest of the wealthy--the top one-tenth of 1 percent, the wealthiest 1,700 families in America.

We have 127 million families in our country--a population of some 320 million people. As I have indicated, many of these families are struggling. Many of these families are hurting. Today, many of these families are wondering how they are going to pay their rent, pay their mortgage, keep their lights on. Yet the legislation to repeal the estate tax that Senator McConnell and President Trump are proposing would benefit less than the top one-tenth of 1 percent of them--99.9 percent would see no tax reduction from the legislation.

Can anyone actually imagine bringing forward a piece of legislation that does not help the bottom 99.9 percent? Can you imagine that? The middle class are struggling. The gap between the rich and the poor is growing wider. There are 30 million people without health insurance. Our infrastructure is crumbling. And they come forward with a piece of legislation that is designed to protect and benefit the top one-tenth of 1 percent. The legislation would be of no benefit to 99.9 percent of the people of this country.

I think it is clear that when the people of this country look at Congress and say ``Those folks in Washington are not representing me. They are representing their wealthy campaign contributors. They are representing the billionaire class,'' there can be no clearer example of that reality than this proposed legislation.

Once again, with all of the economic problems, all of the inequality we face, imagine legislation that comes forward from the Republican leadership and the President that benefits the top one-tenth of 1 percent--the 1,700 wealthiest families in this country.

It is no secret that our infrastructure--our roads and our bridges, water systems, airports, wastewater plants--is crumbling all over this country. All over this country, there are major infrastructural problems. But I hear over and over again: We don't have the

funding to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure and put millions of Americans to work at good-paying jobs rebuilding that infrastructure. We just don't have the money.

Our schoolteachers are underpaid, but we don't have the money to provide attractive salaries in order to get the best and the brightest to do the most important work in this country; that is, teaching our young people.

Today, we have veterans--people who put their lives on the line-- sleeping on the streets, but we don't have the money to house them.

Families in America cannot afford childcare, and public schools are underfunded.

We don't have the money to address those crises, but somehow we do have hundreds of billions of dollars available to provide tax breaks for the top one-tenth of 1 percent.

We apparently have enough money to provide the Walton family--the wealthiest family in America, the folks who own Walmart, the people who pay their own employees starvation wages--by repealing the estate tax, as Senator McConnell and President Trump would like to do, we have enough money to provide the Walton family, the wealthiest family in America, with a tax break of up to $63 billion. Veterans sleep out on the street, teachers are underpaid, and 30 million Americans have no health insurance. We can't address those issues, but we do have legislation that would provide up to $63 billion in tax breaks for one family.

We have, apparently, enough money available to provide the Koch brothers--a family who spent some $400 million during the midterm election to help elect Republican candidates; the Koch brothers, one of the wealthiest, most politically active families in America--we have enough money to provide them with up to a $39 billion tax break.

Under this legislation, we can provide a tax break of up to $27 billion to the Mars candy bar family and up to a $13.4 billion tax break to the Cox cable family.

In other words, at a time of massive needs in this country, we don't have enough money available to protect working families and the middle class, but we certainly have more money than we know what to do with in order to give incredible tax breaks to the richest people in this country.

The estate tax that we are going to be proposing does not give massive tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this country--quite the contrary. It says to those people that at a time of massive income and wealth inequality, instead of repealing the estate tax, we must substantially increase this tax on the multimillionaires and billionaires of this country and in doing that, not only come up with much needed revenue to address the needs of working families but also to reduce wealth inequality in America.

That is why this week I will be introducing legislation for an estate tax bill that would do exactly the opposite of what my Republican colleagues propose to do. Let me briefly explain what is in the legislation I am offering.

Under my bill, anytime someone inherits an estate in America of $3.5 million or less, that person will not pay one penny in estate taxes. They will get to keep that inheritance tax-free. That population includes 99.8 percent of the American people. The legislation I am proposing would not raise taxes by a penny on 99.8 percent of the American population.

If you are in the top two-tenths of 1 percent of the population--the population that inherits over $3.5 million--your taxes will, in fact, be going up, and they should be going up.

My legislation establishes a 45-percent tax on the value of an estate between $3.5 million and $10 million, a 50-percent tax on the value of an estate between $10 million and $50 million, a 55-percent tax on the value of an estate in excess of $50 million, and a 77-percent tax on the value of an estate above $1 billion. In other words, this bill begins to create a progressive tax system in America, which is based on ability to pay.

I know some may think otherwise, but the truth is, this is not a radical idea. From 1941 through 1976, the top estate tax rate was, in fact, 77 percent on estate values above $50 million. Back to 1976, the top estate tax rate was 77 percent.

This bill would also close tax loopholes that have allowed billionaire families, such as the Waltons, to pass fortunes from one generation to the next without paying their fair share of taxes.

Under this legislation, the families of all 588 billionaires in our country, who have a combined net worth of over $3 trillion, would pay up to $2.2 trillion in estate taxes.

Let me make a confession here. This idea, this approach, was not developed by Bernie Sanders. It is not a new idea. More than a century ago, a good Republican President named Teddy Roosevelt fought for the creation of a progressive estate tax to reduce the enormous concentration of wealth that existed during the Gilded Age.

What is really quite remarkable is that what Teddy Roosevelt talked about over 100 years ago during the Gilded Age of the 1920s, when little children were working in factories and fields and the wealthiest people were enjoying incredible wealth and luxury--the idea Teddy Roosevelt proposed then is as relevant today as it was back then. Let me quote what Teddy Roosevelt said more than 100 years ago:

The absence of effective state, and, especially, national

restraint upon unfair money-getting has tended to create a

small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful

men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power.

The prime need is to change the conditions which enable these

men to accumulate power. Therefore, I believe in a graduated

inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against

evasion and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the

estate.

That was Teddy Roosevelt over 100 years ago. What Roosevelt said then is absolutely true for today.

From a moral and an economic perspective, our Nation will not thrive when so few people have so much wealth and power and so many people have so little wealth and power. This wealth and income inequality is not only unjust and unfair; the truth is, it is a real threat to our economy and our democracy.

We need a tax system in this country that tells the billionaire class that they are going to have to pay their fair share of taxes so that we do not have 30 million people without health insurance, so that we do not have young people graduating college $50,000, $100,000 in debt, so that we do not have an infrastructure that is crumbling, and so that we do not see our great country moving toward an oligarchic form of society where a handful of families enjoy incredible wealth and power at the expense of everybody else.

In my view, the fairest way to reduce wealth inequality, to invest in the middle class and working families of our country, and to preserve our democracy is to enact a progressive estate tax on the inherited wealth of multimillionaires and billionaires. That is exactly what I will be proposing.

Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record some of the finalist essays written by Vermont High School students as part of the ninth annual State of the Union essay contest conducted by my office.

The essays follow, in alphabetical order according to the finalists' names.

The material follows:

Megan Benway, Missisquoi Valley Union High School, Junior, Finalist

A problem that is growing rapidly in our world would be the

increase in children entering foster care due to the opioid

crisis. The White House stated that ``in 2016, more than two

million Americans had an addiction to prescription or illicit

opioids.'' This shows that there is a huge climb in the

amount of people getting addicted. Emily Birnbaum and Maya

Lora, writing for The Hill, reported that ``the population of

children in foster care had risen by 15 percent to 30 percent

in just the last four years.'' This shows that due to opioid

crisis, the foster care system is filling up, and they don't

have enough homes for the children.

The first solution that could help would be to get more

funding for the state to use on children and treatments.

There has been funding given due to President Trump taking

office; ``more than $1 billion in funding has been allocated

or spent directly addressing the drug addiction and opioid

crisis'' (The White House). A couple ways the funding could

be used for would be for hiring more social workers. A lot of

the children don't get the attention they need because there

are so many cases of children for one person to do.

The second solution would be to make getting treatment

easier, not only getting more

treatment homes but also making them more affordable. It

could go from anywhere from $650 to $250 a day (American

Addiction Centers). That's a lot of money for someone who is

struggling with an addition and could be almost impossible to

get. With the funding they can invest ``in residential

substance treatment program[s] that keeps families together

while a parent gets help'' (The Hill). By doing this the

treatment center is giving the parents an incentive to get

better and follow through with the treatment.

The third solution that could help would be keeping the

families together. In the paragraph above The Hill mentioned

a center where addicts can get help but still be with their

families. One thing that would be good about keeping family

together is ``once [they finish their] treatment and are

stable, [they] can reintegrate [the people] into [their] old

work and apartment and things that will keep [them] clean and

not create unsafe circumstances for [their] children to be

taken away''(The Hill). This treatment center could

potentially decrease the number of children entering foster

care by a lot.

All of the above solutions could help drop the number of

children in foster care. This is an important issue because

many American children and adults are being affected by this

problem. I know from experience that it hurts to be a child

who watches their parents rely on drugs, and then one day

some random person comes and takes the child away. There

needs to be a change, and it must happen fast. If it doesn't

I'm afraid that many children and adults will be stuck in a

solution that could kill them all.

Thomas Buckley, Colchester High School, Freshman, Finalist

Abraham Lincoln reminded us that ``a house divided against

itself cannot stand.'' Today, America feels almost as divided

as it was before the Civil War. Partisan news channels and a

primary system that favors playing to the base have produced

election cycles lacking in civility and meaningful

discussion. However, the erosion of respectful political

discourse and the increased polarization of the electorate

are not entirely the fault of politicians nor the voters who

elect them. They are instead inevitable consequences of the

First Past the Post (FPTP) voting system we use to elect our

representatives.

First Past the Post (or plurality voting) is a voting

system where each voter has one vote and the candidate with

the most votes wins. While this system is intuitive and

simple, it is fatally flawed. Because plurality voting has

only one winner, and one vote per person, it is impossible

for elections to have more than two viable candidates. Any

additional strong candidates will result in the winner

earning less than half of the vote. To illustrate my point,

imagine a scenario in which there are three candidates: a

center-right candidate, a center-left candidate, and a more

liberal candidate. If half of the voters are right-leaning

and half are left-leaning, the two left-leaning candidates

will inevitably split the liberal vote and lead to an easy

conservative victory, whether or not more people would have

preferred either one of the two left-leaning options.

Therefore, to avoid the negative effects of splitting the

vote, voters must vote strategically by voting against the

candidate they most prefer to avoid electing the candidate

they most dislike. Because voters must vote strategically,

elections in FPTP systems produce two major parties defined

by their opposition to each other. Campaigns become

increasingly negative as the parties compete in a ``race to

the bottom'' to vilify the other party's candidate instead of

promoting their own positive ideas. This is exacerbated by a

primary process that favors the most uncompromising

candidates.

Attempts to address the problems with FPTP voting are being

made. For example, Maine recently transitioned to Ranked

Choice Voting, a system where voters can rank their favorite

candidates rather than choosing only one option. This

improves political discourse and favors moderation because

politicians must compete for second place votes as well as

first choice votes. Ranked Choice Voting eliminates the

incentive for politicians to run negative campaigns. It

doesn't make sense to dismiss the opposition if you want

their voters to support you.

Consequently, campaigns under a Ranked Choice system tend

to be more civil, with less polarized electorates. When

politicians spend all of their time playing to their base,

they have no incentive to compromise with the other side,

weakening democracy. Because Ranked Choice Voting encourages

civil discussion, politicians are more likely to work with

each other on issues that are important to the American

people. American democracy is broken. We should fix it by

changing how we elect our civil servants.

Brendany Byrne, Essex High School, Junior, Finalist

The greatest problem our country faces is not just a

national problem, but a problem that affects the entire

world--climate change. Climate change will impact all of the

people of the world regardless of race, gender, or social

class. If our country does not address this problem, the

world will be destroyed. In October, the Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change released a report warning that unless

humanity drastically reduces CO2 emissions, the

change to the world's climate will become irreversible.

Arctic sea ice will disappear. Sea levels will rise to the

point where coastal cities will become completely submerged.

Extreme weather will become more frequent. Potable water and

food will become more scarce. Yet many people in the United

States still deny that climate change exists, or they believe

that there is nothing they can do to change the outcome. This

ignorance and sense of powerlessness is dangerous at this

critical point in time because the solution to climate change

requires the people of the world to come together and act as

one.

Under the Trump administration, the United States has

stopped participating in the global effort to stop climate

change. Mr. Trump has stated that the United States will

withdraw from the Paris Agreement as soon as possible. This

is a rash decision considering the consequences of ignoring

climate change. Instead of running away from reality, the

United States should accept the responsibility of being a

global power and rise to the challenge of saving the world

from climate change.

To solve the problem of climate change, it will take a

large scale effort. Similar to the American war effort during

the Second World War, every American will need to get behind

the movement to stop climate change, and it is the

government's responsibility to lead the people in this

struggle. The government needs to issue stricter regulations

on the emissions produced by large businesses. Instead of

spending an enormous amount of money on the military, the

government needs to invest money for scientific research to

stop climate change. The government must offer incentives for

people to live sustainably or impose a gas tax to reduce

emissions. The United States needs to work with other nations

to share ideas and solutions. Jobs can also be created from

the work that will be required to clean the environment, on

the federal, state, and local level. The public education

system has already started educating people about climate

change and its dangers. Hopefully, this education will help

change the culture so that the American people actively want

to address climate change.

In the past, America has proven that it can unify as a

nation and tackle global problems. It is simply a matter of

Americans seeing the dangers of climate change and realizing

that it must be our top priority. We must lead the rest of

the world and become a role model for the world. We need to

engage the government so that we change ourselves instead of

the climate.

Caroline Cassell, Hartford High School, Freshman, Finalist

Xenophobia is one of America's greatest debacles. Defined

as the fear of foreigners, xenophobia has unnecessarily

increased over the past few years due to numerous factors.

America was founded by immigrants, yet we now prosecute those

flocking here in search of better lives.

American immigration has always fluctuated due to the

extent of xenophobia in the country at the time. During World

War II numerous Jewish refugees flocked to America seeking

safety from the Nazis. Among these people was Albert

Einstein, now seen as one of America's greatest minds. We

have seen this occurring recently with the immigration ban on

Syrian immigrants. In the modern day, war torn Syrian asylum

seekers are denied entrance to America and are left living in

overcrowded refugee camps in Lebanon and Jordan. America's

policy: keep them out, they may be terrorists.

Immigrants living inside U.S. borders are being denied the

right to naturalize. Children of illegal immigrants who used

to be protected under Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

(DACA) are now unsure of their safety after DACA was

suspended by President Trump. These harmless people whose

parents wanted a better life for their children are denied

citizenship due to xenophobia. The act of separating families

or deporting innocent children to countries where they are

unfamiliar with the language and culture is unjust.

My family lived in Saudi Arabia for six years. Living

internationally taught me to be open-minded towards everyone;

I attended an international school with students from over

100 nations. Every student was like me, and deserved the same

rights. When I returned to the America I was alienated by

classmates who posed ridiculously ignorant questions such as

``Are you Muslim?'' ``Are you going to bomb the school?''

The issue at hand is fear. Americans need to open their

eyes and educate themselves about the world, not just their

country. Only 36% of all Americans have passports, and

organizations such as the U.S. Peace Corps, which encourage

world connections are struggling to find volunteers. We must

eliminate our fear is through education. By educating

citizens about the outside world, whether it be by inviting

more refugees into our country, sending more Americans abroad

to do service work, or having immigrants talk about their

experiences, we will be able to reduce hatred and fear. We

don't need a wall, we need to tear down our own walls of

ignorance and hatred.

Without immigrants, America would not be the extraordinary

country it is today. Through history, we have looked down on

immigrants, and have created ``nativist'' groups who yearned

to exclude immigrants from their society. Everyone deserves

the rights that all Americans have; many do not have the

access to such rights in their home countries. By excluding

those willing to become citizens, we not only deny them

opportunities in this country, but we deny them of

their rights. Let's ``Make America Great Again'': let's

educate each other about the world around us and share our

rights with those in search of better lives.

Collin Chutter-Casey, Burlington High School, Senior, Finalist

Where do you imagine the human race being in 20 years? 50

years? The effects of climate change should be front and

center in our minds when fantasizing about a space age world.

The human desire for technology and cheap cost of living

negates responsibility to the environment. Climate change

means more than a rise of a few seemingly insignificant

degrees over centuries of human innovation and

industrialization; however, the rising oceans and

temperatures, animal extinction, and increased natural

disasters are the real world effects that cost us an

increasing amount of money, resources, and even human lives

to sweep under the rug.

One of the main effects of climate change is the rise of

ocean height and temperature. According to NASA, a federally

funded organization, the sea level will rise 1-4 feet by the

year 2100. This is in addition to the eight inch rise in sea

levels since 1880. A rise of 1-4 feet in sea levels is

comparable to the shallow end of a swimming pool, but in the

real world means millions of homes and businesses destroyed

on the vulnerable coastline, which cannot be restored as we

do with hurricanes and tornadoes. Climate change by itself

may not seem to be a huge issue, but the ripple effect it

creates causes colossal damage.

When solving these problems, we cannot think of our own

lives, but rather future generations. Humans do not have the

power to predict the future, but we can shape the future.

There are two parts to the solution of climate change:

Mitigation and Adaptation. Adaptation is adjusting to the

effects of climate change. This plan does not deal with the

issue of slowing and preventing climate change, but with

preventing the effects of global warming from changing the

way people live, even if it does change where they live.

Mitigation is reducing the amount of greenhouse gases that

are released into the atmosphere. For mitigation to be a

viable solution to solve the earth's warming, we need a

global plan for a global problem. This means that, as a

global community, we need laws to promote and enforce

renewable energy (solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal),

sustainable houses and buildings, eliminate litter, cut down

on trash, cut down on resource use, the list goes on. This

intensive process requires a change in mindset, and support

and participation from all people in all nations.

Let the U.S. stand where the world knows it to be, one step

ahead of others, and carry all nations to the solution of

global warming. We know the mass destruction that global

warming can cause, and the best solution to counter it. So

now let the question we ask not be what we imagine the world

to be in 20 years, but what is necessary to get there.

Felicia Daigle, Rice Memorial High School, Junior, Finalist

The world today revolves around our dependency on

convenience. We live in a society that works to make our

lives easier through inventions like drive-thrus and one-use

items. Ignoring the effects of this dependency has resulted

in an environmental crisis that seems to be too great to fix.

The fact that 18 million pounds of plastic enters our oceans

annually should shock our generation and instill a sense of

ownership about this issue (Howard). Realizing that plastic

dominates most of our consumerism and convenience needs

should prioritized reducing its production. The way to treat

this issue would be by placing a ban on unnecessary plastic

goods and an emphasis on teaching students about our oceans

and environment instead of ignoring the problem.

By banning plastic accommodations like straw, bags, and

bottles, over 14 billion tons of plastic waste could be

prevented (Howard). The United States would be joining other

nations like the United Kingdom and India in an effort to

reduce plastic waste. The European Commission proposed, ``a

ban on 10 common items that it says make up about 70 percent

of the litter in EU waters. This includes plastic straws,

drink stirrers, plates, and more'' (Howard). All these items

seem to make life easier but they have become the reason for

the world's struggles with plastic pollution.

When we share the knowledge about how harmful plastic has

become, then we take responsibility about choosing a plastic

water bottle because it's easy. I only learned about the dire

state of our oceans a few years ago when I walked on the

beaches in Santa Barbara and saw plastic Starbucks cups and

straws intertwined with the seaweed that had washed up onto

shore. From that moment I realized that plastic does not go

anywhere but into landfills and if we keep producing more and

more, none of our beaches will have no plastic debris. If

schools took action and speak about plastic waste, there

would be no excuse for our ignorance regarding the planet's

environmental state.

Taking plastic pollution seriously, starting by a national

ban on straws, bags, and water bottles, would be the first

step in the right direction. We cannot undo the past, but the

future lies in the decisions we start making today. Plastic,

a man-made product, cannot keep killing thousands of sea

creatures without our government trying to enforce some kind

of change. If the United States does not understand its dire

need for plastic reduction, our future generations will never

know the ocean with plastic filling them.

Paige Dean, South Burlington High School, Senior, Finalist

Members of Congress, I come before you today to speak about

something that is near to my heart. I spend my summers

sailing on beautiful Lake Champlain in my home state of

Vermont, and every Fourth of July my family and I kayak out

into Burlington Bay and watch the fireworks. The lake is part

of many Vermonters' lives; from childhood jokes about Champ,

our local lake monster, to walks along the shore and trips

across on the ferry, our Lake Champlain has been an integral

part of the Vermont experience.

But today, Lake Champlain is suffering, just as the rest of

America is. Devastating hurricanes in the South are

displacing us and flooding our homes and businesses. Droughts

and wildfires in the West raze the ground, destroy our

property, prevent our crops from growing and force us to

flee. Our shining seas are encroaching on our plentiful

shores, the water lapping ever closer, year by year, to our

front stoop. Summers are getting hotter, and storms wilder.

We all know the cause, and what it means for us. Climate

change is real. We are experiencing it right here, right now.

Science does not lie, and all around our nation we are seeing

it firsthand. The homeowners in Louisiana who can't sell

because their house is in a flood zone, the farmers in

Arizona whose crops are withering from drought, the

schoolchildren in Flint, Michigan, whose tap water is unsafe

to drink, and those Vermont who can't utilize their lake due

to dangerous algae blooms.

Every single thing I have listed has its roots in our own

actions. However we twist it, the facts remain: we are

responsible for climate change.

There is still hope. If we act now, we can lessen the

effects of climate change on our homes and livelihoods. I

call now on Congress to pass and support strong and direct

legislation to help our environment and economy. Strengthen

the EPA! Ensure that this vital agency has the resources and

leadership necessary to protect our lands and create real

change. Pass legislation tightening regulations, taxing and

limiting the production and spread of pollutants, give

incentives to alternative clean and sustainable energy

companies, move to limit our reliance on oil and gas, and

make America energy independent and sustainable. We have

thousands of capable scientists, business leaders, policy

experts and engaged citizens ready to work on solutions

and save our planet. Let them! Work with our allies and

neighbors to mitigate climate change worldwide. Rejoin and

support the Paris Climate Agreement! Climate change

affects our whole planet, and only global solutions and

partnership will solve it. Let's work on fostering the

clean energy and environmental protection programs of

other countries through incentives and aid, especially to

developing countries while promoting energy independence.

Solutions are in our grasp, we only have to believe in

them, reach out, and grab them. Otherwise, we are doing

ourselves, the people of America, and indeed the whole world

a great disservice. The world's future, America's future, our

future is at stake. Act now.

Aynsa Denby, St. Johnsbury Academy, Sophomore, Finalist

Fighting for Women's Reproductive Rights

In America, woman are still continually fighting for

women's reproductive rights 70 years after Roe vs. Wade was

passed. While many people agree that women have a right to

their own body, many politicians still engage in an

unrelenting and increasingly aggressive attacks on women's

reproductive health care. They do this by introducing and

passing unconstitutional bills that would restrict women's

rights, for example by stifling access to essential health

care and endangering women's lives. To put this into

perspective, this, that means hundreds of women's rights are

being taken away with each restriction passed, according to

the National Reproductive Rights Organization. A possible

solution is the Women's Health Protection Act which would

prevent states from passing these dangerous legislations and

would prohibit state and federal politicians from imposing a

range of dangerous anti-choice provisions that take away

women's rights and choice over their own body.

In his first year in office, Trump and his administration

have brought an aggressive campaign against women's sexual

and reproductive rights to the White House, by limiting

women's access to birth control and his anti-abortion

advocacy. To understand the administration's emphasis on

rolling back birth control access and abortion rights, it's

important to remember the administration is filled with

people who have a track record of anti-abortion legislation

and advocacy throughout the years such as Vice President Mike

Pence and Trump's top healthcare advisor Katy Talento. Trump

administration's 2018-'22 draft plan for Health and Human

Services, for the first time ever suggested the federal

health agency will now be ``serving and protecting Americans

at every stage of life, beginning at conception.'' this

language about conception and unborn children signals a shift

toward faith-based decision-making in American health care.

But women's rights are not based on the faith or beliefs of

the government officials but rather each woman's individual

choice, therefore the decision should be up the person whose

body is being affected and not a single groups beliefs.

The Women's Health Protection Act would prevent states from

passing these dangerous legislations and would prohibit state

and federal politicians from imposing a range of dangerous

anti-choice provisions. Senator Sanders needs to expand and

protect the reproductive rights of women by continuing to

fight and support for The Women's Health Protection Act, and

by bringing attention to this continuing struggle for

equality and individual choice over one's own body. Senator

Sanders also can fight to keep Planned Parenthood funded and

covered by Medicaid, as attacking Planned Parenthood remains

a priority for social conservatives in our Congress today. As

of right now 2.5 million people rely on Planned Parenthood

for a range of health care services, like birth control and

cancer screenings, and defunding it would change the health

of millions of Americans as found in the article ``How

Women's reproductive rights stalled under Trump'' by Julia

Belluz. So therefore I am not only asking for continuing

support for women's reproductive rights but also the health

of millions of Americans.

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 9th year and I would like to congratulate the almost 600 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.

A volunteer panel of Vermont teachers reviewed the essays and chose Firdaus Muhammad as this year's winner. Firdaus, a freshman at Essex High School, focused on the rise of Islamophobia across the Nation. Jackson Maiocco, a senior at Bellows Falls Union High School, was the second place winner. Jackson wrote about military spending and the impact our defense budget has on our Nation. Joseph Brody, a senior at St. Johnsbury Academy, was the third place winner, having written about voter suppression.

I am very proud to enter into the Congressional Record the essays submitted by Firdaus, Jackson, and Joseph.

The material follows:

Firdaus Muhammad, Essex High School, Freshman, Winner

September 11, 2001--a day that all Americans remember. A

day that changed so many lives. A day when I wasn't even

alive yet. Yet 9/11 was a day that changed my life. Fast

forward eleven years to 2012. I was in third grade and had

just made the decision to start wearing the hijab in public.

I had awoken that winter morning with the intention to wear

my hijab to school, but I was naive. I didn't know that by

wearing the hijab, I became a symbol of Islam. I didn't

realize that by wearing a piece of cloth on my head, I was

suddenly a nine year old representing all 1.7 billion Muslims

across the globe.

It's 2019. Eighteen years have passed since 9/11. It's been

seven years since I started wearing the hijab publicly. The

racism against Muslims has only gotten worse. The hatred and

Islamophobia has spread like wildfire, affecting every Muslim

in its path. Women's hijabs are being ripped off, racist

slurs are being spit at Muslims, and the angry stares have

only increased. The rise of Islamophobia during these past

years has been exacerbated by President Trump's Travel Ban.

On January 27, 2017, President Trump signed the Protecting

the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United

States Order. This became known as the Travel Ban or

essentially, the Muslim Ban. Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria,

Yemen, North Korea, and Venezuela were all affected by this

ban. It's not a coincidence that five of these countries have

a majority Muslim population.

I clearly remember watching the news with my dad and

hearing all the racist names being thrown at Muslims. Being

an eleven year old Muslim girl, I couldn't comprehend how

people could be so rude and racist to one another. I didn't

understand why Muslim families were suddenly being torn apart

because they were deemed ``unsafe''. Why were people suddenly

so scared of Muslims? Didn't they know that Islam was a

religion founded on peace and justice? A religion of equality

and kindness? How can we live in ``The Land of the Free''

when Muslims are afraid of being targeted based solely on

their religion? I am lucky enough to live in Vermont where

most people are quite respectful and accepting of each other.

But I also know that there are other Muslims who are not so

lucky. Those Muslims who feel isolated in their offices,

schools, and other public places.

I believe that in order to solve this huge racial problem,

we must learn to accept each other's differences. We should

not discriminate against others based on their religion. We

need to make sure that we represent people as they are, not

based on stereotypes. We cannot let the actions of a few

people reflect the beliefs of a whole religion. The United

States is a country of diversity, a country built by

immigrants. Any person who comes from any religion, deserves

to feel respected and welcomed in this country.

Jackson Maiocco, Bellows Falls Union High School, Senior, Second Place

For decades, an excess of military spending has plagued our

nation while there are many vital areas that would prosper

with the reallocation of some military spending. The majority

of our nation's federal budget is dedicated to the military;

in 2018, the US spent a grand total of $623 billion on

national defense. This huge sum of money dwarfs the amount

that President Trump allocated to the Department of

Education: a mere $68 billion. I know that sounds like a

considerable amount of money, so I'll put it in perspective.

For every dollar spent on education, nearly $11 went to the

military. This simply can't stand.

In fiscal year 2018, the US Federal Budget was roughly a

trillion dollars. President Trump made good on his promise to

slash federal budgets, but increased the defense budget by

almost 10%. Considering the size of the defense budget, a 10%

increase is huge: $52 billion, to be exact. Areas that were

negatively affected by Trump's budget cuts were the

Department of Education, which had a 14% budget slash, and

the Department of Health and Human Services, which lost 18%

of its federal funding. Every country's main goal should be

the scientific and social advancement of their citizens and

society as a whole, so the damage done by Trump's budget cuts

is incredibly detrimental to our nation. Meanwhile, we're

pouring unprecedented amounts of money into building tanks

that will never see action; according to Eric Husher, former

Senior Balkan Intelligence Analyst (1992-1996), there are

over 4,000 M1 Abrams tanks sitting in the Nevada desert

collecting dust. Keep in mind that it costs upwards of $4.3

million to assemble an M1 Abrams. So collectively, there's

roughly $17 billion worth of American taxpayers money sitting

in a parking lot in Nevada. But wait, it gets worse. These

tanks aren't being built for use; they're simply being built

to keep a factory running. This needless military spending is

incredibly detrimental to our country. Excessive military

expenditures results in slower economic growth, and, as

outlined above, is simply a waste of money.

The only feasible solution is to gradually decrease

military spending, and invest those funds into more

worthwhile areas such as education, science, and healthcare.

Far right hawks and conservatives might argue that a drastic

decrease in military expenditures would leave us exposed and

weak, but the evidence states otherwise. In fact, even if we

cut our military budget by 80%, we would still have military

superiority in the world.

In the words of legendary journalist Hunter S. Thompson,

``Every Republican administration since 1952 has let the

military-industrial complex loot the treasury and plunge the

nation into debt on the excuse of a wartime economic

emergency.'' With no such emergency anywhere in sight, our

tax dollars should be spent on more worthwhile investments.

Joseph Brody, St. Johnsbury Academy, Senior, Third Place

Democracy was founded on the fundamental principle that the

power of government is derived from the consent of the

governed. Throughout the course of our nation's history, this

foundation has been fractured by the disenfranchisement of

low-income and minority groups. The Jim Crow laws, for

example, prevented African Americans from voting through poll

taxes and literacy tests. While the means of voter

suppression have become less glaring, the United States

continues to systematically suppress underrepresented

populations from exercising their Fifteenth Amendment right.

In order to ensure that our democracy is accessible and

fruitful for all, the United States must abolish Voter ID

laws and reform Election Day.

First of all, minorities are silenced by the Voter ID laws.

As Attorney General Eric Holder simply stated, ``We call

those poll taxes.'' Voter ID laws inhibit minority voters

because they present additional barriers to an already

problematic voting process. Even though obtaining

identification is often touted as ``free,'' Harvard Law

School asserts that the cost of supporting documents can

exceed $175. Given that minorities are often in the lowest

income brackets, this price can be insurmountable and

disproportionately prevents African Americans from receiving

identification. The Brennan Center for Justice revealed that

nearly 25% of African Americans lack necessary identification

in comparison to just 8% of their white counterparts.

According to The University of San Diego, the beneficiaries

of Voter ID laws are largely ``whites and those on the

political right.'' Clearly, this not only alienates

minorities, but produces politicians who are not concerned

with their interests. The solution is simple: eradicate Voter

ID laws. Though many express concern about voter fraud, this

fear is baseless. Professor Justin Levitt confirms that there

have only been 31 cases of credible voter impersonation since

2000. In short, Voter ID laws are a refurbished Poll Tax;

under the mask of ``fraud

prevention,'' only the disenfranchised stand to be silenced.

Election Day is a hindrance because it occurs on a Tuesday.

The working class cannot afford lost wages or lost energy

from standing in hours-long lines. The result of this awkward

timing: low-income Americans cannot afford to vote. According

to the Pew Research Center, 63% of the most financially

secure Americans voted in the 2014 election, while only 20%

of the least financially secure were able to make it to the

poll. In effect, the population that bears the greatest

burdens possesses the least political power. In actuality,

Election Day was established on a Tuesday so that farmers

wouldn't miss church or market day. The government needs to

act with a similar intent and align Election Day with the

schedule of the working class. It should be a federally

mandated holiday and stretch across Saturday and Sunday. For

those unable to vote, absentee ballots should be guaranteed

and expedited.

Ultimately, eliminating Voter ID laws and reforming

Election Day will make voting accessible to all Americans.

Voting is at the heart of democracy, and once this is

realized, the quality of life for all Americans will be

heightened.

Madam President, obviously, this is a happy and positive day not only for Federal employees but for the American people as we reopen the government, but we should also indicate there is something absolutely pathetic about what has happened.

Let us not forget for a second that 5 weeks ago, the U.S. Senate unanimously--every Republican, every Democrat--voted for essentially the same legislation that will likely pass today and that 5 weeks ago we voted to keep the government open. Then President Trump responded to FOX television and other rightwing outlets and announced that he would shut down the government unless he got his wall.

For 5 weeks, think of the suffering, of the uncertainty, of the pain that hundreds of thousands of Federal workers have been forced to experience--workers who have worried about whether they will be able to pay their mortgages, whether they will be able to feed their kids, whether they will be able to go to the doctor when they get sick, worried about what kind of damage will have been done to their credit ratings. That is a result of Trump's shutdown. If my ears heard correctly--and I think they did--Trump, even today, just a few minutes ago, announced that he is prepared to shut down the government again unless he gets his way.

I think the time is long overdue for the American people to tell this President that he is not a dictator, that he is not a King, that he is not the despotic ruler of Saudi Arabia, that he is not his authoritarian friend Vladimir Putin of Russia. He is the President of United States, and he cannot and must not continue to threaten to shut down this government and hold hundreds of thousands of Federal workers hostage.

While I am delighted that the government is going to be reopened and delighted that Federal employees will get their backpay, I remain concerned about the over 1 million contract employees--often folks who work for low wages--who not only have lost pay but, at this point at least, are not protected by any legislation to make sure they get their backpay. That is something I hope we can address.

The truth is that despite what the President tells us, there is nobody in the Senate or in the House who is not concerned about border security. Some of us believe that spending, as a downpayment, $5.7 billion on a wall, with

many billions more to come, is not an effective use of tax dollars when we talk about border security. There are better ways to do it and more cost-effective ways to do it.

There is no debate that border security is an important issue, but one of the things that concerns me very much--and I say this to the Presiding Officer, who is chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee--is that border security and a wall are not the only issues facing the American people. There are 30 million Americans who have no health insurance, and many more who are underinsured. By far, we pay the highest cost for prescription drugs of any people on the face of the Earth.

Border security is important, and it must be dealt with, but we also have to deal with a dysfunctional healthcare system and, in my view, do what every other major country does, which is to guarantee healthcare to all people as a right.

Border security is an important issue, but so is the fact that tens of millions of workers in this country are working for starvation wages. I was just in South Carolina the other day, and I talked to a waitress. She receives $2.25 pay, plus tips. Millions of workers in this country are working for starvation wages of $8 or $9 or $10 an hour. We have to raise the minimum wage to a living wage.

I am proud that in the House--I expect they will pass a minimum wage bill of $15 an hour, and when that bill comes to the Senate, I hope we can do the same.

Border security is an important issue, but so is the fact that the scientific community tells us we have a very short window of opportunity to address the global crisis of climate change. What the scientists have told us is that if we do not boldly reduce carbon emissions over the next 12 years by transforming our energy system away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy, this country--and, in fact, countries all over the world--will suffer irreparable damage from climate change.

We have to address the crisis of climate change. Border security is important. We have to deal with it, but we also have to deal with climate change.

We have to deal with a broken criminal justice system, which, today, creates a situation where, in America, we have more people in jail than any other country on Earth.

Obviously, if we have learned anything in recent weeks, we have to deal with an immigration system that everybody acknowledges does not work, and we have to pass comprehensive immigration reform.

My point is that I hope very much we will not continue to be held hostage by this President, who, once again, just an hour ago, has threatened another government shutdown in 3 weeks if he doesn't get his way. I hope very much that there will be serious discussions on border security--a very important issue.

President Trump, stop holding the American people hostage. Stop threatening to shut down the government. Stop telling hundreds of thousands of Federal employees that they have to come to work when they will not get paid. Stop denying or threatening to deny the American people access to the vital services that they need.

Today is a good day in the sense that I hope and expect that the government will be reopened, but how sad it is that after all of the suffering and all of the uncertainty our Federal employees have faced, we are back to exactly where we were 5 weeks ago when this body voted unanimously--every Republican and every Democrat--to keep the government open.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak.

Mr. President, let me congratulate Senator Menendez for his leadership role in addressing this crisis in Saudi Arabia.

In a few minutes, we are going to begin voting on a historical piece of legislation, because I think, as conservatives have understood and as progressives have understood, for too many years, Congress has abdicated its historical and constitutional responsibility to be the body that determines whether or not this country is at war. What we have seen for a long time now under Democratic Presidents and under Republican Presidents and under Democratic Congresses and Republican Congresses is an abdication of that responsibility. I hope that today we begin the process of taking that back.

The war in Yemen is unauthorized. There has never been a vote in Congress to allow our men and women to participate in that war. Therefore, that war is unconstitutional, and it has to end. That is the vote that we will be having this afternoon.

Second of all, I think all Members are aware of the unbelievable humanitarian crisis that now exists in Yemen. It is the worst humanitarian crisis on Earth. Unless we use the power of this country not to help more bombs being dropped to kill people in that country but to use our power to bring the warring parties together, that situation will become even worse. The United Nations and others are telling us that Yemen is on the brink of the worst famine that we have seen in a very long time and that millions of people may die.

Third, it is time for the U.S. Congress to tell the despotic Government of Saudi Arabia that we do not intend to follow its lead in its military adventurism. Its intervention in the civil war in Yemen is the cause of the humanitarian disaster, as 10,000 people are developing serious illnesses--cholera and other illnesses--because the water infrastructure in Yemen has been destroyed by Saudi attacks.

Right now we have the opportunity to go forward in a strong bipartisan way.

I want to thank all of the Members of the Senate who gave us 60 votes yesterday in order to proceed and who gave us 96 votes on what I thought was a sensible germaneness point of order.

Now we have a number of amendments in front of us. Two of them, authored by Senator Cotton, will essentially undermine everything we are trying to accomplish. I very much hope that we defeat those amendments and that we tell the world we want the United States out of Yemen.

I would end on a positive note. As some may know, right now in Sweden, there are peace negotiations going on, and, as I understand it, just yesterday, a major breakthrough took place that allows for an exchange of some 15,000 prisoners of war. So some progress is being made in bringing the warring factions together, and there is evidence that the pressure from the international community and the U.S. Senate, making it clear that we will not continue to participate in that war, is helping the peace process.

Let us go forward today and defeat the amendments that are trying to undermine this important resolution and tell the world that the United States of America will not continue to be part of the worst humanitarian disaster on the face of the Earth, that we want peace in that region, that we want humanitarian aid in that region, and that we don't want any more bombs or destruction.

Thank you very much.

I yield back my time.

Mr. President, I just want to clarify with Senator Cornyn so there is no confusion: His amendment deals strictly with Israel and not regional allies; am I correct on that?

Thank you.

Mr. President, we are actually at a historic moment here in the U.S. Senate. I want to thank all of the Senators who in a very bipartisan way have come together to say that the United States will no longer participate in the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen, which has caused the worst humanitarian crisis on Earth, with 85,000 children already starving today.

Today, we tell the despotic regime in Saudi Arabia that we will not be part of their military adventurism. Today, maybe in the most profound way, 45 years ago, the War Powers Act was passed--45 years ago. Today, for the first time, we are going to go forward utilizing that legislation and tell the President of the United States--and

any President, Democrat or Republican--that the constitutional responsibility for making war rests with the U.S. Congress, not the White House.

Let us pass this resolution.

Madam President, I move to proceed to S.J. Res. 54.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I just wanted clarification. Was it section 1546 or 1446?

You are right. OK.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to use an oversized floor display.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about one of the great humanitarian crises facing our planet, and that is the horrific war in Yemen.

In March of 2015, under the leadership of Muhammad bin Salman, who was then the Saudi Defense Minister and is now, of course, the Crown Prince, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates intervened in Yemen's ongoing civil war. As a result of the Saudi-UAE intervention, Yemen is now experiencing the worst humanitarian disaster in the world.

According to the United Nations, Yemen is at risk of the most severe famine in more than 100 years, with some 14 million people facing starvation. In one of the poorest countries on Earth, as a result of this terrible war, according to the Save the Children organization, some 85,000 Yemeni children have already starved to death over the last several years, and millions more face starvation if the war continues.

Further, Yemen is currently experiencing the worst cholera outbreak in the world, with there being as many as 10,000 new cases each week, according to the World Health Organization. This is a disease that is spread by infected water that causes severe diarrhea and dehydration and will only accelerate the death rate. The cholera outbreak has occurred because Saudi bombs have destroyed Yemen's water infrastructure and because people there are no longer able to access clean water.

Last week, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote an article, which I urge all Members to read, that describes his recent visit to Yemen.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the New York Times article, ``Your Tax Dollars Help Starve Children.''

Let me just take this opportunity to quote some of what he said in that December 7 New York Times article:

Some 85,000 children may have already died here in Yemen,

and 12 million more people may be on the brink of starvation,

casualties in part of the three-year-old American-backed

Saudi war in Yemen. United Nations officials and aid experts

warn that this could become the worst famine the world has

seen in a generation.

``The risk of a major catastrophe is very high,'' Mark Lowcock, the United Nations humanitarian chief, told me. ``In the worst case, what we have in Yemen now has the potential to be worse than anything any professional in this field has seen during their working lives.''

Nicholas Kristof continues:

What is most infuriating is that the hunger is caused not

by drought or extreme weather, but by cynical and failed

policies in Riyadh and Washington. The starvation does not

seem to be an accidental byproduct of war, but rather a

weapon in it. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates,

backed by the United States, are trying to inflict pain to

gain leverage over and destabilize the Houthi rebels. The

reason: The Houthis are allied with Iran.

He continues:

The problem in Yemen is not so much a shortage of food as

it is an economic collapse--GDP has fallen in half since the

war started--that has left people unable to afford food.

Kristof continues, and I want you to hear this:

We think of war casualties as men with their legs blown

off. But in Yemen the most common war casualties are children

like Fawaz who suffer malnutrition.

He continues:

Some will die. Even the survivors may suffer lifelong brain

damage. A majority of Yemen children are now believed to be

physically stunted from malnutrition.

Let me repeat that:

A majority of Yemen children are now believed to be

physically stunted from malnutrition (46 percent were stunted

even before the war), and physical stunting is frequently

accompanied by diminished brain development.

``These children are the future of Yemen,'' Dr. Aida Hussein, a nutrition specialist, told me, looking at Fawaz. ``He will be stunted. How will he do in school?''

The war and lack of health care facilities have also led to

outbreaks of deadly diseases like diphtheria and cholera.

Half of the country's clinics and hospitals are closed.

That was written by Nick Kristof of the New York Times.

The fact of the matter is that the United States, with very little media attention, has been Saudi Arabia's partner in this horrific war. We have been providing the bombs the Saudi-led coalition has been using, refueling their planes before they drop those bombs, and assisting with intelligence.

In too many cases, our weapons are being used to kill civilians. In August, it was an American-made bomb that obliterated a schoolbus full of young boys, killing dozens and wounding many others. A CNN report found evidence that American weapons have been used in a string of such deadly attacks on civilians since the war began.

According to the independent monitoring group, Yemen Data Project, between 2015 and March 2018, more than 30 percent of the Saudi-led coalition's targets have been nonmilitary.

A few weeks ago, I met with several brave human rights activists from Yemen in my office. They had come to urge Congress to put a stop to this war. They told me, clearly, when Yemenis see ``Made in USA'' on the bombs that are killing them, it tells them the USA is responsible for this war, and that is the sad truth.

The bottom line is, the United States should not be supporting a catastrophic war led by a despotic regime with a dangerous and irresponsible military policy.

Some have suggested that Congress moving to withdraw support from this war would undermine U.N. efforts to reach a peace agreement, but I would argue that the exact opposite is true. It is the promise of unconditional U.S. support for the Saudis that have undermined the efforts toward peace. We have evidence for this.

Just yesterday, we received news that U.N. Special Envoy Martin Griffiths made a breakthrough agreement for the exchange in that war of some 15,000 prisoners--a significant development. This is an important step in building the necessary trust for a broader peace agreement.

A piece published today in TRT World observes: ``[T]here seems to be a firmer willingness to reach an agreement than in previous talks, as the Yemeni government realises that the international pressure on its backer, Saudi Arabia, is growing.''

So our effort to move this resolution forward may have already made a positive impact. I thank all of my 18 cosponsors and all of the many civil society organizations--progressive and conservative--who have worked so hard to raise awareness of this horrific conflict.

Above and beyond the humanitarian crisis, this war has been a disaster for our national security and for the security of the region. The administration defends our engagement in Yemen by overstating Iranian support for the Houthi rebels. Let me be clear. Iran's support for Houthis is of serious concern for me, and I believe for all of us, but the fact is, the relationship between Iran and the Houthis has only been strengthened with the intensification of the war. This war is creating the very problem the Trump administration claims it wants to solve.

Further, the war is also undermining the broader effort against violent extremists. A 2016 State Department report found the conflict has helped al-Qaida and ISIS ``deepen their inroads across much of the country.'' This war, as I see it, is both a humanitarian and a strategic disaster.

Further--and I think it is important to state what everybody knows, although we don't talk about it terribly often--Saudi Arabia is a despotic regime, controlled by one family, the Saud family, one of the wealthiest and most powerful families on Earth.

In a 2017 report by the Cato Institute--a conservative think tank-- Saudi Arabia was ranked 149th out of 159 countries for freedom and human rights. For decades, the Saudis have funded schools, mosques, and preachers who promote an extreme form of Islam known as Wahhabism.

In Saudi Arabia today, women are not treated as second-class citizens; they are treated as third-class citizens. Women still need, in the year 2018, the permission of a male guardian to go to school or to get a job. They have to follow a strict dress code and can be stoned to death for adultery or flogged for spending time in the company of a man who is not their relative.

Earlier this year, Saudi activist, Loujain al-Hathloul, a leader in the fight for women's rights in Saudi Arabia, was kidnapped from Abu Dhabi and

forced to return to the country. She is currently being held without charges. The same is true of many other Saudi political activists.

Human Rights Watch recently reported that imprisoned women activists have been subjected to torture, including electric shocks, and other forms of physical and sexual assault.

Further, as every Member of the Senate knows or should know, there is now overwhelming evidence that Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman was responsible for the brutal murder of Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi dissident who lived in the United States. He was a columnist for the Washington Post. He made the mistake of going into the Saudi consulate in Turkey and never came out alive. We believe his body was dismembered, and nobody knows where it is.

Unbelievably, President Trump continues--despite the overwhelming evidence of the Crown Prince's involvement in the murder of a man living in the United States, a Saudi dissident journalist--to proclaim his love and affection for the Crown Prince and the Saudi regime, but that is not how, in my view, the American people feel.

For too many years, American men and women in our military have put their lives on the line in the never-ending struggle for democracy and human rights, and we cannot and must not turn their struggles, their sacrifices aside in order to follow the military adventurism of a despotic regime. That is not what this country is supposed to be about.

Finally, an issue that has long been a concern to many of us-- conservatives and progressives--is that this war has not been authorized by Congress and is therefore unconstitutional. Article I of the Constitution clearly states it is Congress, not the President, that has the power to send our men and women into war--Congress, not the President.

The Framers of our Constitution, the Founders of this country, gave the power to declare war to Congress--the branch most accountable to the people--not to the President, who is often isolated from the reality of what is taking place in our communities.

The truth is--and Democratic and Republican Presidents are responsible, and Democratic and Republican Congresses are responsible-- that for many years, Congress has not exercised its constitutional responsibility over whether our young men and women go off to war.

I think there is growing sentiment all over this country from Republicans, from Democrats, from Independents, from progressives, and from conservatives that right now, Congress cannot continue to abdicate its constitutional responsibility.

I believe we have become far too comfortable with the United States engaging in military interventions all over the world. We have now been in Afghanistan for over 17 years--the longest war in American history. Our troops are now in Syria under what I believe are questionable authorities. The time is long overdue for Congress to reassert its constitutional role in determining when and where our country goes to war.

If you want to vote for a war, vote for a war. If you want to vote against a war, vote against a war, but we as a Congress have to accept our constitutional responsibility; that it is ours, not the Presidents of the United States.

This resolution provides that opportunity. It finally says that in this one war in Yemen--this terrible, horrific war--that Congress is prepared to act, and I hope very much that all of us will seize this opportunity.

For the sake of starving children in Yemen; for the sake of what this country stands for in terms of democracy and human rights and not following the leadership of a despotic, authoritarian regime; for the sake of the U.S. Constitution and the fact that it is Congress and not the President who has the authority to make war; for all of these reasons and more, I ask strong support for this important resolution.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, Philip H. Hoff, who passed away on April 26, 2018, was one of the great Governors of the State of Vermont and someone I respected enormously. On May 12, 2018, at a memorial service in Burlington, VT, a close friend and colleague of Governor Hoff's, Rich Cassidy, delivered a very moving eulogy which I enclose.

The material follows:

A Tribute to Philip Henderson Hoff

Theodore Roosevelt said:

``It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points

out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds

could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man

who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust

and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who

comes short again and again, because there is no effort

without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive

to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great

devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the

best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and

who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring

greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and

timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.''

Philip Henderson Hoff did not shy away from the arena. He

confronted the issues of the day, and often, the issues of

the future.

He played high school football and tasted victory, scoring

the winning touchdown in the longstanding rivalry between his

hometown, Turners Falls, and arch-enemy Greenfield. He went

to Williams College, but left early to do his bit in World

War II. He signed up for training as a pilot, but after he

damaged his third trainer, the Navy persuaded him that it was

not to be. So, he volunteered for the submarine service.

He met Joan while he was training in Connecticut. On one

date, he took a red kerosene lantern from a construction site

and gave it to her as a gift.

Phil saw combat in the Pacific Theater aboard the USS Sea

Dog, a submarine, where he earned two battle stars.

After the war, Phil returned to Williams College. Joan

heard that he was back and had asked about her, so she boxed

up the red lantern and sent it to him with a note: ``Phil,

it's your turn to polish it for a while.'' The lantern

rekindled their romance and led on to almost 70 years of

marriage.

Phil finished at Williams and went to Cornell University

Law School.

In 1951, Phil accepted an invitation from another Cornell

graduate, J. Boone Wilson, to come to Burlington, and join

the respected law firm then known as Black and Wilson.

Phil developed a successful law practice with Boone. He was

good with a jury and had the largest jury verdict in a

personal injury case of the 1950s.

Phil and Joan settled in a lovely home on South Prospect

Street, where they raised their 4 daughters, Susan, Dagny,

Andrea, and Gretchen.

Phil is often given credit for making the Democratic Party

dominant in Vermont, and for ushering Vermont into the

American mainstream. He deserves a great deal of credit on

both counts, but even he would not claim it all. Politics and

government are team sports, and Phil would be the first to

acknowledge that what was accomplished was not his alone, not

by any means.

But to see how broad and deep his legacy is, it is

important to put it in context. Vermont in those days was a

sleepy state. Most Governors acted as caretakers. The real

political power in the state rested with the towns. Vermont

had more dairy cows than people.

And the Democratic Party was sleepier still. A Democrat had

only held the Governorship only once in history. For many

years a handful of Democratic cronies traded the nominations

for statewide offices, not in hopes of getting elected, but

to have a stake in distribution of political patronage from

Washington.

How sleepy was it? In the 1946 election, Vermont's

Democratic National Committeeman was asked who the party's

candidate for Governor was. Unable to remember, he replied

``Oh, some fellow from up north.'' ``But we don't concede his

defeat.''

Change was in the wind. In 1950's two of Phil's friends,

Bob Larrow and Bernard Leddy, ran between them, three serious

campaigns for Governor. Leddy came within 719 votes of

victory. In 1959, the Party hired its first full time

executive director, Sam Miller, who is with us here today. We

were poised for victory.

Phil ran for Burlington Board of Alderman in the winter of

1960. He lost, but politics was in his blood. That fall he

was elected to the Vermont House of Representatives.

In the House, Phil helped bring together a group of young,

well-educated and energetic legislators, Democrats and

Republicans, who wanted to see government take a more active

role in the development of the state. Its members included

many who would play important roles in the days ahead.

Together, among other things, they set out to end the poll

tax. At the time they failed. But they started a political

revolution that has not ended yet.

In 1962, Phil and Joan ran an energetic and charismatic

campaign against the incumbent Governor. The Hoffs were

everywhere, even at my mother's door in Rutland. With the

help of about 5,000 votes on two independent party lines,

Hoff prevailed. Phil told the crowd in Winooski that night:

``100 years of bondage broken.''

Winning is one thing; governing is another. Phil found that

state government could neither forecast expenses nor revenue.

Within weeks, he appointed a series of task forces made up of

legislators, officials and citizens, who reviewed the state's

problems and inventoried its needs.

By the beginning of the 1964 legislative session, Hoff came

forward with a substantial legislative program.

The accomplishments of his six years as Governor changed

the face of Vermont: Hoff opened state government's first

planning office, ended the Overseer of the Poor system of

administering welfare benefits, and founded the Vermont

District Court, and the Judicial Nominating Commission. He

established the Governor's Commission on Women, the Vermont

Council on the Arts, and the Vermont Student Assistance

Corporation. He promoted regionalization in the delivery of

government services, establishing regional airport and

library systems. He presided over the reapportionment of the

Vermont legislature to comply with the principle of one man,

one vote.

And as important as those accomplishments were, the issues

he took on dominated the political agenda for the rest of

century and on to today.

Phil took on the cause of racial justice in Vermont. As

freshman legislator he proposed prohibiting race

discrimination in employment. The bill failed, but after his

election as Governor, his bill was adopted and included a

prohibition against discrimination based on sex. He

established the Vermont Human Rights Commission with

jurisdiction to prohibit discrimination in housing and public

accommodations.

And then, in the aftermath of the assassination of Martin

Luther King, Jr.--with more than 100 American cities still

smoking from riots that followed--Phil worked with New York

City Mayor John Lindsay to form the New York/Vermont Summer

Youth Project, bringing hundreds of African-American and

Hispanic high school students from New York City together

with Vermont high school students to build understanding by

working together on educational and recreational programs.

When an African-American minister's home in Irasburg was

raked with shotgun fire--night rider style--some tried to

blame the victim. Phil insisted on a fair investigation even

in the face of stern opposition.

Phil fought to import and sell public hydroelectric power

from Quebec. His plans were frustrated by the big power

companies, who claimed that electricity from Vermont Yankee

would be ``too cheap to meter.''

He sought to equalize the burden of the cost of public

education and to bring efficiency to it through

regionalization.

Phil had been befriended by President Lyndon Baines

Johnson. In 1967, Johnson sent him to Vietnam to get a

firsthand look at the ``light at the end of the tunnel.'' But

Phil knew an oncoming train when he saw one and was the first

Democratic governor in the nation to split with Johnson over

the Vietnam War.

Phil endorsed the antiwar candidacy of Bobby Kennedy and

became an important spokesperson for him. After Kennedy's

assassination, Phil laid aside his grief, and supported the

campaign of Gene McCarthy. At the convention, Hubert Humphrey

seriously considered offering Phil the vice-presidential spot

on his ticket before settling on Phil's friend, Ed Muskie.

In 1970, Hoff challenged incumbent Senator Winston L.

Prouty for a seat in the United States Senate. The war, gun

control, and racial justice were dominant themes of the

campaign. Although Phil mounted a vigorous effort, Prouty was

reelected.

In the 1970s, Phil practiced law and in 1972 and 1973,

served as chair of the Vermont Democratic Party. But most

importantly, he took on his own personal demon, alcohol. He

won the that battle but lived ever after with

an understanding and sympathy for the victims of addiction.

In 1982, Hoff returned to elective politics, winning a seat

in the Vermont Senate and serving three terms. In the Senate,

he was instrumental in revitalizing the Vermont Human Rights

Commission and promoting prevention of social and health

problems. Hoff remained steadfastly committed to the cause of

racial justice, serving for many years on the Vermont

Advisory Commission to the United States Civil Rights

Commission.

Phil's efforts in the world of politics overshadow his

contributions to the practice of law. But they are not to be

forgotten. In the early 1980s, he chaired a blue-ribbon

commission that reorganized the Vermont Bar Examination and

established the first mandatory continuing education

requirement for Vermont lawyers. For many years he chaired

the Vermont Judicial Nominating Commission. As a trustee at

Vermont Law School from 1983 to 1999, and as its President

from 1990 to 1995, he helped lead the school's continuous

growth in clinical and experiential education, in building a

strong faculty, and in adding a new library and classroom

buildings.

Phil inspired and supported scores of young people to

become involved in the political process. And he supported

the political campaigns of virtually every successful

Democrat candidate since 1962. Most notably, in May 1966, he

called a young lawyer in his law firm and told him to meet

him at the Chittenden Courthouse the next day. The young

lawyer was Patrick J. Leahy, and Phil swore him in as

Chittenden County States Attorney. The senator still claims

it's the best job he's ever had!

Phil was the first mainstream politician to endorse Bernie

Sanders during his historic independent run for congress in

1990.

With his friend and former state police driver,

Representative Michael Vinton, Phil was an early supporter of

the adoption of civil unions and same-sex marriage.

I think Phil's attitude towards public life was summed up

by his answer to a question that his grandson, Nathaniel,

asked him:

``Why is it that people won't stand up for the things they

really believe in anymore?''

Phil told Nathaniel. ``There's been a tendency for people

who are in office to simply be involved with re-election as

opposed to what they really should do. If you're only

interested in holding the office, what's the sake of holding

the office? It seems to me you ought to stand for what you

believe. You may lose, but in the overall thrust of history,

you will make a difference.''

Phil Hoff made a difference. He tasted victory and defeat.

If you're looking for his legacy you don't have to look far.

The state we live in today reflects the courage with which he

grappled with the issues.

The death of Philip Henderson Hoff came as no surprise to

those of us who loved him He had certainly lived a long and

full life. Still, we grieve. I am reminded of Robert Kennedy

speaking on the night of the death of Martin Luther King Jr.

Kennedy quoted his favorite poet, Aeschylus. He said:

``He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain,

which cannot forget, falls drop by drop upon the heart,

until, in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom

through the awful grace of God.

I finish, as Bobby Kennedy finished later that evening, and

in the spirit of the life of Philip Hoff:

``Let us dedicate ourselves to what the Greeks wrote so

many years ago: to tame the savageness of man and make gentle

the life of this world.''

Richard Cassidy.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Thank you.

Mr. President, later this afternoon, I believe, we will be voting on one of the more important foreign policy issues that we have voted on in a very long time. This, of course, deals with the U.S. involvement in the war in Yemen.

In March of 2015, under the leadership of Muhammad bin Salman, who was then the Saudi Defense Minister and is now, of course, the Crown Prince, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab

Emirates intervened in Yemen's ongoing civil war. As a result of that Saudi intervention, Yemen is now experiencing the worst humanitarian disaster in the world.

It is absolutely imperative that we call attention to the inhumane and horrific situation that is now impacting the people of Yemen, a small nation of 28 million people, one of the poorest countries on Earth.

According to the United Nations, Yemen is at risk of the most severe famine in more than 100 years, with some 14 million people--about half of that country's population--facing starvation. Already, as a result of this terrible war, according to the Save the Children organization, some 85,000 children in Yemen have starved to death over the last several years. Let me repeat that. According to the Save the Children organization, some 85,000 children in Yemen have already starved to death over the last several years, and millions more face starvation if the war continues. That is what we are looking at today.

In addition, Yemen is currently experiencing the worst cholera outbreak in the world, with as many as 10,000 new cases erupting every week, according to the World Health Organization. As you know, cholera is a disease spread by infected water that causes severe diarrhea and dehydration and will only accelerate the death rate as it weakens the ability of people to resist disease. The cholera outbreak in Yemen has occurred because Saudi bombs have destroyed Yemen's water infrastructure, and people there are no longer able to access clean water.

The fact is that the United States, with relatively little media attention, has been Saudi Arabia's partner in this horrific war. We have been providing the bombs that the Saudi-led coalition is using. We have been refueling their planes before they drop those bombs. We have been assisting with intelligence. In too many cases, our weapons are being used to kill civilians.

In August, as many will remember, it was an American-made bomb that obliterated a school bus full of young boys, killing dozens and wounding many more. A CNN report found evidence that American weapons have been used in a string of such deadly attacks on civilians since the war began. According to the independent monitoring group, Yemen Data Project, between March of 2015 and March of 2018, more than 30 percent of the Saudi-led coalition's targets have been nonmilitary.

A few weeks ago, I met with several very brave human rights activists from Yemen, urging Congress to put a stop to this war. They told me clearly that when Yemenis see ``Made in USA'' on the bombs that are killing them, it tells them that it is the United States of America that is actively involved in this war. That is the sad truth. That is a truth we have to finally deal with, and I hope deal with effectively later this afternoon.

The message that the Senate should be sending to the Saudi Government and to the whole world is that we will not continue to support a catastrophic war led by a despotic regime that has a dangerous, destructive, and irresponsible military policy. No more--enough death, enough killing, enough destruction.

Above and beyond the humanitarian crisis--the worst in the world right now, destroying a small, poor country--that war has been a disaster for our national security and the national security of our allies. The administration defends our engagement in Yemen by overstating Iranian support for the Houthi rebels. While Iran's support for Houthis is of serious concern for all of us--and I do not minimize that--the fact is that the relationship has only been strengthened with the intensification of the war. The war is creating the very problem this administration claims to want to solve.

The war in Yemen is also undermining the broader effort against violent extremists. A 2016 State Department report found that the conflict had helped al-Qaida and the Islamic State's Yemen branch ``deepen their inroads across much of the country.'' As the head of the International Rescue Committee, former British Foreign Minister David Miliband said in a recent interview: ``The winners are the extremist groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS.'' Just last week, the Wall Street Journal reported: ``Nearly two years after being driven from its stronghold in Yemen, one of al Qaeda's most dangerous franchises has entrenched itself in the country's hinterlands as a devastating war creates the conditions for its comeback.''

So this war is, without dispute, a horrific humanitarian crisis, but it is also a strategic disaster, benefiting terrorist groups like al- Qaida and ISIS.

Further, importantly, let us not forget that Saudi Arabia is an undemocratic monarchy controlled by one family. Sometimes we kind of pass that over. It is controlled by one family--the Saudi family. In a 2017 report by the conservative Cato Institute, Saudi Arabia, our ally in this terrible war in Yemen, was ranked 149 out of 159 countries in terms of freedom and human rights. That is our ally. That is the country with which we are putting our credibility on the line. For decades, as I think most Members of the Senate know, the Saudis have funded schools, mosques, and preachers who promote an extreme form of Islam known as Wahhabism.

In Saudi Arabia today, women are not second-class citizens; they are third-class citizens. Women still need the permission of a male guardian to go to school or to get a job. They have to follow a strict dress code and can be stoned to death for adultery or flogged for spending time in the company of a man who is not their relative.

Earlier this year, Saudi activist Loujain al-Hathloul, a leader in the fight for women's rights, was kidnapped from Abu Dhabi and forced to return to her country. She is currently being held without charges. The same is true of many Saudi political activists.

Sadly, President Trump continues to proclaim his love and affection for the Saudi regime. The brutality and lawlessness of the Saudi regime, as everybody in this country now knows, was made clear to the entire world with the murder of the dissident Saudi journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, in the Saudi consulate in Turkey--right in their own consulate. Pathetically, as part of his continuing respect for authoritarian regimes--whether it is Putin or Russia or other regimes around the world--President Trump rejected the findings of the CIA's assessment that the Saudi Crown Prince was responsible for that murder. When given a choice between believing a despotic ruler in Saudi Arabia or our own Central Intelligence Agency, sadly, the President of the United States sided with the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia.

Lastly, let me raise an issue that many of my conservative friends-- Mike Lee, Rand Paul, and others--have been raising, which is an important issue that I hope progressives pay attention to, which is that this war in Saudi Arabia was not authorized by the U.S. Congress. It was not voted on by the U.S. Congress and, therefore, is unconstitutional. Let us not forget that the Founding Fathers of this country put the awesome responsibility of war and peace into the hands of the Congress, not the President of the United States--not a Democratic President or a Republican President. Article I of the Constitution clearly States that it is Congress, not the President, that has the power to declare war.

The time is long overdue for Congress to take back that responsibility, which it has abdicated under Democratic and Republican leaderships.

If the Members of the House and the Senate want to go to war in Yemen, vote to go to war in Yemen. Don't let the President of the United States do it on his own.

Later this afternoon, as I understand it, there will be a resolution coming before this body as to whether we proceed to vote on ending U.S. involvement in the Saudi-led war. That amendment is cosponsored by my friends Senator Lee of Utah, Senator Murphy of Connecticut, and many, many others. This is an enormously important vote. This is a vote that says to the world: We are going to end the horrific humanitarian disaster that is killing tens of thousands of defenseless children in Yemen. It is a vote which says that we are going to stand for American values. It is a vote which says that the time is now to tell Saudi Arabia that we are not continuing to partner with them in this horrific crisis.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 1013 of the Department of State Authorization Act, fiscal years 1984 and 1985, and in accordance with the provisions of Section 601(b) of the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act of 1976, I move to discharge S.J. Res. 54 from the Committee on Foreign Relations.

I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, let me thank Senator Lee for his leadership on this resolution. At a time when many bemoan the lack of bipartisanship, we are seeing it here--people coming together around an issue of enormous concern. I want to thank Senator Lee and Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, also one of the leaders in this effort, and the other 17 cosponsors of this resolution.

In one-half hour or so, we are going to be casting one of the most important foreign policy votes that we have cast in recent years. It is a vote to demand that the humanitarian crisis in Yemen be addressed. It is a vote that will tell the despotic dictatorship in Saudi Arabia that we will no longer be part of their destructive military adventurism. It is a vote, as Senator Lee just mentioned, that says that the Senate respects the Constitution of the United States and understands that the issue of war-making--of going to war, putting our young men and women's lives at stake--is something determined by the Congress, not the President of the United States. It is a congressional decision, not a Presidential decision, whether that President is a Democrat or a Republican.

In March of 2015, under the leadership of Muhammed bin Salman--then Saudi Defense Minister and now the Crown Prince--Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates intervened in Yemen's ongoing civil war.

Let's be clear. Yemen has been a poor and struggling country for many years, but as a result of the Saudi-led intervention, Yemen is now experiencing the worst humanitarian disaster in the entire world.

In one of the poorest countries on Earth, as a result of this war-- according to the Save the Children organization--some 85,000 children have already starved to death and millions more face death, face starvation, if this war continues.

According to the United Nations, Yemen is at risk of the most severe famine in more than 100 years, with some 14 million people facing starvation.

Further, Yemen is currently experiencing the worst cholera outbreak in the world, with as many as 10,000 new cases developing every week, according to the World Health Organization. Cholera is a disease spread by infected water that causes severe diarrhea and dehydration and will only accelerate the death rate and the misery in that country. The cholera outbreak, as it happens, has occurred because Saudi bombs have destroyed Yemen's water infrastructure, and people are no longer able to access clean water.

The fact is that the United States, with limited media attention, has been Saudi Arabia's partner in this horrific war. We have been providing the bombs that the Saudi-led coalition is using. We have been refueling their planes before they drop those bombs. We have been assisting with intelligence.

In too many cases, our weapons are used to kill civilians. As is now well known, in August there was an American-made bomb that obliterated a schoolbus full of young boys, killing dozens and wounding many more. A CNN report found evidence that American weapons have been used in a string of such deadly attacks on civilians since the war began. According to the independent monitoring group Yemen Data Project, between March 2015 and March 2018, more than 30 percent of the Saudi- led coalition's targets have been nonmilitary.

A few weeks ago, I met with some brave human rights activists from Yemen, and they are urging Congress to put a stop to this war. They told me that when Yemenis see ``Made in U.S.A.'' on the bombs that are killing them, it tells them that the U.S.A. is responsible for this war, and that is the sad truth. This is not the message the United States of America should be sending to the world.

The bottom line is that the United States should not be supporting a catastrophic war led by a despotic regime with a dangerous and irresponsible military policy. Above and beyond the humanitarian crisis, this war has been a disaster for our national security and the security of our allies.

The administration defends our engagement in Yemen by overstating Iranian support for the Houthi rebels. While Iran's support for Houthis is of serious concern to all of us, the fact is that the relationship between Iran and the Houthis has only been strengthened with the intensification of this war. The war is creating the very problem the administration claims to want to solve. The war is also undermining the broader effort against violent extremists. A 2016 State Department report found that the conflict had helped al-Qaida and the Islamic State's Yemen branch ``deepen their inroads across much of the country.''

This war is both a humanitarian disaster and a strategic disaster in our fight against international terrorism. Further, let's never forget that Saudi Arabia is an undemocratic monarchy controlled by one family--the Saud family.

In a 2017 report by the conservative Cato Institute, Saudi Arabia was ranked 149th out of 159 countries in terms of freedom and human rights. For decades, the Saudis have funded schools, mosques, and preachers who promote an extreme form of Islam called Wahabbism. In Saudi Arabia today, women are treated as third-class citizens. Women still need the permission of a male guardian to go to school or to get a job, have to follow a strict dress code, and can be stoned to death for adultery or flogged for spending time in the company of a man who is not their relative. Earlier this year, Saudi activist Loujain al-Hathloul--a leader in the fight for women's rights--was kidnapped from Abu Dhabi and forced to return to Saudi Arabia. She is currently being held without charges. The same is true of many other Saudi political activists.

Sadly, President Trump continues to proclaim his love and affection for the Saudi regime. The brutality and lawlessness of that regime was made clear to the whole world with the murder of dissident Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Turkey. Pathetically, as part of his continuing respect for authoritarian regimes around the world, President Trump rejected the findings of the CIA's assessment that the Saudi Crown Prince was responsible for that murder.

Finally, an issue that has long been the concern of many of us--and Senator Lee touched on that very thoughtfully--it is the Congress, not the President of the United States, who, under our Constitution, has war-making responsibility. For too long, under Democratic and Republican Presidents, we have abdicated that responsibility.

Today, I say to my conservative friends: Respect the Constitution. Reclaim Congress's rightful role on the issues of war and peace. Congress has not authorized the war in Yemen; therefore, that war is unconstitutional, and that must change and must change now.

In a few minutes, we are going to undertake a very important vote, and I hope that all of my colleagues--Democrats, Republicans, Independents--will vote to discharge this resolution.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President today, I would like to recognize an extraordinary Vermonter, Enid Wonnacott, on her more than 30 years as executive director of the Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont, NOFA-VT. For three decades, Enid has worked tirelessly to build the organic agriculture movement and develop a sustainable, resilient, and accessible food system in our State of Vermont and across the United States.

During Enid's tenure at NOFA-VT, Vermont has grown from 50 organic farms to more than 700, and many of those farmers, as well as countless consumers and agricultural advocates, have benefitted greatly from technical assistance and training provided by NOFA-VT under Enid's guidance.

Recognizing that those farmers need good market opportunities to be viable businesses, Enid helped foster the growth of farmers' markets, community supported agriculture, and initiatives for institutions to procure locally grown food. She helped develop Vermont's farm-to-school program that provides students with healthy food and connects them to local agriculture through educational programming. I especially appreciate Enid's long-held belief, which I share, that healthy local food should be accessible to all people regardless of income, and I applaud NOFA-VT's efforts to make good food affordable through subsidized farmers' market coupons, CSA shares, and more.

Enid has worked on many Federal and State policies to promote sustainable agriculture. She was instrumental in developing Federal organic standards and was an early advocate for agricultural systems whereby farmers enhance the quality of the soil and environment while they also produce healthy food. Enid has been mentor to many agriculture and food system leaders throughout the State and region and has served on the Vermont Sustainable Agriculture Council. It should come as no surprise to anyone who knows her, Enid received the Vermont Agriculture Hall of Fame Award this year for her many contributions to our State.

Of course, Enid did not do these things alone. First, she has an excellent and committed staff, but perhaps even more important, she has the unwavering support of her husband Harry Frank and their wonderful children, Lila and Eli. Her family is a large part of Enid's success, including the countless hours they spent working alongside her at NOFA events, more than a few of which involved staffing a portable, wood- fired pizza hearth.

I am not only enormously grateful for al of Enid's many contributions over the years, but I am also proud to count her as a good friend. At a time when there is a growing recognition of the profound impact agriculture and food have on our health and the health of the planet, it is heartening to know that we have people like Enid Wonnacott fighting for a more environmentally sound and fundamentally just food system.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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