Floor Statements

Mr. President, let me begin by congratulating Senators Stabenow and Cochran for their hard work on this very important piece of legislation, especially for rural States such as Vermont, but I guess for everybody who eats, which is the majority of the people in our country, I would imagine.

I want to spend a few minutes talking about some important amendments I am offering. I think one of them--the amendment I will talk about first--will be coming up for a vote either later tonight or tomorrow, and that deals with the right of States to label genetically engineered food. That is amendment No. 965.

This year, the Vermont State House of Representatives passed a bill by a vote of 99 to 42 requiring that genetically engineered food be labeled. I can tell you with absolute certainty the people of Vermont want to know what is in their food and are extremely supportive of what the State legislature has done. But this is an issue certainly not just limited to Vermont.

Yesterday, as I understand it, the Connecticut State Senate, by an overwhelming vote of 35 to 1, also passed legislation to require labeling of genetically engineered food. In California, our largest State, where the issue was on the ballot last November, 47 percent of the people there voted for labeling, despite the biotech industry spending over $47 million in a campaign in opposition to that proposition. That is an enormous sum of money, and yet 47 percent of the people voted for labeling of GMOs.

In the State of Washington, some 350,000 people signed a petition in support of initiative 522 to label genetically engineered foods in that State. In fact, according to a recent poll done earlier this year, approximately 82 percent of the American people believe labeling should take place with regard to genetically engineered ingredients.

All over this country people are increasingly concerned about the quality of the food they are ingesting and the food they are giving to their kids. People want to know what is in their food, and I believe that is a very reasonable request.

What I am proposing today--the amendment I am offering--is certainly not a radical concept. In fact, the requirement of labeling genetically modified food exists today in dozens and dozens of countries throughout the world, including our closest allies in the European Union, including Russia, Australia, South Korea, Japan, Brazil, China, New Zealand, and other countries. So this is not some kind of new and crazy idea. In fact, it exists all over the world.

At a time when many of my colleagues express their strong conviction about States rights and that States should be allowed to have increased responsibilities, this amendment should be supported by those people who, in fact, believe in States rights. The reason for that is when the State of Vermont and other States go forward in passing legislation to label genetically modified food, they have been threatened by Monsanto and other large biotech companies with costly lawsuits. So States are going forward, doing what they think is proper for their own people, and then Monsanto and other very large biotech companies are coming forward and saying: We are going to sue you.

Now, Monsanto is arguing, as one of the major grounds for their lawsuit--which I believe is absolutely incorrect--that States do not have the right to pass legislation such as this; that it is, in fact, a Federal prerogative and not something a State can legally do.

I believe very strongly that Monsanto is wrong, but that is precisely what this amendment clarifies.

Today we have an opportunity with this amendment to affirm once and for all that States do have the right to label food that contains genetically engineered ingredients.

Let me briefly tell you what is in this amendment. This amendment finds that the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States clearly reserves powers in the system of federalism to the States or to the people. This amendment finds that States have the authority to require the labeling of foods produced through genetically engineering or derived from organisms that have been genetically engineered.

Furthermore, this amendment requires that 1 year after the enactment of this act, the Commissioner of the FDA and the Secretary of Agriculture shall undertake the necessary regulations to carry out this amendment.

There is strong precedent for labeling GMOs. The FDA already required the labeling of over 3,000 ingredients and additives. If you want to know if your food contained gluten, aspartame, high-fructose corn syrup, trans fats or MSG, you simply read the ingredient label. Millions of people every day look at labels: How many calories are there in the food? What are the ingredients in the food? This simply does what we have been doing as a nation for many years, only right now Americans are not afforded the same right for GE foods.

Monsanto and other companies claim there is nothing to be concerned about with genetically engineered food. Yet FDA scientists and doctors have warned us that GE foods could have new and different risks, such as hidden allergens, increased plant toxin levels, and the potential to hasten the spread of antibiotic-resistant disease.

This is a pretty simple amendment. It basically says the American people have a right to know what they are eating. This is legislation I know the people of Vermont, I gather the people of Connecticut, and I think people all over this country would like to see agreed to. I ask for its support.

There are a couple of other amendments I would like to briefly discuss, having to do with SNAP. One of them deals with the need for seniors to be better able to access SNAP. It is no secret that in our country today, millions of seniors are struggling to get by on limited incomes. The result of that is that after they pay their prescription drug costs or their rent or their utilities, they do not have enough money to spend on food. It is estimated that some 1 million seniors are going hungry in the United States of America. That is something we should be embarrassed about and an issue we should address as soon as possible.

Clearly, the toll that inadequate nutrition has for seniors impacts their overall health. My strong guess is that this amendment will end up saving us money because when seniors get good nutrition, they are less likely to fall, break their hips, end up in the emergency room, end up in the hospital.

I think from a moral perspective, from a cost perspective, we want to make sure all seniors in this country, regardless of their income, have the nutrition they need.

SNAP plays a crucial role in our country in reducing hunger. In 2011, SNAP raised nearly 5 million people out of poverty. But here is the main point I wish to make: Only 35 percent of eligible individuals over age 60 participated in SNAP in 2010. In other words, there are many seniors out there who could benefit from SNAP but for a variety of reasons, one of which I am addressing right now, they do not participate.

As you may well know, the SNAP application process can be confusing and cumbersome for many households, especially for seniors. Individuals apply

for SNAP sometimes by visiting an application center, which is a challenge for people with mobility issues. If you are a senior and not able to get out of your home, if you cannot afford transportation, getting to that center can be very difficult.

It is also challenging when dealing with an application over the telephone if you are hard of hearing--which clearly many seniors are. At the same time, the complicated interview process costs local, State, tribal, and Federal governments additional administrative dollars.

The SNAP amendment I am offering is pretty simple. It will help alleviate hunger by allowing seniors to more easily apply for and access SNAP benefits in order to reduce barriers for seniors applying for SNAP.

This amendment proposes to do the following. It allows States to deputize, which in this case means to certify nonprofit organizations and area agencies on aging that are meeting with seniors directly and helping them with their SNAP application to conduct the interview on behalf of the State. The State agency would still determine eligibility.

Further, States would have the flexibility to deputize only the agencies that have the capacity to fulfill the State's interview requirements on their behalf. This amendment does not waive any documentation requirements or ease any other requirements. Eligibility for the benefits must still be verified. What it does do is reduce duplication of effort and ease the burden on vulnerable families and seniors for whom it is a challenge to travel to a State office or wait for days at a friend's house who has a phone to make a call.

All this is doing is saying: If we want to make sure seniors stay healthy, get the nutrition they need, stay out of the emergency room, stay out of the hospital, let us make it easier for them to take advantage of the programs that are currently available. In this case, the SNAP eligibility process for seniors is pretty complicated and sometimes people who want to be in the program simply are unable to do that. I hope we could have support for that amendment.

The other SNAP amendment deals with an equally important issue of people who are wrongfully dropped from the SNAP, often due to an administrative error. The current system is inefficient. We are spending government money that should be going to help people buy food and instead we are spending it on paperwork and bureaucracy. Improvements I am proposing will help alleviate hunger as fewer people will go without the benefits they need, and State and Federal resources will be used more effectively.

My amendment requires the USDA to track information from States on the problem of churn. That is the term used when eligible people are dropped from the program and then must reapply. The USDA and advocacy groups have identified children as a key problem in the administration of SNAP benefits. Having people reapply who never should have been dropped from the benefit in the first place adds to the caseload burden.

Tracking the information is only a first step. Then we must find solutions to reduce the problem so people do not lose their benefits, whether that be improved training, clearer forms and notices or simpler recertification processes. These improvements will reduce hunger by making sure people get the benefits for which they are eligible and which they so desperately need.

The last issue I briefly wish to touch on deals with the need for the USDA to help us understand, through a study, the impact that global warming is having on agriculture. We all know we are looking at record- setting droughts in Australia, Brazil, and locations in America. U.S. cities matched or broke at least 29,000 high-temperature records last year. Ice-free Arctic summers will be with us within a couple of years. That is the reality of the moment.

The impact of global warming clearly will be felt far and wide, but farmers across the country are among those who will suffer the most. Warmer temperatures, water shortages and droughts and other extreme weather disturbances will force producers to alter practices, change crops, and spend more money to sustain their operations.

This amendment simply asks the USDA to do a study to provide us with a better understanding of how changing climate will impact agriculture across the country and help farmers plan and adapt to those changes. It will help local communities and States make critical adjustments now, and it will reduce the vulnerability of the entire agriculture sector to the damaging consequences of climate change.

We think this is an important amendment. State farmers need to have the information about what scientists believe will be happening, the work they are doing for years to come. I ask for support for that amendment.

In the past we have successfully offered an amendment on community gardens. In Vermont, now schools, communities are working on gardens all over the State. We had a national program passed last year as well. This would simply expand that program to allow schools and communities to engage with limited help from the Federal Government in community gardens, teaching kids about the foods they are eating and about agriculture. It is a very inexpensive concept, which has been working very successfully and I think needs to be expanded.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President I call up amendment No. 965 and ask for its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I will be very brief, as I spoke on this issue before. Here is the story, using my own State of Vermont as an example, but it exists all over the country. This year the Vermont House of Representatives passed a bill by a vote of 99 to 42 requiring that genetically engineered food be labeled.

Yesterday, as I understand it, the Connecticut State Senate, by an overwhelming vote of 35 to 1, also passed legislation to require labeling of genetically engineered food. In California this issue was on the ballot. Monsanto and the other biotech companies spent something like $47 million against the right of people of California to have labeling on GMO products, and they won. The people who support labeling got 47 percent of the vote despite a huge amount of money being spent against them.

In the State of Washington, over 300,000 people have signed petitions in support of an initiative there to label genetically engineered food in that State.

A poll done earlier this year indicated that some 82 percent of the American people believe labeling should take place with regard to genetically engineered ingredients.

This is a pretty simple issue, and the issue is do the American people have a right to know what they are eating, what is in the food they are ingesting and what their kids are eating.

The problem is that a number of States, including Vermont, have gone forward on this issue. They have been met with large biotech companies like Monsanto who say if you go forward, we are going to sue you. And it will be a very costly lawsuit, because we do not believe you have the right as a State to go forward in this direction because you are preempting a Federal prerogative.

I happen not to believe that is correct. What this amendment does is very simple. It basically says States that choose to go forward on this issue do have the right. It is not condemning GMOs or anything else. It is simply saying that States have the right to go forward.

There have been some arguments against this amendment, and let me briefly touch on them. Genetically engineered food labels will not increase costs to shoppers, as we all know. Companies change their labels every day. They market their products differently. Adding a label does not change this. Everybody looks at labels. They change all the time. This would simply be an addition, new information on that label. In fact, many products already voluntarily label their food as GMO-free.

Further, genetically engineered crops are not better for the environment. Some will say, well, this is good for the environment. The use of Monsanto Roundup-ready soybeans engineered to withstand exposure to the herbicide Roundup has caused the spread of Roundup-resistant weeds which now infest 22 States, 10 million acres in 22 States, with predictions for 40 million acres or more by mid-decade. Resistant weeds increase the use of herbicides and the use of older and more toxic herbicides.

Further, there are no international agreements that permit the mandatory identification of foods produced through genetic engineering.

As I mentioned earlier, throughout Europe and in dozens of other countries around the world, this exists. It is not a very radical concept. It exists throughout the European Union and I believe, very simply, that States in this country should be able to go forward in labeling genetically modified foods if they want, and this amendment simply makes it clear they have the right to do that.

I look forward to the support of my colleagues with that amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I will hold off asking that the pending amendment be set aside until the manager is here. At this time I will address an enormously important national issue, an issue even more important to rural America; that is, the skyrocketing cost of gasoline at the pump, and oil in general, which is causing enormous hardship for the American consumer, small businesses, truckers, airlines, and fuel dealers.

The bottom line is in Vermont and all over this country people are paying an arm and a leg for a gallon of gas and for home heating oil, and it is a very serious economic problem for the individual consumer and for the entire economy at large. In fact, as we continue to struggle to get out of this terrible recession, high oil and gas prices are enormously detrimental to the entire economic recovery process.

These rapidly increasing prices are particularly harmful to rural America where working people often are forced to travel 50 to 100 miles to their jobs and back. If people are paying $3.80 for a gallon of gas, that adds up, and it is money coming right out of their wallets.

Over the last 5 months the national average price for a gallon of gasoline

has gone up by more than 41 cents at the pump, even--and this is the important point to make--as U.S. oil inventories reach a three-decade high, and demand for gasoline is lower than it was 4 years ago when prices averaged less than $2.30 a gallon. In other words, what we learned in elementary school about supply and demand and pricing--the foundation of capitalism, if you like--is when there is a lot of supply and limited demand, prices should go down. Right now, there is a lot of supply, less demand, and prices are going up, and I think we need to know why because this impacts our entire economy and millions and millions of consumers.

Our goal must be to do everything we can to make sure oil and gas prices are transparent and free from fraud, manipulation, abuse, and excessive speculation. Let the principles of supply and demand work. Let's eliminate fraud, manipulation, abuse, and excessive speculation, which is exactly what we are experiencing right now.

That is why I will be offering two important amendments that deal with these issues. Both of these amendments are within the jurisdiction of the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, which is obviously why I am offering them on this bill.

The first amendment, No. 963, requires the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, CFTC, and the Oil and Gas Price Fraud Working Group to conduct a 6-month investigation to determine whether any company or individual in the United States has manipulated the price of gasoline, crude oil, heating oil, diesel fuel, or jet fuel. Such an investigation is already taking place by regulators in Europe.

On May 14, 2013, just 1 week ago, the European Commission announced it was investigating allegations that several companies--including BP, Shell and Statoil--``may have colluded in reporting distorted prices to a Price Reporting Agency to manipulate the published prices for a number of oil and biofuel products.''

I know Ron Wyden, chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, is also looking at this issue--perhaps in a slightly different way--and I applaud him for doing that. But this amendment basically says right now the European Commission believes there may be fraud among the major oil companies. If that is true in Europe, it may well be true in the United States. So I want the CFTC to investigate that as well.

Amendment No. 963 requires the CFTC to work with European regulators to determine if any company or individual in the United States provided inaccurate information to a price reporting agency for the purpose of manipulating the published prices of gasoline or oil; secondly, to refer any illegal activities to the proper authorities for prosecution; third, to report its findings within 6 months; and lastly, to publish recommendations on its Web site on how to make sure the pricing of gasoline, crude oil, heating oil, diesel fuel, and jet fuel becomes more transparent, open, and free from manipulation, fraud, abuse, or excessive speculation.

The third largest oil company in Europe has estimated that as much as 80 percent of all crude oil product transactions are linked to prices published by Platts, a private price reporting agency, while just 20 percent are linked to trades on the New York Mercantile Exchange or ICE Futures in Europe. In order to calculate prices, Platts depends on oil companies and Wall Street speculators to voluntarily provide details on bids, offers, and transactions for various crude oil and petroleum commodities.

So that is one of the issues we want to take a hard look at to make sure we end those manipulations. The other issue I want to take a hard look at is the issue of speculation on the oil futures market. What we know right now is, according to the CFTC, approximately 80 percent of the oil futures market is controlled not by end users--not by fuel dealers, not by airline companies, not by people who actually use fuel--but by Wall Street speculators. So that is the issue my second amendment deals with.

This amendment addresses an issue that was not satisfactorily addressed in Dodd-Frank, where we attempted to deal with the issue of excessive speculation on the oil futures market. Amendment No. 964 requires the CFTC to use all of its authority, including its emergency powers, within 30 days to address this very important issue.

Once again the American people are at their wits end in trying to understand why oil prices go up despite the fact we have sufficient supply and lack of demand. I am not just speaking for myself but many economists also when I say I believe one of the major reasons for this significantly high price has to do with speculation--speculation on Wall Street.

This amendment requires the CFTC to use all its authority--again, including its emergency powers, which is not what we have done in the past--within 30 days to do the following: to implement position limits to eliminate, prevent, or diminish excessive oil speculation as required by the Dodd-Frank Act, and to immediately curb excessive oil speculation to ensure that oil and gas prices are based on the fundamentals of supply and demand.

As I mentioned earlier, price is supposed to be determined by the amount of supply and the amount of demand. Supply now is very high, demand is relatively low, and so we should be seeing a decline in oil prices rather than an increase. Further, the International Energy Agency recently projected the global supply of oil will surge by 8.4 million barrels a day over the next 5 years, significantly faster than demand, and nearly two-thirds of the increase in oil supply will be in North America. So if you are looking at an abundance of supply and limited demand, we have every reason in the world to believe gas prices at the pump, oil prices in general, should go down. If they are not going down, we have to ask why. Many of us believe this has to do with excessive Wall Street speculation on the oil futures market.

While we cannot ignore the fact that big oil companies have been gouging consumers at the pump for years and have made over $1 trillion in profit over the past decade, there is mounting evidence that high gasoline prices have less to do with supply and demand and more to do with Wall Street speculation jacking up oil and gas prices in the energy futures market. Ten years ago--and this is a very important point for people to understand--10 years ago speculators only controlled--``only'' is probably the wrong word, but they controlled about 30 to 40 percent of the oil futures market. Today Wall Street speculators control at least 80 percent of the market. In a 10-year period, we have seen Wall Street speculation double on the energy futures market.

What does this mean in terms of oil prices? Everything in the world. The function of Wall Street speculation has nothing to do with using oil, everything to do with making a profit, driving prices higher. This is not just Bernie Sanders talking. There is now a growing consensus that excessive speculation on the oil futures market is driving up oil prices. ExxonMobil, Goldman Sachs, the IMF, the St. Louis Federal Reserve, the American Trucking Association, Delta Airlines, the Petroleum Marketers Association of America, the New England Fuel Institute and many other groups--the Consumer Federation of America-- have all agreed that excessive oil speculation significantly increases oil and gas prices.

Interestingly enough, Goldman Sachs--not one of my favorite institutions but perhaps the largest speculator on Wall Street--came out with a report indicating that excessive oil speculation is costing Americans 56 cents a gallon at the pump. Goldman Sachs, speculator, they themselves estimating that excessive speculation is costing 56 cents a gallon at the pump for the average consumer, and that may be a conservative estimate.

A few years ago the CEO of ExxonMobil, again not one of my favorite companies, testified at a Senate hearing that excessive speculation contributed as much as 40 percent to the cost of a barrel of oil.

Saudi Arabia, the largest exporter of oil in the world, told the Bush administration back in 2008 during the last major spike in oil prices that speculation has contributed as much as 40 percent to a barrel of oil.

Gary Gensler, the chairman of the CFTC, has stated publicly that oil speculators now control between 80 to

87 percent of the energy futures market, a figure that has more than doubled over the past decade. In other words, the vast majority of oil on the futures market is not controlled by people who actually use the product but people whose only function in life being in the oil futures market is to make as much quick profit as they possibly can.

Let me give just a list of a few of the oil speculators and how much oil they were trading on June 30, 2008, when the price of oil was over $140 a barrel and gas prices were over $4 a gallon. Goldman Sachs bought and sold over 863 million barrels of oil, Morgan Stanley bought and sold over 632 million barrels of oil, Bank of America bought and sold over 112 million barrels of oil, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, et cetera.

What we have to understand is that to a very significant degree, pricing of oil has nothing to do with supply and demand, nothing to do with end users who actually buy the product, and everything to do with Wall Street speculation. Sadly, the spike in oil and gasoline prices was totally avoidable. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act required the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to impose strict limits on the amount of oil that Wall Street speculators could trade in the energy futures market by January 17, 2011, 2\1/2\ years ago.

Unfortunately, the CFTC has been unable to implement position limits due to opposition on Wall Street and a ruling of the DC district court which is now under appeal.

This amendment directs the CFTC to utilize all its authority, including its emergency powers, to curb excessive oil speculation within 30 days. We are not going to drag this on for another 5 years. The emergency directive in this amendment is virtually identical to bipartisan legislation that overwhelmingly passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 402 to 19, during a similar crisis in 2008.

Let me conclude by saying that millions of consumers are hurting as a result of excessive speculation. People are paying much more at the pump than they should for gasoline. This issue impacts our entire economy. It is time that we did something to that. I say to my colleagues: I call up amendments numbers 963 and 964, and ask for their immediate consideration.

I look forward to talking to the Senator from Michigan, but I do want her to know this is an enormously important amendment for the people of Vermont and the people of America. We want action. I think we have brought forth an amendment which, in fact, can end up substantially lowering the price of oil and gas at the pump and I will pursue this vigorously.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the English translation of remarks made this morning by Pope Francis, who addressed the new nonresident ambassadors to the Holy See.

I don't usually comment much on religious matters, but I was very impressed by what the Pope had to say today. In his remarks Pope Francis called for a revamping of the global financial system, a system which he pointed out benefits the few, values money over human dignity, and continues to widen the gap between the rich and everybody else.

While acknowledging the advances modern society has made in health care, education, technology, and other areas, the Pope expressed his concern for the least amongst us. The Pope said:

We must also acknowledge that the majority of the men and

women of our time continue to live daily in situations of

insecurity, with dire consequences . . . fear and desperation

grip the hearts of many people, even in the so-called rich

countries; the joy of life is diminishing; indecency and

violence are on the rise; poverty is becoming more and more

evident. People have to struggle to live and, frequently, to

live in an undignified way.

The Pope went on to say this in his rather brief remarks:

One cause of this situation . . . is in our relationship

with money, and our acceptance of its power over ourselves

and our society . . . The worship of the golden calf of old

has found a new and heartless image in the cult of money and

the dictatorship of an economy which is faceless and lacking

any truly humane goal.

The Pope continued:

The worldwide financial and economic crisis seems to

highlight their distortions and above all the gravely

deficient human perspective, which reduces man to one of his

needs alone, namely, consumption. Worse yet, human beings

themselves are nowadays considered as consumer goods which

can be used and thrown away. We have begun a throw away

culture.

He also said:

Solidarity, which is the treasure of the poor, is often

considered counterproductive, opposed to the logic of finance

and the economy.

Further quoting the Pope, and I hope everybody listens to this:

While the income of a minority is increasing exponentially,

that of the majority is crumbling.

Let me repeat that. This is what the Pope said today:

While the income of a minority is increasing exponentially,

that of the majority is crumbling. This imbalance results

from ideologies which uphold the absolute autonomy of markets

and financial speculation, and thus deny the right of control

to States, which are themselves charged with providing for

the common good. A new, invisible and at times virtual,

tyranny is established, one which unilaterally and

irremediably imposes its own laws and rules. Moreover,

indebtedness and credit distance countries from their real

economy and citizens from their real buying power. Added to

this, as if it were needed, is widespread corruption and

selfish fiscal evasion, which have taken on worldwide

dimensions. The will to power and of possession has become

limitless.

This is from a speech Pope Francis made today. I think it is important that we listen to the Pope on this issue. Frankly, I have strong disagreements with the Catholic Church on issues of women's rights, issues of gay rights, and a number of other issues. On this issue of what is happening economically around the world--the power of financial markets; the growing gap between the very rich and everyone else; the need for government and for states around the world to step in and protect the dispossessed; the need to understand that money unto itself means nothing unless it is being used in a way that improves the lives of all people--that is a message coming from the Pope. It is a message worth thinking about and discussing.

In the Senate, I hear a lot of criticism of government, some of which is certainly justified. All of us, I would hope, are deeply concerned, embarrassed, and disagree with what the IRS did in terms of picking out one political persuasion in terms of tax-exempt status. That is clearly wrong, unacceptable, and must be dealt with.

Many of my friends attack government day after day when government is trying to do the right thing in protecting middle-class and working families. There are some in the Congress, for example, who believe that government programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid should be significantly cut or that maybe government shouldn't even be involved in those areas. They believe these programs are unconstitutional.

If you were to eliminate Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, what would happen to tens of millions of people who rely on Social Security for their retirement, especially at a time when many private pensions have been cut severely? If you make cuts or eliminate Medicare for the old or you undo the Medicare system we know and turn it into the system our friends in the House would like to have, what will happen to elderly people when they get sick and need health care and don't have the money in their own pockets to pay for that? I will tell you what will happen.

This year alone, it is estimated that approximately 45,000 Americans will die because they never made it to a doctor on time when they should have made it. If you make major cuts in Medicare or do away with the basic guarantees Medicare now provides, clearly the number of people who will die will simply increase.

If you are 67 years of age and are diagnosed with cancer and Medicare is not there for you and you don't have a family who has money, what will happen to you? Some of my Republican friends will say: Well, go to charity. Charity is not going to be there to provide health care for millions of people.

In terms of health care, what we must point out over and over again because many Americans don't understand it is that our Nation is the only Nation in the industrialized world that does not guarantee health care to all people as a right of citizenship.

Today, although we hope that will change in the very near future, 50 million people have no health insurance. Many others have large deductibles or copayments, which keep them from going to the doctor when they should.

We have invited the Ambassador from Denmark to join us in a town meeting in Vermont on Saturday. He will explain to us how in Denmark, among many other countries throughout the world, they can provide health care to people that is virtually free from out-of-pocket expenses and yet per capita end up spending substantially less than we do. He will explain to us why the cost of their prescription drugs is substantially lower than it is in the United States.

In terms of education, this is at a time when in my State the average college graduate in Vermont leaves school some $28,000 in debt--roughly the national average. This is at a time when hundreds of thousands of young people cannot afford to go to college, and we lose all of their intellectual capabilities and the genius they might provide

for our society. In Denmark, college education is virtually free, including graduate school and medical school.

At a time when in our country millions of people are overworked and underpaid; at a time when we work some of the longest hours of any people in the industrialized world, when people in Vermont are working not 40 hours a week but 50 hours a week, 60 hours a week; at a time when people are not working one job but two jobs, three jobs, trying to cobble together an income; at a time when some employers are hiring people and providing zero vacation time or maybe, if one is lucky, a week off, how does it happen that in countries such as Denmark people not only get 5 weeks' guaranteed paid vacation, but they get another 11 vacation days?

In this country, we talk a lot about family values. However, if you are a working-class woman having a baby, you will get some maybe. If you are working for a large enough employer, family medical leave may have an impact and you may get some time off to have the baby, but you can't stay home very long to take care of your newborn because you will not have any money coming in. Millions of folks have a baby and go right back to work, putting the child back in childcare when they would prefer otherwise. How does it happen in countries such as Denmark that women get 4 weeks off, fully paid before they give birth, and then months off afterwards to stay home with the baby, not to mention three- quarters payment from the government for childcare, while we so poorly manage that?

I think it is time we have a serious discussion about values, and that discussion has to include whether we feel good about the fact that in this country so few have so much and so many have so little.

Do we feel comfortable with the growing imbalance in terms of income and wealth such that the top 1 percent owns 38 percent of the wealth and the bottom 60 percent owns only 2.3 percent, and the gap between the billionaire class and everybody else is growing wider?

As the Pope asked: Are we comfortable with a financial system where the goal is not to invest in the productive economy but to make money for itself, such that the top six financial institutions in this country have assets equivalent to some 70 percent of the GDP of the United States--some $9 trillion--and enormous political power?

This IRS business people are talking about on the floor of the Senate is related to the absurd campaign finance system we have where big companies can secretly put hundreds of millions of dollars into the political process. Are we comfortable with a political system where people can make contributions in secret that end up in the political process and then end up on a 30-second ad on our TV--money coming from billionaires who don't have to disclose their contributions?

So when we talk about values, it is important to assess who we are as Americans and what we believe in. I believe most Americans believe we have to do a lot better job at focusing on the needs of the declining and disappearing middle class; that we have to create millions of jobs so our young people do not have outrageously high levels of unemployment and older people who lose their jobs have nothing to go back to; that we have to address the issue of high childhood poverty; and we have to, in fact, make sure government works for all of the people and not just the people on top.

I would just conclude by recommending to the Members and to the American people they examine the remarks made this morning by Pope Francis, which I think raise some very important issues. I think there is a lot to be learned from those remarks.

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

Madam President, yesterday the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, estimated that this year's budget deficit will be 24 percent lower than it was projected just a few months ago. That is very good news for our country. Let's not forget that just 5 or so years ago when President Obama came into office in January 2009, he inherited a $1.4 trillion deficit--$1.4 trillion. This was as a result of two unpaid-for wars, huge tax breaks for the wealthy and large corporations, an unfunded Medicare Part D prescription drug program written by the drug and insurance companies and, of course, the terrible recession, which resulted in less revenue coming into the Federal Government.

We experienced 4 straight years of deficits above $1 trillion. This year the CBO projects the deficit will just be $642 billion. Now, $642 billion is a lot of money. It is a large deficit. We have to continue working on that issue. But, clearly, for a variety of reasons we have made substantial progress, and we should be proud of that.

By 2015, the CBO is projecting that Federal deficit will total just 2.1 percent of GDP, exactly what those folks involved with Simpson and Bowles told us we needed to achieve in order to be fiscally sustainable over the long term.

So the good news is that we have made significant progress on deficit reduction. We should be proud of that. However, we must be cognizant that we do not place ourselves in a situation in which the operation was a success but the patient died. The patient I am talking about, of course, is the disappearing middle class, the backbone of this great country.

In other words, while a lot of attention has been focused on deficit reduction, which is important, it is high time we started focusing on what is happening to tens of millions of working families, people who are unemployed, people who are working at very low wage jobs, elderly people who cannot afford their prescription drugs, families who cannot afford to send their kids to college or provide childcare for their young ones.

My main point today is, let's start focusing on the issue of most importance to the vast majority of the American people; that is, creating the millions of jobs we desperately need and making sure people have income they can afford to live on with dignity.

The sad reality is--and we need to focus on these issues--poverty is increasing and in many ways the great middle class of this country, once the envy of the world, is disappearing. Sadly, the gap between the very, very wealthy and everyone else is growing wider and wider.

We must not have an economy where just the people on top, just the multinational corporations do extremely well, while the vast majority of the people are struggling to make ends meet.

Since 1999 the average middle-class family has seen its income go down by nearly $5,000 after adjusting for inflation. Median family income today is lower than it was in 1996. So all over this country people get up in the morning, often husbands and wives, work long hours, and they come back and they find out that they are worse off financially than they were 10 or 15 years ago.

When you ask people, why, what direction, how is the country doing, they think the country is moving in the wrong direction. That is precisely the reason: people are working long hard hours, and they are falling further and further behind.

I understand when we pick up the newspapers they tell us unemployment is 7.5 percent. That is one way of looking at unemployment. But if we look at it in a more accurate way, including those people who have given up looking for work, people who are working part time when they want to work full time, real unemployment in this Nation today is 13.9 percent. It is high time this Congress began addressing that issue. In fact, more than 20 million Americans today do not have a full-time job when they want to be working full time.

Another issue that has not received the attention that it deserves is youth unemployment. Youth unemployment is especially painful because we have young people graduating high school, graduating college, wanting to go out and begin their careers, begin their adult lives, and they cannot find a job. In some cases if they graduate college, they are finding a job which does not require a college degree.

The youth unemployment rate for 16- to 24-year-old workers is 16.2 percent--16.2 percent. For teenagers the overall unemployment rate is 25.1 percent. For African-American teens, the number is 43.1 percent.

Believe it or not, the United States has now surpassed much of Europe in the percentage of young adults without jobs, according to a recent article in the New York Times. We have done well for a variety of reasons in dealing with deficit reduction, but now it is time to turn to those young people throughout this country, kids who are looking forward to getting out on their own, earning a living, and help them get the kind of jobs they need to succeed in life and to start their adult life off in a good direction.

Each and every year when we talk about young people, we should understand that another real tragedy is taking place, and that is because of the disappearing middle class and the high cost of college education. Some 400,000 high school graduates do not go to college, not because they are unqualified but because they cannot afford it. What a tragedy that is, to waste all of that intellectual capital. Who knows what those kids might do if they are able to get a college degree. But now, because of declining incomes for their families and the high cost of college education, they are unable to do it. This is an issue on which we must also focus.

From 1969 to 2009, median earnings for male high school graduates plummeted by almost 50 percent after adjusting for inflation. Let me repeat that. From 1969 to 2009, median earnings for male high school graduates plummeted by almost 50 percent after adjusting for inflation. Men without a high school education have fared even worse. Their inflation-adjusted median earnings have shrunk by nearly two-thirds over the past four decades.

What is that about? Well, what that is about is at one time in this country, when people did not have even a high school degree or just a high school degree, they could go out and get a job. Maybe that job was in a factory. Maybe it was not the greatest job in the world, but if they worked in a factory, and especially if they had a union job in that factory, they could make a decent wage. They could make it into the middle class. But, sadly, those jobs have, to a very significant degree, disappeared. We have lost over 50,000 factories in this country in the last 10 years millions of decent-paying jobs.

What opportunities are there now available for young people who just graduate high school or may not even graduate high school? At best, at best, they are going to work at McDonald's or work at Wal-Mart for inadequate wages. But the truth is that many of those young people are finding it difficult to obtain any kind of job.

There is another issue on which we must focus, and that is distribution of wealth because at the end of the game, the end of the game of economics, we want to know who wins and who loses. Clearly, what has been going on in this country in recent years is the people on top are doing phenomenally well while the middle class is shrinking and poverty is at a very high rate.

According to a report that came out on April 23, 2013, a couple of weeks ago, from the Pew Research Center, all of the new wealth generated in this country from 2009 to 2011 went to the top 7 percent of American households, while

the bottom 93 percent of Americans saw a net reduction in their wealth.

All of the new wealth, from 2009 to 2011, went to the top 7 percent. Today, the wealthiest 400 individuals in this country own more wealth than the bottom half of America, 150 million people--400 people here, 150 million there. That is not what this great country was supposed to be about.

Today, one family, the Walton family, the owners of Walmart, is worth $100 billion. That is more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of the American people. One family owns more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of the American people.

Today the top 1 percent owns 38 percent of all financial wealth, while the bottom 60 percent owns 2.3 percent. In case people didn't hear that correctly--maybe they are scratching their heads--let me say it again. The top 1 percent owns 38 percent of all financial wealth in this country, while the bottom 60 percent owns 2.3 percent. That gap between the billionaires and everybody else is getting wider and wider and wider. In fact, as Warren Buffett has pointed out, we are seeing a massive shift of wealth from the middle class to the billionaire class.

Warren Buffett pointed out recently that the 400 wealthiest Americans are now worth a recordbreaking $1.7 trillion, more than five times what they were worth two decades ago.

Meanwhile, according to a June 2012 study from the Federal Reserve, median net worth of middle-class families dropped by nearly 40 percent from 2007 to 2010. What we are seeing is a massive shifting of wealth from the middle class, from the working class of this country, to the people on top. That gap between the very wealthy and everybody else is now wider than it has been since the 1920s and wider than any major country on Earth.

What is my point? My point is that deficit reduction is important. We must continue to focus on it. We cannot forget about the economic reality facing the men, women, and children of this country, facing senior citizens of this country. It is high time we began to address some of the major economic problems we face.

In terms of job creation, most economists will tell you the fastest way to create jobs is to put Americans back to work rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. In my State of Vermont and in States all over this country, there is a desperate need to repair and rebuild our roads, bridges, dams, culverts, sewers, schools, and affordable housing. If we do this, if we start investing in our infrastructure, making sure broadband is accessible in every area in this country, cell phone service is available in every area of this country, rebuilding our roads, bridges, rail, we will make this Nation more productive. At the same time we can put millions of people back to work at all kinds of work.

The American Society of Civil Engineers has graded America's roads, public transit, and aviation infrastructure with a D-plus. They say we must invest $1.6 trillion more than we are currently planning to spend on infrastructure over the next 7 years just to get a passable condition. When we make that investment, we improve life in America. People do not have to go over potholes. Bridges do not have to be closed. We can develop a first-rate rail system to compete with Europe, Japan, China, and we can create jobs doing that.

The second point, in terms of job creation, is we can create significant numbers of jobs transforming our energy system away from fossil fuel, into energy efficiency, and such sustainable energies as wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass. When we do that we begin to start addressing the planetary crisis of global warming, we begin to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions, and we create good-paying jobs.

Thirdly, we have got to take a hard look at our disastrous trade policy, which for many years has been corporate America's policy, and a policy of Republicans and Democrats alike. Despite all of the evidence that unfettered free trade has resulted in the loss of millions of decent-paying jobs in this country, as corporations shut down here, move to China, Vietnam, and other low-wage countries, we still have Democrats and Republicans coming forward doing the bidding of corporate America so these companies can get cheap labor abroad while increasing unemployment in this country. We have got to take a hard look at our trade policies.

I know every election campaign, 2 weeks before the election, all the candidates have ads on television bashing China and ads on television talking about trade policy. Somehow the day after the election everybody forgets it. Whether it is a Democratic President, whether it is a Republican President, whether it is a Republican House or whether it is a Democratic Senate, we still continue moving down the road of these disastrous trade policies. That means NAFTA, CAFTA, and permanent normal trade relations with China. We have to take a hard look and rethink those policies.

The last point I want to make is that while making progress on deficit reduction, we have got to be appreciative that some of the people on whom we have balanced the budget are some of the most vulnerable people in this country. While one out of four major corporations pays nothing in taxes, while corporations are stashing their money in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, and other tax havens, we have made devastating cuts in programs that people can ill afford. As a result of sequestration, this is what is happening in the real world. At a time when over 20 million Americans are unemployed or underemployed, unemployment insurance checks, which average about $300 a week--try living on $300 a week--are being cut by 10.7 percent. In other words, those who are out of work, through no fault of their own, are having their unemployment benefits reduced by more than $32 a week on average. Now $32 here is what people spend for lunch. If you are a working family and you are unemployed, $32 is a question of whether you buy food for the kids. We have got to replace that loss.

At a time when early childhood education is more important than ever, when we do an abysmal job in terms of childcare and preschool education already, as a result of sequestration 70,000 kids are losing access to Head Start and Early Head Start Programs. That is unacceptable.

I am chairman of the subcommittee which deals with aging, and I can tell you that millions of seniors right now are struggling, figuring out how to pay their food bills, buy their prescription drugs, and keep warm in the wintertime. At a time when food insecurity is skyrocketing as a result of sequestration, tens of thousands of senior citizens have been denied access to the Meals On Wheels Program. Meals On Wheels is a program that goes to the weakest, most fragile, most vulnerable people in this country, elderly people who cannot get out of their homes. Meals are delivered to them. For these people, this is a question of life or death, whether they are going to live with a modicum of dignity. Those programs have been cut as a result of sequestration.

At a time when millions of Americans cannot afford the cost of housing, 140,000 low-income families, primarily seniors with disabilities and families with kids, are losing rental assistance because of cuts to the section 202 elderly housing program, the section 811 disabled housing program, and a number of other affordable housing programs.

At a time when the cost of a college education is becoming increasingly out of reach for working families, 70,000 college students, as a result of sequestration, are losing Federal work-study grants. Some of them will not be able to stay in college.

At a time when 45,000 Americans will die this year because they don't have access to health care, sequestration has forced doctors in cancer clinics to deny chemotherapy treatments to thousands of patients because of a 2-percent cut to Medicare providers.

LIHEAP, which is the Low Income Heating Energy Assistance Program, very important to the State of Vermont, is being cut by $180 million, meaning people will go cold next winter.

Let me conclude by saying we have made progress on deficit reduction, and that is good. Now it is time to pay attention to the needs of working families all over this country and put people back to work.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as the chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, I have pledged to improve outreach activities to better inform our Nation's over 22 million veterans of the benefits to which they are entitled.

Legislation I introduced last week, the Veterans' Outreach Act of 2013, would authorize the Department of Veterans Affairs to carry out a 2-year demonstration project to award grants to State and local government programs and nonprofit organizations to improve the coordination and collaboration of veterans' health care and benefit services across Federal, State, and local assets. By providing State and local government programs and nonprofit organizations the opportunity to submit a grant proposal with stated goals and objectives, VA would be able to better leverage the countless services across the Nation that support veterans and their family members. Finally and most importantly, my legislation would require recipients to submit outcomes data back to VA in order to document a recipient's ability to increase awareness, efficiency, and effectiveness of Federal, State, and local outreach activities; enhance the availability of Federal, State, and local resources for veterans; and strengthen the overall culture of community-based support within a given community across our great Nation. With this 2-year demonstration project, VA will be able to examine what outreach activities work and reassess its outreach strategy accordingly.

Last month I was in Brooklyn, NY, where I met two combat veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. One was a U.S. Marine Corps captain and the other was a sergeant in the U.S. Army. Both were receiving health care at VA and struggling to pay for their copays. Similarly, both were unaware of their eligibility to receive 5 years of free health care at VA following their most recent discharged from Active-Duty. Most displeasing was the lack of understanding of this very same health care benefit by senior VA officials who accompanied me that day. If senior VA officials are unaware of such a principal health care benefit available to combat veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, much more remains to be done inside and outside of VA to ensure veterans of all eras are informed and understand the benefits and services they are entitled.

I urge my colleagues to ask veterans across their State and see how many understand all of the benefits and services available to them. For instance, countless veterans across this Nation remain unaware that some of them may be entitled to one-time dental care if they apply at VA within 180 days of separation from Active Duty. Little known benefits like this, can go a long way in placing our newest generation of veterans on sound footing following their exit from military service. Other veterans may be eligible for no-cost or low-cost health care and medications if they meet eligibility requirements for VA health care. To claim this coverage they must enroll at their local Department of Veterans Affairs medical center. These uncertainties surrounding VA health care eligibility will most certainly be compounded by the additional health care options that become available as we approach implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Veterans need to know and understand their options.

The men and women who have sacrificed so much in defense of this country deserve to know about the benefits and care to which they are entitled, and it is VA's job to make sure they know. Simply knowing about benefits in certain instances is not enough. If VA is trying to reach rural veterans, knowing where and when a mobile vet center will visit your community is critical. If VA is trying to reach more and more veterans in the community, knowing when and where the local medical center or community-based outpatient clinic will hold events and activities can drive up the number of veterans in attendance. Furthermore, VA needs to do more to proactively identify outreach efforts that work locally while leveraging the countless services supporting veterans that are made available by organizations all across the country.

Highly able and willing organizations and agencies are already providing

quality social services and outreach into communities across the Nation. Some of these organizations report a lack of coordination and collaboration with local VA facilities. Additionally, many small nonprofits and local organizations sometimes lack the additional resources needed to strategically develop guidance and partnerships with and across Federal, State, and local assets. More effective and localized outreach will better address the community-based needs of today's veterans and do so in a cost-efficient way.

This legislation goes beyond authorizing VA to issue grants. This legislation would also allow VA to enter into cooperative agreements and arrangements with various State agencies to carry out, improve, or enhance outreach activities for veterans. Simply put, if a State is already supporting our Nation's veterans, then this legislation would allow VA to reinforce the bond between Federal and State resources to ensure local veterans outreach activities are streamlined and cost- avoidances identified.

One thing is undeniable, and that is that VA should be making every effort to ensure veterans are aware of the benefits and services afforded to them. I recently held a committee hearing where we heard about some of the progress the Department has made in addressing the important issue of outreach. We also heard from community-based organizations that are coordinating and collaborating across Federal, State, and local levels to leverage resources in order to provide cost- effective programs. But what struck me the most was the steadfastness with which each of these community-based organizations identifies veterans and links them to the Federal, State, and local benefits and services they are entitled.

Widely available information and a clear understanding of the information are two basic components of effective outreach. If our Nation's veterans are to take full advantage of the benefits and service they have earned, effective outreach is indispensable. When our Nation's over 22 million veterans are able to take advantage of these benefits and services, they more often than not are placed on a positive path toward an encouraging future.

Mr. President, we have made a solemn commitment to aid veterans after they leave military service. We can only honor this commitment if veterans and their families are aware of the benefits and services available to them. This legislation would strengthen VA's outreach and support the organizations and agencies that seek to stand shoulder to shoulder with VA in support of our nation's heroes.

Will the Senator yield for a moment?

I thank the Senator from California and the chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee for her work on this important project. I do wish to mention we have in Vermont one small concern that I hope will be addressed in this bill. In Vermont we have suffered through Irene, and it was a devastating experience for many communities in the State and for businesses.

The problem we are having now is that we have State regulations which correctly require that culverts be built which can, in fact, deal with the real problems of flooding. Unfortunately, what FEMA is prepared to pay for is inadequate infrastructure--culverts, among other things, that will not address the problem if we have to deal with another problem such as Irene.

This is a very modest proposal. Senator Leahy and I feel strongly about this issue. I know the chairperson is sympathetic. There appears to be some problems on the other side, and I very much hope we can resolve this.

I had heard there was some objection on the other side.

It is very important to Senator Leahy and me that be addressed.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 889.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this amendment is cosponsored by my colleague from Vermont, Mr. Leahy. What it does is it addresses a very serious problem facing the State of Vermont and I think potentially States all over the country.

Mr. President, as you well know, Tropical Storm Irene impacted some 225 Vermont communities with 90 bridges and 963 culverts damaged or destroyed statewide. In a small State, that is a lot of damage.

Long before Irene, the Vermont State legislature enacted stream alteration standards that prevented flood hazards, damage to fish and wildlife, and damage to adjacent property owners. These standards result in resilient infrastructure and are looked to as a model by other States. In other words, what the State legislature did appropriately is pass standards that would do the job, that would protect communities in times of floods and natural disasters.

As we all know, FEMA compensates communities for the rebuilding of bridges and culverts damaged during large storms such as Irene, but FEMA--and here is the main point--in many cases is insisting on overriding Vermont's stronger standards, requiring communities to build inferior projects that are unlikely to withstand the next major storm to hit the State. In other words, communities are standing there wanting to do the right thing. The State has promulgated regulations as to what these culverts and bridges should look like. What FEMA is saying is we are not going to compensate you for doing the right thing. In other words, FEMA is insisting that local communities, in order to get reimbursed for these expenses of replacing damaged infrastructure, must build culverts and bridges to standards that have already failed and are likely to fail again. This is Vermont's problem today. It could be your State's problem tomorrow. The point here is we should not be rebuilding culverts and bridges in a way that will result in them failing once again when another flood or extreme weather disturbance takes place. That makes no sense at all.

In Vermont, at least 39 bridge and culvert projects would benefit from this amendment, and half of these projects have not yet gone forward because of this dispute with FEMA. In other words, we have many communities in the State of Vermont that are not going forward rebuilding the damaged culverts and bridges but waiting because of this ongoing dispute with FEMA.

Again, today this is Vermont's problem. Tomorrow it could be West Virginia's or California's. It makes no sense to rebuild bridges and culverts in a way that has failed. We want to rebuild them in a way that will enable them to remain strong during the next flood or extreme weather disturbance. If another Hurricane Irene were to hit, those towns would be vulnerable to severe damage yet again. In other words, they are sitting in limbo. They don't have the money to do the job they want to see done, and they are not getting help from FEMA. In fact, communities in States across the country that adopt more resilient standards for infrastructure replacement would benefit from this amendment.

Today it impacts Vermont. Tomorrow it could impact any State in this country. Local communities and States have a better sense of the kinds of standards that are required for bridges and culverts than FEMA, and they should be allowed to go forward with those standards and be compensated by FEMA.

FEMA's current practice throws good money at bad by preventing States and local communities from rebuilding with more resilient, better- defined infrastructure after devastating storms. The amendment Senator Leahy and I are offering will save taxpayers money, will save lives, and better protect communities from future natural disasters and extreme weather disturbances.

In short, the Sanders-Leahy flood resilience amendment requires FEMA to recognize State standards when providing Federal reimbursements for bridge and culvert replacements after natural disasters, supports communities that want to rebuild more resilient infrastructure after natural disasters, harmonizes the approaches of the Army Corps of Engineers and FEMA, and stops throwing good money after bad, saves taxpayers at the local, State, and Federal level by making smarter investments in more durable infrastructure.

With that, I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that the time during all quorum calls be charged equally to both sides.

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

This amendment impacts Vermont today, but it can impact any and every State in this country if it experiences a major flood or a natural disaster.

We all know FEMA compensates communities for rebuilding bridges and culverts damaged during storms such as Irene, but what is not widely known is that FEMA insists that local communities, in order to get reimbursed, must build culverts and bridges to the same standards that already failed and are likely to fail again. It is not terribly sensible. That is what this amendment deals with.

I yield to my colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy.

Mr. President, today, as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am proud to introduce the Veterans' Educational Transition Act of 2013.

My colleague and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Senator Burr, joins me in introducing this important legislation.

The Department of Defense estimates that approximately 250,000 to 300,000 servicemembers will separate annually for the next 4 years. That is more than one million brave men and women who will face the harsh reality of transitioning back to civilian life. Many of them will elect to further their education by using the most lucrative benefit afforded to them since WWII--the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Since 2009, the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, has paid nearly 1 million Post-9/11 GI Bill beneficiaries more than $28 billion.

The Post-9/11 GI Bill stands as a testament of our willingness to invest in our newest generation of veterans. Unfortunately, this investment often falls short of what they need to complete a post- secondary education and successfully transition back to civilian life. They deserve better.

Given the nature of our Armed Forces, servicemembers have little to no say as to where they serve and where they reside during their military service. Thus, when transitioning servicemembers consider what educational institution they want to attend, many of them choose a school in their home State or a State where they previously served.

I have heard from too many veterans that many of these public educational institutions consider them out-of-State students. Given that the Post-9/11 GI Bill only covers in-State tuition and fees for public educational institutions, these veterans are left to cover the difference in cost between the in-State tuition rate and the out-of- State tuition rate. In some States, this difference can be more than $20,000 per year. As a result, many of our Nation's veterans must use loans to cover this difference and in the process become indebted with large school loans that will take years to pay off.

I applaud the States that have taken initiative to assist our veterans by recognizing them as in-State students for purposes of attending a public educational institution. Yet, there are too many States that still require transitioning veterans to meet stringent residency requirements before they can be considered in-State students. Recently separated veterans may not be able to meet such requirements because of their military service, and once enrolled, they cannot legally establish residency because of their status as full-time students.

The Veterans Educational Transition Act of 2013 would require States, as a condition for course approval under the Post-9/11 GI Bill or Montgomery GI Bill, to recognize certain veterans and their dependents using these education benefits as in-State students for purposes of attending a public institution. The veteran must be within 2 years from the date of discharge, and the individual using the benefit must live in the State while attending the school.

This legislation would help our brave men and women who have sacrificed so much in defense of our country transition to the civilian workforce 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.

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

Mr. President, today, as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am proud to introduce the Veterans' Educational Transition Act of 2013.

My colleague and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Senator Burr, joins me in introducing this important legislation.

The Department of Defense estimates that approximately 250,000 to 300,000 servicemembers will separate annually for the next 4 years. That is more than one million brave men and women who will face the harsh reality of transitioning back to civilian life. Many of them will elect to further their education by using the most lucrative benefit afforded to them since WWII--the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Since 2009, the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, has paid nearly 1 million Post-9/11 GI Bill beneficiaries more than $28 billion.

The Post-9/11 GI Bill stands as a testament of our willingness to invest in our newest generation of veterans. Unfortunately, this investment often falls short of what they need to complete a post- secondary education and successfully transition back to civilian life. They deserve better.

Given the nature of our Armed Forces, servicemembers have little to no say as to where they serve and where they reside during their military service. Thus, when transitioning servicemembers consider what educational institution they want to attend, many of them choose a school in their home State or a State where they previously served.

I have heard from too many veterans that many of these public educational institutions consider them out-of-State students. Given that the Post-9/11 GI Bill only covers in-State tuition and fees for public educational institutions, these veterans are left to cover the difference in cost between the in-State tuition rate and the out-of- State tuition rate. In some States, this difference can be more than $20,000 per year. As a result, many of our Nation's veterans must use loans to cover this difference and in the process become indebted with large school loans that will take years to pay off.

I applaud the States that have taken initiative to assist our veterans by recognizing them as in-State students for purposes of attending a public educational institution. Yet, there are too many States that still require transitioning veterans to meet stringent residency requirements before they can be considered in-State students. Recently separated veterans may not be able to meet such requirements because of their military service, and once enrolled, they cannot legally establish residency because of their status as full-time students.

The Veterans Educational Transition Act of 2013 would require States, as a condition for course approval under the Post-9/11 GI Bill or Montgomery GI Bill, to recognize certain veterans and their dependents using these education benefits as in-State students for purposes of attending a public institution. The veteran must be within 2 years from the date of discharge, and the individual using the benefit must live in the State while attending the school.

This legislation would help our brave men and women who have sacrificed so much in defense of our country transition to the civilian workforce 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.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today to say a few words about an issue I think does not get enough discussion in the Senate but is of great concern to the American people in general; that is, the need for Congress to pass comprehensive Postal Service reform as soon as possible.

The Postal Service is of enormous importance to tens of millions of people, people in rural States like Maine or Vermont, to businesses all over this country, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of employees who serve us so well in the Postal Service.

About 2 years ago, the Postmaster General of the United States came up with a plan for the Postal Service that would have--let me just tell you and the American people what it would have done. It would have eliminated about 220,000 Postal Service jobs, including the jobs of many American veterans. It would have closed about 15,000 post offices throughout the country, many of them in rural areas like the State of Vermont. It would have eliminated half of the mail processing plants in this country. It would have substantially slowed down the delivery of mail by eliminating overnight delivery for first class mail. It would have ended Saturday mail delivery.

Many of us in the Senate and in the House thought that plan was a disaster for our country, for our economy, and for American workers. We all organized and fought back against that plan. The goal was to convince the Postmaster General to substantially revise the ideas that he had brought forth.

Instead of closing down 15,000 post offices, the Postal Service, in fact, came up with a plan to reduce the hours of service at about 13,000 post offices throughout the country, and many in the State of Vermont. Was I happy with that? No, to be frank with you. Was it better to see a reduction of 2 hours or 4 hours than seeing the entire rural post office shut down? It was.

Instead of closing down half of the mail processing plants in this country, the Postal Service decided they would keep about 100 of the mail sorting centers that were originally on the chopping block open. In other words, they did shut down some but not nearly as many as they had intended to shut down.

Instead of ending overnight delivery standards, the Postal Service has adopted a plan to keep overnight delivery going, although not as strong as it previously was. Although it took an act of Congress through the appropriations process, the Postal Service, for the time being at least, has decided to obey the law of the land and not eliminate Saturday mail delivery.

Last year, the Senate passed a comprehensive postal reform bill. That did not go as far as I would have liked, but it was certainly a substantial improvement over what the Postmaster General had proposed. We won that vote with 62 or 63 votes. There was bipartisan support for it.

Unfortunately, the House of Representatives failed to even schedule a vote on the floor of the House for any postal reform bill. As a result nothing was signed into law last Congress, forcing us to start this process all over again.

What I fear the most is that all of the work the Senate did last Congress--and the committee of jurisdiction worked hard on it. Some of us put together an ad hoc committee of 15, 16 Members of the Senate who worked hard on that issue. But I fear very much that all of that work to save the Postal Service will go for naught if Congress does not get its act together and pass a comprehensive postal reform bill as soon as possible.

In my view the time has come to send a very loud and clear message to the leadership of the House, the leadership of the Senate, the Postmaster General of the United States, and the President of the United States; that is, in the midst of this terrible recession which has significantly impacted the middle class and working families of our country, it is imperative that we do not destroy thousands and thousands of decent-paying, middle-class jobs, including the jobs of many veterans. That is what happens when you make the kinds of cuts the Postmaster General has been talking about. In the midst of this terrible recession, it is important that we do not harm small businesses that depend upon the Postal Service to sell their products.

Just yesterday I met with some businesses in the State of Vermont for whom it is enormously important that they know there is a strong Postal Service that can provide rapid delivery of the packages they produce. It is terribly important that as we talk about postal reform, we understand many senior citizens depend upon the post office for their prescription drugs.

It is also important, again, for the economy, that we not slow down the delivery of mail, that we do not close half of the mail processing plants in this country.

Here is the important point: There is no question that the Postal Service has financial problems. Nobody disagrees with that. I think many people do not understand the basic causes of the Postal Service's financial problems; that is, the Postal Service today is in terrible financial shape because of a congressional mandate signed into law by President Bush in December 2006, forcing the Postal Service to prefund 75 years of future retiree health benefits over a 10-year period.

Let me repeat that. The Postal Service, as a result of a decision in 2006, is forced to prefund 75 years--75 years--of future retiree health benefits over a 10-year period. Clearly, no other government agency at the Federal level, State level, or local level comes anywhere close to that kind of onerous burden. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, no private sector corporation in this country is burdened with a mandate anywhere near that extreme.

This prefunding mandate is responsible for about 80 percent of the Postal Service's financial losses since 2007. Let me repeat that. You are going to read often, and we read often, the Postal Service is facing severe financial problems. Let me repeat: This prefunding mandate is responsible for about 80 percent of the Postal Service's financial losses since 2007.

Before this prefunding mandate was signed into law, the Postal Service was making a profit. In fact, from 2003 to 2006, the Postal Service made a combined profit of more than $9 billion. That is a significant profit.

I should also note that despite what we read in the media, the Postal Service actually made a profit of $100 million during the last quarter sorting, processing, and delivering the mail. If we are serious about dealing with the financial problems facing the Postal Service, the first thing we have to do is end this prefunding mandate once and for all and allow the Postal Service to use the $48 billion sitting in that future retiree health fund to keep the Postal Service healthy and thriving for years to come.

When we talk about the financial problems facing the Postal Service, we have to understand that to a very significant degree some 80 percent of the problem was caused by the Congress as a result of a decision made in 2006. It is clear to me, and I think to all Americans, that we live in the year 2013. The world is changing. We are becoming more and more a digital economy, but it is also clear to me that the Postal Service does not survive by cutting back on its services to the American people and to the business community.

In order to save and strengthen the Postal Service, I have introduced the Postal Service Protection Act, S. 316. I am very proud to say that bill now has 23 cosponsors.

Let me thank all of the Senators who are cosponsoring this bill: Senators Baucus, Blumenthal, Brown, Casey, Cowan, Franken, Gillibrand, Harkin, Heinrich, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Manchin, Menendez, Merkley, Schatz, Stabenow, Tester, Tom Udall, Warren, and Wyden.

Mr. President, I would ask that Senator Cardin be added as a cosponsor to S. 316.

I am delighted that we are making progress on real postal reform not only in the Senate but in the House as well. I thank Congressman Peter DeFazio from Oregon for his leadership efforts in cosponsoring the exact same bill in the House as we have in the Senate, and that now has 139 cosponsors.

We have 24 cosponsors now in the Senate, and in the House that bill has 139 cosponsors, which tells me the American people and their representatives in Washington understand how terribly important it is that we pass serious postal reform.

Let me very briefly talk about what is in that legislation, what the legislation, if passed, would accomplish. That bill would reestablish strong overnight delivery standards to ensure the timely delivery of mail. When people put a letter or a package in a mailbox or go to the post office, they want to know that letter or package is going to be delivered in a timely manner, and we do that.

In order to make sure we do have timely mail delivery, this legislation would prevent the closure of hundreds of mail processing plants throughout this country and save the jobs of tens of thousands of workers. This legislation would end, once and for all, as I just mentioned, the disastrous prefunding mandate that is the major problem facing the Postal Service.

This legislation would allow the Postal Service to recoup over $50 billion it has overpaid into the Civil Service Retirement System. This legislation would prevent the Postal Service from ending Saturday mail delivery. Further, and significantly, our bill would give the Postal Service the tools it needs to compete in the 21st century.

I understand, we all understand, the world has changed. It is not simply a question of finances, it is a question of giving the Postal Service the ability to compete in today's market and to allow it to sell innovative new products, new services, and, as a result, raise more revenue. We need a new vision for the Postal Service. This legislation would provide that vision.

Many Americans don't notice, but right now Federal law is tying the hands of the Postal Service in terms of the products and services it can provide. We say to the Postal Service that we are upset they are not making enough revenue, and yet we tie their hands and prevent them from going forth in producing new products and services to raise the revenue that would help their bottom line.

This legislation unties the hands of the Postal Service and would develop a process to allow the Postal Service to explore offering the best products and services that would raise the most revenue.

Let me just give an example of some of the absurdities under which the Postal Service is now operating.

If you were to go into a post office in Maine with a document and say to the clerk who is waiting on you: Listen, I need you to notarize this letter, the clerk would tell you: Sorry, it is against the law for me to notarize that letter. Now, that is pretty absurd.

If you were to walk into a post office, as I am sure everyday people do, and say: Listen, I need you to give me 10 copies of this document because I have to send it out to 10 different people, they would say: Sorry, it is against the law of the United States of America for me to make 10 copies, 3 copies, or 1 copy of your document.

Furthermore, it is against the law for post offices to sell fishing or hunting licenses. Well, in my State, we are a rural State. People might, in certain parts of the State or other parts of America, like to be able to walk into a post office and say: Hey, how do I get a fishing license? How do I pick up a hunting license?

It is against the law right now. If somebody has a check that needs to be cashed, it is very difficult to cash that check in a post office.

What you see, by the way, all over America are payday lenders who are charging outrageous rates to low-income people to cash a check, a service I suspect the Postal Service could do to make some money and also save people a whole lot of money by not having to pay these outrageous rates.

If you were to pick up a case of beer or a case of wine and you wanted to send it to a relative in California, it is against the law for the Postal Service to deliver wine or beer. Currently, it is against the law for the United States Postal Service to engage in e- commerce activities.

We say to the Postal Service: We want you to go out and we want you to be competitive. By the way, you can't do this and you can't do that. On top of that, we are going to cause a massive financial problem for you demanding that you prefund 75 years of retiree health care in a 10- year period. Good luck. Well, that has a lot to do with why the Postal Service is facing the serious financial problems it is today.

We have to give the Postal Service a lot more flexibility, and we have to give them the opportunity and the ability to develop a very different business model than it currently has. In my view, we need to give the Postal Service the authority to do what other countries throughout the world are doing to respond to the shift toward electronic mail and away from hard copy mail. Fewer and fewer people are using first class mail. We understand that. They are using e-mail. That is the reality and we have to respond to that.

Let me give a few of them, really just a few, of what other postal services around the world are doing.

In Sweden, the post office will physically deliver e-mail correspondence to people who are not online or don't have access to a computer. Could that work here? I don't know. It is an interesting idea.

In Switzerland, people can have their physical mail received, scanned, and delivered into their e-mail boxes by the postal service.

In Germany, the post office will allow customers to communicate through secure service.

I think people are increasingly and legitimately concerned about who is going to get into their e-mail. In Germany they provide secure services. Could that work here in the United States? I don't know. Is it worth exploring, worth looking into? I think it is.

The point is that the Postal Service must be given the opportunity to innovate and implement an expanded business strategy for a changing world. We can't keep doing the same old-same old in a world that is changing.

For over 230 years, and enshrined in our Constitution, the Postal Service has played an enormously important role for the people of our country and, in fact, for our entire economy. A strong Postal Service, a Postal Service

that delivers mail and packages in a timely manner, is extremely important for our economy.

That mission remains as important as it has ever been. Let's stand together and fight to save the Postal Service, not destroy it. Let's stand together in the midst of this recession to fight and save hundreds of thousands of jobs.

I again want to thank the 23 cosponsors on my legislation. I look forward to having more, but let's go forward together to save the Postal Service.

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

Mr. President, as the Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I have pledged to improve and expand employment training and development programs for our Nation's servicemembers and veterans.

While our country continues with its economic recovery, we must ensure that veterans are not left behind. Veterans possess the skills, the discipline, and the leadership necessary to succeed in a 21st century workforce. Coupled with an array of practical skills, it would seem that transitioning to civilian employment after separation from service would be effortless. Yet we continue to find high unemployment rates among veterans, especially the youngest generation. Through their service and sacrifice, each of our Nation's veterans have earned a fair shot at a job,

a fair shot at supporting their families, and a fair shot to prosper and resume their lives back home.

Although unemployment numbers are getting better for everyone, there is still reason for concern and work to be done. The unemployment rate for our youngest veterans, ages 18-24, transitioning from the military, averaged 20 percent in 2012, compared to 15 percent for non-veterans between the ages 18-24. Furthermore, in 2012, the unemployment rate among post-9/11 veterans was nearly 10 percent, while the unemployment rate for all veterans and non-veterans was less than 8 percent. This trend continues into this year, with our younger post-9/11 veterans encountering the most difficulty finding employment.

Businesses in the private sector have shown an interest in hiring veterans, but often find that veterans who apply lack industry specific experience to compete with non-veteran candidates. While it is important to ensure we provide programs to help veterans translate their military skills into the civilian sector, there remains a need to: equip veterans with civilian skills and experience necessary to meet the challenges of competing with those who have years of experience in the civilian workforce; find employers who understand military skills; and assist in helping them to readjust back to their local communities.

The Department of Defense reports that approximately one in five enlisted servicemembers separating from active duty have a military- learned skill that is not easily transferable to a civilian occupation. Many of these servicemembers will need to transition into a civilian career field that is different than their military occupation.

We have a responsibility to those who served in the military, and that includes providing practical solutions. I am proud to introduce legislation, The Veterans Equipped for Success Act of 2013, that would provide our veterans the tools necessary to transition to the civilian workforce.

First, the legislation, establishes a three-year pilot program that will partner certain unemployed veterans with employers in the private- sector. In general, the program will provide employers a wage subsidy, up to 75 percent of the wages paid, capped at $14,000 a year, and incentives to hire these veterans. Not only does the program stimulate job creation, but will provide potentially more than 150,000 veterans with the valuable work experience and civilian skills they need to obtain long-term employment.

Second, The Veterans Equipped for Success Act of 2013 focuses on providing employment opportunities and civilian work experience to our younger veterans ages 18-30. Under another three-year pilot program, up to 50,000 participating veterans, at a time, would be paired with private-sector employers for one year and provided a salary from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Employers would provide veterans mentorship, job shadowing, and valuable civilian work experience, while having the opportunity to learn about the work veterans performed in the military and the skills they acquired. The legislation also helps veterans reintegrate into their communities and give back to other veterans.

We have made a solemn commitment to aid veterans by creating job opportunities and providing them with the necessary skills to succeed. There is clearly a need for improved employment opportunities for veterans, particularly our younger transitioning veterans. This legislation would help veterans meet the challenges of competing in the civilian workforce by filling gaps not addressed by current programs. We owe it to our veterans to ensure they have the opportunity to gain valuable skills and work experience to assist them in successfully transitioning into the civilian workforce.

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

Mr. President, it is my belief that the inability to provide compensation benefits in a timely manner tarnishes the reputation of the Department of Veterans Affairs and overshadows much of the good work done there. As I have said before, I never want a veteran's negative experience with the claims system to prevent him or her from seeking mental health care or help in battling homelessness. That is why, today, I am introducing the Claims Processing Improvement Act of 2013, a bill that would help to provide veterans and their family members with the timely and accurate claims decisions they deserve.

The fact that nearly 70 percent of claims are pending longer than the Department's goal of 125 days is completely unacceptable. VA knows this, and the Department has set ambitious goals, put forward a plan, and has been working hard to transform the compensation claims system. Despite these efforts, it is clear that much work remains to be done. That is why we must continue to work together to find innovative solutions until the claims system is transformed into one fit for the 21st century.

Now is the time to truly apply all of the latest technological advances, the insight and experience of veterans service organizations, the lessons learned from the wealth of studies that have already looked at the claims system, and the resources of the Federal Government to tackle this problem from all angles and to finally make real progress.

The Claims Processing Improvement Act of 2013 is a critical part of the solution. This bill is a holistic approach to addressing the challenges of the claims system and would provide long-term reforms that will improve VA's claims process from start to finish--from the regional offices located across the nation to the Board of Veterans' Appeals. I would like to highlight just a few of the important provisions in this legislation.

VA must do a better job of showing not only Congress, but also veterans and their survivors about how VA plans to accomplish the ambitious goal of eliminating the claims backlog by 2015. That is why this bill, for the first time, would require VA to publicly report on a quarterly basis information on both VA's quarterly goals and actual production. This would allow Congress and the public to see both the successes and failures of VA's transformation efforts, measure VA's progress, and allow for quicker course corrections when necessary.

At VA regional offices across this country, employees are trying to adapt to a changing work environment as VA continues its transition to a paperless claims processing system. These employees are given credit for work in a manner that does not accurately reflect the realities of an electronic claims processing system. VA's work credit system also focuses almost exclusively on speed, often to the detriment of quality.

During a hearing held by the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs earlier this year, Mr. Bart Stichman, Joint Executive Director of the National Veterans Legal Services Program, commented that ``VA regional office adjudicators prematurely decide claims--without taking the time to obtain and assemble the evidence necessary to properly decide a claim--in an effort to ensure that the average time for deciding an initial claim that is reported to VA managers and Congress is a low number of days.'' I have heard from other veterans service organizations about the need for a cultural change at VA. In order for this change to occur, employees must operate within an environment that accurately reflects the important tasks they are asked to accomplish and an environment that focuses equally on speed and quality.

This bill would facilitate that cultural change through the establishment of a work group designed to reassess the way employees are credited for their work. The work group, tasked with providing solutions, would include the very employees and organizations with the necessary expertise to finally establish a work credit system based on a data driven methodology and one

that is updated on a consistent and predictable basis. VA employees, many of whom are veterans themselves, deserve nothing less.

This bill would also address the workforce needs of VA and other Federal agencies with claims adjudication responsibilities. In fiscal year 2012, VA lost approximately 6 percent of its claims staff. This legislation would address employee attrition by establishing a task force to develop a strategic plan and initiate training to support the hiring of veterans in claims processing and adjudication positions throughout the Federal Government. This task force would simultaneously prepare servicemembers for the jobs that consistently need to be filled and create a generation of adjudicators throughout VA who can identify with the experiences of the population they serve.

This bill would address concerns raised by the Disabled American Veterans by ensuring appropriate oversight of the disability examination system and encouraging the use of private medical evidence when appropriate. As Mr. Violante, the National Legislative Director of Disabled American Veterans, pointed out at a Veterans' Affairs hearing on the disability claims system in March, disability benefits questionnaires were ``designed to allow private physicians to submit medical evidence on behalf of veterans they treat in a format that aids rating specialists.'' Making better use of private medical evidence, and awarding appropriate work credit for doing so, would save VA adjudicators precious time, taxpayers the added expense, and would relieve veterans from the stress of excessive medical exams.

While providing veterans with timely and accurate initial claims decisions has been the focus of much attention, I remain very concerned about the staggering number of appeals pending at the Board of Veterans' Appeals. According to the Report of the Chairman of the Board of Veterans' Appeals, there were 45,959 cases pending before the Board at the end of fiscal year 2012. The Chairman's Report also provided the average length of time between the filing of an appeal and the Board's disposition, which was 1,040 days in fiscal year 2012. It is 2 unconscionable that a veteran or a family member had to wait, on average, nearly three years for a decision on an appeal. This bill contains a number of provisions that would improve efficiency at the Board of Veterans' Appeals.

This legislation would expand the use of video hearings in order to serve more veterans, reduce an appellant's wait time for a hearing, and increase efficiency in issuing final decisions on appeals by reducing the number of travel days for employees issuing decisions. However, the right to an in-person hearing would be preserved should the veteran desire such a hearing. This bill would also streamline the appellate process by requiring veterans to more quickly file a notice of disagreement. Many veterans already take quick action but to ensure veterans are protected this legislation would provide a good cause exception in the event a notice of disagreement is not filed in a timely manner, such as in cases where a physical, mental, educational, or linguistic limitation prevented timely filing.

These are just a few of the provisions of this bill, which would positively impact the claims system. This legislation is the result of a collective body of information and insight gathered from Congressional hearings, meetings with veterans service organizations and VA staff, correspondence from veterans, and aggressive oversight by the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

The challenges of the claims system are enormously complex and there is no single silver bullet that will magically solve every problem. The Claims Processing Improvement Act of 2013 would, however, provide a number of the solutions necessary to ensure veterans and their family members receive timely and accurate benefit decisions.

Clearly there is much work yet to be done. I ask my colleagues to join with me in working together to find innovative solutions until we have truly created a claims system fit for the 21st century. As a nation we have asked more of these individuals than most of us can comprehend. We must now honor the promise we made as a nation--to take care of those who have taken care of us.

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

Mr. President, as the Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I have pledged to improve and expand employment training and development programs for our Nation's servicemembers and veterans.

While our country continues with its economic recovery, we must ensure that veterans are not left behind. Veterans possess the skills, the discipline, and the leadership necessary to succeed in a 21st century workforce. Coupled with an array of practical skills, it would seem that transitioning to civilian employment after separation from service would be effortless. Yet we continue to find high unemployment rates among veterans, especially the youngest generation. Through their service and sacrifice, each of our Nation's veterans have earned a fair shot at a job,

a fair shot at supporting their families, and a fair shot to prosper and resume their lives back home.

Although unemployment numbers are getting better for everyone, there is still reason for concern and work to be done. The unemployment rate for our youngest veterans, ages 18-24, transitioning from the military, averaged 20 percent in 2012, compared to 15 percent for non-veterans between the ages 18-24. Furthermore, in 2012, the unemployment rate among post-9/11 veterans was nearly 10 percent, while the unemployment rate for all veterans and non-veterans was less than 8 percent. This trend continues into this year, with our younger post-9/11 veterans encountering the most difficulty finding employment.

Businesses in the private sector have shown an interest in hiring veterans, but often find that veterans who apply lack industry specific experience to compete with non-veteran candidates. While it is important to ensure we provide programs to help veterans translate their military skills into the civilian sector, there remains a need to: equip veterans with civilian skills and experience necessary to meet the challenges of competing with those who have years of experience in the civilian workforce; find employers who understand military skills; and assist in helping them to readjust back to their local communities.

The Department of Defense reports that approximately one in five enlisted servicemembers separating from active duty have a military- learned skill that is not easily transferable to a civilian occupation. Many of these servicemembers will need to transition into a civilian career field that is different than their military occupation.

We have a responsibility to those who served in the military, and that includes providing practical solutions. I am proud to introduce legislation, The Veterans Equipped for Success Act of 2013, that would provide our veterans the tools necessary to transition to the civilian workforce.

First, the legislation, establishes a three-year pilot program that will partner certain unemployed veterans with employers in the private- sector. In general, the program will provide employers a wage subsidy, up to 75 percent of the wages paid, capped at $14,000 a year, and incentives to hire these veterans. Not only does the program stimulate job creation, but will provide potentially more than 150,000 veterans with the valuable work experience and civilian skills they need to obtain long-term employment.

Second, The Veterans Equipped for Success Act of 2013 focuses on providing employment opportunities and civilian work experience to our younger veterans ages 18-30. Under another three-year pilot program, up to 50,000 participating veterans, at a time, would be paired with private-sector employers for one year and provided a salary from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Employers would provide veterans mentorship, job shadowing, and valuable civilian work experience, while having the opportunity to learn about the work veterans performed in the military and the skills they acquired. The legislation also helps veterans reintegrate into their communities and give back to other veterans.

We have made a solemn commitment to aid veterans by creating job opportunities and providing them with the necessary skills to succeed. There is clearly a need for improved employment opportunities for veterans, particularly our younger transitioning veterans. This legislation would help veterans meet the challenges of competing in the civilian workforce by filling gaps not addressed by current programs. We owe it to our veterans to ensure they have the opportunity to gain valuable skills and work experience to assist them in successfully transitioning into the civilian workforce.

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