Floor Statements

Mr. President, today as the chairman of the committee I have introduced the most comprehensive piece of veterans legislation that we have seen in a very long time. The Comprehensive Veterans Health and Benefit and Military Retirement Pay Restoration Act of 2014 delivers on the promises that we have made to our servicemembers and I believe will have the support of Members of the Senate and of the House. It addresses virtually every single issue the veterans community has been concerned about.

What we have done now is taken two omnibus bills and wrapped them into this legislation. In addition, we have taken other pieces of legislation passed by the committee, and we have added to that based on some recent developments.

This legislation is the product of a year of bipartisan work and includes provisions important to almost every single veterans service organization and dozens of Members of the Senate, Republican, Democrat, and Independent, many of which were reported out of the Veterans' Affairs Committee with strong bipartisan support.

This legislation completely eliminates the cuts that were made to the military retiree cost-of-living adjustments. I know there was great concern here in the Senate from Democrats and Republicans about that cut, as well as in the House of Representatives. I am happy to say this legislation completely eliminates the cuts that were made to the military retiree cost-of-living adjustments.

As we all know, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 that was passed a few days ago would lower cost-of-living adjustments for military retirees by reducing the annual adjustment by 1 percent until age 62. The American people have spoken very loudly and very clearly. They have told the Congress to restore those cuts to military retirees and we have listened. I applaud the House and the Senate for restoring these cuts for disabled military retirees and survivors in the appropriations act we passed today. Today we took care of part of the problem. But we have to do more. What the comprehensive veterans bill I have introduced today does is restore the full COLA to all military retirees, every single retiree. This bill restores these COLAs and does much more.

I wish to take a moment to highlight some of the key provisions of this comprehensive piece of legislation. Let me say, this legislation is based on listening very carefully to what the veterans organizations have told us in private meetings, in hearings, and at some of the very large hearings we have held with the American Legion, the VFW, the DAV, and many other service organizations. Let me briefly touch on some of the provisions we are addressing, some of the concerns we are addressing in this comprehensive veterans legislation which, I should add, is fully paid for. It is fully paid for.

In the first omnibus bill that we passed, S. 944, the Veterans Health and Benefits Improvement Act of 2013, we dealt with in-State tuition assistance for post-9/11 veterans, an issue of great concern to young veterans and to all of the veterans organizations. This package includes provisions the committee's ranking member Senator Burr and I worked together on, that would help servicemembers transition back into civilian life by making recently separated veterans eligible for tuition at the in-State rate.

Given the nature of our Armed Forces, servicemembers have little to no say as to where they reside during military service. Therefore, many of these servicemembers have not had sufficient time to establish residency by the time they go back to school. This legislation would help the transition of our brave men and women who have sacrificed so much in defense of our country by giving them a fair shot at attaining educational goals without incurring an additional financial burden. We address that issue in this legislation.

Clearly one of the issues that has been an embarrassment to all of us is the degree of sexual assault we have seen in the military. What this legislation does is address that issue as well. While the Pentagon, Congress, and other stakeholders continue to work to end sexual assault within the military, something we have to focus on, we must nonetheless do everything we can to ensure that the VA is a welcoming place for those who have survived sexual assault. That is why this legislation includes important provisions that would improve the delivery of care and benefits to individuals who experience sexual trauma by serving in the military. These provisions were inspired by Ruth Moore, a veteran who struggled for 23 years to receive VA disability compensation.

It would expand access to VA counseling and care to active-duty servicemembers and members of the Guard and Reserve who experienced sexual assault during inactive-duty training. It also takes a number of steps to improve the adjudication of disability compensation claims based on military sexual trauma.

This legislation will give the VA additional tools to provide victims of sexual trauma with the care and benefits they need to confront the emotional and physical consequences of these horrific acts. Sexual assault in the military is unacceptable and this committee is, in a significant way, addressing that issue.

One of the concerns we have heard from many veterans and veterans organizations is the issue of overmedication. Many of our veterans come back and receive in some cases 5, 10 different types of pills to address some of the very serious problems they have. What this bill does is expand, among many other things, access to complementary and alternative medicine. The VA already does a good job in that area. This would expand their capability to provide complementary and alternative medicine.

Maintaining the VA's world-class health care system remains a priority for our committee. I am pleased we were able to respond to calls from veterans to increase access to complementary and alternative medicine for the treatment of chronic pain, mental health conditions, and chronic disease. By expanding access to these treatment options-- options such as acupuncture, meditation, massage therapy, and many others--we can enhance the likelihood veterans get the care they need in the way that works for them. These treatments are becoming more and more popular. More and more veterans want access to them and that is what we do in this legislation.

Additionally, this legislation calls for the VA to promote healthy weight in veterans by increasing their access to fitness facilities as a healthy weight is critical to combating multiple chronic diseases, including diabetes and heart disease. In other words, the

most cost-effective and best way to treat disease is to prevent that disease by making sure our veterans have the opportunity to keep healthy. This legislation does that as well.

This legislation further honors as veterans certain persons who performed service in the Reserve components of the Armed Forces. I know how important this provision is for all those who wore this Nation's uniforms as members of the Reserves. I am pleased we will finally honor their service with passage of this legislation.

This legislation also expands benefits for surviving spouses, for the spouses of those who gave their lives to defend this country. I want to make special note of provisions that will be included in this package that would also strengthen the benefits and services provided to surviving family members by addressing a number of concerns brought to the attention of this committee by the Gold Star Wives in testimony last year.

Obviously the Gold Star Wives are the spouses of those soldiers who died in combat. Specifically, this bill would provide additional dependency and indemnity compensation for surviving spouses with children in order to provide financial support in the difficult period following the loss of a loved one. This bill would also expand the Marine Gunnery Sergeant John David Fry Scholarship to include surviving spouses of members of the Armed Forces who died in the line of duty. That means surviving spouses would become eligible for post-9/11 GI bill benefits, setting them and their families up for success in the years to follow.

One of the issues that has occupied a great deal of time and energy on the committee deals with claim processing. We all know that for the last number of years the VA has had a very significant backlog. That is clearly not acceptable. When a veteran brings forth a claim, that claim should be processed in a reasonable period of time with a reasonable degree of accuracy. We are all too well familiar with the challenges of the claims backlog. I am very pleased to see that the VA is making significant progress on this complex issue. They are going from paper to digital. That is a huge process. As a result, the backlog is declining. That is good news, but we have to do more.

This legislation would support VA's ongoing efforts and would make needed improvements to the claims system. Among a number of claims- related provisions, this bill for the first time would require the Department to publicly report on both claims processing goals and actual production. This would allow Congress and the public to closely track and measure VA's progress on this difficult issue. The Secretary of the VA Eric Shinseki has proposed a very ambitious goal for the end of 2015. We want to make sure they are on track.

That is some of the provisions included in the first bill. Let me talk a little about bit about the second omnibus bill. Both of those bills passed unanimously out of committee. The Comprehensive Veterans Health and Benefits and Military Retirement Pay Restoration Act of 2014 includes provisions from S. 1581, a second omnibus bill that moved out of the committee with unanimous support at the November markup. Here are some of the provisions in that omnibus.

The improvement and expansion of dental care. I don't know about New Mexico, but I can tell you that in Vermont, and in fact in many parts of this country, inability to access affordable dental care is a major crisis. It is true for the general public and it is true for veterans as well. The truth is, right now the VA, with the exception of service- connected oral problems, does not provide dental care to our veterans. I think that is a very significant omission.

What this legislation does is, starting off with a large-scale pilot project, begin the effort to make sure dental care becomes part of VA health care. This is something that I think the veterans throughout this country will be very excited to learn about and to participate in.

Those are some of the provisions that were in the two omnibus bills, and they passed unanimously.

Let me talk about some other legislation that came out of the committee, in some cases with bipartisan support, but not unanimously. The first one deals with advanced appropriations for the VA; that is, S. 932, the Putting Veterans Funding First Act of 2013. That was introduced, as I recall, by Senators Begich and Boozman in a bipartisan way. Here is the story, which is very important: As we saw last year, in the event of a prolonged government shutdown, the Veterans' Administration would not have been able to issue disability compensation or pension payments or provide educational benefit to millions of deserving veterans.

The truth is that during that shutdown, we were perhaps a week or 10 days away from disabled veterans, and others, not getting the benefits so many of them depend upon. It is what they depend upon to buy groceries, it is what they depend upon to pay a mortgage, and to make their car payments. We were a week or 10 days away from those veterans not getting those benefits.

I am happy to say that in this legislation we have addressed that issue, and we have moved forward with advanced appropriations for mandatory accounts at the VA.

Our economy is making slow progress. We are creating jobs, but nobody believes we are anywhere near where we want to be. Real unemployment in this country is close to 13 percent. In my view, we owe a great deal to our veterans who have left their families, their jobs, gone abroad, and then when they come back, they are unable to find employment. What our legislation does is put into this comprehensive bill the Renew Our VOW to Hire Heroes, S. 6, the Putting Veterans Back to Work Act of 2013. This legislation would reauthorize provisions from the VOW to Hire Heroes Act, including a 2-year extension to the Veterans Training Assistance Program which retrains unemployed veterans for high-demand occupations. There are other employment provisions in this legislation as well.

Several years ago, under the leadership of our colleague Patty Murray, who was my predecessor as chair of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, we proudly passed the Caregivers Act. The Caregivers Act was a very important piece of legislation which said to families who were taking care of disabled veterans: We understand what you are doing is very difficult, and we are going to give you some assistance.

The legislation we had passed dealt with post-9/11 veterans and their families. After listening to the concerns of pre-9/11 veterans and their family members, I introduced S. 851, the Caregivers Expansion and Improvement Act of 2013 to extend eligibility for the caregivers programs to veterans' families of all eras. So we took this program, which was working well, and we said we are going to pay attention to the needs of all families who are taking care of men and women who put their lives on the line to defend us and have become disabled, and that is in this legislation as well.

Also in this legislation is language which will extend eligibility to enroll in VA health care, and that is S. 1604. We all know that early diagnosis of health care conditions is critically important. Under the current law, recently separated veterans have 5 years of free health care from the VA. This legislation would extend the period of time for these individuals, including members of the active component, the National Guard, and Reserves. They will be eligible to enroll in the VA health care system for 10 years post deployment. We go from 5 years to 10 years.

This benefit has been incredibly helpful to our most recent generation of servicemembers, and extending the enrollment period will allow more individuals to take advantage of VA's high-quality, cost- effective health care system, including important access to mental health care services.

Additionally, this legislation simplifies the process for determining eligibility for enrollment in VA health care for lower income veterans. Currently VA uses an extremely complex calculation of geographic income thresholds that vary from county to county. You can have one veteran in one county in Vermont, another person living a mile away, and one is eligible for VA health care because of his or her income, but another person with the same income is not eligible. My legislation establishes one income threshold per State, simplifies the process, and

will enable more veterans to be eligible for VA health care.

This legislation also includes S. 131, the Women Veterans and Other Health Care Improvements Act of 2013. With the widespread use of improvised explosive devices throughout Iraq and Afghanistan, both female and male servicemembers have found themselves with increased risk of spinal cord, reproductive, and urinary tract injury. Many of these veterans dreamed of starting a family, but their injuries prevented them from conceiving, and this legislation will help them fulfill their dreams.

We have three more important provisions I want to briefly touch upon, and that is, once again, the restoration of full COLA for all military retirees. In an effort to address concerns regarding the cost-of-living adjustments for all military retirees, this bill would reaffirm the commitment Congress made to our servicemembers and veterans by ensuring consistent and appropriate funding for military retirees and veterans. This very important provision is in this legislation.

Furthermore, there has been a concern that many CBOCs, community- based outreach clinics, that have been planned all over this country have been unable to be built for a variety of technical reasons. We addressed that issue as well. This bill also improves access to mental health treatment for veterans.

Let me conclude by saying we give a lot of speeches about the respect we have for the men and women who put their lives on the line to defend this country. They have come forward through the veterans committee and they have said: We have concerns. We have concerns about health care; we have concerns about how quickly the benefits that we apply for come to us. They have been very loud and clear in saying--and we agree with them--that it is unacceptable that pensions promised to veterans have been cut. There have been many other issues dealing with employment and dealing with education.

What this bill does in a comprehensive way is to say to the veterans of this country--the millions and millions of people who have given so much to us--we hear your concerns. We hear your concerns, and we are going to address your concerns.

I want to take this moment to thank majority leader Senator Reid. He has been very supportive of not only veterans in general but supportive of this effort to make sure we keep our promises to the veterans of this country. That bill has been introduced. My hope is we can get it to the floor as soon as possible.

I hope very much that although there is a partisan climate, that on this issue of keeping our promises to the men and women who have put their lives on the line to defend this country, we can come together as a Senate and as a House and have the President sign this bill which will mean so much to so many.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today as the chairman of the committee I have introduced the most comprehensive piece of veterans legislation that we have seen in a very long time. The Comprehensive Veterans Health and Benefit and Military Retirement Pay Restoration Act of 2014 delivers on the promises that we have made to our servicemembers and I believe will have the support of Members of the Senate and of the House. It addresses virtually every single issue the veterans community has been concerned about.

What we have done now is taken two omnibus bills and wrapped them into this legislation. In addition, we have taken other pieces of legislation passed by the committee, and we have added to that based on some recent developments.

This legislation is the product of a year of bipartisan work and includes provisions important to almost every single veterans service organization and dozens of Members of the Senate, Republican, Democrat, and Independent, many of which were reported out of the Veterans' Affairs Committee with strong bipartisan support.

This legislation completely eliminates the cuts that were made to the military retiree cost-of-living adjustments. I know there was great concern here in the Senate from Democrats and Republicans about that cut, as well as in the House of Representatives. I am happy to say this legislation completely eliminates the cuts that were made to the military retiree cost-of-living adjustments.

As we all know, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 that was passed a few days ago would lower cost-of-living adjustments for military retirees by reducing the annual adjustment by 1 percent until age 62. The American people have spoken very loudly and very clearly. They have told the Congress to restore those cuts to military retirees and we have listened. I applaud the House and the Senate for restoring these cuts for disabled military retirees and survivors in the appropriations act we passed today. Today we took care of part of the problem. But we have to do more. What the comprehensive veterans bill I have introduced today does is restore the full COLA to all military retirees, every single retiree. This bill restores these COLAs and does much more.

I wish to take a moment to highlight some of the key provisions of this comprehensive piece of legislation. Let me say, this legislation is based on listening very carefully to what the veterans organizations have told us in private meetings, in hearings, and at some of the very large hearings we have held with the American Legion, the VFW, the DAV, and many other service organizations. Let me briefly touch on some of the provisions we are addressing, some of the concerns we are addressing in this comprehensive veterans legislation which, I should add, is fully paid for. It is fully paid for.

In the first omnibus bill that we passed, S. 944, the Veterans Health and Benefits Improvement Act of 2013, we dealt with in-State tuition assistance for post-9/11 veterans, an issue of great concern to young veterans and to all of the veterans organizations. This package includes provisions the committee's ranking member Senator Burr and I worked together on, that would help servicemembers transition back into civilian life by making recently separated veterans eligible for tuition at the in-State rate.

Given the nature of our Armed Forces, servicemembers have little to no say as to where they reside during military service. Therefore, many of these servicemembers have not had sufficient time to establish residency by the time they go back to school. This legislation would help the transition of our brave men and women who have sacrificed so much in defense of our country by giving them a fair shot at attaining educational goals without incurring an additional financial burden. We address that issue in this legislation.

Clearly one of the issues that has been an embarrassment to all of us is the degree of sexual assault we have seen in the military. What this legislation does is address that issue as well. While the Pentagon, Congress, and other stakeholders continue to work to end sexual assault within the military, something we have to focus on, we must nonetheless do everything we can to ensure that the VA is a welcoming place for those who have survived sexual assault. That is why this legislation includes important provisions that would improve the delivery of care and benefits to individuals who experience sexual trauma by serving in the military. These provisions were inspired by Ruth Moore, a veteran who struggled for 23 years to receive VA disability compensation.

It would expand access to VA counseling and care to active-duty servicemembers and members of the Guard and Reserve who experienced sexual assault during inactive-duty training. It also takes a number of steps to improve the adjudication of disability compensation claims based on military sexual trauma.

This legislation will give the VA additional tools to provide victims of sexual trauma with the care and benefits they need to confront the emotional and physical consequences of these horrific acts. Sexual assault in the military is unacceptable and this committee is, in a significant way, addressing that issue.

One of the concerns we have heard from many veterans and veterans organizations is the issue of overmedication. Many of our veterans come back and receive in some cases 5, 10 different types of pills to address some of the very serious problems they have. What this bill does is expand, among many other things, access to complementary and alternative medicine. The VA already does a good job in that area. This would expand their capability to provide complementary and alternative medicine.

Maintaining the VA's world-class health care system remains a priority for our committee. I am pleased we were able to respond to calls from veterans to increase access to complementary and alternative medicine for the treatment of chronic pain, mental health conditions, and chronic disease. By expanding access to these treatment options-- options such as acupuncture, meditation, massage therapy, and many others--we can enhance the likelihood veterans get the care they need in the way that works for them. These treatments are becoming more and more popular. More and more veterans want access to them and that is what we do in this legislation.

Additionally, this legislation calls for the VA to promote healthy weight in veterans by increasing their access to fitness facilities as a healthy weight is critical to combating multiple chronic diseases, including diabetes and heart disease. In other words, the

most cost-effective and best way to treat disease is to prevent that disease by making sure our veterans have the opportunity to keep healthy. This legislation does that as well.

This legislation further honors as veterans certain persons who performed service in the Reserve components of the Armed Forces. I know how important this provision is for all those who wore this Nation's uniforms as members of the Reserves. I am pleased we will finally honor their service with passage of this legislation.

This legislation also expands benefits for surviving spouses, for the spouses of those who gave their lives to defend this country. I want to make special note of provisions that will be included in this package that would also strengthen the benefits and services provided to surviving family members by addressing a number of concerns brought to the attention of this committee by the Gold Star Wives in testimony last year.

Obviously the Gold Star Wives are the spouses of those soldiers who died in combat. Specifically, this bill would provide additional dependency and indemnity compensation for surviving spouses with children in order to provide financial support in the difficult period following the loss of a loved one. This bill would also expand the Marine Gunnery Sergeant John David Fry Scholarship to include surviving spouses of members of the Armed Forces who died in the line of duty. That means surviving spouses would become eligible for post-9/11 GI bill benefits, setting them and their families up for success in the years to follow.

One of the issues that has occupied a great deal of time and energy on the committee deals with claim processing. We all know that for the last number of years the VA has had a very significant backlog. That is clearly not acceptable. When a veteran brings forth a claim, that claim should be processed in a reasonable period of time with a reasonable degree of accuracy. We are all too well familiar with the challenges of the claims backlog. I am very pleased to see that the VA is making significant progress on this complex issue. They are going from paper to digital. That is a huge process. As a result, the backlog is declining. That is good news, but we have to do more.

This legislation would support VA's ongoing efforts and would make needed improvements to the claims system. Among a number of claims- related provisions, this bill for the first time would require the Department to publicly report on both claims processing goals and actual production. This would allow Congress and the public to closely track and measure VA's progress on this difficult issue. The Secretary of the VA Eric Shinseki has proposed a very ambitious goal for the end of 2015. We want to make sure they are on track.

That is some of the provisions included in the first bill. Let me talk a little about bit about the second omnibus bill. Both of those bills passed unanimously out of committee. The Comprehensive Veterans Health and Benefits and Military Retirement Pay Restoration Act of 2014 includes provisions from S. 1581, a second omnibus bill that moved out of the committee with unanimous support at the November markup. Here are some of the provisions in that omnibus.

The improvement and expansion of dental care. I don't know about New Mexico, but I can tell you that in Vermont, and in fact in many parts of this country, inability to access affordable dental care is a major crisis. It is true for the general public and it is true for veterans as well. The truth is, right now the VA, with the exception of service- connected oral problems, does not provide dental care to our veterans. I think that is a very significant omission.

What this legislation does is, starting off with a large-scale pilot project, begin the effort to make sure dental care becomes part of VA health care. This is something that I think the veterans throughout this country will be very excited to learn about and to participate in.

Those are some of the provisions that were in the two omnibus bills, and they passed unanimously.

Let me talk about some other legislation that came out of the committee, in some cases with bipartisan support, but not unanimously. The first one deals with advanced appropriations for the VA; that is, S. 932, the Putting Veterans Funding First Act of 2013. That was introduced, as I recall, by Senators Begich and Boozman in a bipartisan way. Here is the story, which is very important: As we saw last year, in the event of a prolonged government shutdown, the Veterans' Administration would not have been able to issue disability compensation or pension payments or provide educational benefit to millions of deserving veterans.

The truth is that during that shutdown, we were perhaps a week or 10 days away from disabled veterans, and others, not getting the benefits so many of them depend upon. It is what they depend upon to buy groceries, it is what they depend upon to pay a mortgage, and to make their car payments. We were a week or 10 days away from those veterans not getting those benefits.

I am happy to say that in this legislation we have addressed that issue, and we have moved forward with advanced appropriations for mandatory accounts at the VA.

Our economy is making slow progress. We are creating jobs, but nobody believes we are anywhere near where we want to be. Real unemployment in this country is close to 13 percent. In my view, we owe a great deal to our veterans who have left their families, their jobs, gone abroad, and then when they come back, they are unable to find employment. What our legislation does is put into this comprehensive bill the Renew Our VOW to Hire Heroes, S. 6, the Putting Veterans Back to Work Act of 2013. This legislation would reauthorize provisions from the VOW to Hire Heroes Act, including a 2-year extension to the Veterans Training Assistance Program which retrains unemployed veterans for high-demand occupations. There are other employment provisions in this legislation as well.

Several years ago, under the leadership of our colleague Patty Murray, who was my predecessor as chair of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, we proudly passed the Caregivers Act. The Caregivers Act was a very important piece of legislation which said to families who were taking care of disabled veterans: We understand what you are doing is very difficult, and we are going to give you some assistance.

The legislation we had passed dealt with post-9/11 veterans and their families. After listening to the concerns of pre-9/11 veterans and their family members, I introduced S. 851, the Caregivers Expansion and Improvement Act of 2013 to extend eligibility for the caregivers programs to veterans' families of all eras. So we took this program, which was working well, and we said we are going to pay attention to the needs of all families who are taking care of men and women who put their lives on the line to defend us and have become disabled, and that is in this legislation as well.

Also in this legislation is language which will extend eligibility to enroll in VA health care, and that is S. 1604. We all know that early diagnosis of health care conditions is critically important. Under the current law, recently separated veterans have 5 years of free health care from the VA. This legislation would extend the period of time for these individuals, including members of the active component, the National Guard, and Reserves. They will be eligible to enroll in the VA health care system for 10 years post deployment. We go from 5 years to 10 years.

This benefit has been incredibly helpful to our most recent generation of servicemembers, and extending the enrollment period will allow more individuals to take advantage of VA's high-quality, cost- effective health care system, including important access to mental health care services.

Additionally, this legislation simplifies the process for determining eligibility for enrollment in VA health care for lower income veterans. Currently VA uses an extremely complex calculation of geographic income thresholds that vary from county to county. You can have one veteran in one county in Vermont, another person living a mile away, and one is eligible for VA health care because of his or her income, but another person with the same income is not eligible. My legislation establishes one income threshold per State, simplifies the process, and

will enable more veterans to be eligible for VA health care.

This legislation also includes S. 131, the Women Veterans and Other Health Care Improvements Act of 2013. With the widespread use of improvised explosive devices throughout Iraq and Afghanistan, both female and male servicemembers have found themselves with increased risk of spinal cord, reproductive, and urinary tract injury. Many of these veterans dreamed of starting a family, but their injuries prevented them from conceiving, and this legislation will help them fulfill their dreams.

We have three more important provisions I want to briefly touch upon, and that is, once again, the restoration of full COLA for all military retirees. In an effort to address concerns regarding the cost-of-living adjustments for all military retirees, this bill would reaffirm the commitment Congress made to our servicemembers and veterans by ensuring consistent and appropriate funding for military retirees and veterans. This very important provision is in this legislation.

Furthermore, there has been a concern that many CBOCs, community- based outreach clinics, that have been planned all over this country have been unable to be built for a variety of technical reasons. We addressed that issue as well. This bill also improves access to mental health treatment for veterans.

Let me conclude by saying we give a lot of speeches about the respect we have for the men and women who put their lives on the line to defend this country. They have come forward through the veterans committee and they have said: We have concerns. We have concerns about health care; we have concerns about how quickly the benefits that we apply for come to us. They have been very loud and clear in saying--and we agree with them--that it is unacceptable that pensions promised to veterans have been cut. There have been many other issues dealing with employment and dealing with education.

What this bill does in a comprehensive way is to say to the veterans of this country--the millions and millions of people who have given so much to us--we hear your concerns. We hear your concerns, and we are going to address your concerns.

I want to take this moment to thank majority leader Senator Reid. He has been very supportive of not only veterans in general but supportive of this effort to make sure we keep our promises to the veterans of this country. That bill has been introduced. My hope is we can get it to the floor as soon as possible.

I hope very much that although there is a partisan climate, that on this issue of keeping our promises to the men and women who have put their lives on the line to defend this country, we can come together as a Senate and as a House and have the President sign this bill which will mean so much to so many.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, hopefully later this evening or tomorrow there will be a very important vote regarding the extension of long- term unemployment benefits. What that vote is about is to make it very clear which side we are on. Are we prepared to stand with over 1 million workers and their children and say, no, we are not going to turn our back on you, we are not going to leave you literally out in the cold, worrying how you are going to heat your home or pay your rent or put gas in your car or, as fellow Americans, we are going to stand with you and make sure you at least have some income through extended unemployment benefits coming in to your family.

I think, as we all know, the good news is that unemployment has gone down in recent years. When President Bush left office we were hemorrhaging over 700,000 jobs a month--clearly unsustainable, clearly a tragedy for our Nation. Today, while the economy is nowhere near where it needs to be, where we want it to be, the fact is we are growing several hundred thousand jobs a month. That is the good news. The bad news is that real unemployment is close to 13 percent, if we count those people who have given up looking for work and those people who are working part time when they want to work full time.

The even worse news is that long-term unemployment today is almost the highest it has ever been on record. Today it takes about 37 weeks for the average unemployed American to find a job. Today, 37 percent of unemployed Americans have been out of work for more than 6 months. Today, there are three job applicants for every one job opening. The reality is there are simply not enough jobs for the 11 million Americans who actively seek work.

If we do not extend unemployment benefits now for these 1.3 million Americans, the situation will only become worse. By the end of the year, we will be looking at close to 5 million Americans whose benefits will have been exhausted.

I understand some of my Republican friends are saying, yes, we are prepared to extend these unemployment benefits, but we need an offset. Let me suggest to some of my Republican friends that if that is their position--and I should point out that under President Bush, when long- term unemployment was not as serious a problem as it is today, under President Bush, time and time again, extended unemployment benefits were seen as an emergency and were passed without offsets. But if my Republican friends believe they desperately need an offset now that Barack Obama is President, let me suggest a few of the areas they may want to explore.

We are losing about $100 billion every single year because corporate America is putting its money into tax havens in the Cayman islands, Bermuda, and elsewhere. If we need an offset, what about telling the one out of four corporations in this country that today pays nothing in Federal taxes that we are going to end their loopholes. Are we prepared to demand that corporate America start paying its fair share of taxes so long-term unemployed Americans can afford to have food on their table or heat in their homes?

Many of my Republican colleagues believe we should repeal completely the estate tax, a tax which only applies to the top 3 percent of the wealthiest people in America. We are talking about families such as the Walton family who are worth $100 billion. If some of my Republican friends think the Walton family, the wealthiest family in America, needs another tax break while working Americans who are desperately searching for work should not get any help at all, I suggest to my Republican colleagues they are way out of touch with the values of America and the values that make this a great country.

I think there are some people who believe the folks who are long-term unemployed right now just do not want to work. That is grossly unfair and grossly untrue. Let me give a few examples. In Hagerstown, MD, 3,600 of our fellow citizens recently applied to work at a dairy farm to process milk and ice cream. This dairy farm will be hiring 36 people. Yet 3,600 people applied for those 36 jobs. Do those people want to work? They sure do.

Last October, Walmart received over 11,000 job applications for stores they are opening in Washington DC. As we all know, Walmart is not the highest paying employer in America. Yet they received 11,000 applications in the DC area at a time when they will be only hiring 1,800 workers.

That type of scenario is true in many parts of this country. An employer puts an ad in the paper, makes it known the company needs workers, and they are seeing 10 times as many workers applying for limited jobs.

The last point I wish to make is not only is this a moral issue, the issue of not turning our backs on people, some of whom who have worked for their entire lives, at this moment when they and their families have so much need--that is the moral issue--but there is an economic component as well. If a long-term unemployed worker does not get the average $300 check he or she would otherwise get, what kind of money does that person have to spend locally? What the economists tell us is that when we dry up that source of spending in communities all over this country, when people do not have the money to buy the goods and services they desperately need, that in itself, that lack of spending, will result in several hundred thousand jobs being lost in the overall economy. So not extending unemployment not only hurts the individual, it hurts our overall economy, and the economists also tell us that not extending long-term unemployment benefits will reduce our GDP by about .2 percent.

We have a moral issue. We have an economic issue. If my Republican colleagues want offsets, there are more than enough offsets available if they are prepared to ask some of the wealthiest people in this country and some of the largest corporations in America to start paying their fair share of taxes. But the bottom line is that in an economy which today is still hurting very deeply, we cannot punish people who are severely in need.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I take this opportunity to thank Senators Levin and Inhofe and the Committee on Armed Services for their very hard work on the Department of Defense authorization bill. Unfortunately, I must vote against it, and I want to take this opportunity to explain why I am voting no and to express my very serious concerns about our Nation's bloated military budget, particularly in light of the many unmet needs we face as a nation.

At a time when the United States has a $17.2 trillion national debt and when we spend almost as much on defense as the rest of the world combined, the time is long overdue for us to take a hard look at the waste, at the cost overruns, and at the financial mismanagement that have plagued the Department of Defense for decades.

As a point of comparison, the International Institute for Strategic Studies estimates total global military spending in 2012 at $1.583 trillion. The U.S. portion of that spending is over 40 percent--$645 billion. In other words, the United States is spending almost as much as the rest of the world combined on defense. We are spending about $645 billion. China spends $102 billion. The United Kingdom spends $64 billion. Russia spends $59 billion. Other countries spend less.

According to the Washington Post:

Since 2001, the base defense budget has soared from $287

billion to $530 billion--and that's before accounting for the

primary costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

In addition to the trillions spent on the war in Iraq and what seems to be a never-ending war in Afghanistan, the Department of Defense consistently engages in wasteful, inefficient, and often fraudulent spending.

At my request several years ago the Department of Defense issued a report detailing the breadth of fraud that exists within the Pentagon-- the simple issue of massive fraud. The report showed that the Pentagon paid over $573 billion during the past 10 years to more than 300 contractors involved in civil fraud cases that resulted in judgments of more than $1 million--$398 billion of which was awarded after settlement or judgment for fraud. When awards to parent companies are counted, the Pentagon paid more than $1.1 trillion during the past 10 years just to the 37 top companies engaged in fraud. The bottom line is that almost every major defense contractor in this country has in one way or another been involved in fraudulent dealings with the taxpayers of this country and the Department of Defense.

Further, above and beyond fraud, the waste at the Pentagon is rampant, and we can go on for many hours just documenting the waste, but let me give just a few--a few--of the kinds of waste that the Pentagon regularly engages in. These are just a very few examples.

In July 2013 the Pentagon decided to build a 64,000-square-foot command headquarters for the U.S. military in Afghanistan that will not be utilized or even occupied. Even though the $34 million project was deemed unwanted by military commanders 3 years ago, the military still moved ahead with construction. That is one example.

Another example. According to a report released by the Department of Defense inspector general this year, the Pentagon has been paying contractor Boeing more than $3,357 for a piece of hardware they could have purchased from their own hardware store, the Defense Logistics Agency, for $15.42. It seems to me it would be a pretty good deal to get a product for $15 that you are paying over $3,000 for, but that is the way the Pentagon runs.

Furthermore, another issue, the July 2013 Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction report includes the purchase of over $771 million worth of aircraft that the Afghans will be unable to operate and maintain. The Afghan Special Mission Wing has only one- quarter of the personnel needed to maintain and operate the fleet, and there are no existing DOD plans to reach full strength. The Pentagon is moving forward with purchases. Most of that money--$553 million--has been awarded to a Russian company that also sells weapons to Syria.

These are just a few examples. Needless to say, there are many more.

A recent article in Mother Jones has some interesting numbers about our military spending. According to the article, 70 percent of the value of the Federal Government's $1.8 trillion in property, land, and equipment belongs to the Pentagon. The American people will no doubt be interested in understanding that the Pentagon operates more than 170 golf courses worldwide.

At a time when we now spend almost as much as the rest of the world combined on defense, we can make judicious cuts in our Armed Forces without compromising our military capability. I think everybody in the Congress believes and understands that we need a strong defense--no debate about that--but we do not need a defense budget that is bloated, that is wasteful, and that has in it many areas of fraud.

In this respect, I hope my Republican colleagues and, in fact, all of my colleagues remember what former President Dwight Eisenhower, a good Republican, said on April 16, 1953, just as he was leaving office. What he said then was profound, and it is as true today as when he said it 60 years ago. This is what he said:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every

rocket signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who

hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not

clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It

is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its

scientists, the hopes of its children. . . . This is not a

way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of

threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

I would ask all of my colleagues to remember what Eisenhower said and understand that today, when we have this bloated and huge military budget, there are people who are talking about massive cuts in food stamps, massive cuts in education, massive cuts in affordable housing, cuts in Social Security, cuts in Medicare, cuts in Medicaid. I would argue very strongly that before we cut from the elderly and the children and the sick and the poor, maybe we take a hard look at this bloated military budget.

That is my view, but let me mention what the Cato Institute has to say--not Bernie Sanders but the Cato Institute, one of the most conservative organizations in this country. Here is what the Cato Institute said on May 3, 2013. By the way, as I think most people know, my views are as far apart as possible from the Cato Institute on most issues. This is what the Cato Institute said. Some of my conservative Republican friends might want to pay attention to this quote:

U.S. military spending is far too excessive for legitimate

defense needs. . . . After sequestration we will still spend

more [on defense], against much less severe threats, than at

the peak of the Cold War. . . . The U.S. now accounts for 44

percent of all global military spending. Put another way, the

U.S. spends nearly as much on the military as the rest of the

world combined. . . . Twenty percent of the U.S. federal

budget is devoted to military spending, while the average--

And this is an important point made by Cato--

for our NATO allies is a mere 3.6 percent. Five percent of

U.S. annual GDP is allocated to the military, but for the

NATO countries, Japan and China, it is well below 2 percent.

. . . Today the amount Washington spends on the military each

year is $2,300 a person in the U.S. The comparable obligation

for the average NATO country is $503 a person. For China it

is less than $200 a person.

That is not Bernie Sanders; that is the Cato Institute.

The situation is so absurd that the Pentagon is unable to even account for how it spends its money. Earlier this year the Government Accountability Office cited its inability--that is, the GAO's ability-- to audit the Pentagon. They wrote that they were unable to do a comprehensive financial analysis due to ``serious financial management problems at the Department of Defense that made its financial statements unauditable.'' That is from the Government Accountability Office. So we are voting for a budget that the GAO says they cannot even audit--for the most expensive agency in government.

Let me now quote from an article that appeared in the Washington Post on August 29, 2013. The defense budget--a purposefully opaque document--includes what is known as the black budget. The information I am providing here comes from the Washington post--$52.6 billion that funds the CIA, NSA, and other secret intelligence agencies. The CIA, NSA, and National Reconnaissance Office receive more than 68 percent of the black budget, with the NSA receiving $10.8 billion annually. At a time when the NSA has

been engaging in what I consider to be unconstitutional activities--the widespread collection of American citizens' data--I think we can find the ability to make some cuts in what they are doing.

I support a strong defense for our country and a robust National Guard and Reserve that can meet our domestic and foreign challenges. The National Guard provides a well-trained, disciplined, and operationally ready force for a fraction of the cost that Active-Duty soldiers require. The Reserve Forces do not require nearly the same level of overhead in terms of full-time employment and infrastructure costs. So as we move forward trying to develop how we have a cost- effective defense, I think we should put a great deal of emphasis on our National Guard and on the Reserve.

Let me conclude by saying in America today our middle class is struggling. We have more people living in poverty than at any time in the history of our country. Real unemployment is over 13 percent; youth unemployment, 20 percent; African-American youth unemployment, close to 40 percent

We have an infrastructure which is crumbling. We have large numbers of young people graduating from college deeply in debt. We have others who cannot even afford to go to college because of the high cost of college. In other words, this country faces monumental problems. On top of that, we have a $17.2 trillion national debt.

It would seem to me that it is important we get our priorities straight. One of the priorities we should be getting straight is that we cannot give the Department of Defense all they want. It is time to take a very hard look at that budget in a way we have not done up to this point.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I rise today to urge Senate passage of S. 944, the Veterans Health and Benefits Improvement Act of 2013. This bipartisan legislation is the result of months of hard work by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. This legislation was passed out of committee by voice vote. There were no objections that took place on July 24, and this legislation is paid for.

Furthermore, this legislation is supported by nearly every major veteran and military service organization in our country, including the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the Military Officers Association of America, the American Legion, the Vietnam Veterans of America, the Association of the United States Navy, the Reserve Officers Association, the Jewish War Veterans, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States, the National Association for Uniformed Services, AMVETS, Gold Star Wives, and the National Congress of American Indians.

In fact, I think it would be a very good statement about what we are trying do as a nation if the Senate could pass this comprehensive veterans bill before we adjourn so we can get about the business of working with our House colleagues to get important veterans legislation passed by both bodies signed into law.

I will briefly highlight some of the key provisions of this very important piece of legislation.

Again, this legislation is bipartisan; it came out of the committee unanimously; and it has the support of virtually every veterans organization.

Ranking Member Burr and I have worked together on a provision that would help servicemembers transition back into civilian life by making recently separated veterans eligible for tuition at the instate rates. This has been a very contentious issue, but what we do is make recently separated veterans eligible for tuition at the instate rate, which is something many of the veterans organizations and people all over this country have wanted.

Given the nature of our Armed Forces, servicemembers have little to say as to where they serve and where they reside during military service. This legislation would help our brave men and women who have sacrificed so much in the defense of our country transition by giving them a fair shot at attaining their educational goals without incurring an additional financial burden simply because they chose to serve their country.

I know this issue was discussed a great deal in the House and it was discussed here a great deal, and we have reached resolution on this important issue.

Further, while the Pentagon, Congress, and other stakeholders continue to work to end sexual assault within the ranks--this is an enormously important issue--I want to do everything within my power as chairman of the VA to ensure that the VA is a warm and welcoming place for those survivors of military assault. That is why this legislation contains important provisions that would improve the delivery of care and benefits to veterans who experience sexual trauma while serving in the military. This was inspired by Ruth Moore, who struggled for 23 years to receive VA disability compensation.

It would expand access to VA counseling and care to members of the Guard and Reserves who experience sexual assault during inactive-duty training. It also takes a number of steps to improve the adjudication of claims based on military sexual trauma.

This legislation would give the VA additional tools to do all it can to provide victims of sexual trauma with the care and benefits they need to confront the emotional and physical consequences of these horrific acts. Maintaining the VA's world-class health care system remains a priority for this committee, and this legislation does just that.

I am pleased we were able to respond to calls from veterans to increase access to complementary and alternative medicine for the treatment of chronic pain, mental health conditions, and chronic disease. By expanding the availability of these treatment options, we can enhance the likelihood that veterans get the treatment they need in ways that work for them.

Additionally, this legislation calls for the VA to promote healthy weight in veterans by increasing their access to fitness facilities. A healthy weight is critical to combating multiple chronic diseases, including diabetes and heart disease. By managing veterans' obesity, we can both improve their overall health and reduce the costs to the health care system.

Every Member of this body knows all too well the challenges of the claims backlog. I am pleased to see that the VA is making progress on this complex issue, but much more remains to be done. This legislation supports VA's ongoing efforts and would make needed improvements to the claims system. Among a number of claims-related provisions, this bill, for the first time, would require the Department of Veterans Affairs to publicly report on both claims processing goals and actual production. This would allow Congress and the public to closely track and measure VA's progress on this difficult issue.

This bill also addresses a number of concerns presented to the Veterans' Affairs Committee by the Gold Star Wives earlier this year by improving the benefits and services provided to surviving spouses.

The Veterans Health and Benefits Improvement Act would provide additional dependency and indemnity compensation for surviving spouses with children in order to provide financial support during the difficult period following the loss of a loved one.

This bill also expands the Marine Gunnery Sergeant John David Fry Scholarship to include surviving spouses of members of the Armed Forces who died in the line of duty.

The Veterans Health and Benefits Improvement Act contains provisions that will improve the lives of our Nation's servicemembers, veterans, and their survivors. I am proud of the bipartisan manner in which the Veterans' Affairs Committee has conducted its business to produce this important legislation. Our veterans deserve far more help from the Congress than they have received.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 258, S. 944; that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; that the committee-reported title amendment be agreed to; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Well, I am disappointed that there is objection to a bill that came out of committee without objection, that was done in a bipartisan manner, that is paid for, and that has the support of virtually every veterans organization.

I hope that even though there is an objection to the unanimous consent, there would not be an objection to a rollcall vote on this bill.

I understand the Senator's objection. I am disappointed. It takes forever to get anything done in this body, and we have a situation now where we have seen a process develop in the Committee on Veterans' Affairs by which there has been bipartisan support. It is kind of the way things are supposed to be done. Yet because of the objection, we are going to be unable to move forward in the way I think most of the Members want.

Thank you very much. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Murray, and several of my colleagues regarding the not-for-profit student loan servicing provisions in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013.

Is it your understanding and intent that the not-for-profit servicing provision in this act does not require the termination of the existing Federal loan servicing contracts of any not-for-profit servicers who are currently servicing Federal loans?

Is it further the understanding and intent of the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee that the Education Department will continue to enter into contracts with not-for-profit servicers based on their performance?

Mr. President, there is a reason why the favorability rating of the Congress is somewhere, on a good day, around 10 percent. The reason I think is pretty simple: The American people are hurting. They look to their elected officials to try to do something to address the problems they have and the crises facing our country. Time after time, they see the Congress not only not responding to the needs they face but in many cases doing exactly the opposite. In poll after poll, the American people tell us the most pressing issue they face deals with the economy and high unemployment.

When we look in the newspapers, we are told the official unemployment rate is 7 percent. By the way, that is a rate which has in recent months gone down, and that is a good thing. But the truth is, if you include people who have given up looking for work and people who are working part time when they want to work full time, real unemployment in this country is 13.2 percent. That is enormously high.

The unemployment rate for our young people is close to 20 percent, and there are parts of the country where it is higher than that. African-American youth unemployment is close to 40 percent.

So what we are looking at all over this country are millions and millions of people who want jobs, who want to work, and who can't find those jobs. We are looking at a younger generation of workers who cannot get into the economy. If you are a young person and you leave high school, for example, and you can't get a job in your first year out there or your second year, if you think

this does not have a cataclysmic impact on your confidence, on your self-esteem, you are very mistaken.

I fear very much and worry very much about the millions of young people out there who are not in school, who are not working. Tragically, many of those young people will end up on drugs. Some of them are going to end up in jail. These are issues we have to consider.

What the American people tell us over and over is: Yes, the deficit is a serious problem. I believe it is. Everybody in the Congress believes it is. But what the American people also say is: High unemployment is an even more serious issue.

According to a March 2013 Gallup poll, 75 percent of the American people, including 56 percent of Republicans, 74 percent of Independents, and 93 percent of Democrats, support ``a Federal job creation law that would spend government money for a program designed to create more than 1 million new jobs.''

What the American people are saying is, yes, we have made progress in the last 4 years. We have cut the deficit in half. We have to do more. But what the American people are saying loudly and clearly is that we need to create jobs.

What they also understand, and poll after poll indicates this, is that when we have an infrastructure that is crumbling--roads, bridges, water systems, wastewater plants, our rail system--when we have an infrastructure that is crumbling, we need to invest in rebuilding that infrastructure. When we do that, we create significant numbers of jobs. That is what the American people want us to do. When is the last time you even heard that debate here on the floor of the Senate?

The unemployment crisis, the need to create jobs--that is what the American people want us to do, and we are not even talking about that issue.

There is a second issue about which the American people are very clear. It is a funny thing--sometimes the media writes about how partisan the Congress is, how divisive the Congress is. Senator Grassley and I supposedly hate each other, we do not talk to each other, and all that nonsense. That is not the reality. The truth is that among the American people, surprisingly enough, there is a lot of consensus. I mentioned a moment ago that the American people very strongly believe that we should invest in our infrastructure and create jobs. Unfortunately, that is not what we are doing.

Here is another issue about which the American people are loud and clear. They understand that--tragically in today's economy--most of the new jobs that are being created are not good-paying jobs. That is the sad reality. Most of the new jobs that are being created in today's economy are low wage jobs and many of them are part-time jobs. If you are making $8 or $9 an hour and you are working 30 hours a week, you are going to have a very hard time supporting yourself, let alone a family.

What do the American people say? They say raise the minimum wage. Raise the minimum wage.

Let me quote from today's Wall Street Journal:

Americans strongly favor boosting the Federal minimum wage

to $10.10 an hour but oppose raising it above that, a Wall

Street Journal/NBC News poll finds. In the survey, 63 percent

supported a rise to $10.10 an hour from the current $7.25

rate.

Sixty-three percent of the American people support that. Democrats strongly support it, Independents support it, and many Republicans support it. One would think, therefore, when the vast majority of the American people understand that $7.25 an hour is a starvation wage and that we need to raise the minimum wage to at least $10.10 an hour, we would be moving on it. Maybe we would get a UC on it, a unanimous consent. Let's get it done. I fear very much that right here in the Senate we are going to have a very difficult time gaining 60 votes. I hope I am wrong, I sincerely do, but I am not aware at this point that there are any Republicans prepared to support an increase of the minimum wage to $10 an hour. I believe in the Republican-controlled House it would be extremely difficult to get legislation widely supported by the American people through that body.

But not only will my Republican colleagues not do what the American people want in terms of raising the minimum wage, quite incredibly, I have to tell you that many of my Republican colleagues do not believe in the concept of the minimum wage. Many of them believe we should abolish the concept of the minimum wage, so that if you are in a situation in a high-unemployment area where workers are desperate for work and an employer says: Here is $4 an hour; take it or leave it, that is OK for some of my Republican colleagues.

Again, we are in a situation where the vast majority of the American people want to do something about low wages. They want to raise the minimum wage, and we are going to have a very difficult time getting that legislation through. I hope I am wrong, but I do know that unless the American people stand up, get on the phone, start calling their Senators and Members of Congress, we probably will not succeed in doing what the American people want.

Interestingly enough, what the American people also understand is that raising the minimum wage will help us with the Federal deficit in a variety of ways. It may be a surprise to some Americans to know that the largest welfare recipient in the United States of America happens, coincidentally, to be the wealthiest family in America. The Walton family, which owns Walmart, is worth about $100 billion. They are the wealthiest family in America. They own more wealth as one family than the bottom 40 percent of the American people--extraordinary wealth. One of the reasons they are so wealthy is the American taxpayer subsidizes Walmart because Walmart pays low wages, provides minimal benefits, and many of their workers end up on Medicaid, they end up on food stamps, and they end up in government-subsidized housing. I am not quite sure why the middle-class working families of this country have to subsidize the Walton family because they pay wages that are inadequate for their workers to live a dignified life.

My hope is that when the American people are loud and clear about the need to raise the minimum wage, their Congress will respond, but I have to tell you that I have my doubts.

What we also hear--and most recently from Pope Francis--is an understanding that there is something profoundly wrong about a nation and increasingly a world in which so few have so much and so many have so little. In the United States of America today we have more wealth and income inequality than at any time since the late 1920s, and we have more wealth and income inequality than any other major country on Earth. Today the top 1 percent of our population owns 38 percent of the wealth of America, financial wealth of this country, and the bottom 60 percent owns 2.3 percent. The top 1 percent owns 38 percent of the wealth of America, and the bottom 60 percent owns 2.3 percent. Is that really what America is supposed to be about? I think not. I think Pope Francis recently talked about that issue. He talked about the moral aspects of that issue. He is exactly right.

Those are some of the issues we have to talk about.

Another issue out there that I think we have to be very clear about-- and again the American people are extraordinarily clear about this--the American people understand that Social Security has been probably the most successful Federal program in the modern history of this country. For the last 70-plus years it has kept seniors out of poverty. In fact, before Social Security 50 percent of seniors in this country lived in poverty. Today that number, while too high, is about 9.5 percent. That is a significant improvement. And Social Security, despite what is going on in the economy--in good times and bad times--has never once failed to pay all of the benefits owed to every eligible American.

Today Social Security has a $2.7 trillion surplus. It can pay every benefit owed to every eligible American for the next 20 years. Do you know what the American people say about Social Security? They say it loudly and clearly. Republicans say it, Independents say it, and Democrats say it. Do not cut Social Security. Do not cut Social Security. Yet I have to tell you that virtually all Republicans think we should cut Social Security. Some Democrats believe we should cut Social Security. The President of the United States has talked about a chained CPI--a very bad idea--about cutting Social Security.

Maybe we should listen to the American people and make it very clear: No, we are not going to cut Social Security. In fact, we are going to take a new look at Social Security and see how we can make it solvent not just for 20 years but for 50 years and in addition to that increase benefits. There are pretty easy ways to do that, including lifting the cap on taxable income that goes into the Social Security trust fund. As you know, today, if somebody makes $100 million and somebody makes $113,000, they both contribute the same amount into the Social Security trust fund. Lift that cap. You can start at $250,000, and you will solve the Social Security solvency issue for the next 50 or 60 years. That is exactly what we should do, and that is what the American people want us to do.

In terms of Medicare, people say Medicare has financial problems, and it does. The issue--and interestingly enough, it gets back to what Senator Graham was talking about. He was talking about his health care plan in South Carolina. It sounds like a pretty bad plan to me, I agree with him. What is the issue there? The issue we have to look at, which we don't for obvious issues, is how does it happen that in the United States of America--before the Affordable Care Act; things will change a little bit--before the Affordable Care Act, we have 48 million people who are uninsured, we have tens of millions more people who have high deductibles, like Senator Graham--a $6,000 deductible is incomprehensible--and high copayments. At the end of the day, 48 million people uninsured, high deductibles, high copayments, health outcomes that are not particularly good--better than some countries, worse than other countries--infant mortality worse, longevity worse, life expectancy worse, yet we end up spending twice as much per person on health care as any other nation. How does that happen? How do we spend so much and get so little value? Is that an issue we are prepared to discuss? I guess not because the private insure companies say: Don't talk about that. We are making a whole lot of money out of the current health care system, including the Affordable Care Act. We make a lot of money, our CEOs do. Yes, we are spending 30 cents of every dollar on administrative costs, on bureaucracy, on advertising. Don't touch that because that is the American health care system. I suggest we have to take a hard look at what goes on in the rest of the world.

People have said we have the best health care system in the world. That is not what the American people say. The polls I have seen show that there is less satisfaction with our system than exists in other countries around the world, for obvious reasons. We spend a lot. We get relatively little.

Are we prepared as a Congress to stand up to the insurance companies? Are we prepared to stand up to the drug companies that charge us far higher prices for prescription drugs than any other country on Earth? Are we prepared to stand up to the medical equipment suppliers?

I don't think so because that gets us into the issue of campaign finance, where people get their money to run for office, because these guys contribute a whole lot of money.

Are we prepared to stand up to Wall Street? We have six financial institutions on Wall Street that have assets of over $9 trillion-- equivalent to two-thirds of the GDP of the United States of America. They write half of the mortgages in this country, two-thirds of the credit cards. Do you think maybe it is time to break up these guys or are we going to march down the path of too big to fail and have to bail them out again? Do you hear a whole lot of discussion about that, Mr. President? No, not too often.

Let me conclude. We had the president of the World Bank here yesterday talking about global warming. As I think most people know, the entire--well, virtually the entire scientific community, people who study the issue of global warming, understands that the planet is warming significantly, that it is already causing devastating problems, that the issue is manmade, and that if we do not address this crisis by cutting greenhouse gas emissions and moving away from fossil fuels, the habitability of this planet for our kids and our grandchildren will be very much in question. That is what the scientific community says. Have you heard any debate on this floor about how we are going to aggressively transform our energy system? We do not do it.

Let me conclude by saying this. There is a reason the Congress has a favorability rating of about 10 percent, and that is that the American people are hurting and we are not responding to that pain. We are not addressing the many crises facing this country, and the American people are saying to Congress: What world do you live in? How about joining our world? How about changing your attention to our needs?

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, when people think of government, some of the first words that may come to mind are politics and bureaucracy, two things that tend to stifle progress. Today, however, I have the great pleasure of honoring someone who has spent her many years on the Hill overcoming these barriers. She has implemented changes and fixed problems to improve the lives of veterans and their families in a very real way. Now, as she moves into retirement, she leaves behind an example to which we should all aspire.

Mary Ellen McCarthy has spent the last 7 years of her distinguished career serving as the lead investigator for the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the decade before that as staff director for two subcommittees of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. In that time, she has visited nearly every Department of Veterans Affairs regional office and reviewed thousands of benefits claims. She has not only identified gaps in services to veterans and their families, but also problems within VA. Most importantly, Mary Ellen never rested with the identification of a problem. Instead, she found solutions to meet the needs of veterans and their families and worked relentlessly to ensure they were put into place as quickly as possible.

Among her many achievements, Mary Ellen will be forever recognized for her extraordinary work in ensuring Vietnam era veterans and their families receive the benefits to which they are entitled. She has worked tirelessly to identify the many veterans whose exposure to dangerous toxins was previously overlooked. Her efforts have helped veterans with service on the inland waterways of Vietnam, along the DMZ in Korea, and on the perimeters of Air Force Bases in Thailand. Her work has led to vindication and assistance to those suffering from health problems related to Agent Orange exposure. Her efforts did not stop with the veterans themselves, however. She also brought attention to the children who are born with spina bifida, as a result of their parents' exposure to Agent Orange.

So much of Mary Ellen's work has focused on those most in need-- elderly and low-income veterans and surviving family members. For example, one of Mary Ellen's investigations revealed the surviving spouses of veterans who had been receiving VA disability benefits were not receiving the payments to which they were entitled during the month of their spouse's passing. These payments not only help with funeral costs, but provide some time to make other financial arrangements. Her discovery of this oversight and subsequent actions resulted in approximately 200,000 surviving spouses receiving more than $124 million in benefits, allowing them to focus on moving forward after the death of a loved one.

Mary Ellen has also been heavily involved in working toward elimination of the claims backlog, a challenge that has plagued the Department for decades and caused far too many veterans unnecessary hardship. Before she came to Capitol Hill, she spent two decades working as a nurse and then a lawyer, helping low-income and elderly individuals obtain government benefits. This experience gave her a unique insight into the challenges of claims processing and she has been able to offer a number of solutions that may otherwise have been overlooked.

These are just a few examples of the very real contributions Mary Ellen has made to the veterans community throughout her career. To those who have had the pleasure of working with her, Mary Ellen has been an inspiration--working tirelessly to provide assistance to those who have served this great Nation--a true veterans' advocate.

As she enters into her much deserved retirement, she can rest easy knowing her efforts will continue benefiting veterans and their families for generations to come, which is, as she is known to say, not bad for an old lady.

Mary Ellen, thank you for your years of advocacy on behalf of our Nation's veterans. I wish you only the best in retirement.

Mr. President, November is National Family Caregivers Month. As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I would like to take a moment to discuss the important role caregivers play in the lives of our Nation's veterans as they cope with the visible and invisible wounds of war.

For generations, as the men and women of our armed forces returned home with serious injuries sustained overseas, their wives, husbands, parents and other family members stepped in to care for them. These family members have often provided this care at significant personal sacrifice. Their dedication to the needs of injured veterans has often resulted in lost professional opportunities, negative impact on their own physical and mental health, and reduction in income.

Under the ``Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010,'' a number of important benefits were made available to these caregivers for the first time, with additional services and benefits made available to caregivers of seriously injured post-9/11 veterans and their families. These additional services and benefits include a tax-free monthly stipend, travel assistance, health insurance, mental health services and counseling, caregiver training and respite care.

Passage of the Caregivers Act served as an important step in ensuring the caregivers of our newest generation of veterans received the additional resources to provide the best possible care for their loved ones. However, limiting eligibility for these additional services and benefits to caregivers of post-9/11 veterans created an inequity between caregivers of the newest generation of veterans and the tens of thousands of hardworking, dedicated caregivers who provide care to all other veterans.

In an effort to address the disparity, I introduced legislation earlier this year that would extend the services and benefits of the Caregiver Program to caregivers of veterans of all eras. Through this expansion, severely injured pre-9/11 veterans and their families may now leverage the benefits from which, until now, only post-9/11 veterans have benefited. The Congressional Budget Office estimates this bill would expand access to services to approximately 70,000 caregivers of pre-9/11 veterans. I am pleased the committee passed my legislation, S. 851, the Caregivers Expansion and Improvement Act of 2013 earlier this year and am working to bring it before the full Senate for a vote.

All caregivers of our Nation's injured veterans deserve our full support. This is an issue of equity. As a long-standing advocate for veterans, I will continue to work to ensure caregivers have the resources they need. We have learned from experience and research that veterans are best served when they can live as independently as possible. I hope my fellow Members will help me honor the commitment this country has to all of its veterans by supporting S. 851 when it comes to the Floor.

Madam President, I ask to be allowed to address the Senate for a brief period of time.

This afternoon I wish to touch on two issues. One is the issue of Social Security, which is life-and-death for many millions of Americans, and the other is the issue of Medicare and Medicaid.

The main point I would like to make--and I make this as a member of the budget conference committee--is that the American people, regardless of their political persuasion--Democratic, Republican, Independent, conservative, progressive, whatever--are quite united in stating they do not want cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and they do not believe we should balance the budget on the backs of some of the most vulnerable people in this country.

According to the latest National Journal/United Technologies poll, 81 percent of the American people do not want to cut Medicare benefits at all, 76 percent of the American people do not want to cut Social Security benefits at all, and 60 percent of the American people do not want to cut Medicaid benefits at all. This is only one of many polls that are out.

What the American people understand is that millions of people are hurting in today's economy. The number of people living in poverty is at an alltime high, and median family income is going down. Unemployment is much too high. People are hurting, and we cannot make devastating cuts to the social safety net that is literally life-and- death for so many of our people.

I did want to mention that I worked on a petition drive with a number of grassroots organizations throughout this country. They include CREDO, Daily Kos, Campaign for America's Future, Social Security Works, Democracy for America, Progressives United, MoveOn, Other98, USAction, and the Alliance for Retired Americans. In a pretty short time--less than 1 week--we received over 500,000 names on a petition that says very clearly: Do not cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Do not balance the budget on the backs of some of the most vulnerable people in this country.

The other point I would make when we talk about the budget is that at the end of the day people do believe the deficit is too high. We should be proud, by the way, that in the last 4 years we have cut the deficit in half, but it is too high. But what the American people also say is that what is much more significant to them is the economy and the fact that we have so many people who are unemployed.

I would point out, as somebody who believes very strongly--and I speak as a former mayor of Burlington, VT--who believes absolutely that when your infrastructure--your roads, bridges, and rail system--is in need of enormous investment, where we can create millions of decent- paying jobs rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, what the American people are saying is, yes,

we have to create jobs. According to a March 3, 2013, Gallup poll, 75 percent of the American people--including 56 percent of Republicans, 74 percent of Independents, and 93 percent of Democrats--support ``a federal jobs creation law'' that would spend government money for a program ``designed to create more than 1 million new jobs.''

Again, of course, people say we are divided in America. In many ways we are not quite so divided. The American people say don't cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The American people say the most important issue facing our country is creating jobs. They want the Federal Government to do that. In this body we are divided, but among the American people, on these issues, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents are not quite so divided.

When we talk about unemployment, an issue that does not get anywhere near the kind of discussion we need is youth unemployment in America. As horrendous as unemployment is for anybody of any age, it is terrible for the young people who are graduating high school and graduating college. All of us say to the young people in this country: Don't stand on street corners. Don't do drugs. Go out and get a job, create a career, and make it into the middle class.

Yet real unemployment for young people in this country, for youth in this country, is somewhere around 20 percent. Among African-American young people it is over 40 percent. I don't hear the discussion in the Senate about the need to create the millions of jobs our young people desperately need so when they leave school they can go out and create a career for themselves and make it into the middle class. I worry very much about those young people who don't have that opportunity.

In an interview published October 1, 2013, Pope Francis said:

The most serious of the evils that afflict the world these

days are youth unemployment and the loneliness of the old.

He is not, of course, only talking about America; he is talking about what is going on throughout the world.

Continuing:

The old need care and companionship; the young need work

and hope but have neither one nor the other, and the problem

is they don't even look for them anymore.

I couldn't agree more.

We cannot turn our backs on the elderly. We cannot cut Social Security and Medicare. We cannot turn our backs on the young people. They need to be given the opportunity to have decent jobs and make a life for themselves.

Older Americans Act

I would also like to say a few words about a piece of legislation that just passed the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. I am the chairperson of the Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging. I thank Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Alexander, who are cosponsors of the Older Americans Act legislation that only last week came out of committee. This is a bill some of us have been working on for several years.

The Older Americans Act is an enormously important piece of legislation for senior citizens all over this country. The bill that came out of committee in a very strong bipartisan way has the strong support of over 50 national organizations representing tens of millions of Americans, including AARP, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, the National Council on Aging, the Alzheimer's Association, and the Meals On Wheels Association of America.

I won't go into all of what this bill does, as I don't have the time do that, but it deals with the very important issue of elder abuse and making sure that seniors in nursing homes get the care and respect to which they are entitled. It deals with the Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program. It places an increased emphasis on evidence-based programs. It addresses the changing nature of senior centers in America, prevents fraud and abuse, and it focuses on home care and nutrition services. There is a lot in this bill that I believe is quite good, and it is a step forward.

One of the problems we have--Senator Burr of North Carolina raised it, and appropriately so--the issue is that we are seeing in this country in general a migration of folks from northern parts of the country to the South--this is not a new issue--including many seniors. What Senator Burr was arguing is that he thinks the current formula is unfair and that it does not take into account that kind of migration. I think he has a valid point, which we want to address.

The other point and the most important point is that since 2006--the last year in which the Older Americans Act was authorized--the U.S. elder population has grown by over 20 percent. As the baby boomers age, every single State in this country has seen its senior population grow. The important point is that Federal funding for this legislation is the same today as it was in 2006--$1.8 billion. Funding for the act in terms of real inflation-accounted-for dollars has decreased by more than $250 million during that period of time.

We have a growth in the senior population and a decline in real dollars going into the needs of seniors through the Older Americans Act, and this is a very serious problem. We compound that problem with the migration from the North in some States to the South.

What is the solution? I believe the solution is very simple. If we understand that the Older Americans Act is an enormously cost-effective act--one doesn't need to be a gerontologist or a physician who deals with senior citizens to understand that when a senior is malnourished and doesn't get the nutrition he or she needs, that senior is more likely to break a hip by falling, that senior is more likely to get sick, go to the emergency room, and go to the hospital at great cost. Everybody knows that. There is no debate about that. When seniors have the companionship and the nutrition they need, they are less likely to go to the emergency room, they are less likely to go to the hospital, and we can save money.

Study after study shows that investing in programs such as the Older Americans Act--that is, the Meals On Wheels program, the congregate meal program, employment opportunities for seniors, dealing with elder abuse--when we invest in those programs, we save money. We not only from a moral perspective make life better for seniors, we actually save Federal money by preventing other bad things from happening.

I hope our committee and Members of the Senate can work together to say that increasing funding for the Older Americans Act is not only the right thing to do for millions of Americans, it is also the cost- effective way to go. If we can increase funding, we can deal with some of the issues Senator Burr has raised.

What I will not support is making drastic cuts in certain States, such as Iowa, New York, or Massachusetts, in order to increase funding in other States. We have to protect every State in this country because there is no State in which programs like the Meals On Wheels program don't already have long waiting lines. What we need to do is invest in these programs. When we do, we will have done something that is very important for seniors all over this country.

I yield the floor.

First of all, I congratulate the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Missouri for touching on what is obviously a very serious national issue; that is, how we deal with the crisis of mental health in this country. I thank both of them for the work they are doing.

I would like to say a few words as a member of the conference committee on the budget, which is hoping to avert another government shutdown and come up with a sensible long-term budget for our country.

The first point I would make is that when I return from Vermont and come here to Capitol Hill, I am always amazed at how different the world view is here as opposed to the real world--whether it is Vermont or when I travel to other States around the country. It almost seems as if we are living on two separate planets.

As a member of the Budget Committee, I understand, as do the American people, that a $17 trillion national debt and a $700 billion deficit is a serious issue that must be addressed. The American people know that, but what they also understand is that there is an even more important issue out there; that is, real unemployment today is close to 14 percent. Youth unemployment--an issue Pope Francis is beginning to talk about a great deal--in this country is approximately 20 percent. African-American youth unemployment is over 40 percent.

The American people are saying: Yes, deal with the deficit, but do not forget that we continue to have a major economic crisis with millions of Americans unemployed. And for many other Americans who are working, their wages are deplorably low. We have millions of folks working for $8 or $9 an hour who cannot take care of their families under those wages.

While the middle class is disappearing and the number of people living in poverty is at an alltime high, we also have another dynamic we don't talk about too much here for obvious reasons; that is, the wealthiest people are doing phenomenally well, corporate profits are at recordbreaking levels, and the gap between the very wealthy and everybody else is growing wider and wider. We are surrounded by lobbyists representing the wealthy and large corporations, and they don't really like that discussion, so we don't talk about that too much, but it remains absolutely true.

When I go home and talk to Vermonters or when I go around the country, people tell me--and the polls tell me--that the American people--regardless of political persuasion, by the way--are in significant agreement about a lot of issues. We don't see that reflected here, but the American people are in significant agreement. If we ask the American people, I suspect, in North Dakota, Vermont, Maryland, or anywhere else whether they think we should cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, they would overwhelmingly say no.

These are tough economic times. Poverty is going up among seniors. People are worried about health care costs, and these programs are vital to the survival of so many people. So do not cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. That is not what Bernie Sanders is saying; that is what the American people are saying. That is what Democrats are saying, that is what Republicans are saying, that is what Independents are saying, and that is what people who agree with the tea party are saying. There is not a whole lot of dispute outside of Washington, but inside Washington the picture becomes a little different. We have virtually all Republicans talking about cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. We have the President talking about cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. We have some Democrats talking about it. But that is not what the American people believe.

According to the latest poll I have seen on this issue--the National Journal/United Technologies poll--81 percent of the American people do not want to cut Medicare, 76 percent of the American people do not want to cut Social Security, and 60 percent of the American people do not want to cut Medicaid. So I have a very radical idea for my colleagues. What about occasionally--we don't have to overdo it--listening to the people who sent us here? What they are saying is they do not want to cut these terribly important programs.

Second of all, what do the American people want? What they want is for us to invest in our infrastructure and create the millions of jobs we desperately need. According to a Gallup poll of March 3, 2013, 75 percent of the American people--that includes 56 percent of Republicans, 74 percent of Independents, and 93 percent of Democrats-- support ``a federal jobs creation law [that would spend government money for a program] designed to create more than 1 million new jobs.''

The American people are saying: Yes, the deficit is important, but what is more important is creating jobs, and rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure is one way to do it, but don't cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

What else are the American people saying? Well, not too surprisingly, when we see so much income and wealth inequality in America, the American people believe that when 95 percent of all new income in the last few years has gone to the top 1 percent, given the fact that the wealthy are doing phenomenally well, maybe they should be asked to pay a little more in taxes, and maybe we should end all of the corporate loopholes that currently exist.

Again, that is not Bernie Sanders. According to a January 29, 2013, poll by Hart Research Associates, 66 percent of the American people believe the wealthiest 2 percent should pay more in taxes and 64 percent of the American people believe large corporations should pay more in taxes than they do today.

The American people are giving us a solution to the major crises facing the American people. They want to invest in our economy, they want to create jobs, they want to ask the wealthy and large corporations to pay more in taxes, and they do not want to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. That is the real world, but then when we come back to Washington, what are people saying? Let's cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; let's not invest in our infrastructure and create jobs; and, in fact, let's give more tax breaks to the wealthy and large corporations. This is an ``Alice in Wonderland'' world. The American people are saying one thing and the lobbyists around here and many Members of Congress are saying something very different.

The deficit is an important issue, and we should be proud, by the way, that we have cut the deficit in half in the last few years. We have more to go, but we should take some credit for that. But when we talk about the deficit, it is very important for us to remember how we got to where we are today--a $17 trillion national debt and a $650 billion-or-so deficit.

I find it interesting that some of those people who were most active in causing the deficit are now standing up saying: Oh, I am really worried about this deficit that I helped cause; therefore, we have to cut all these programs that working people and children and the elderly need. So let's take a brief look back into the recent past and find out how we got to where we are today and who voted for those programs.

As I hope most Americans know, in January 2001 when President Clinton left office and President Bush took over, this country had a $236 billion surplus--a $236 billion surplus. That is quite a large surplus. The Congressional Budget Office projected that the 10-year budget surplus would be $5.6 trillion; that there would be a huge increase in our budget surplus. The projections were very strong. In fact, they projected that we could erase the national debt by 2011. Imagine that. That was where we were heading.

Well, President Bush took office and a number of things happened. We went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. I voted for the war in Afghanistan; I strongly opposed the war in Iraq. But be that as it may, many of my friends, who are great deficit hawks, forgot to pay for those wars. Those wars are estimated to cost somewhere around $6 trillion. So folks who are standing up today saying: Gee, we just can't afford nutrition programs for children, they didn't have a problem voting for two wars and not paying for them. They also did not have a problem voting for huge tax breaks that went to the wealthiest people in this country, and they also did not have a problem voting for a Medicare Part D prescription drug program--written by the insurance companies, by the way, by the pharmaceutical industry--which also added to the deficit.

The point I am making is that many of the folks who are standing here demanding cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid voted for two wars, tax breaks for the rich, and an unfunded Medicare Part D program. Then on top of all that, we had the Wall Street crash, which resulted in less revenue coming in to the Federal Government. Add all that stuff up and you have a large deficit.

Let me conclude by simply saying at a time when we have massive wealth and income inequality in America, which is something we should focus on from both a moral perspective as well as an economic perspective; at a time when the middle class is disappearing and millions of people are working longer hours for lower wages, at a time when we have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world, at a time when senior poverty is increasing, at a time when we have 20 percent youth unemployment in this country, in my humble opinion, we do not balance the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable people in this country--working people, the elderly, the children, the sick, and low-income people. That is not what we do.

What we should do is go to those people who are doing very well and say to

them: You know what. Welcome to the United States of America. You are part of our country, and you are part of our economy. This country has problems now. You, if you are a large corporation--one out of four large corporations paying nothing in Federal income taxes--you are going to have to start paying your taxes. You can't just stash your money in the Cayman Islands and in other tax havens. And if you are an extremely wealthy person doing well, you are going to have to contribute more in tax revenue.

The bottom line is that we need to create jobs in this country, we need to protect the most vulnerable people in this country, and we need to do it in a way which is morally right and which makes good economic sense.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, this country has gone through over 2 weeks of very difficult times. It is extremely distressful that approximately 1 million Federal employees have not received a paycheck. These Federal employees have gone 3 years without a raise, they have been furloughed because of sequestration, and now they have been sent home, in many cases without any pay. Similar to every other working American, these are people who are worried as to how they are going to pay their mortgages, how they are going to pay their car loans, how they are going to pay their college loans, and they are extremely anxious.

But it is not only the 1 million or so Federal employees who are hurting. Obviously, it is the tens of millions of Americans who are in enormous anxiety about whether they are going to get the Federal benefits they are entitled to and the Federal services they need.

I am talking now, as chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, about Vietnam veterans who have written to me from Vermont and elsewhere who are worried that they may not get their veterans' disability benefits. Think about that. People who have put their lives on the line for this country, were wounded in action, and they are sitting at home wondering whether they are going to get a check, which they desperately need in order to keep their family going.

I am talking now about people on Social Security who are wondering that if this government actually defaults for the first time in our history--does not pay our bills--that they may not get a Social Security check. Millions and millions of seniors depend on that Social Security check in order to pay their bills and to maintain a very minimal standard of living.

I am talking about moms who today are walking their kids into the Head Start Program and then going off to work, and they are worried about what happens if their Head Start Program is shut down. What does that mean to their child? What does it mean to them? How do they get to work? Who is going to take care of their kid? Are they going to lose their job?

So what has happened in the last few weeks has brought a whole lot of anxiety and pain to tens and tens of millions of Americans. Why? Because over in the House we had a handful of rightwing extremists who decided they were going to hold hostage the American Government unless they were able to defund ObamaCare. That was last week. Then more recently, they were going to hold the government hostage unless we made major cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. That was a few days ago.

So I think what has happened has been incredibly unfortunate for our country. The damage done in terms of our position in the international community will take many years to overcome. What do you think the international community--people in Latin America, people in Europe, people in Asia--believes when they see the United States, the largest economy on Earth, presumably the leader of the free world, government is shut down and this country is debating whether we pay our bills? How does the President of the United States go to the United Nations, go to the world community, and say: Listen. There is an international crisis. You need to follow our lead. And we are the country that cannot even pay its bills or is threatening not to pay its bills for the last couple weeks and has shut down the entire U.S. Government.

So the damage already done by rightwing extremism is irreparable. I think people's confidence in the U.S. Government has been shattered. I am thinking about kids in Wisconsin or kids in Vermont who are now looking at the U.S. Government as some kind of joke, where maybe at some point they were thinking of running for office, getting involved in the political process, and now they say: It is not something I want to do. That is very sad.

I intend to vote for the agreement hammered out by the majority leader and the minority leader. But I wish to make something very clear. If anybody thinks this sequestration budget is a good thing for America, they are very mistaken.

As I understand it, sequestration will be extended until January 15, and we do not know what happens after that. Presumably that is going to be based on negotiations. But according to the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, if, in fact--and I will do everything in my power to see that does not happen--but if the $988 billion sequestration budget were to go throughout this year, it would cost us some 900,000 jobs.

I have heard many of my Republican friends--and perhaps some Democrats--making the point, and an important point, that we have to do something about the budget deficit and we have to do something about our national debt. I agree with that. I am proud that along with other Members, we have cut the deficit in half from $1.4 trillion to $700 billion. Anyone who does not think that is progress is very wrong. Cutting the budget deficit in half is significant progress.

But let me make a point that is not made terribly often on this floor. Yes, the deficit is a serious problem. Yes, we have to work on it. But every poll I have seen--and in my discussions with people in Vermont--they say: Yes, the deficit is a serious problem. Do something about it. But let me tell you, Senator Sanders, what is a more serious problem; that is, that the middle class of this country is disappearing. Median family income is lower today than it was 24 years ago. Real unemployment is close to 14 percent. Youth unemployment is somewhere around 20 percent. African-American youth unemployment is somewhere around 40 percent.

The people of America are saying do something about the economy. Make sure that when my kid graduates high school, there will be a job available for him or her. Do something about the high cost of college education because I do not want my son or daughter to be leaving school $25,000 or 50,000 in debt. Make sure, they tell me, that you do not cut Social Security because Social Security is one of the few bedrocks remaining to protect some of the most vulnerable people in this country. Make sure you do not voucherize Medicare, as the Ryan budget in the House proposed, ending Medicare as we know it and giving senior citizens an $8,000 check, and when they get diagnosed with cancer, good luck to them, because that $8,000 will last 2 or 3 days. Make sure you do not slash Medicaid.

The important point that has to be made is deficit reduction is an issue, but the more important issue the American people want us to resolve is to create the millions and millions of jobs this country desperately needs. The sequester budget we are voting on today moves us in exactly the wrong direction.

If that budget were to go on for a year--right now it is scheduled to end January 15. But if that would go on for a year, it would cost us 900,000 jobs rather than growing the many millions of jobs we currently need.

Let me again raise an issue many of my colleagues do not talk about, but I think the American people understand. At a time when we have more income and wealth inequality in this country than since the 1920s, what morality demands, and, in fact, what good economics demands, is you do not balance the budget on the backs of the elderly, the children, working families, the poor. But I do not hear much of that discussion here.

If you have a situation in America where the top 1 percent owns 38 percent of the wealth, and the bottom 60 percent owns 2.3 percent of the wealth, who should have to experience austerity? Should we go to working families who in many cases have seen a decline in their income and say: Guess what. We are going to have to balance the budget on your backs. We are going to have to cut Medicare, cut Medicaid, cut nutrition programs, cut the ability of our kids to go to college, because we need to balance the budget. Guess what. The rich and the powerful have too many lobbyists here, so we are going to have to cut programs that impact you.

I know many people in the Senate want to move in that direction. I do not. Not only do we have an obscene, unfair distribution of wealth, it is as bad when we talk about income inequality.

The Presiding Officer has seen the same studies I have seen which talk about how in the last few years 95 percent of all new income generated in this country went to the top 1 percent--95 percent of all new income went to the top 1 percent, while tens of millions of other Americans saw a decline in their income.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.

I think if the Presiding Officer had a discussion at some diner in Wisconsin or I did the same in Vermont, and talked to people and said: Look, the wealthiest people are becoming much richer; the middle class is declining; poverty is at an all-time high, how do you think we should deal with deficit reduction? Do you think we should be cutting programs for the elderly, working families, the children, the sick, or the poor, or maybe do we ask the wealthiest people in this country to start paying their fair share of taxes?

Maybe--I know this is a terribly radical idea. Today one out of four major corporations pays zero in Federal income tax, because a lot of these multinational corporations are stashing their money in the Cayman Islands and in Bermuda and in other tax havens. I know it is a very radical idea. I guess I am an extremist to think maybe it is more important for corporate America, which is enjoying record-breaking profits--one out of four major corporations pays nothing in Federal incomes taxes--maybe we might want to ask them to pay something in taxes so we do not cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education and nutrition programs.

I think what goes on around here is our sense of reality is distorted because surrounding this building are not working families--they are too busy back home trying to maintain their family. Not children. We have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world. They are not here. But all of the lobbyists from the billionaire organizations and for corporate America are here, telling us what we should be doing.

Well, I think maybe the time is long overdue that we stood for the working families of this country, for the children, and for the elderly, and not move for deficit reduction on the backs of the most vulnerable people.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 20 minutes.

Mr. President, it is no secret to anybody that the American people are frustrated and they are disgusted with what is going on in Washington.

The Presiding Officer may have seen The Onion magazine, the satirical magazine that ran a story which says that at a time when 5 percent of the American people approve of what is going on in Congress, The Onion reported psychiatrists are deeply worried about the mental health of 5 percent of the American public. In other words, all over this country, regardless of political persuasion, people literally cannot understand what is going on, and they have every reason to be outraged and frustrated because so many people today are being hurt.

We can disagree about the Affordable Care Act. We as a nation can disagree about how we address Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, global warming, or any other issue out there. But what should not be happening is that this government and the American people should not be held hostage by an extreme right wing of the Republican Party saying: Well, yeah, we lost the election by 5 million votes, we lost two seats in the Senate, we lost seats in the House, but nonetheless, unless we get the agenda we campaigned on and lost, we are going to shut down the Federal Government. We are going to punish millions of Federal employees and tens of millions of taxpayers who paid for Federal services. Also, for the first time in the history of the United States of America, we are not going to pay our bills and as a result perhaps thrust the American financial system and the world's financial system into a horrendous recession.

What the American people are saying over and over, regardless of political persuasion, is, yes, we can disagree on issues; no, we cannot bring the U.S. Government to a halt and default on our payments because a particular faction disagrees on certain legislation.

Interestingly enough, a couple of days ago I gathered that we had to bring the government to a halt and that we had to not pay our bills and bring the world's financial system into crisis because of the horrors of ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act. That was the reason. Well, 2 days have come and gone and guess what. It is not the Affordable Care Act. That is no longer being discussed. Today, I gather--I haven't seen the news in the last 15 minutes, but the last I heard the reason we are shutting down the government and threatening not to pay our bills is that we are spending too much money and the deficit is too high. I gather that is the latest reason.

Clearly, a deficit of $700 billion and a debt of $16.7 trillion is too much, but let's make a couple of points about that issue.

First, in the last 3 years we have cut the deficit in half. A few years ago it

was $1.4 trillion, and today it is $700 billion. That is not an insignificant effort.

Second, and perhaps most important, we have to understand how we got to where we are in terms of the debt and in terms of the deficit. Do we have a large deficit because we are spending too much on Social Security? Well, actually not because Social Security is independently funded through the payroll tax and hasn't added one nickel to the deficit. So it is not Social Security. We will talk about Medicare and Medicaid in a moment. But the reason we have seen a spike in the deficit in recent years has to do with the fact that many of my deficit hawk Republican friends--and some Democrats--voted for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, but they forgot to pay for that war--just a slip; they just forgot about it--and those wars are going to cost between $3 trillion and $6 trillion. So I want everyone to remember that the great deficit hawks who are busy trying to cut every program that working families in this country need forgot to pay for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that will cost between $3 trillion and $6 trillion.

The third issue is that our great deficit hawks had no problem during the Bush era giving huge tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this country.

Fourth, of course, is that as a result of deregulation and greed and recklessness and illegal behavior, Wall Street brought us to a financial collapse and a recession, with the result that revenue substantially declined.

I raise those issues, giving a little bit of history about how we got into the deficit today, because now, I guess, Congressman Ryan and others have decided that the reason we shut down the government is not because of ObamaCare, it is because there is too much spending, and that translates into their desire to cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and to cut other vitally important programs for the middle- class and working families of this country.

Before we talk about the pain that would be caused by making savage cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, it is important to put this discussion in a broader context. If we go out to the American people and ask people in Virginia and people in Vermont and people all over this country and if we look at virtually every single poll that has been done in recent years asking the American people what they consider to be the most important issues facing them, do we know what they say? They say the deficit is important, but what is much more important is the issue of high unemployment and the economy in general. That is what every single poll shows. And the American people are right.

The deficit is important. What is even more important is addressing the reality that almost 14 percent of our workforce--if we count those people who have given up looking for work and are working part time, almost 14 percent of our workforce today is unemployed. What the American people are saying to Congress is create jobs, deal with unemployment.

The other issue out there that all across this country people are deeply worried about is that most of the new jobs being created--and this has been the case for a number of years now--most of the jobs being created are part-time, low-wage jobs.

How is somebody supposed to survive working for $10 an hour and getting 25 hours of work a week? You cannot do it, and we are seeing more and more of those types of jobs in the economy--by the way, jobs that provide little or no benefits.

What the American people are saying is raise the minimum wage. I cannot remember what the last poll was, but surely more than 70 percent of the American people have said: A minimum wage of $7.25 an hour is a starvation wage. We need to raise the minimum wage.

Anybody who has kids in college today understands it is harder and harder for working-class and middle-class families to send their kids to college. The American people are saying to us: Do something. You tell us what is true--that it is hard to make it into the middle class unless kids have a college education. Well, do something to make college affordable. Do not have my kid leaving college or graduate school $50,000 in debt or $80,000 in debt. Do something about that.

Anybody who drives anywhere in America, in Vermont or in Indiana or anyplace else, understands that our infrastructure--our roads, our bridges, wastewater plants, water plants, our rail system--is deteriorating rapidly, and they say: Do something about the infrastructure.

As global warming is perceived as more and more of a crisis, people are telling us: Do something about energy efficiency. Why are we emitting greenhouse gas emissions into the air when we can be a much more energy-efficient country?

On and on it goes. The American people are hurting, and they want us to address their problems.

The other point that needs to be made is that when we talk about the financial and economic problems facing this country, it is terribly important to take an overview of what is going on in the economy in general. There is no debate about this: The middle class in America today is disappearing. Median family income today is less than it was 24 years ago. Despite all of the increase in productivity and technology, median family income is less today than it was 24 years ago. That is rather extraordinary.

We have 46.5 million people in this country living in poverty--more than at any time in the history of this country; 22.5 percent of our kids live in poverty. That is the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world. Poverty among senior citizens is increasing. So we have major economic challenges that we face.

Our Republican friends, who a few days ago were telling us they had to shut down the government and threaten not to pay our bills because of the horrors of ObamaCare, now apparently are no longer concerned about ObamaCare, and they are now concerned about the national debt and they are concerned about our spending.

Well, this is what I want to say: If we want to have a conversation or a conference or a discussion or a special committee--call it whatever you want--we cannot just look at cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, as Congressman Ryan and many others want. We have to put into that discussion how it happens that one out of four major corporations in this country does not pay a nickel in Federal income taxes.

Do you think that should be part of the discussion? I think it should be. We have to put into that discussion how it happens that corporate America is putting their money in the Cayman Islands and in other tax havens and avoiding paying tens and tens of billions of dollars in Federal taxes. Do we need that in the discussion? I think we do. If you are going to talk about a conference on the economy, the conference must include the need to create millions of jobs, it must include the need to raise the minimum wage, it must include pay equity so that women get the same wages men get for the work they are doing, and it must include rebuilding our infrastructure.

This discussion on the economy cannot simply happen on Republican terms. We live in a country in which the middle class is in rapid decline while the wealthiest people and the largest corporations are doing phenomenally well. Any discussion we have--after we reopen the government, after we pay our bills--has to include that important reality. We cannot and we must not--for moral and economic reasons-- balance the budget on the backs of the elderly, the children, the sick, and low-income people. The wealthiest people and the largest corporations have to get involved, have to pay their fair share of taxes, and we have to create the millions of jobs this country desperately needs.

As I see the constantly changing agenda on the part of my Republican colleagues as to why they have shut down the government, I want to make it clear that the first thing that has to happen is they have to understand this government has to be reopened, and it has to be reopened with a strong budget that lasts for the rest of this fiscal year. And we have to pay our debts so this country and the entire global economy does not descend into financial chaos. We have to do that, and if Mr. Boehner were to give the Members of the House of Representatives a vote on that issue today, I expect it would win.

But as we go forward and we discuss broader issues, as we should, the agenda cannot simply be the agenda of the Republican candidates for President and Vice President who lost by 5 million votes. The agenda has to be what the American people want, and that is expanding the middle class, creating jobs, raising wages, rebuilding our infrastructure, pay equity, and making college affordable. Those are the issues that have to be on the agenda as well.

With that, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, all over this country the American people are outraged by what is going on here in Washington. They have a hard time understanding why rightwing extremists in the Republican Party in the House are able to shut down the U.S. Government, while paychecks are being denied to millions of Federal employees and, at the same time, services--in some cases desperately needed services--are being threatened for tens of millions of Americans. People are hurting and they wonder what is going on.

Let me say a few words regarding what, in my view, has, in fact, happened. From the beginning, some of my Republican colleagues are saying: We just need to talk. Let's compromise. A key point they neglect to make is that a major compromise has already taken place. The Democrats in the Senate--and I am an independent, as is the Presiding Officer, affiliated with the Democratic Caucus--decided to send a budget for a continuing resolution to the House, which, in my view, was a very, very weak budget, one that I am totally dissatisfied with, and I think most Members of the caucus are. It continues the budget at sequestration levels which will have a devastating impact on this country. It is a bad budget. But the reason the majority leader sent it over to the House was that he was of the understanding that the Speaker of the House had requested that type of budget, and that once that budget came over--once that CR came over--the House would agree to it. In fact, let me read from an article in the Washington Post today commenting on an ABC interview that Speaker Boehner did. The Washington Post says:

In the ABC interview, Boehner tacitly acknowledged making a

deal with Senate Democrats to avoid using the threat of a

shutdown to attack ObamaCare in exchange for an agreement to

maintain the deep cuts known as the sequester through the

fall. He conceded that his rank and file forced him onto the

path to shutdown by insisting on waging the fight over

ObamaCare.

That was the Washington Post today.

What does that mean? It means that an agreement had been reached by the Speaker and the majority leader that if the Democrats accepted the very low budget number the Republicans wanted, there would be a clean continuing resolution. What this article points out--and what I think the Speaker has virtually acknowledged--is that despite his agreement with the majority leader here in the Senate, he couldn't carry it out because his extreme rightwing said: Thanks. You got us the budget we wanted, the CR we wanted. That is not enough. Now we want to end ObamaCare.

That is where we are today.

So anyone who comes forward and says: Why don't you talk? Why don't you compromise? The fact is--and I think the majority leader has made this point--he compromised far more than many of us felt comfortable with.

A compromise has already been reached. The Democrats accepted, in my view, a very bad and weak Republican budget. But it was done with the hope and the understanding that there would be a clean continuing resolution and that the U.S. Government would not be shut down. That is point No. 1.

Point No. 2 is that the other day the Speaker said on TV that there are not the votes to pass a clean CR. What I have been hearing here on the floor of the Senate and in the House is that we have Republicans who are not sympathetic to ObamaCare, they don't like ObamaCare, and they would like to defund ObamaCare. But they understand we don't shut down the U.S. Government. We don't threaten that for the first time in the history of the United States we may not pay our bills, be a deadbeat Nation, and drive our economy and our financial system, and perhaps the entire world's financial system, into a catastrophic area by not paying our bills. We believe that there are enough Republicans in the House to join with Democrats and pass a clean CR.

The President and the majority leader have both made this point: Have the vote. Have the vote, Mr. Speaker. Maybe you are right or maybe you are not. But we don't know until you have the vote. I urge, as I have before, that the Speaker of the House function as the Speaker of the House of Representatives and not as the speaker of the Republican Party.

The last point I wish to make touches on an article that appeared in yesterday's New York Times. It is a very important article because it really tells us who is behind this shutdown and what their motives are. If anybody thinks this government shutdown or the threats about not paying our bills and driving the world's economy into catastrophic areas are ideas that just occurred the other day, that a Senator just had this bright idea, they would be very mistaken. The fact is we have a growing rightwing movement in this country funded by some of the wealthiest people in America, including the Koch brothers, a family that has made their money in fossil fuels and are worth over $70 billion--$70 billion is their worth. They are worth $70 billion, and they have access to the best health care in the world. They have access to the best housing in the world. Their family members can go to the best colleges and universities in the world. Yet they are obsessed with, among other things, making sure 25 million Americans have no health insurance at all.

I am a strong supporter of a Medicare for all, a single-payer program. I don't think the Affordable Care Act went far enough. But to say the least, 20 million or 25 million Americans can finally have access to health insurance. They can go to the doctor when they need to go to the doctor. There are now no regulations that prevent them from getting care because of a preexisting condition. Can we imagine billionaires--billionaires--going to war against working people so they and their kids cannot get health insurance? I think that is just obscene. That is just obscene.

Let me quote from The New York Times article of yesterday. It is important that people understand that the fight against the Affordable Care Act is just the tip of the iceberg. We have families and billionaires such as the Koch brothers who not only want to see that we don't expand health insurance in this country, but they have a long list of issues they are going after. In fact, they want to repeal virtually every major piece of legislation passed in the last 80 years that protects the middle class, working families, women, children, the elderly, the sick, and the poor. That is their agenda. So it is not a question of opposing the extension of health insurance through ObamaCare; that is not enough for them. What they want to do is end Medicare as we know it right now, and transform it into a voucher system, that gives an elderly person who is dealing with cancer $8,000 and says: Good luck to you.

They want to make massive cuts in Medicaid. They don't want to expand Medicaid. They want massive cuts. They are very clear about wanting to end Social Security. They don't believe the Federal Government should be involved in retirement issues and Social Security.

One of the more amazing things these guys want to do--and many of our Republican colleagues apparently drank the lemonade on this issue--is to abolish the concept of the minimum wage. The Federal minimum wage now is $7.25 an hour. People can't live on that. But their idea is to get the Federal Government out of the minimum wage issue--no floor--so that if an employer in a hard-pressed area in Maine or in Vermont or in Michigan can pay people $4 an hour, they think that is freedom: People have the freedom to work for $4 an hour. We don't want a minimum wage.

So, in other words, these rightwing extremists and the big money behind them have a major agenda, of which repealing ObamaCare is just one small part.

Let me just quote, if I might, the New York Times article. I ask unanimous consent to have the entire New York Times article printed in the Record.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

Let me quote from the yesterday's New York Times:

The current budget brinkmanship is just the latest

development in a well-financed, broadbased assault on the

health law, Mr. Obama's signature legislative initiative.

Groups like Tea Party Patriots, Americans for Prosperity, and

FreedomWorks are all immersed in the fight, as is Club for

Growth, a business-backed nonprofit organization. Some, like

Generation Opportunity and Young Americans for Liberty, both

aimed at young adults, are upstarts. Heritage Action is new,

too, founded in 2010 to advance the policy prescriptions of

its sister group, the Heritage Foundation.

The billionaire Koch brothers, Charles and David, have been

deeply involved with financing the overall effort.

Let me repeat that.

The billionaire Koch brothers, Charles and David, have been

deeply involved with financing the overall effort.

Remember, these are the guys who are worth $70 billion, who want to essentially repeal every major piece of legislation protecting working families over the last 80 years.

Let me go back to the article:

A group linked to the Kochs, Freedom Partners Chamber of

Commerce, disbursed more than $200 million last year--

$200 million last year.

to nonprofit organizations involved in the fight.

Et cetera, et cetera.

Now I will go to another paragraph, which is really interesting and really important:

The groups have also sought to pressure vulnerable

Republican members of Congress with scorecards keeping track

of their health care votes; have burned faux ``Obamacare

cards'' on college campuses; and have distributed scripts for

phone calls to Congressional offices, sample letters to

editors and Twitter and Facebook offerings for followers to

present as their own.

What is going on here? What does that mean? This is what it means. As a result of the disastrous Supreme Court ruling called Citizens United, what billionaires such as the Koch brothers and others can do--and what they are doing today--is to say to Republicans in the House of Representatives: If you vote for a clean continuing resolution, if you vote to keep the government open, if you make it very clear that you will oppose any effort to see the U.S. default on its debts--if you do that, let me tell you what is going to happen to you, because we have the Koch brothers and people worth billions of dollars who are prepared to jump into your campaign, perhaps get a primary opponent to run against you, and to fund that opponent with as much money as he or she needs.

So now, what democracy in the House--as a result of Citizens United-- is about is that a handful of billionaires can threaten any Member of the House with defeat by pouring in unlimited sums of money if they vote in a way that the Koch brothers do not like.

If that is how people think American democracy is supposed to function, it would surprise me very much. But that is not what American democracy is supposed to be about. That tells me again why we have to do everything we can to overturn this disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision so that a handful of billionaires cannot dictate public policy here in the United States of America and in the Congress.

Let me just conclude by saying this: The American people are angry and they are frustrated, and I think what they are seeing is that the middle class of this country is disappearing. In fact, in the last 24 years median family income today is lower than it was. It has gone down. You have millions of people who are out there working for wages they just cannot raise a family on. You are seeing right now a growth in poverty among elderly people. In the midst of a disappearing middle class and the increase of poverty, you are seeing more income and wealth inequality in this country than we have seen since

the 1920s. The gap between the very rich and everybody else grows wider. And now, as I mentioned a moment ago, what billionaires are doing with their money is continuing their war against the middle class by trying to repeal important pieces of legislation.

What the American people are saying is: What about us? What about us? Who is worried that my kid who graduated from high school cannot find a job? Who is worried that my other kid who graduated college is leaving school deeply in debt? Who is worried that in our country we are not being aggressive in dealing with the issue of global warming?

There are enormous issues facing the middle class in this country: the need to create millions of jobs, the need to raise the minimum wage, the need to make college affordable, the need to significantly improve childcare in this country and education in general.

There is an enormous amount of work to be done. What this Congress should not be doing is telling 2 million workers that you are not getting paid, furloughing what was then 800,000, now 400,000 workers. That is not what we should be doing.

I hope the American people stand and make it clear to our Republican friends that they cannot shut down the government because they are not getting their way. I hope the American people would do everything they can to demand that this Congress start doing its job, which is to represent working families.

With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.