Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to recognize the extraordinary work of Vermont's Meals on Wheels programs. All across the State, hundreds of volunteers regularly deliver freshly cooked nutritious meals to thousands of seniors in their homes, many of whom otherwise might not have

enough to eat. These volunteers play a critically important role helping ensure that older Vermonters have access to adequate nutrition. That, in and of itself, is no small matter.

These volunteers do much more than just deliver a meal. They also provide invaluable social interaction and companionship for the seniors they visit, which goes a long way to combat the effects of isolation that many older Vermonters face, especially in rural areas. Without this social interaction, seniors are more likely to have feelings of loneliness and depression, which puts them at higher risk for dementia, chronic disease, falls, and hospitalization.

The regular visits serve another purpose as well. The volunteers routinely check to make sure that the seniors are safe, secure, and warm. They know each person they visit and recognize immediately if something doesn't seem right. It is no exaggeration to say that they have saved Vermonters' lives by checking when no one answers the door, taking the time to discover that someone had fallen and been injured.

Every single Meals on Wheels volunteer has my sincere appreciation for their remarkable work.

I would also like to recognize the caring and dedicated professionals that run Vermont's Meals on Wheel these programs, from the chefs who prepare the nutritious meals that the volunteers deliver, to the program staff who ensure that everything runs smoothly. Together, these agencies served more than 1 million meals in Vermont last year alone. They form an indispensable component of our social safety net for older Vermonters.

Last month was ``March for Meals,'' when Meals on Wheels programs across the country expand their outreach to draw attention to the growing need for the services these agencies provide. I am enormously pleased that many of my Vermont staff rode along with Meals on Wheels volunteers across the State to see the wonderful work they are doing.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to recognize the extraordinary work of Julie Nadeau of Waterford, VT. Julie, a mother of five, has been a volunteer for the St. Johnsbury Meals on Wheels program for the past 4 years, delivering meals to area seniors 3 days a week.

Julie brings freshly cooked nutritious meals to 42 seniors in their homes, many of whom otherwise might not have enough to eat. She plays a critically important role helping ensure that older Vermonters in the most rural and lowest income region of our State have access to adequate nutrition. That, in and of itself, is no small matter.

Julie understands that she is doing much more than just delivering a meal. She is also providing invaluable social interaction and companionship for the seniors she visits. She takes pride in finding time to have meaningful conversations with each senior, which goes a long way to combat the effects of isolation that many older Vermonters face, especially in rural areas.

The regular visits serve another purpose as well. Julie routinely checks to make sure that the seniors are safe, secure, and warm. She knows each person she visits and recognizes immediately if something doesn't seem right. It is no exaggeration to say that Julie has saved Vermonters' lives by checking when no one answers the door, taking the time to discover that someone had fallen and been injured.

Julie Nadeau has my sincere appreciation for her remarkable work. Of course, Julie is but one of many regular volunteers who give their time to ensure that seniors receive nutritious meals and conversation. Each and every one of those volunteers deserves to be recognized for their efforts.

Moreover, the St. Johnsbury Meals on Wheels program is run by caring and dedicated professionals. Chefs Ashley Coburn and Amy Garfield prepare the nutritious meals that Julie delivers, and program director Diane Coburn ensures that everything runs smoothly, as the organization provides close to 36,000 meals this year, for a mere $6.64 per meal.

The St. Johnsbury Meals on Wheels program is but one of many such programs that are doing incredible work all across the State. Together, those programs served more than 1 million meals in Vermont last year alone. This is an indispensable component of our social safety net for older Vermonters.

Last month was ``March for Meals,'' when Meals on Wheels programs across the country expand their outreach to draw attention to the growing need for the services these agencies provide. I am enormously pleased that many of my Vermont staff rode along with Meals on Wheels volunteers across the State, including with Julie Nadeau, to see the wonderful work they are doing.

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

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 make a motion to discharge S.J. Res. 54 from the Committee on Foreign Relations.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Article I, section 8 of the Constitution states in no uncertain terms that ``Congress shall have power to . . . declare war.''

Let me repeat it. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution states it is Congress that has the power to declare war.

The Founding Fathers gave the power to authorize military conflicts to Congress, the branch most accountable--not to the President but to Congress--and that is the issue we are going to be debating today.

For far too long, Congress, under Democratic and Republican administrations, has abdicated its constitutional role in authorizing war. The time is long overdue for Congress to reassert that constitutional authority, and that is what today is about.

That is why I and 14 cosponsors of this resolution--Senators Lee, Murphy, Warren, Booker, Durbin, Leahy,

Markey, Feinstein, Wyden, Merkley, Blumenthal, Gillibrand, Schatz, and Baldwin--that is what we are doing with S.J. Res. 54.

What we are saying is, if Congress wants to go to war in Yemen or anyplace else, vote to go to war. That is your constitutional responsibility. Stop abdicating that responsibility to a President, whether it is a Republican President or, as in the past, Democratic Presidents.

I expect that colleagues today will be arguing about what the word ``hostilities'' means within the context of the 1973 War Powers Resolution. What does the word ``hostilities'' mean? Some will argue that American troops are not out there shooting and getting shot at, not exchanging gunfire with their enemies, and that we are not really engaged in the horrifically destructive Saudi-led war in Yemen. That is what some will argue on the floor today--that we are really not engaged in hostilities; we are not exchanging fire.

Well, please tell that to the people of Yemen whose homes and lives are being destroyed by weapons marked ``Made in the USA'' and dropped by planes being refueled by the U.S. military on targets chosen with U.S. assistance. Only in the narrowest, most legalistic terms can anyone argue that the United States is not actively involved in hostilities alongside Saudi Arabia in Yemen.

Let me take a minute to tell my colleagues what is happening in Yemen right now because a lot of people don't know. It is not something that is on the front pages of the newspapers or covered terribly much on television.

Right now, in a very poor nation of 27 million people--that is the nation of Yemen--in November of last year, the United Nations Emergency Relief Coordinator told us that Yemen was on the brink of ``the largest famine the world has seen for many decades.'' That is from the United Nations. So far, in this country of 27 million people--this very poor country--over 10,000 civilians have been killed and 40,000 civilians have been wounded. Over 3 million people in Yemen, in a nation of 27 million, have been displaced--driven from their homes. Fifteen million people lack access to clean water and sanitation because water treatment plants have been destroyed. More than 20 million people in Yemen--over two-thirds of the population of that country--need some kind of humanitarian support, with nearly 10 million in acute need of assistance. More than 1 million suspected cholera cases have been reported, representing potentially the worst cholera outbreak in world history. That is what is going on in Yemen today as a result of the Saudi-led war there.

Here is the bottom line: If the President of the United States or Members of Congress believe that support for this war is in the U.S. interests--and I think some do--if you think that the United States right now, for our own interests, should be involved in the civil war in Yemen, being led by Saudi Arabia, then Members of the U.S. Senate should have the courage to vote for U.S. participation in that war. It is nothing more complicated than that.

If you want to come to the floor of the Senate and make the case as to why you think it is good public policy for us to be involved in the civil war in Yemen, come to the floor and oppose our resolution, but what I hope very much that we will not see today is the tabling of this motion and the refusal by Members of the Senate to vote up or down as to whether we wish to continue aiding Saudi Arabia in this humanitarian disaster.

If you believe, as I do, that we should not get sucked into this civil war, which has already caused so much human suffering, please vote against tabling the motion to discharge and vote with us on final passage. If you believe the United States should continue to assist Saudi Arabia in this war, I urge you to have the courage to tell your constituents that is your decision and why you have made that decision when you vote against final passage. In other words, if you support the war, have the courage to vote for it; if you don't, support the resolution Senator Lee, Senator Murphy, and I have introduced.

Let me give my colleagues at least two reasons why Congress must reassert its constitutional authority over the issue of war and why we cannot continue to abdicate that responsibility to the President, and those have everything to do with the two most significant foreign policy disasters in the modern history of the United States--the war in Iraq and the war in Vietnam. In both of these cases, Congress sat back and failed to ask the hard questions as two administrations--one Republican, one Democratic--led us into conflicts with disastrous consequences.

Interestingly, today is a historically significant day for us to debate this resolution. Fifteen years ago today, on March 20, 2003, the war in Iraq began, and the bombs started falling in Baghdad--15 years ago today. I was one of those who opposed the Iraq war in the beginning, and today it is now broadly acknowledged that the war--that war--was a foreign policy blunder of enormous magnitude. That war created a cascade of instability around the region that we are still dealing with today in Syria and elsewhere and will be for many years to come. Indeed, had it not been for the war in Iraq, ISIS would almost certainly not exist.

That war deepened hostilities between Sunni and Shia communities in Iraq and elsewhere. It exacerbated a regional conflict for power between Saudi Arabia and Iran and their proxies in places like Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, and it undermined American diplomatic efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The devastation experienced by Iraq's civilians was enormous. A recent academic study by U.S., Canadian, and Iraqi researchers found that over 400,000 Iraqi civilians--nearly half a million people--were killed directly or indirectly as a consequence of that war.

That war led to the displacement of nearly 5 million people, both inside and outside Iraq, putting great stress on the ability of surrounding countries to deal with these refugee flows.

We have also seen this more recently in Europe as the large numbers of people fleeing the Syrian war have generated a backlash in European countries, giving rise to anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant sentiments.

The war in Iraq led to the deaths--to the deaths--of some 4,400 American troops and the wounding, physical and emotional, of tens of thousands of others, not to mention the pain inflicted on family members. By the way, that war in Iraq cost us trillions of dollars-- money that could have been spent on healthcare, education, infrastructure, and environmental protection.

The Iraq war, like so many other military conflicts, had unintended consequences. It ended up making us less safe, not more safe.

It must be said that the Bush administration and the President lied when he told the American people: ``[Saddam's] regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year.'' That was not true.

Vice President Dick Cheney lied when he told us:

There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of

mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to

use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.

Dick Cheney--not true.

No one disagrees that Saddam Hussein was a brutal, murderous dictator, but it is now known he had nothing to do with 9/11. The Bush administration lied to the American people. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. It was not connected to 9/11.

The American people were misled by the Bush administration into believing that the Iraq war was necessary to prevent another 9/11, and Congress did not challenge them on those claims in a way that Congress should have--with disastrous consequences.

That was a Republican administration. Now let me tell you about a Democratic administration where, once again, Congress refused to assert its constitutional responsibility.

Let us go back to 1964, to a conflict that began under similarly false premises. President Lyndon Johnson cited an attack on a U.S. ship in the Gulf of Tonkin as a pretext for escalating the U.S. intervention in Vietnam and sending more and more and more troops into that quagmire.

But we now know from declassified recordings that Johnson himself doubted that the USS Maddox had come

under fire on August 4, 1964. As we all know, that alleged attack was used to push for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution authorizing Johnson to escalate U.S. military involvement in Vietnam, and we now know that the Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, misled Congress and the public in order to generate support for that resolution.

You don't have to believe me. This is what LCDR Pat Paterson wrote in a paper for the U.S. Naval Institute: ``The evidence suggests a disturbing and deliberate attempt by Secretary of Defense McNamara to distort the evidence and mislead Congress.''

Paterson, interestingly enough, also quotes another author who wrote:

To enhance his chances for election, [Johnson] and McNamara

deceived the American people and Congress about events and

the nature of the American commitment in Vietnam. They used a

questionable report of a North Vietnamese attack on American

naval vessels to justify the president's policy to the

electorate and to defuse Republican senator and presidential

candidate Barry Goldwater's charges that Lyndon Johnson was

irresolute and ``soft'' in the foreign policy arena.

Interestingly enough, that author is H.R. McMaster, President Trump's current National Security Advisor.

Lyndon Johnson's administration misled both Congress and the American people into that war, just as the Bush administration misled us into the war in Iraq, and what disasters both of those wars were. The war in Vietnam nearly destroyed an entire generation of young people. Almost 60,000 died in that war, and God knows how many came back wounded in body and in spirit. It almost destroyed an entire generation. Yet Congress abdicated its responsibility in Vietnam, as it did in Iraq.

The truth about Yemen is that U.S. forces have been actively engaged in support of the Saudi coalition in this war, providing intelligence and aerial refueling of planes whose bombs have killed thousands of people and made this humanitarian crisis far worse. U.S. involvement in the Yemen war has also proved counterproductive to the effort against al-Qaida's affiliates. The State Department's ``Country Reports on Terrorism 2016'' found that the conflict between Saudi-led forces and the Houthi insurgents has helped al-Qaida's and ISIS's Yemen branch to ``deepen their inroads across much of the country.'' In other words, as we see again, when there is chaos, when there is mass confusion, ISIS and their allies are able to jump in.

Furthermore, while Iran's support for Houthi insurgents is of serious concern for all of us, the truth is that this war has increased, not decreased, the opportunities for Iranian interference.

The Trump administration has tried to justify our involvement in the Yemen war as necessary to push back on Iran. Well, another administration told us that invading Iraq was necessary to confront al- Qaida, and another told us that the Vietnam war was necessary to contain Communists. None of that turned out to be true.

The Congress, at those times, should have asked the hard questions, which they didn't ask. The Congress should have taken its constitutional role seriously and should have done what the Constitution demands that it do, and that is what my cosponsors and I are doing today.

I see my colleague Senator Lee here. He has been very active in standing up for the Constitution on this issue, and I will yield to him in a minute. But here is the bottom line--and it is not a complicated line; the Constitution is clear: The U.S. Congress decides whether we go to war. There is no question in my mind that by aiding Saudi Arabia in the way that we are doing, we are assisting in war. We are in a conflict.

If Members of the Senate think that conflict makes sense and is good public policy for the United States of America, vote down our resolution. If you agree with Senator Lee and me that it is a bad idea, support us. But what I would urge in the strongest possible terms is that Members of the Senate have to end the abdication of our constitutional responsibility. Accept it; vote yes or vote no. Do not vote to table this resolution and duck the constitutional responsibility that we have.

I yield the floor to my colleague, Senator Mike Lee.

Mr. President, may I ask my colleague from Utah a very simple question? Whether or not he agrees with me that we are talking about two separate issues.

It seems to me we are talking about two separate issues, one of which is really a no-brainer. The no-brainer is that the Constitution is very clear that it is the Congress, not the President, that determines whether we go to war; that we are currently in an unauthorized war in Yemen; and that the first vote--if there is an attempt to table this, that would be absolutely unacceptable because we would be abdicating our decisionmaking. And then the second vote is the vote on whether we think it is a good idea to be in Yemen.

Would the Senator agree with me that at least on the motion to table, every Member of the Senate should allow us to go forward and vote against tabling so that people in the Senate accept their constitutional responsibility to vote yes or no on the war in Yemen?

Let me concur with what Senator Lee just said. There may be disagreements about the wisdom of being allied with Saudi Arabia on the war in Yemen. There will be honest disagreements about that. But there cannot be and there must not be an abdication of constitutional responsibility in terms of making that decision.

If you think that U.S. participation in the war in Yemen is a good idea, you can vote against our resolution. If you agree with us that it is a bad idea, support our resolution. But simply to abdicate your responsibility on this issue would be absolutely irresponsible.

I hope we have virtually unanimous support in voting against the effort to table. Then let's get into the debate about the wisdom of the war and vote it up or down. Needless to say, I hope

the Members support our resolution. Let's at least have that vote and not abdicate our responsibility.

Mr. President, I speak only for myself on this issue and will tell you why I am so motivated about this resolution.

If we think back on the modern history of our country and if we think of the two most significant foreign policy decisions--the war in Vietnam and the war in Iraq and the unbelievable unintended consequences that those two destructive wars had--what we conclude is that in both of those wars--one under a Democratic President and one under a Republican President--the Congress abdicated its responsibility. It did not ask the right questions. In both instances, we got into those terrible wars based on lies. The Johnson administration lied as to why we should get involved in the war in Vietnam, and the Bush administration lied as to why we should get involved in the war in Iraq.

It just seems to me that if nothing else, based on those two examples of what the war in Vietnam did and what the war in Iraq did, Congress has to take a deep breath and understand that the people who wrote the Constitution were not fools when they said it must be the elected people who are closest to the constituents who have to debate these issues and who know that decisions being made will result in the loss of lives of the people in their own States, and we have abdicated that responsibility.

No one can predict whether the decisions made by Congress are going to be good decisions with regard to war and peace, whether we are going to do better than Presidents did. I don't know. At the very least, we have to accept our responsibility and not simply take the word of Presidents who in the two most recent, significant wars have lied to the American people.

Once again, I know there may be differences of opinion regarding the wisdom of involvement by the United States in the war in Yemen. If you think it is a good idea, vote against our resolution. There should be no difference of opinion about accepting our responsibility under the Constitution and voting on whether it is a good idea.

I yield to the Senator from Utah.

Let me ask my friend from Connecticut the same question I asked Senator Lee, and that is whether he agrees with me that we are really dealing with two separate issues here.

The first issue is really, in a sense, a no-brainer. It is whether the Congress or, in this case, the Senate of the United States accepts its constitutional responsibility on issues of war. We are now engaged in a war in Yemen with Saudi Arabia. The Constitution is very clear in article I, section 8 that it is the Congress that determines whether this country goes to war.

I believe what will happen in a few hours is that a motion to table will come up. Would you agree with me that it would be an act of cowardice, in a sense, an irresponsibility, an abdication of congressional responsibility, for somebody to vote to table that resolution?

In other words, no matter what one's view may be about the wisdom of the war, to vote to table is to abdicate our constitutional responsibility?

All right. Let me just concur with Senator Murphy.

If you think it is a good idea for the United States to be involved in the war in Yemen with Saudi Arabia, you can vote against our resolution. Yet I can think of no reason at all as to why any Member of Congress would vote to table this resolution and prevent that discussion, and I would hope that we would have strong support against any motion to table and allow that debate to go forward.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the resolution that we will soon be voting on is really very simple. It has two basic points. Point No. 1, I and the 14 other cosponsors of this resolution believe that under the definitions laid out in the 1973 War Powers Resolution, U.S. forces have been introduced into the Saudi-led war in Yemen, a war which is causing a humanitarian disaster.

I would say to my good friend Senator Corker, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, that this war has been going on for 3 years. Some 10,000 civilians in Yemen are dead and 40,000 have been wounded. A million are dealing with cholera right now, and millions have been displaced. You come tonight on the floor and you say: We are going to hold a hearing. That is good, but it is 3 years too late.

The issue that we are dealing with right now is whether or not the U.S. Senate and the U.S. Congress accepts its constitutional responsibility on the issues of war. This is not a complicated issue, and I don't think anybody here disagrees. Article I, section 8, of the Constitution says not that the President can make war and send our young people into harm's way. It is the Congress of the United States that should make war.

Our role now in Yemen working with the Saudi-led intervention there is one of hostilities under the War Powers Resolution of the United States. It is not just my view on this. As many may know here--as I suspect the chairman of the committee knows--last November, by a vote of 366 to 30, the U.S. House of Representatives agreed with the essence of what Senator Lee and I are trying to do, and the House passed a nonbinding resolution stating that U.S. involvement in the Yemen civil war is unauthorized. Every Member of the Democratic leadership voted for that, as did the Republican chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Ed Royce.

An editorial in the New York Times today states:

The United States initially deployed forces to combat Al

Qaeda in Yemen under post-Sept. 11 congressional

authorization measures. But Congress never specifically

approved military involvement in the Saudi-Houthi war even

though the Constitution and the 1973 War Powers Act give

lawmakers a role.

The New York Times:

For too long, Congress has abdicated its role as America

prolonged its stay in some wars and expanded into others. And

presidents have been too reluctant to share these crucial

decisions with lawmakers. Resolutions like this--

The one we are debating--

can and must force serious debate and accountability.

I say this to my friend the chairman: I think now of the two major foreign policy disasters that have taken place in our lifetime--No. 1, the war in Vietnam. In that war--a Democratic administration under an otherwise very good President, Lyndon Johnson--he and the Secretary of Defense misled and lied to the American people with regard to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. That is now established fact as a result of declassified information. The United States got sucked into that war, and my generation--the young men of my generation--suffered so terribly. Over 60,000 died, and many others came home wounded in body and in spirit. The U.S. Congress abdicated its responsibility at that point in 1964.

Fifteen years ago--oddly enough, on this day--there was the war in Iraq, under a Republican administration, and the administration lied to the American people again. Where was Congress getting the facts? We had the

Vice President of the United States: Oh, Saddam Hussein is building weapons of mass destruction. There is a connection between Saddam Hussein and Iraq and the 9/11 perpetrators.

It was a lie. It was a lie. Mistakenly, Congress voted to approve the war based on false information.

So what I say today is that it is time for the Congress to accept its constitutional responsibility. I don't know how well we will do. Maybe we will screw it up as well. It is very possible. But that is what the Founding Fathers suggested, and I think they were right. We are closer to the people--the House and the Senate--than is the White House, this White House or any other White House.

So there are two issues today. Do we accept our constitutional responsibility to vote on matters of war? I would suggest that every Member of the Senate vote yes. Don't duck your responsibility. Don't abdicate your responsibility. Second of all, this war in Yemen, in my view, has been a humanitarian disaster as a result of Saudi intervention. But the most important vote is, do we actually have a vote on whether American troops are involved in the war in Yemen?

I hope very much we will vote against Senator Corker's motion to table, and I hope that after we do that, we will vote for the resolution that says it is time for the United States to get out of Yemen.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I wish to thank the young people throughout this country who have the courage to do what the U.S. Congress is not doing; that is, to lead us forward in a way to lower the slaughter we are seeing from coast to coast in terms of gun violence.

The bad news is that people continue to be killed every day. The good news

is that the American people have come together around commonsense solutions to lower the level of gun violence we are experiencing. The American people know that we need to expand and improve background checks, that we need to do away with the gun show loophole, and that we need to do away with the straw man provisions. More and more Americans understand that we should ban the sale and distribution of military- style weapons.

In my small State of Vermont between 2011 and 2016, 42 people were killed by guns. Some of them are Lara Sobel, Julie Falzarano, Regina Herring, Rhonda Herring, Molly Helland, Molly McLain, Kevin DeOliveira, Rhonda Gray, Marcus Austin, and Obafemi Adedapo. These are just some of the people who lost their lives to gun violence in Vermont.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, according to the latest Gallup poll, 81 percent of the American people disapprove of the way Congress is doing its job--81 percent. I suspect the other 19 percent are not really paying attention. If you want to know why the American people have so much anger and contempt for what goes on in Congress, it is because, time after time, what we are seeing is Congress under the Republican leadership doing exactly the opposite of what the American people want.

This week could mark a new low for the Republican leadership in the Senate in terms of ignoring what the American people want and doing what they don't want. Today marks the 1-month anniversary of the tragic mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL. I just had the opportunity to be outside, in front of the Capitol, with thousands of beautiful, beautiful young people from all over--I think all over the country. The young people are saying to the

Congress: Do something about the gun violence.

Everyone knows there is not an easy solution; this is not an easy problem to solve. There are hundreds of millions of guns in this country. There are 5 million assault weapons. The young people are saying: Do something. Have the courage to take on the NRA.

The American people overwhelmingly want to expand and improve background checks. They want to do away with the gun show loophole. They want to do away with the straw man provision. More and more people think we should be banning military-style assault weapons--whatever. The American people want us to do something. I don't see anything happening here. The American people want it. It is not happening.

The American people want us to deal with the high cost of prescription drugs. In the State of Vermont, elderly people are cutting their pills in half. I don't see any legislation to deal with the high cost of prescription drugs, to have the courage to take on the pharmaceutical industry.

The American people, overwhelmingly--Democrats, Republicans, Independents--want to raise the minimum wage to a living wage. I don't see anything happening on that issue.

On issue after issue, the American people want action, and they are not getting it. What they are getting is exactly what they don't want but what powerful special interests do want.

This month marks the 10th anniversary of the collapse of Bear Stearns, one of the largest investment banks in America, whose greed, recklessness, and illegal behavior triggered the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. What is the response of the U.S. Senate to that? Are we talking about breaking up the large banks that have become much larger? Is that what we are talking about? Are we talking about protecting consumers who are paying 20 percent, 25 percent in interest rates on products they buy at a department store? Are we talking about taking on the payday lenders who are squeezing the lifeblood out of poor people who, in desperation, have to borrow money from them? No, that is not what we are talking about. We are not talking about the need to guarantee healthcare to all people. We are not talking about the affordable housing crisis. We are not talking about the fact that millions of moms and dads in this country can't afford childcare. We are not talking about the global crisis of climate change. We are not talking about our crumbling infrastructure, our rigged trade deals that have resulted in the deindustrialization of America. That is not what we are talking about.

What we are talking about at this particular moment, right here in the U.S. Senate, is the deregulation of some of the largest banks in America, some of the very same banks that nearly drove the economy off a cliff in 2008. That is what we are talking about.

Just last week, the Congressional Budget Office told us that the legislation on the floor right now will ``increase the likelihood that a large financial firm with assets of between $100 billion and $250 billion would fail.''

We are not talking about protecting consumers. We are not talking about breaking up large banks. We are not talking about taking on the power of Wall Street.

What we are talking about is deregulating some of the very same banks that drove this economy into the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. In other words, this legislation will make it more likely that we will see another financial crisis, another taxpayer bailout, and massive dislocation of our economy.

What CBO tells us is that this legislation will increase the deficit by more than $450 million over the next decade--$450 million. This bill, which benefits some of the largest banks in America, will cost us over $450 million. Who is going to pay for that? The big banks? No. It will be the American taxpayers who will be picking up this tab.

The question we have to ask ourselves, which we don't very often-- although the American people, I think, understand this emotionally in their guts--is this: How does it happen that a bill like this gets to the floor while we are not dealing with the issues the American people are concerned about, whether it is gun safety, whether it is DACA and protecting the 1.8 million young people who are eligible for that program, whether it is the high cost of prescriptions? How does this particular bill get to the floor of the Senate? The answer is pretty obvious. Follow the money.

Since the 1990s, the financial sector has given more than $3.2 billion in campaign contributions. Let me repeat that. Since the 1990s, the financial sector--Wall Street, other parts of the financial sector--has given over $3.2 billion in campaign contributions. Last year alone, the financial sector spent over $200 million on lobbying. That is why Congress is spending day after day trying to make life easier for large financial institutions while continuing to ignore the needs of working families.

Instead of listening to lobbyists in Washington, maybe, just maybe--I know it is a very radical idea, but maybe, just maybe, we might want to listen to the American people. The American people believe, as I do, that we should strengthen, not weaken Wall Street regulations.

Now is not the time to be talking about deregulating large financial institutions. Now is the time to take on the greed and power of Wall Street, break up the large financial institutions in this country, and stop big banks from ripping off the American people by charging outrageous and usurious levels of interest rates. That is why I have submitted two amendments to this bill that I would like the Senate to vote on this afternoon.

The first amendment would break up large financial institutions so that the taxpayers of this country will never have to bail them out again. The second amendment would establish a 15-percent cap on the interest rates private banks charge their customers on credit cards and other consumer loans.

Before I talk about these amendments, let's be clear. Fraud is the business model of Wall Street. It is not the exception to the rule; it is the rule. Since 2009, major banks in this country have been fined more than $200 billion for reckless, unfair, and deceptive activities. By the way, those fines take place within a very weak regulatory climate, but here are just a few examples of the kinds of activities that large banks have engaged in.

In August 2014, Bank of America paid $16 billion to settle charges that it lied to investors about the riskiness of the mortgage-backed securities it sold during the runup to the financial crisis.

In November 2013, JPMorgan Chase settled for $13 billion for lying to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac about the quality of the mortgage-backed securities it sold them. Settlement documents revealed how every large bank in the United States committed mortgage fraud.

In April of 2016, Goldman Sachs reached a $5 billion settlement for marketing and selling fraudulent mortgage-backed securities that were the foundation of the housing crisis.

In July of 2014, Citigroup reached a $7 billion settlement for mortgage fraud. Then-Attorney General Eric Holder said that Citigroup's ``activities contributed mightily to the financial crisis that devastated our economy in 2008.''

If you are thinking that the illegal behavior of Wall Street executives was limited to the housing crisis, that it was a one-time thing, guess again. Let me give some more examples.

In May of 2015, five banks, including JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup, paid $5.4 billion in fines after pleading guilty to ``a brazen display of collusion and foreign exchange rate market manipulation,'' according to then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

In March of 2014, the FDIC accused 16 large banks, including Bank of America, Citigroup, and JPMorgan Chase, of fraud and conspiracy in an epic plot to manipulate bank-to-bank interest rates that underpinned at least $350 trillion in global financial transactions.

In April of 2011, Wachovia was fined for laundering billions of dollars in illegal drug money. The Federal prosecutor said, ``Wachovia's blatant disregard for our banking laws gave international cocaine cartels a virtual carte blanche to finance their operations.'' That was from the Federal prosecutor. The fine was less than 2 percent of the bank's $12.3 billion profit.

On and on it goes. Mortgage fraud, money laundering, currency manipulation, bribery, conspiracy, rate tampering, and collusion are the routine

practices of Wall Street; they are not the exception. This is their business model.

Our country can no longer afford to tolerate the culture of fraud and corruption on Wall Street. Let us never, ever forget--although, I fear many people have already here in Congress--that during the financial crisis of 2008, the American people were told that they needed to bail out huge financial institutions because those institutions were too big to fail. Do people remember that? They were just too big to fail. If they had gone down, the whole economy would have gone down with them. Yet the four largest financial institutions in this country--JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo--are, on average, 80 percent larger today than they were before we bailed them out. Today, they are 80 percent larger than they were before we bailed them out because they were too big to fail. Does that make sense to anybody? Left alone, that is not even an issue that will be talked about here on the floor of the Senate.

Incredibly, since the financial crisis, JPMorgan Chase has increased its assets by more than $1 trillion. Bank of America has seen its assets grow by more than $800 billion. Citigroup has grown by over $547 billion. After Wells Fargo acquired Wachovia, it nearly tripled in size.

No single financial institution should be so large that its failure would cause a catastrophic risk to millions of Americans or to our Nation's economic well-being. No single financial institution should have holdings so extensive that its failure would send the world economy into crisis. If an institution is too big to fail, it is too big to exist, and we should break it up.

Let me be very clear. We should not just be concerned about the danger these institutions pose to taxpayers. The enormous concentration of ownership within the financial sector is harming the middle class and damaging the economy by limiting choices and raising prices for consumers and small businesses.

Today--and it is important that people understand this, but unfortunately it is not an issue that is discussed at all, not here in Congress and not much in the media--the six largest banks in America have over $10 trillion in assets, equivalent to 54 percent of the GDP in America. When we talk about having the United States move in the direction of an oligarchy, when we talk about a handful of institutions and billionaires controlling the economic and political life of this country, this is what we are talking about.

Let me repeat. The six largest banks in America have over $10 trillion in assets, equivalent to 54 percent of our GDP. The top six banks hold more than half of all credit card debt, control over 90 percent of all bank derivatives, underwrite about a third of all mortgages, and control over 40 percent of all bank deposits.

If Teddy Roosevelt were alive today, I have a sense about what he would be saying. He would say break them up, and he would be right. That is exactly what my first amendment would do.

Specifically, this amendment would require the Federal Reserve to break up any financial institution whose total exposure is greater than 2 percent of our Nation's GDP over the next 2 years. These banks would include JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, U.S. Bancorp, PNC Financial Services, Capital One, and the TD Group--financial institutions that have a combined total exposure of more than 77 percent of our Nation's GDP. None of these institutions would be able to receive a taxpayer bailout from the Federal Reserve or gamble with the federally insured bank deposits of the American people. Under this amendment, no financial institution could have a total financial exposure above $398 billion.

Call me old-fashioned, but I believe the function of banking should be boring. The function of banking should not be about making as much profit as possible in gambling on derivatives and other esoteric financial instruments. The function of banking should be to provide affordable loans to small businesses in order to create jobs in the productive economy. The function of banking should be to provide affordable loans to Americans to purchase their homes and their cars. Wall Street cannot be an island unto itself, and I hope very much that my colleagues will support this important amendment.

Not only do we have to break up these very large banks, but we also have to stop them from ripping off the American people by their charging outrageous interest rates and fees, and that is exactly what my second amendment would do.

Incredibly, since the Wall Street crash, credit card companies have raked in over $1.2 trillion in revenue from interest and fees they charge consumers, including over $160 billion in 2016 alone. That is unacceptable. At a time when the American people hold a recordbreaking $1 trillion in credit card debt and desperately need some relief on that debt, my second amendment would establish a national usury rate of 15 percent on credit cards and other consumer loans.

In America today, incredibly, millions of our people are now paying credit card interest rates of 20, 25, or even 30 percent. I am not just talking about the payday lenders who are acting in a way that is totally unbelievable in ripping off the poorest people in our country. Let's be clear. When credit card companies charge over 20 percent in interest on credit cards, they are not engaged in the business of making credit available; what they are involved in is extortion and loan sharking. That is what they are engaged in.

Interestingly enough, if you read the religious tenets of the major religions throughout history, whether it be Christianity, Judaism, or Islam, what you will find is a universal objection and disgust to usury. This has existed for thousands and thousands of years. People know that it is immoral to lend money to poor people, struggling people, and then charge them excessive interest rates. That is in the religious teachings of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and other religions.

In the ``Divine Comedy,'' Dante reserved a special place in the Seventh Circle of Hell for people who charged usurious interest rates. Today, we don't need the hellfire and the pitchforks, and we don't need the rivers of boiling blood, but we do need a national usury law that caps interest rates on credit cards and consumer loans at 15 percent.

Despite the fact that banks can borrow money today at less than 1.5 percent from the Fed, the average credit card interest rate today for consumers is now 16.84 percent. Borrow money at 1.5 percent from the Fed, and then charge consumers an average of 16.84 percent.

Further, if you get a credit card from a store like Macy's, Kohl's, Lowe's, or Sears, interest rates are even higher. Stores like these are charging customers an average interest rate of 26 percent, and many of the stores rely on these high interest rate cards for more than a third of their revenue. They are making money not just by selling clothing or washing machines or shoes; a substantial part of their profit scheme comes from the high interest rates they are getting on these financial transactions. What that means is, if you buy a $500 refrigerator from Lowe's, Home Depot, or Sears on one of their credit cards, you will likely owe an additional $130 in interest on a $500 refrigerator. How is that? Do you think that is an issue we might want to talk about just for a moment? I know the consumers of this country don't pour hundreds of millions of dollars into lobbying or billions of dollars into campaign contributions. I understand that. But maybe, just maybe, we might want to remember the folks back home.

Establishing a usury law is not a radical concept. Up until 1978, about half of the States in our country had usury laws on the books that capped credit card interest rates, but those States' interest rates were obliterated by a 1978 Supreme Court decision, that of Marquette National Bank v. First of Omaha Service, which concluded that national banks could charge whatever interest rates they wanted if they moved to a State without a usury law. So all of these credit card companies moved to South Dakota. They moved to Delaware, which had no interest rate caps, and they charged people in Vermont or in Kansas--or in every other State in the country--interest rates of 20 to 30 percent.

This has to stop. The American people are sick and tired of being ripped off by the same financial institutions

they bailed out 10 years ago--what a world. We bail out the crooks-- taxpayer money bails them out--and they charge the same people who bailed them out 20 to 30 percent interest rates on loans.

This amendment simply applies the same statutory interest rate cap on credit cards that Congress imposed on credit unions in 1980, capping interest rates at 15 percent, except under extraordinary circumstances. In other words, if you get a credit card through a credit union, you are going to be paying, in almost every case, no more than 15 percent. That is mandated by Federal law. By and large, that law has worked for about 40 years. Unlike big banks, credit unions do not come begging the American taxpayer for huge bailouts. Ten years ago they didn't come for a huge bailout. Credit unions have survived and thrived on a 15-percent cap, and the time has come to extend that cap to private banks as well. There is nothing radical about that. It exists for the credit unions in this country, and it should exist for the large banks.

There has even been support for this concept in the Senate. In 1991, former Senator Al D'Amato offered an amendment to cap interest rates at 14 percent that passed on a vote of 74 to 14. It was not a radical idea, and it passed by a huge vote in 1991.

Here is what Al D'Amato, the Republican chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, said in 1991:

Fourteen percent is certainly a reasonable rate of interest

for banks to charge customers for credit card debt. It allows

a comfortable profit margin but keeps banks in line so that

interest rates rise and fall with the health of the economy.

That was an accurate statement in 1991. It is even more accurate today.

Let's be clear. Credit cards are no longer used just to buy luxury items. We all know that. All over this country, people are buying their groceries, their food, and other basic essentials with credit cards. Commuters are paying for the gas they put into their cars on their credit cards. Young people are paying their college expenses with credit cards.

According to the Federal Reserve, 44 percent of the American people could not pay for a $400 emergency expense, like a car accident, if they could not charge it on their credit cards or borrow money from a payday lender, a friend, or a family member. That is the reality of America today. It is not a reality we discuss here in the Senate, but that is the reality, nonetheless.

Given that reality, it seems to me that if we are going to respond to the needs of the American people, we need to deal with the issue of usury and stop large financial institutions from ripping off the American people.

Madam President, with that in mind, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be called up and reported by number: the Sanders amendment No. 2114 and the Sanders amendment No. 2155; further, that the Senate vote on the Sanders amendment No. 2114 without intervening action or debate; and that following disposition of the Sanders amendment No. 2114, the Senate vote on the Sanders amendment No. 2155.

Madam President, I am distressed, although not surprised, by the objection. Apparently, the consumers of this country don't have the financial support to get their concerns onto the floor. So apparently we are not going to be discussing these items.

Madam President, I raise a point of order that the pending measure violates section 4106 of H. Con. Res. 71, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues for support on the point of order, not only from the deficit perspective but to tell the Republican leadership here in Congress that we want a serious debate on the serious financial issues facing the American people; that we want the ability to bring forth amendments, not just my amendment--there are a lot of good amendments on both sides--that at this particular moment, rather than just deregulating some of the largest banks in America, we need to protect consumers, we need to protect ordinary Americans, and we need to have a real debate. So I would hope very much that Members of the Senate would support my point of order.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to use an oversized visual poster to be displayed during my remarks.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Wyden be added as a cosponsor to my resolution, S.J. Res. 54.

Mr. President, along with Senator Murphy and Senator Lee, I rise to talk about one of the most important jobs the U.S. Congress has, and that is to fulfill its constitutional responsibility about whether the United States of America engages in military action.

We can disagree about the merits of this or that military action, but there should be absolutely no confusion that sending men and women of the U.S. military into conflict is the responsibility not of the President of the United States alone but of the U.S. Congress.

Let us be very clear--and I say this especially to my conservative friends who talk about the Constitution all the time. Let me remind them as to what article I, section 8 of the Constitution reads in no uncertain terms: ``The Congress shall have Power . . . to declare War.'' The Founding Fathers gave the power to declare war to Congress-- the branch most accountable to the people. For far too long, Congress, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, has, in my view, abdicated its constitutional role in authorizing war. We are moving down a very slippery slope by which Congress is now becoming increasingly irrelevant in terms of that vitally important issue.

In my view, the time is long overdue for Congress to reassert its constitutional authority. That is what Senator Lee, Senator Murphy, and I are doing with S.J. Res. 54. I am proud to have as cosponsors on that resolution Senator Durbin, Senator Booker, Senator Warren, Senator Leahy, Senator Markey, Senator Feinstein, and Senator Wyden.

Many Americans are unaware that the people of Yemen--one of the poorest countries in the world--are suffering terribly today in a devastating

civil war with Saudi Arabia and their allies on one side and Houthi rebels on the other. In November of last year, the United Nations Emergency Relief Coordinator said that Yemen was on the brink of the ``largest famine the world has seen for many decades.''

So far, thousands of civilians have died. The last count that I have seen is about 10,000. Over 40,000 have been wounded in the war. There are 15 million people who lack access to clean water and sanitation in an infrastructure which has been devastated. More than 20 million people in Yemen--over two-thirds of the population--need some kind of humanitarian support, with nearly 10 million people in acute need of assistance. This is a humanitarian disaster.

This very sad picture of a young child who faces starvation is what is taking place throughout this country. Sadly, this is not the only child in that position. Famine is a serious and growing problem in Yemen. Further, more than 1 million suspected cholera cases have been reported, potentially representing the worst cholera outbreak in world history. The pictures I have here today have been taken by photojournalists in Yemen, and they can attest to this human disaster.

One of the problems we have is, unfortunately, foreign policy is not an issue we talk about enough on the floor, and it is certainly not talked about enough in the media. Many Americans today are not aware that American forces have been actively engaged in the support of the Saudi coalition in this war--in its providing intelligence and the aerial refueling of planes whose bombs have killed thousands of people and made this crisis far worse.

My colleagues and I, along with all of our cosponsors, believe that as Congress has not declared war or authorized military force in this conflict, the U.S. involvement in Yemen is unconstitutional and unauthorized and the U.S. military support of the Saudi coalition must end. Without congressional authorization, our engagement in this war should be restricted to providing desperately needed humanitarian aid and diplomatic efforts to resolve this terrible civil war. That is why Senator Lee and Senator Murphy and I have introduced this joint resolution pursuant to the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which calls for an end to U.S. support for the Saudi war in Yemen.

The War Powers Resolution defines the introduction of U.S. Armed Forces to include the ``assignment of members of such Armed Forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged, or there exists an imminent threat that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities.'' Assisting with targeting intelligence and refueling warplanes as they bomb those targets clearly meet this definition.

Here is the bottom line: If the U.S. Congress wants to go to war in Yemen, vote on that war, but I and the cosponsors of this legislation do not believe that the authority to go to war is now appropriate. We think what is going on now is unconstitutional, and unless Congress authorizes this war, it should be ended and ended immediately.

I look forward to a colloquy with Senator Lee and with Senator Murphy. I now yield to Senator Lee, who has been very active on this issue from day one. I thank the Senator.

Before I answer that very important question, I thank Senator Lee for his remarks. He is right on virtually everything he has said.

I want to bring Senator Murphy into this colloquy. Senator Murphy has been ahead of his time in focusing attention on what is going on in Yemen. He is one of the original sponsors of this legislation.

If Senator Murphy would express his thoughts on this issue.

Well, let me thank Senator Murphy for his comments and Senator Lee before him. I think they touch on the most important issues. I wish to respond to what Senator Lee and Senator Murphy both said, but I wish to make a point that needs to be made again and again.

This is not a partisan issue. We are talking about Democratic administrations acting militarily without congressional authorization. We are talking about Republican administrations doing the same. Senator Lee is a conservative Republican. Senator Murphy is a Democrat. I am an Independent who caucuses with the Democrats. So if you are talking about bipartisanship, you are looking at it right here.

I should tell you that there are many organizations around the country--conservative and progressive--that are raising exactly the same issue that we are raising right here, and that is that Congress has to reassert its congressional authority over the issues of war.

If you want to go to war and you think the war in Yemen makes sense, that is fine. Come down here on the floor and tell us why you feel that way. Tell the American people and tell your constituents why you think it is a good idea to work with Saudi Arabia to wreak utter horror on one of the poorest countries in the world. Fine, come on down here and tell us. What we have to do, from a precedent point of view, is finally to say to our Republican President or a Democratic President: Enough is enough. Listen to the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers of this country were amazingly smart on this issue, and they understood that before we send our young men--and now women--off to war to die or to get maimed, there better well be a very good reason that we have to explain to the people who elected us--not just somebody sitting up there in the Oval Office. That is why the authority for going to war is vested in the representatives of the people, whether we are elected for 2 years or elected for 6 years.

I would also point out that this is not the first time that the Congress has weighed in on the devastating war in Yemen. In November of last year, the House of Representatives--and I hope my Senate colleagues know this--voted by a vote of 366 to 30. That was not even close. There was overwhelming support among Democrats and Republicans. They passed a nonbinding resolution stating that the United States' involvement in the Yemen civil war is unauthorized. The Democratic leadership supported it, as did the Republican chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Ed Royce.

Here is the bottom line. The bottom line is that Congress has ducked its responsibilities for many years, and if we continue to duck our responsibility on the all-important issue of U.S. military intervention, this Congress and, in fact, the people of the United States become increasingly irrelevant on this most important matter.

We are bringing forward a privileged motion. There will be a vote on this issue in one form or another. If you like the war in Yemen, then be prepared to defend why you think it is a great idea to work with the Saudis to destroy the infrastructure and to create a situation where famine and cholera are rampant in that incredibly poor country. Come on down and tell us why you think it is a good idea. If not, I hope you will vote with us to end this war and to allow the United States to get involved in bringing the warring parties together to see if we can bring peace and to see if we can bring humanitarian relief to these terribly suffering people.

I yield to Senator Lee.

Mr. President, I say to Senator Lee that I think that is an excellent question. That was just the question that I was going to ask of Senator Murphy, because I think we understand that in recent history, when there is chaos and confusion in a country, it provides an extraordinary opportunity for al-Qaida and their allies to move in.

We have spent billions and billions of dollars fighting al-Qaida and their affiliates, and I fear very much, as you have indicated, that the situation we are creating in Yemen in many ways is making life easier for them.

I would ask this of Senator Murphy--and maybe listeners might be surprised by this: What side of this battle is al-Qaida on in Yemen right now?

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois very much for his perceptive remarks and for reminding us that the time is long overdue for the U.S. Congress to accept its constitutional responsibilities.

I wanted to ask Senator Lee if he--we are running out of time here-- has some closing remarks.

Mr. President, let me conclude by thanking Senator Lee, Senator Murphy, Senator Durbin this afternoon, thanking Senator Booker, Senator Warren, Senator Leahy, Senator Markey, Senator Feinstein, and Senator Wyden for their cosponsorship of S.J. Res. 54.

Let me summarize it very briefly in this way: Congress cannot continue to abdicate its responsibility on the all-important issue of how and when the United States becomes involved in military intervention. We cannot continue to run away from that issue.

If you think the war in Yemen and siding with the Saudis on this war makes sense, then come down to the floor of the Senate, make your position clear, tell your constituents what you believe, and then vote for the war but have the courage, at least, to accept your responsibility as a Member of the U.S. Congress and not abdicate it to the President.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I get around my own State of Vermont a lot. In fact, I get around the country a lot. I hear from a lot of people and I talk to a lot of people about what is on their minds.

Needless to say, in these very complicated and difficult times, there is a lot the American people are concerned about. They are concerned about gun violence, and they want strong legislation to be passed as soon as possible to protect their kids and the American people.

Overwhelmingly, they want legislation--over 80 percent of the American people in poll after poll--want legislation to protect the 1.8 million young people who are eligible for the DACA Program. That is what people talk about.

People talk about the high cost of healthcare, and they talk about the fact that they cannot afford prescription drugs because the drug companies are ripping us off every single day.

They talk about climate change and their fear about what kind of planet we are going to be leaving our kids and our grandchildren if we don't transform our energy system away from fossil fuel.

The people I talk to in Vermont and throughout the country talk about our crumbling infrastructure.

They talk about the need for decent-paying jobs.

They talk about the high cost of a college education. I just talked to a teacher the other day in Wisconsin. She had tears in our eyes because she cannot afford to send her own daughter to college. I talk, every day it seems, to people who graduate from college, $30,000, $50,000, $100,000 in debt, and they wonder how that debt will impact the rest of their lives.

I talk to people in Vermont and around the country about the childcare crisis that we have and about the lack of affordable housing and about a million other issues that are on the minds of people in Arizona, in Vermont, and all across this country.

But I can honestly say that I have not heard one person come up to me and say: Bernie, we have to deregulate 25 of the largest banks in this country with cumulative assets of $3.5 trillion. No one has ever come up to me and said that is a major priority for the American people. No one has ever suggested to me that instead of talking this week about and moving forward on gun safety legislation or the DACA issue or the high cost of prescription drugs, we should be here on the floor of the U.S. Senate talking about the needs of some of the largest banks in this country. But that is precisely what the Senate will be discussing this week and probably next week as well.

If you want to know why the American people, in very, very strong numbers, hold the U.S. Congress in contempt, it is precisely because we have a Republican leadership that does exactly the opposite of what the American people want. And it is not just not dealing with the DACA issue or dealing with the gun violence issue. Over the last year, despite the overwhelming objections of the American people, Republican leadership tried to throw some 32 million Americans off of health insurance. Thank God we were able to beat that back.

At a time of massive income and wealth inequality, the American people do not believe that the Koch brothers and other billionaires should receive massive tax breaks. That is exactly what the Republican leadership provided.

And on and on it goes.

The needs of the middle class and working families are ignored while the needs of the wealthy and powerful, including Wall Street, are addressed.

Today, my Republican colleagues, along with some Democrats, tell us that what we should be doing right now is spending our time on deregulating some of the largest banks in America. How absurd is that? Not gun violence, not the DACA crisis, not the high cost of prescription drugs, not 30 million people without health insurance, but deregulating some of the largest banks in America.

Are our memories so short that we learned nothing from the 2008 Wall Street crash? Have we learned nothing from the savings and loan disaster of the early 1990s or the thievery of Wells Fargo over the last couple of years or the dishonesty of Equifax or the accounting fraud at Enron and Arthur Anderson or the failure of long-term capital management or the billions of dollars in fines that financial institution after financial institution has paid out for illegal or deceptive activities?

Just 10 years ago, as a result of the greed and the recklessness and the illegal behavior on Wall Street, this country was plunged into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. The official unemployment rate shot up to 10 percent and the real unemployment rate jumped to over 17 percent. At the height of the financial crisis, more than 27 million Americans were unemployed, underemployed, or stopped working altogether because they could not find employment.

Fifteen million families, as a result of that financial crisis, lost their homes to foreclosure as more and more people could not afford to pay their mortgages. Thousands of Americans set up tent cities in Sacramento, Fresno, Tampa Bay, and Reno because they had no place left to live.

As a result of the illegal behavior of Wall Street, American households lost over $13 trillion in savings, which shattered retirement dreams, wiped out life savings, and made it impossible for parents to send their kids to college. That is what Wall Street did 10 years ago. Against my strong opposition then, Congress and the Federal Reserve provided the largest taxpayer bailout in the history of the world to these huge banks because they were too big to fail.

But now, 10 years later, hoping that we forget all about that, these large financial institutions are back again. How pathetic is that? Just yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office told us that the legislation we are debating today will ``increase the likelihood that a large financial firm with assets of between $100 billion and $250 billion would fail.'' That is from the CBO.

In other words, this legislation makes it more likely that we will see another financial crisis and makes it more likely that there will be another huge taxpayer bailout and massive dislocation of our economy.

Under this bill, large banks with assets of up to $250 billion will no longer have to submit comprehensive plans on winding down if they fail. They will no longer have to hold sufficient capital in case their loans go bad. And they may never have to undergo a stress test to find out if they are adequately prepared to withstand an economic downturn.

Further, this legislation makes it easier for financial institutions to offer bogus subprime mortgages that caused so many Americans to suffer during the 2008 financial crisis.

This legislation makes it easier for large banks to steer African Americans, Hispanics, and the elderly into mortgages with high interest rates and hidden fees.

This legislation deregulates foreign banks like Deutsche Bank--a bank that in January of 2017 agreed to a $7.2 billion settlement for selling toxic mortgages during the financial crisis.

This legislation guts the Volker rule, allowing banks all over this country to gamble with the bank deposits of their customers on risky derivative schemes that were at the heart of the financial meltdown.

Let us be very clear. The major banks that we are deregulating in this bill were forced to pay over $49 billion in fines for a wide variety of fraudulent and deceptive activity. These very same banks received a taxpayer bailout of $47 billion from the Treasury and trillions in financial assistance from

the Federal Reserve. Many of these banks, it should be pointed out, like Wall Street in general, have enjoyed record-breaking profits over the last 2 years. They are not coming here because they are losing money. Over the last 2 years, most of these banks have done very, very well.

So how does it happen that Congress finds itself worrying about the needs of huge financial institutions but ignores the concerns of ordinary Americans? The answer, as I think most Americans understand, has everything to do with following the money. Follow the money.

Since the 1990s, the financial sector has given more than $3.2 billion in campaign contributions and last year alone spent over $200 million on lobbying. If you want to hear about the corruption of the

American political system, here it is. Since the 1990s,

the financial sector has given more than $3.2 billion in

campaign contributions and last year alone spent over $200

million on lobbying. That is why Congress will be spending

day after day trying to make life easier for these large

financial institutions, while at the same time ignoring

the needs of working families.

No, we can't get a bill on the floor of the Senate that will lower the cost of prescription drugs. We can't do that. The American people overwhelmingly want us to act on gun violence. We can't do that. We are not able to protect the 1.8 million young people who are eligible for the DACA Program. We can't do that. But we can spend a week or two worrying about the needs of some of the largest financial institutions in this country. And that is why the American people are disgusted with what goes on in Washington, DC.

I have a radical idea, and that is that maybe--just maybe--instead of listening to the lobbyists here in DC, maybe we should listen to the American people, who believe that we should strengthen, not weaken, Wall Street regulations.

Believe it or not--of course we are not going to hear any discussion of this at all--believe it or not, the four largest banks in America are, on average, 80 percent bigger today than they were before we bailed them out because they were too big to fail. Incredibly, the six largest banks in America--this is wealth. This is power. This is who owns America. The six largest banks in America have over $10 trillion in assets--six banks, $10 trillion--equivalent to 54 percent of the GDP of this Nation. The six largest banks hold more than half of all credit card debt, control over 90 percent of all bank derivatives, underwrite a third of all mortgages, and control over 40 percent of all bank deposits. If any of these financial institutions were to get into financial trouble again, there is no doubt in my mind that once again the taxpayers of this country would be asked to bail them out--except this time, the bailout might be even larger than it was in 2008.

Now is not the time to be talking about deregulating large financial institutions--quite the contrary. If a financial institution is too big to fail, in my view, it is too big to exist. Now is the time to take on the greed and power of Wall Street and break up the largest financial institutions in this country, and I will be introducing an amendment to this bill to do just that.

I understand fully, as the American people do, the power of Wall Street and the huge amounts of money they spend on campaign contributions and lobbying. That should not, however, intimidate us. Now is the time for us to have the courage to stand up to these very wealthy and powerful institutions, defeat this legislation, and support the needs of the American people.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ari Rabin- Havt be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this Congress.

Mr. President, there should be no issue of more importance to Members of Congress than the issue of war and peace and when it is appropriate to send the young people of our country into harm's way, knowing that some of them will not return home alive.

It goes without saying that every armed conflict the United States of America is engaged in must be consistent with the Constitution of the United States and be lawful.

Let's make no mistake about it--article I, section 8 of the Constitution states in no uncertain terms that ``Congress shall have the power to . . . declare war.'' The Founding Fathers gave the power to declare war to Congress because Congress is that body most accountable to the people.

For far too long, Congress--under Democratic and Republican administrations--has abdicated its constitutional role in authorizing war. The time is long overdue for Congress to reassert its constitutional authority. If you think that a military intervention makes sense, then let's have that debate on the floors of the Senate and the House and cast a vote. But that is not what we have been seeing for a number of years.

What Senator Lee and Senator Murphy and I are doing with privileged resolution S.J. Res. 54 is demanding that Congress once again take its constitutional responsibility for war and peace seriously. I thank Senators Durbin, Warren, and Booker for coming on board that resolution. I hope this bipartisan resolution will gain more and more support in the coming days.

Many Americans are unaware that the people of Yemen are suffering today in a devastating civil war, with Saudi Arabia and their allies on one side and Houthi rebels on the other.

In November of last year, the United Nations emergency relief coordinator said that Yemen was on the brink of ``the largest famine the world has seen for many decades.'' So far, at least 10,000 civilians have died, 3 million have been displaced, and over 40,000 have been wounded in this war. Fifteen million people lack access to clean water and sanitation. More than 20 million people in Yemen--over two-thirds of that country's population--need some kind of humanitarian support, with nearly 10 million in acute need of assistance. More than 1 million suspected cholera cases have been reported--1 million cholera cases have been reported--representing potentially the worst cholera outbreak in world history.

Many Americans probably are not aware that U.S. forces have been actively engaged in support of the Saudis in this terrible war, providing intelligence and aerial refueling of planes whose bombs have killed thousands of people and made this crisis far worse.

We believe--and I speak for Senator Lee and Senator Murphy--that as Congress has not declared war or authorized military force in this conflict, U.S. involvement in Yemen is unconstitutional and unauthorized, and U.S. military support of the Saudi coalition must end. Without congressional authorization, our engagement in this war should be restricted to providing desperately needed humanitarian aid and diplomatic efforts to put an end to this terrible conflict. That is why yesterday we introduced a joint resolution pursuant to the 1973 War Powers Resolution calling for an end to U.S. support for the Saudi war in Yemen.

The War Powers Resolution defines the introduction of U.S. Armed Forces to include ``the assignment of members of such armed forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged, or there exists an imminent threat that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities.'' That is from the War Powers Resolution. Assisting with targeting intelligence and refueling warplanes as they bomb those targets clearly meets this definition.

This is not a partisan issue. Support for the Saudi intervention in Yemen began under a Democratic President and has continued under a Republican one. Senator Lee is a conservative Republican. I am a progressive Independent who caucuses with the Democrats.

In November of last year--and it is important that Members of the Senate hear this--the U.S. House of Representatives, by a vote of 366 to 30, passed a nonbinding resolution stating that U.S. involvement in the Yemen civil war is unauthorized. Every Member of the Democratic leadership voted for this. Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi voted for it. Minority Whip Steny Hoyer voted for it. The ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Eliot Engel, voted for it, as did the Republican chairman of that committee, Ed Royce.

Here is the bottom line: If the President or Members of Congress believe that support for this war is in the U.S. interest and that we should be involved in it, then let them come to the floor of the House and Senate, make their case, and then let's have a vote.

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 nearly 17 years--the longest war in American history. Our troops are now in Syria under what I believe are questionable authorities, and the administration has indicated that it may broaden that military mission even more.

The time is long overdue for Congress to reassert its constitutional role in determining when and where our country goes to war. I am very proud to be working with Senators Lee, Murphy, and others on this vitally important issue.

Thank you very much

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

Mr. President, this morning, I had the opportunity to meet with some extraordinary young people. These were students from Parkland, FL, who attend the school where the mass shooting took place 2 weeks ago. What was amazingly impressive about these young people is that in the midst of their grief, in the midst of the unbelievably traumatic experience that they went through in seeing their best friends being shot and wounded in cold blood and their teachers killed, they resolved not just to mourn and grieve for their friends and neighbors; they resolved to stand up and fight back and come to Washington, go to Tallahassee, FL, and go around the country to do everything they can to make certain that no more children--no more young people--are mowed down and slaughtered in schools.

Nobody thinks that the issue of gun safety is going to be an easy issue to solve. There are literally hundreds of millions of guns throughout this country, and there are 5 million assault weapons throughout this country today. Tragically, there are many thousands of people, I expect in every State in this country, who are walking our streets and are at their wits end emotionally, who are suicidal, who are homicidal. Many of those people have access to guns and guns of mass destruction. I think that in some respects, the slaughter at the high school in Parkland, FL, was kind of the straw that broke the camel's back.

Several months ago, the American people were stunned to see some very sick person in Las Vegas break a window and start mowing down people. He killed some 58 Americans and wounded 500 people within a period of a few minutes. That was on top of Sandy Hook. It was on top of so many gun slaughters that, I think, what has finally happened--maybe because of the extraordinary efforts of these young people from Parkland--the American people are saying that enough is enough, that we have a difficult problem. We may not be able to solve it completely overnight, but we have a moral obligation to do everything we can to make certain that no more children--no more people in this country--are mowed down by some sick person with a weapon.

That is not just I who is talking, and it is not just the young people from the high school in Florida. It is pretty much what the American people want. Let me refer the Presiding Officer to a few polls that were conducted fairly recently.

A Quinnipiac poll was done on February 20, just a week ago. This is what that poll showed.

It showed that 97 percent of the American people support universal background checks, which is not a radical idea. What the American people are saying and what gun owners are saying is that we should keep guns out of the hands of people who are not responsible and should not own guns. Universal background checks are almost universally supported by the American people.

In that same Quinnipiac poll, 83 percent of the American people indicated support for a mandatory waiting period for all gun purchases. You don't want somebody who is angry, who is upset, or who had something terrible happen to go running to a gun store, buying a gun, and then going out and using it.

There are 75 percent who, basically, want the Congress to address the issue of gun violence and to start taking action.

There are 67 percent of the people polled by Quinnipiac who support a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons. They believe and I believe that assault weapons are designed as military weapons to kill human beings. That is what those weapons are designed to do. I believe and have believed for 30 years--and a majority of the American people believe--that we should end the sale and distribution of those weapons. That was in a Quinnipiac poll.

According to a CNN poll that was done more recently, just a few days ago on February 25, 70 percent of the American people want stricter gun laws. This is the highest number that CNN has registered since way back when the Brady Bill passed, in 1993.

According to CNN, 87 percent support laws to prevent convicted felons and the mentally ill from owning guns. There are 71 percent who support banning anyone under the age of 21 from buying a gun. There are 63 percent who

support a ban on the sale and possession of high-capacity magazines. There are 57 percent who support an assault weapons ban, and 56 percent say that stricter gun laws would reduce gun-related deaths.

We have a difficult issue which is not going to be solved overnight, and nobody thinks that it will. Yet the American people are demanding that we have the courage to stand up to the NRA and finally take some action that will move us in the right direction. Let me just suggest some of the ways I believe we should go forward in a bipartisan way.

Once again, the American people believe and I believe in universal background checks. That means, among other things, ending the so-called gun show loophole, because background checks don't mean anything if somebody can go to a gun show or on the internet and buy weapons without undergoing any background check. Overwhelmingly, the American people say that before somebody is able to purchase a gun, we need to know: Is the person a killer? Is he a person who has engaged in domestic violence? Is he somebody who has a history of mental health problems? If that is the case, that person should not be buying a gun.

I think serious gun safety legislation must include addressing the so-called straw man purchases. This is a provision by which people can legally go to gun shops, buy the weapons that they want, but then they are going to sell those weapons or distribute those weapons to people who should not be owning those weapons and who could not have purchased those weapons on their own. I have indicated it is my view that we should ban assault weapons in this country--weapons that are designed for no other purpose but to kill human beings.

Furthermore, I think it is clear that we are a nation that is facing a mental health crisis. I know that in my office--and I expect in the offices of other Senators--we get calls all of the time from people who say: I am worried about my husband. I am worried about my brother. He is at his wits end. I don't know what he is going to do to himself or what he is going to do to somebody else. We have been searching for mental health treatment, but we cannot find anything that is available now or that we can afford.

I believe we should be moving forward to pass legislation which says that Americans who suffer today from mental health crises should be able to get the mental healthcare they need now, not 2 months from now, because 2 months from now may be too late.

We also need to address the fact that, every year, women are being killed by their husbands or their boyfriends and that if somebody is a stalker, if somebody is convicted of domestic violence, if somebody is under a restraining order, we should be clear that that person should not be owning a gun. This is just some of what I think needs to be done.

We are at a moment when the American people have had it up to here. They do not want to turn on their TVs tomorrow or next week or next month and see the horrible, unspeakable things that we have seen in schools throughout this country.

At this particular moment in history, I hope that in a bipartisan way we can come together and do what the American people want us to do, which is to pass commonsense gun safety legislation that is supported by the overwhelming majority of the American people.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, let me begin by congratulating Chloe Kim, a first-generation American who won an Olympic Gold Medal for the United States in the women's halfpipe snowboarding event this week.

Her father, Jong Jin Kim emigrated from South Korea to the United States in 1982, became a dishwasher at a fast-food restaurant, studied engineering at El Camino College after working those low-skilled jobs, and then became an engineer. He left his engineering job to support his daughter's snowboarding ambitions so he could drive her 5\1/2\ hours to the mountain for training.

Congratulations to Chloe and to her entire family. You make the United States proud.

Madam President, the whole debate we are now undertaking over immigration and the Dreamers has become somewhat personal for me because it has reminded me, in a very strong way, that I and my brother are first-generation Americans. We are the sons of an immigrant who came to this country at the age of 17 without a nickel in his pocket, a young man who was a high school dropout, who did not know one word of English, and who had no particular trade.

A few years ago, my brother and I and our families went to the small town where he came from, and it just stunned me, the kind of courage he showed and millions of other people show leaving their homeland to come to a very different world, in many cases, without money, without knowledge of the language.

My father immigrated to this country because the town where he lived in Poland was incredibly poor. There was no economic opportunity for him. People there struggled to put food on the table for their families. Hunger was a real issue in that area. My father came to this country to avoid the violence and bloodshed of World War I, which came to his part of the world in a ferocious manner, and he came to this country to escape the religious bigotry that existed then because he was Jewish. My father lived in this country until his death in 1962. He never made a lot of money. He was a paint salesman.

My father was not a political person, but it turned out that without talking much about it, he was the proudest American you ever saw, and he was so proud of this country because he was deeply grateful that the United States had welcomed him in and allowed him opportunities that would have been absolutely unthinkable from where he came.

The truth is, immigration is not just my story. It is not just the story of one

young man coming from Poland who managed to see two of his kids go to college and one of his sons become a U.S. Senator. It is not just my family's story. It is the story of my wife's family who came from Ireland, and it is the story of tens of millions of American families who came from every single part of this world.

In September of 2017, President Trump precipitated the current crisis we are dealing with by revoking President Obama's DACA Executive order. If President Trump believed that Executive order was unconstitutional and it needed legislation, he could have come to Congress for a legislative solution without holding 800,000 young people hostage by revoking their DACA status. President Trump chose not to do that. He chose to provoke the crisis we are experiencing today. That is a crisis we have to deal with in the Senate, and we have to deal with it now.

Let us be very clear about the nature of this crisis because some people say: Well, it is really not imminent. It is not something we have to worry about now. Those people are wrong. As a result of Trump's decision, 122 people every day are now losing their legal status, and within a couple of years, hundreds of thousands of these young people will have lost their legal protection and be subject to deportation. The situation we are in right now, as a result of Trump's action, means, if we do not immediately protect the legal status of some 800,000 Dreamers--young people who were brought to this country at the age of 1 or 3 or 6--young people who have known no other home but the United States of America--let us be clear that if we do not act and act soon, these hundreds of thousands of young people could be subject to deportation.

That means they could be arrested outside their home, where they have lived for virtually their entire life, and suddenly be placed in a jail. They could be pulled out of a classroom where they are teaching, and there are some 20,000 DACA recipients who are now teaching in schools all over this country. If we do not act and act now, there could be agents going into those schools, pulling those teachers right out and arresting them and subjecting them to deportation. Insane as it may sound, I suppose the 900 DACA recipients who now serve in the U.S. military today could find themselves in the position of being arrested and deported from the country they are putting their lives on the line to defend. Some people say: Well, that is far-fetched. Well, I am not so sure. It could happen. How insane is that? That is where we are today, and that is what could happen if we do not do the right thing and this week pass legislation in the Senate to protect the Dreamers.

We have a moral responsibility to stand up for the Dreamers and their families and to prevent what will be an indelible moral stain on our country if we fail to act. I do not want to see what the history books will be saying about this Congress if we allow 800,000 young people to be subjected to deportation, to live in incredible fear and anxiety.

Here is the very good news for the Dreamers. It is actually news that a couple of years ago, I would not have believed to be possible. The overwhelming majority of American people--Democrats, Republicans, Independents--absolutely agree we must provide legal protection for the Dreamers and that we should provide them with a path toward citizenship. That is not Bernie Sanders talking, that is what the American people are saying in poll after poll.

Just recently, a January 20 CBS News poll found that nearly 9 out of 10 Americans, 87 percent, favor allowing young immigrants who entered the United States illegally as children to remain in the United States--87 percent in Iowa, in Vermont, and in every State in this country. There is strong support for legal status for the Dreamers and a path toward citizenship.

On January 11, a Quinnipiac poll found that 86 percent of American voters, including 76 percent of Republicans, say they want the Dreamers to remain in this country.

On February 5, in a Monmouth poll, when asked about Dreamers' status, nearly three out of four Americans support allowing these young people to automatically become U.S. citizens as long as they don't have a criminal record. In other words, the votes that are going to be cast hopefully today, maybe tomorrow, are not profiles in courage. They are not Members of the Senate coming up and saying: Against all the odds, I believe I am going to vote for what is right. This is what the overwhelming majority of the American people want.

Maybe, just maybe, it might be appropriate to do what the American people want rather than what a handful of xenophobic extremists want. Maybe we should listen to the American people--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents--who understand it would be a morally atrocious thing to allow these young people to be deported. When I think, from a political perspective, about 80, 85, 90 percent of the American people supporting anything in a nation which is as divided as we are today, this is really extraordinary. You can't get 80 percent of the American people to agree on what their favorite ice cream is, but we have 80 percent of the American people who are saying, do not turn your back on these young people who have lived in this country for virtually their entire lives.

We have to act and act soon in the Senate, and there is good legislation that would allow us to do that. In the House, the good news is, there is now bipartisan legislation, sponsored by Congressman Hurd and Congressman Aguilar, which will provide protection for Dreamers and a path toward citizenship. My understanding is, bipartisan legislation now has majority support.

I urge, in the strongest terms possible, that Speaker Ryan allow democracy to prevail in the House, allow the vote to take place. If you have a majority of Members of the House, in a bipartisan way, who support legislation, allow that legislation to come to the floor. Let the Members vote their will, and if that occurs, I think the Dreamers legislation will prevail.

Madam President, we all understand that there is a need for serious debate and legislation regarding comprehensive immigration reform. This is a difficult issue, an issue where there are differences of opinion. There are a whole lot of aspects to it. How do we provide a path toward citizenship for the 11 million people in this country who are currently undocumented but who are working hard, who are raising their kids, who are obeying the law? What should the overall immigration policy of our country be? How many people should be allowed to enter this country every year? Where should they come from?

All of this is very, very important and needs to be seriously debated, but that debate and that legislation is not going to be taking place in a 2-day period. It is going to need some serious time, some hearings, some committee work before the Congress is prepared to vote on comprehensive immigration reform, and it will not and cannot happen today, tomorrow, or this week.

Our focus now, as a result of Trump's decision in September, must be on protecting the Dreamers and their families and on the issue of border security.

There will be important legislation coming to the floor of the Senate today or maybe tomorrow, and I would hope that we could do the right thing, do the moral thing, and do something that history will look back on as very positive legislation. Let's go forward. Let's pass the Dreamers bill. Let's deal with border security, and then, in the near future, let us deal with comprehensive immigration reform.

I yield the floor.

(The Acting President pro tempore assumed the Chair.)

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

Mr. President, it is no secret that our country faces a major healthcare crisis and, in fact, a dysfunctional healthcare system.

We have some 30 million people who have no health insurance, and that number is going to go up in the coming year. We have even more people who are underinsured, with high deductibles and copayments. Our people pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, which means that millions of people who go to the doctor to get a prescription are simply unable to afford the bill. In fact, the description of that is the definition of a dysfunctional, failing healthcare system.

In the midst of all of that, there is another particular crisis dealing with primary healthcare, and that is that even when people do have health insurance in many parts of our country, they are finding it very hard to go to a doctor and to get in to a doctor to treat the ailments that they have. We fall behind many other countries in terms of our lack of emphasis on primary healthcare, which should be the heart and soul of any strong healthcare system. The bottom line is that when you get sick, you should be able to get to the doctor when you need to and not have to wait weeks and months in order to do so.

In the midst of a failing primary healthcare system, there is one very strong bright spot, and that is that for many decades now, in every State in this country, we have had community health centers run by the people themselves--democratically run--addressing the healthcare needs of those given communities. Today, in America, we have about 27 million people--27 million men, women, and children--who are accessing community health centers. In my own State of Vermont, one out of four Vermonters gets their primary healthcare through a community health center.

These centers do more than provide primary healthcare. They also provide dental care, an issue that is too often ignored when we talk about the healthcare crisis. They provide mental health counseling, which is more important now than perhaps it has ever been because of the opioid and heroin epidemic our country is experiencing. Equally important, they provide low-cost prescription drugs at a time when so many Americans cannot afford the medicines they need. That is what community health centers do, and they

do it well, and they do it cost effectively.

To my mind, there is no question but that there is strong bipartisan support here in the Senate and in the House for community health centers. Yet now we have gone over 4 months into the 2018 fiscal year, and we still have not reauthorized funding for community health centers. Frankly, I do not understand how it happens that when we have strong bipartisan support in the House and the Senate for programs that are working extremely well in every State in this country, the Republican leadership still has not reauthorized the community health center program. There is good bipartisan legislation right here in the Senate that has, I think, the support of virtually everybody in the Democratic caucus. Seven or eight Republicans are supporting it. It is the Blunt-Stabenow bill. It is a 5-year extension of community health centers reauthorization with a modest increase in the budget. If that bill came to the floor today, my guess is that it would get 70, 80 votes--maybe even more. We have gone 4 months into the fiscal year, and we still have not seen that bill reauthorized.

What is happening all over this country is that community health centers, which often struggle with recruitment and retention, are finding it harder than ever to retain the doctors, nurses, and other medical staff they need because applicants are looking around and saying: Why should I work at a community health center if I don't even know if it is going to be there next year? Why should I stay at a community health center if I can get a better job offer and I don't know if this community health center will be funded?

As a result of 4 months of inaction, community health centers all over this country are hurting. I say enough is enough. Right now, as soon as possible, we need to reauthorize the community health center program for at least 5 years, and we need to make sure there is adequate funding so that they can continue to do the excellent work they are doing all over this country.

Opioid Epidemic

Mr. President, there is another issue that I would like to briefly touch upon. There has been a lot of discussion--appropriately so--about the opioid epidemic that is sweeping the United States. We have lost some 63,000 Americans as a result of opioid overdoses in 2016 alone. Families by the millions are being impacted.

I was in Brattleboro, VT, a few weeks ago, and they talked to me about what is happening to the children whose parents are addicted to opioids. They need to find foster homes for those children.

This is clearly an epidemic that has to be dealt with. We have to increase funding for prevention to make sure young people don't get swept up into the epidemic and also for treatment for those people who are addicted.

There is an issue that we have not touched upon enough, and that is holding the drug companies responsible and accountable for the products they brought into the market. As some people may recall, in April of 1994, the CEOs of the seven largest tobacco companies testified before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health and the Environment in a historic hearing. What that hearing was about was, under oath, demanding to know what the executives from the tobacco industry knew and when they knew it. Did they know that their product was addictive? Did they know that tobacco caused cancer, heart disease, and other medical problems? They were asked to hold their hands up and under oath tell the committee what they knew.

I think it is now appropriate for the Senate to do the same with those drug companies that are producing opioids. I think we need to know what the drug companies knew in terms of the addictive qualities of those drugs. There is some evidence out there that suggests that drug companies, in fact, did know that the product they were selling was in fact addictive, but they forgot to tell the doctors--and certainly not the patients.

It is one thing for somebody to do something in ignorance, not knowing the impact of what you produce. That happens all the time. It is something very different if, in fact, the manufacturer of a product understands that the product causes addiction, that the product causes death. We need to get to the root of that issue. We need to know what the drug companies knew and when they knew that.

I would hope very much that in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, which has jurisdiction over this issue, we could bring the executives of those drug companies that produce these opioids before us, because not only are we talking about 60,000 people a year dying as a result of overdoses, but what we are talking about also is the expenditure of tens of billions of dollars in healthcare and law enforcement associated with opioid addiction.

I hope that we can move forward and have those executives come before us and tell us under oath what they knew and when they knew it, because I think the time is long overdue for us to hold them accountable.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to congratulate more finalists in this year's State of the Union Essay Contest and, as I did with the finalists I recognized yesterday, I ask that their essays be printed in the Record.

The material follows:

maisie newbury, middlebury union high school, junior

``Whenever you feel like criticizing anyone, just remember

that all the people in this world haven't had the advantages

that you've had.'' The Great Gatsby, page 1. This was one of

my father's favorite quotes when I was growing up. He always

cautioned me to think before I spoke or better yet, ``think

before you think.'' While some might call this inauthentic,

my father called it sensible.

I am not blind to the privilege I possess. Though, living

in the big house atop the hill with my two healthy, living

parents in the sheltered town of Weybridge, Vermont, it would

be an easy thing to forget--if it weren't for my brother,

Robbie.

Robbie does not talk much. He cannot read. He cannot write.

He has ``Severe, Regressive Autism,'' a developmental

disorder that inhibits his literacy and communication skills.

When I was younger, my parents explained to me that the world

looked different to Robbie. It was louder, brighter and so

much bigger. Living with Robbie, I am constantly reminded of

my privilege. Every time I speak, run, ski, read, write . . .

I'm doing something that he cannot. All the things I do on a

daily basis are insurmountable obstacles to him. Yet, even

without these luxuries, my brother smiles and laughs--he

enjoys his life and his experience because he owns it. No one

should be allowed to take that from him.

Yet, my brother's access to the care he needs has decreased

immensely in the last year. His weekly appointments with his

occupational therapist, which used to be covered by

insurance, are now unaffordable as my parents must continue

supporting him in their retirement. Learning this, I was

upset. How could something so fundamental be removed from our

insurance policy without a second thought?

In our society, mental health challenges are often

dismissed as illegitimate and fixable. Words like psycho,

idiot and lunatic, are thrown around as diminutive insults

rather than seen as impactful and potentially harmful.

Because of this, mental healthcare is considered a luxury

rather than a necessity, and therefore not something that

should be covered by insurance.

The union we live in does not value mental healthcare

simply because society does not. This issue starts with us. I

cannot stay silent and watch my parents sacrifice my

brother's future stability and independence in order to be

able to support him in the long run; nor can I do this alone.

I know that until society begins placing value on the lives

of people like Robbie, no one will--especially not large-

scale insurance providers. However, I believe that there are

other people like me who, if we band together, can create a

small group of thoughtful, committed citizens ready to take

on the world. For, unlike my brother, my privilege has given

me a voice, and it is my duty to use it to fight for him. I

owe him that much.

jackson noel, milton high school, senior

With a nation as large as the United States there is a

constant stream of issues and problems that require

addressing. This means that the most important issues are

those that involve the largest portion of the United States

population. In that way, the biggest issue that the United

States should currently focus on is making sure that every

American can afford and has access to health care.

Every American should have the right to health care, as

wealth should not determine quality of life. Health care is

an incredibly important aspect of everyone's lives as it

allows them to live without worrying about not having access

to critical care and treatment to thrive. In this way, the

solution to this problem is the maintaining and constant

adjusting of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,

``ACA'', to best suit and assist the American people. The

benefit of the Affordable Care Act is deceptively simple in

that more Americans would be able to afford and hold onto

healthcare. This means that they would be able to live a

better life and be better functioning members of society. The

Affordable Care Act has proven to be a legitimate solution

since it has been enacted under the Obama administration.

According to the New York Times, the number of Americans

without healthcare is ``down by 25 percent.'' This shows that

the Affordable Care Act is effective at achieving its goals.

There are many people who believe that the United States

government should play no role in health care; this is a

flawed perspective. The goal is insure as many American

citizens as possible it makes the most sense to have defined

government regulation. One belief is that there should be a

free market for health insurance, allowing companies to

compete to provide the best system to benefit the people.

There are many problems with a free market health care system

that stops it from being helpful and most useful for the

American people. A free market is not designed to allow for

everyone to have insurance, but rather people who can afford

it having better access. This is not beneficial on the

national scale and leads to a large imbalance of power. There

are also numerous flaws in the current American approach to

health care. For one, even when someone is insured there are

upfront fees and payments before insurance kicks in. This

means that someone who is insured might not be able to pay

these fees causing them to be financially burdened by bills

even with insurance.

Universal government health care has proven to be a

sufficient solution to the problem of health care. For

example, Switzerland has universal health care and a per

capita health expenditures of $1,879, compared to America's

$4,160. Meaning that the United States is spending more money

on less.

Making sure that this is available and maintained under the

Trump administration is important in the path towards

accessible health insurance. No one should ever die because

they cannot afford treatment.

hope petraro, montpelier high school, sophomore

Commitment to democracy is the founding principal of the

United States of America-embedded in the fabric of our

Nation, the crown jewel of our proverbial crown. A

constitutional federal republic, with a system of checks and

balances, is an assurance to constituents that they each have

a seat at the table. Yet in practice, this has proven to be

nothing but a promising facade. Gerrymandering, voter

suppression, and ``money in politics'' are not a threat to

our democracy--they define American democracy. The

disproportionate influence of wealthy individuals and

corporations in elections and in the legislative process has

muddled an honest definition of democracy in our Nation while

simultaneously becoming it. However, America's commitment to

tried-and-true methods does not necessitate lack of reception

to positive change.

Campaigns will always include campaign financing, as the

distribution of information to voters is dependent upon

systems that require funding. In addition, campaign

contributions, whether by individuals or corporations, can

rightfully be considered an exercise of the First Amendment

right to free speech. However, refusal to set donation limits

violates the grounds of equality upon which such freedom of

speech is conducted, and can arguably censor and repress the

speech of the less wealthy as it greatly diminishes their

relative influence. Unfortunately, Citizens United and the

subsequent SpeechNow allow donors to make unlimited donations

to super PACS. This includes money donated by foreign

entities, possibly anonymously as ``dark money''. Moreover,

these expenditures aren't verifiably independent from

candidates. Collusion between super PACs, often created by

associates of candidates and candidates themselves, is

rarely, if ever, regulated. In addition, it is hypocritical

to argue, in the name of free speech, that donors can

contribute an unlimited amount to expenditures but that those

expenditures must remain independent. Citizens United,

SpeechNow, and the additional McCutcheon rulings have nearly

neutralized the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, adding a

somewhat plutocratic influence upon the electoral process and

American democracy as a whole.

This issue is multi-partisan. According to Gallup Poll, the

greatest majority of Americans cite dissatisfaction with the

government and poor leadership as our Nation's most important

issue. A September 2015 Bloomberg poll found that about 80

percent of Republicans and Democrats alike oppose Citizens

United. This overarching dissatisfaction can be ameliorated

by working

to keep elections in the hands of the American people.

Political groups, such as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

and ALEC, were able to influence elections before Citizens

United, SpeechNow, and McCutcheon, and are able to influence

the legislative process, respectively. However, it's

important for Americans to avoid demoralization,

understanding that the first step to achieving a republic

free of corruption rests in truly democratic elections. A

true democracy can be achieved by restoring the Bipartisan

Campaign Reform Act, strengthening campaign-finance

regulations, and supporting public campaign-financing

initiatives. We, the American people, must decide our

destiny, and our elections should remind each American that

their voices prevail.

zoe prue, champlain valley union high school, junior

The United States is distinguished by the values that are

deeply embedded in our culture and economy. Americans place

emphasis on individual initiative and self-created success.

These ideas are evident in the Constitution, its amendments,

and various institutions. Their derivation is best seen in a

famous phrase written in the Declaration of Independence,

``life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'' Captured in

these seven words are the ubiquitous values of our Nation.

Our focus on individually created prosperity is manifested

by capitalism and the free market. However, these are not

conducive to always guaranteeing protections like health care

for our most vulnerable citizens. In America, there are

families stymied in an unrelenting cycle of poverty, and they

are incapable of rising out of the cycle for a myriad of

factors. For example, access to education and vocational

training, discrimination--especially for marginalized

communities--higher incarceration rates, low salaries/wages,

and lack of jobs. Impoverished people have difficulties

paying for the bare minimums like housing, food, and heat.

Consequently, families rarely find any spare money to spend

on healthcare.

This is an issue because, according to the National Center

for Children in Poverty, 15 million children in the United

States live below the federal poverty line. There are

millions of children who do not receive regular physical

check-ups, necessary optometry appointments, or dental care.

Children and adolescents are suffering from health problems

that impact their quality of life. Many treatable ailments

require simple fixes such as glasses to see the board,

fillings for painful cavities, medicine for illnesses, or

inhalers for asthma. It is within our capacity to fix these

problems, so why are we not? We should be concerned about the

health of our Nation's citizens as it is one of the most

important issues facing the U.S. today.

There is an inescapable need for affordable and accessible

health care for the American public. The lasting impacts of

affordable healthcare would be monumental. When we invest in

the health and livelihoods of the next generation of

Americans, we are investing in the next generation of our

workforce. Healthier people results in more able workers, who

by extension, are able to support their own families. It is

one of the best methods to combatting the poverty cycle.

We characterize our Nation by our belief in individualism

and independence. However, when we see a system that is

relentlessly unforgiving towards people in poverty, the most

productive conclusion to come to is that we have to start

taking care of our neighbors. The cycle disempowers them; it

strips them of the ability to pay for necessities like

healthcare. This is why affordable healthcare needs to be

obtainable for all Americans.

Instead of repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act,

it should be expanded upon. The government should fund

programs to offer reasonably priced healthcare to Americans.

Doing so would create a lasting solution to poor citizens

being unable to access health care. The quality of life for

millions of Americans would be improved.

ethan schmitt, rutland high school, sophomore

I am the grandson of a card-carrying member of the National

Rifle Association. I support the United States Constitution

and all of its amendments. Despite this, I believe that the

way our country's officials have interpreted the Second

Amendment has created the foundation for many mass shootings,

which have claimed the lives of countless innocent civilians.

A price cannot be assigned for the lives lost due to this

awfully dangerous policy of our country; every time another

person dies due to homicide, another family is torn apart.

Many children have been killed, particularly in church and

school shootings. And even in cases where there are children

who haven't been physically impacted by the mass shootings,

they may have lost a loved one which will take a toll on them

mentally and emotionally for the rest of their lives.

The universal definition of the term mass shooting is when

four or more people are injured or killed in a single event

at the same time and location. According to The Guardian,

there have been 1,516 mass shootings in the past 1,735 days

before October 1, 2017, the date of the mass shooting that

took place at the Mandalay Bay Hotel in Las Vegas. A total of

1,719 people have died as a result of these mass shootings,

while an additional 6,510 were injured. The gun at the

forefront of these mass shootings was the semi-automatic

rifle, which has the ability to shoot a round, and

automatically reload with another round that is fired with an

additional pull of the trigger. Despite the National Rifle

Association's attempts to defend such a weapon as a gun

mostly used for hunting purposes, there is no need for this

hazardous assault weapon in order to successfully hunt.

In addition, devices known as bump stocks are used to

simulate the speed of fire similar to that of an automatic

weapon for a semi-automatic weapon. An automatic weapon has

the ability to fire multiple rounds of ammunition by only

pulling the trigger of a gun once, and are more commonly

known as machine guns. The American people have been

prohibited from the use of these weapons with the passing of

the National Firearms Act in 1934. However, bump stocks have

not been banned, and the result of this have been conflicts

such as the mass shooting in Las Vegas where the gunman

successfully attached these devices to 23 of his semi-

automatic rifles, and used them to kill 58 people, which

resulted in the most devastating shooting in U.S. history.

The solution to this mass shooting epidemic is clear.

Congress must use rationality and act as a bipartisan group

to pass a bill which regulates the use of semi-automatic

weapons and bump stocks which have both been used with

frequency in a multitude of mass shootings across the United

States. American citizens have the right to bear arms, but

not with weapons that have no purpose in hunting, target

practice, or even self-defense.

elizabeth toensing, champlain valley union high school, junior

On a summer Saturday morning, I was driving into

Burlington. At a stop light, I looked over at a church to my

right. A man, in his early twenties was sitting on the steps.

He was shivering ferociously, yelling at God, and begging for

help. His tremors were not from cold. He was shaking from

withdrawal. Beads of sweat trickled down his forehead and

soaked his shirt. His body was unable to handle the side

effects of withdrawal. He was a heroin addict. This homeless

man with torn clothing, could not access a treatment center.

His last-ditch effort was to sit on the steps of a church and

pray, scream, for a miracle.

A miracle is ``a highly improbable or extraordinary event,

development, or accomplishment that brings very welcome

consequences.'' Miracles are meant for things we cannot

control, not things we can control like making help available

for drug addicts.

By funding public drug rehabilitation centers, we can help

drug addicts to recover from their addictions. No addicts can

do it alone and adequate support is the only way to help with

these problems.

An analysis from Blue Cross Blue Shield found that from

2010 to 2016, the number of people diagnosed with an

addiction to opioids climbed 493 percent. Yet, at the same

time, there was only a 65 percent increase in the number of

people getting medication-assisted treatment to manage their

addiction.

Why do we allow the drug abuse problem to skyrocket well

beyond treatment resources? Perhaps it is because drug

treatment centers come at a cost. They can range from

$20,000-$60,000 for a 30-90 day inpatient stay. No wonder

77.7 percent of addicts cannot afford it. But for society,

the costs go well beyond treatment.

The opioid crisis in America is increasing by the day and

with it comes increased deaths and suffering. Some suggest

creating injection sites to supervise heroin users to help

with the growing death toll. But this is a short term fix.

Rehab is a long-term fix and gives opioid abusers a chance to

reclaim normal lives.

Making rehabilitation centers more accessible to

financially strapped addicts will help the opioid epidemic.

Reducing or eliminating the financial blockades to treatment

that exist for nearly 80 percent of addicts will answer the

prayers of an increasing number of victims of this plague.

Affordable rehabilitation centers will eliminate the need for

miracles.

ella whitman, champlain valley union high school, junior

When my high school principal told us that there were only

three rules we had to follow I was shocked. How can you sum

up every expectation that must be demanded of a young adult

into three things? He went on to inform us that we must take

care of ourselves, take care of each other, and the place.

While thinking about these three guidelines it became

apparent that achieving them can be challenging at times but

the step to do it is simple; you must respect all things.

Looking at our Nation today it is clear that lack of respect

creates the most conflict in our Nation. Our negligence to

respect each other's bodies, opinions, ethnicities, races,

backgrounds and beliefs leads us to discrimination, hatred

and prejudice. We see endless examples in our lives today.

The lack of respect for one another's opinion is vividly

apparent in politics today. The Pew Research Center recently

reported how the partisan divide on our Nation's politics is

increasing. A study concluded, ``The shares of Republicans

and Democrats who express very unfavorable opinions of the

opposing party have increased dramatically since the 1990's,

but have changed little in recent years.'' This is alarming

because if we as people cannot see others perspective, we

will not be able to collaborate or work with one another to

collectively strengthen our Nation. By respecting others'

opinions we can gain insight and also learn their specific

needs.

Not only is respect lacking towards each other's opinions,

but to others wellbeing as we have recently seen millions of

women come forward with stories of sexual abuse. Not only in

our Nation's history but in present day, women are treated as

objects. Just within the last twenty four hours, additional

notable people have come forward with their previous stories

of harassment such as Reese Witherspoon, Jennifer Lawrence

and Molly Ringwald, not to mention the 12 million others who

have also shared their own stories on Facebook.

Looking back, maybe our principal had a point. To function

not only as a school, but as a community or even a nation we

must have respect. To advance our Nation from its biggest

struggles and alleviate the consequences that come with it,

each person must learn how to see out of another's eyes. Each

person must treat one another with dignity. Respect is

important to our country because it allows us to adjoin

together as one. Our Nation was created upon respect and

embracing one another for their differences. Each person's

difference allows us to be the unique nation we are today. We

must embrace and respect every opinion that each one of us

has, every talent each one of us possesses and every person

each one of us is.

name withheld upon request, burlington school district, senior

The biggest issue we face in America today is that we

neglect our incarcerated population. I'm part of the juvenile

incarcerated population, and as a resident I don't feel like

I'm getting the appropriate treatment I need. I was already

here once and the skills I learned were not enough to keep me

from coming back.

Incarcerated people need to be given the opportunity and

resources to identify what gets them in trouble and to work

on their problems. If a person has a history of violent

behaviors and is incarcerated because of his behaviors, he

shouldn't be doing groups on drugs and alcohol. Instead he

should be focusing his time and attention on working to

better his violent behaviors so he can be successful when he

gets out.

Another issue is that there are many young people in the

system who do not need to be. There are almost 7,000 youth

behind bars for ``technical violations'' of their probation.

Also, about 600 youth are behind bars for ``status offense,''

which are behaviors that are not law violations for adults,

such as running away, truancy, and incorrigibility.

There are another 840,000 people on parole and about 3.7

million people on probation. I would like to see better

support for these people who come out of jail. If previously

incarcerated people relapse for certain types of offenses

like drug and alcohol offenses, breaking curfew, or violating

probation, they should be given opportunities to fix that

before it becomes a pattern, rather than being thrown back in

jail.

I also think they should have more adult programs like

juveniles have such as short or longterm programs away from

their environment. A placement that juveniles go to after

being released from a locked facility is called a step down.

Laraway is an example of this, where a juvenile can go and be

allowed back in the community. They are given the opportunity

and supports to help them find a job and enroll back in

school.

I hope that policymakers and the public carefully consider

better treatment within locked facilities and alternatives to

incarceration for people who are not a threat to public

safety. We should ask whether legitimate social goals are

served by maintaining the status quo.