Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record these essays written by Vermont High School students as part of the second annual ``What is the State of the Union?'' essay contest conducted by my office. The following essays were selected as ``Runners Up.''

The Statements follow.

Monica Allard, Milton High School (Runner Up)

[January 23, 2012]

The American Dream is adaptable. The ideals that we have

long valued are admirable, but often contradicting or

impossible to achieve with a large population. In today's

economy, that translates to the right to a free market

economy, conflicting with the practical need for government

interference; the right to succeed for oneself, battling with

the need to work together for today's and future generations.

As long as our country is able to prosper without certain

regulations, I encourage it to run free, but when the winter

comes and there is no more grazing, the horse must accept the

fence that accompanies the grain. It is imperative that

Americans collectively work to solve problems with social

security, our economy, and our political system in these

troubled times.

``Maybe if we ignore it, it will go away'' has been the

standard approach to growing concerns about social security

in the last few years. Because of increasing life expectancy,

more people are retiring than the system can support. When

the newest generation retires, there won't be enough funds

for everyone, unless something changes soon. A fixed rate

retirement check is the logical solution, if we deduct money

from the fixed rate check based on income. Working citizens

would pay fewer taxes because only the people who need social

security will be receiving it, and everyone else would have

more money to put aside for their own retirement plans.

The predominant issue of the 21st century has been the

international recession. Unemployment rates are high, but

what many young Americans don't realize is the shortage in

technical workers. There is a national trend towards

traditional four-year universities, but technical careers are

the road to take if you are searching for job stability,

demand, potential for advancement, and self-employment or a

local employer in today's economy. Through ad campaigns and

offering incentives to students enrolling in technical

universities. This is a simple way to lower the unemployment

rate, while promoting local businesses.

Another important step in rejuvenating our economy is

passing legislation that gives the national government more

control over the stock market. Occupy movements have swept

the country and it is time for Congress to respond, instead

of hiring and appointing the same executives who were largely

responsible for our economy's collapse.

In order to move forward, we need to present a united

front. Republicans and Democrats are rending our country in

two because of partisan pressure. We need radical change in

the political system: remove all party authority. Primaries

and power distribution in Congress put too much emphasis

on parties, cause corruption, and detract from the primary

duty of Senators and Representatives to their states and

country.

As our soldiers rejoin their families at home we are forced

to turn our focus inward. Reform is necessary. It is not a

question of when nor is it a question of how. Rather, the

question is whether or not we are willing to do what is

necessary to save our great county. God bless America.

Mr. President, it is no great secret that our country today faces many enormously difficult problems. We remain in the midst of a very serious recession. Real unemployment is at about 15 percent. Our middle class continues to decline. The gap between the very rich and everybody else is growing wider. Fifty million Americans have no health insurance. Millions of young people are struggling, trying to figure out how they are going to make it into college and pay for their college education. But in the midst of all of those problems, I hope very much that we do not forget about the problems facing one of the most vulnerable sectors of our society; that is, senior citizens.

We are an aging population. That is no secret. Today, and every day, some 10,000 Americans reach the age of 65. If we as a nation do not begin to address the very serious reality of an aging population, we are going to be in a lot of trouble that we are not anticipating.

One of the issues we have to understand is that not only are we an aging population, but many of those people who are becoming 65 and older are dealing with issues of poverty. Incredibly enough, 20 percent of the seniors in this country are living on average incomes of $7,500 per year--$7,500 per year average income for the bottom 20 percent of seniors in this country. Frighteningly, and embarrassingly, more and more seniors in this country are literally going hungry. Today, there are almost 1 million seniors who go hungry and many more who face the threat of hunger. That should not be happening in the United States of America.

What America is supposed to be about is that when we age, we can live out our remaining years with security and dignity, not trying to find food in order to stay alive.

Now, that is the bad news. The good news is that we have Federal legislation called the Older American Act which, to some degree, begins to address these very serious problems.

I am happy to announce, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging, we are introducing legislation to reauthorize and improve the Older Americans Act.

The legislation we are offering is going to do its very best to say senior citizens in this country will not go hungry. This legislation is going to significantly increase funding for senior centers all over this country, to provide congregate meal programs in senior centers. In my view, these congregate meal programs are enormously important, not only because they provide good nutrition to seniors all over our Nation but also they allow seniors to come together to socialize, to talk to each other, to get some of the professional help they need in their waning years. So we have to strengthen the congregate meal program, and that is what this bill does.

In addition to that, there is another program which is almost life and death to some of the most fragile and vulnerable people in this country; that is, the Meals on Wheels Program. What Meals on Wheels is about--it takes place all

over this country--is, you have people in senior centers and in other institutions who take meals--a good, quality, nutritious hot meal--to seniors, sometimes living at the end of a dirt road in Vermont or in Utah or in New Hampshire. These are people who cannot leave their homes, especially in the wintertime. These are people who, in some cases, would not survive if they did not have that Meals on Wheels Program.

I wish to take this opportunity to thank the many volunteers from senior centers and other institutions who get in their cars and trucks to take these hot meals to seniors all over this country through the Meals on Wheels Program.

What we are finding in my State of Vermont--and what we are finding around the country--is, many senior centers simply do not have the resources now to accommodate the growing number of seniors who need the Meals on Wheels Program.

Let me further say to any of my friends who say: Senator Sanders, this is a good idea. It is going to cost money. Yes, it will. Increased funding for Meals on Wheels and congregate meals will cost additional revenue. But at the end of the day, the Federal Government will save money. We have had hearings on this issue. We have had physicians come forward, and they say one of the reasons seniors end up in the hospital, seniors end up in the emergency room, is because they are malnourished. Sometimes, literally, because of poor nourishment, they fall, break their hips, at great expense to Medicaid or Medicare. So not only is it the right and moral thing to do to keep seniors in this country from going hungry; in the long run, we save money by keeping them healthy.

Furthermore, in this bill, we are going to do something I think is long overdue. There has been a lot of discussion in the Senate and in the House about Social Security. Some of my friends--often Republicans, sometimes Democrats--think we should cut Social Security, we should try to move toward a balanced budget by cutting funding for some of the most vulnerable people in this country. I strongly oppose that.

One of the arguments brought forth to cut Social Security is: The COLA--the Consumer Price Index for the Elderly; how we determine what the COLA is--it is too generous. It is inadequate. When I tell that to senior citizens in Vermont, do you know what they do? They laugh. They literally laugh when I tell them there are people in Washington, DC, who believe the formulation as to how we determine COLAs is too generous, and they say: Bernie, we have not gotten a COLA for the last 2 years, so how is this too generous? They are, of course, right.

The way we, in my view, formulate the COLA right now is inadequate, not because it is too generous but quite the contrary. The truth is, seniors' purchasing needs are different than the general population. Everybody knows that. Seniors spend a higher percentage of their income on prescription drugs. They spend it on health care. In cold-weather States such as mine and New Hampshire, they spend it on keeping warm. Senior citizens are not out there, by and large, buying flat-screen TVs or laptop computers or iPhones or iPads. Their money is going into health care.

What has been happening in recent years is, while the cost of some products--electronics in general--has been going down, the cost of prescription drugs and health care has been going up. So when you tell seniors their COLA is too generous, they tell you that makes no sense at all because they are spending more and more on health care, prescription drugs, staying warm in the wintertime.

So what we have done in this bill is requested that the Bureau of Labor Statistics improve the Consumer Price Index for the Elderly, or CPI-E, by including more of the items seniors spend money on, such as prescription drugs and other health care costs. We must have a more accurate measure for COLAs for seniors, and I believe this is the path to a fair COLA.

I look forward to working with all the Members of the Senate to make sure we do right by our parents and our grandparents, that we make sure seniors in this country can live out their remaining years in security and dignity by reauthorizing a strong and fair Older Americans Act in the coming months.

I especially want to applaud Senators Kohl, Mikulski, Casey, and Franken for introducing other thoughtful, innovative, and important Older Americans Act amendments.

We are at a critical moment in American history. In the midst of all the other challenges we face, let us not turn our backs on those who sacrificed, who fought the wars, who built the economies that made this country great. Let us support a strengthened and improved Older Americans Act.

Mr. President, it is no great secret that our country today faces many enormously difficult problems. We remain in the midst of a very serious recession. Real unemployment is at about 15 percent. Our middle class continues to decline. The gap between the very rich and everybody else is growing wider. Fifty million Americans have no health insurance. Millions of young people are struggling, trying to figure out how they are going to make it into college and pay for their college education. But in the midst of all of those problems, I hope very much that we do not forget about the problems facing one of the most vulnerable sectors of our society; that is, senior citizens.

We are an aging population. That is no secret. Today, and every day, some 10,000 Americans reach the age of 65. If we as a nation do not begin to address the very serious reality of an aging population, we are going to be in a lot of trouble that we are not anticipating.

One of the issues we have to understand is that not only are we an aging population, but many of those people who are becoming 65 and older are dealing with issues of poverty. Incredibly enough, 20 percent of the seniors in this country are living on average incomes of $7,500 per year--$7,500 per year average income for the bottom 20 percent of seniors in this country. Frighteningly, and embarrassingly, more and more seniors in this country are literally going hungry. Today, there are almost 1 million seniors who go hungry and many more who face the threat of hunger. That should not be happening in the United States of America.

What America is supposed to be about is that when we age, we can live out our remaining years with security and dignity, not trying to find food in order to stay alive.

Now, that is the bad news. The good news is that we have Federal legislation called the Older American Act which, to some degree, begins to address these very serious problems.

I am happy to announce, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging, we are introducing legislation to reauthorize and improve the Older Americans Act.

The legislation we are offering is going to do its very best to say senior citizens in this country will not go hungry. This legislation is going to significantly increase funding for senior centers all over this country, to provide congregate meal programs in senior centers. In my view, these congregate meal programs are enormously important, not only because they provide good nutrition to seniors all over our Nation but also they allow seniors to come together to socialize, to talk to each other, to get some of the professional help they need in their waning years. So we have to strengthen the congregate meal program, and that is what this bill does.

In addition to that, there is another program which is almost life and death to some of the most fragile and vulnerable people in this country; that is, the Meals on Wheels Program. What Meals on Wheels is about--it takes place all

over this country--is, you have people in senior centers and in other institutions who take meals--a good, quality, nutritious hot meal--to seniors, sometimes living at the end of a dirt road in Vermont or in Utah or in New Hampshire. These are people who cannot leave their homes, especially in the wintertime. These are people who, in some cases, would not survive if they did not have that Meals on Wheels Program.

I wish to take this opportunity to thank the many volunteers from senior centers and other institutions who get in their cars and trucks to take these hot meals to seniors all over this country through the Meals on Wheels Program.

What we are finding in my State of Vermont--and what we are finding around the country--is, many senior centers simply do not have the resources now to accommodate the growing number of seniors who need the Meals on Wheels Program.

Let me further say to any of my friends who say: Senator Sanders, this is a good idea. It is going to cost money. Yes, it will. Increased funding for Meals on Wheels and congregate meals will cost additional revenue. But at the end of the day, the Federal Government will save money. We have had hearings on this issue. We have had physicians come forward, and they say one of the reasons seniors end up in the hospital, seniors end up in the emergency room, is because they are malnourished. Sometimes, literally, because of poor nourishment, they fall, break their hips, at great expense to Medicaid or Medicare. So not only is it the right and moral thing to do to keep seniors in this country from going hungry; in the long run, we save money by keeping them healthy.

Furthermore, in this bill, we are going to do something I think is long overdue. There has been a lot of discussion in the Senate and in the House about Social Security. Some of my friends--often Republicans, sometimes Democrats--think we should cut Social Security, we should try to move toward a balanced budget by cutting funding for some of the most vulnerable people in this country. I strongly oppose that.

One of the arguments brought forth to cut Social Security is: The COLA--the Consumer Price Index for the Elderly; how we determine what the COLA is--it is too generous. It is inadequate. When I tell that to senior citizens in Vermont, do you know what they do? They laugh. They literally laugh when I tell them there are people in Washington, DC, who believe the formulation as to how we determine COLAs is too generous, and they say: Bernie, we have not gotten a COLA for the last 2 years, so how is this too generous? They are, of course, right.

The way we, in my view, formulate the COLA right now is inadequate, not because it is too generous but quite the contrary. The truth is, seniors' purchasing needs are different than the general population. Everybody knows that. Seniors spend a higher percentage of their income on prescription drugs. They spend it on health care. In cold-weather States such as mine and New Hampshire, they spend it on keeping warm. Senior citizens are not out there, by and large, buying flat-screen TVs or laptop computers or iPhones or iPads. Their money is going into health care.

What has been happening in recent years is, while the cost of some products--electronics in general--has been going down, the cost of prescription drugs and health care has been going up. So when you tell seniors their COLA is too generous, they tell you that makes no sense at all because they are spending more and more on health care, prescription drugs, staying warm in the wintertime.

So what we have done in this bill is requested that the Bureau of Labor Statistics improve the Consumer Price Index for the Elderly, or CPI-E, by including more of the items seniors spend money on, such as prescription drugs and other health care costs. We must have a more accurate measure for COLAs for seniors, and I believe this is the path to a fair COLA.

I look forward to working with all the Members of the Senate to make sure we do right by our parents and our grandparents, that we make sure seniors in this country can live out their remaining years in security and dignity by reauthorizing a strong and fair Older Americans Act in the coming months.

I especially want to applaud Senators Kohl, Mikulski, Casey, and Franken for introducing other thoughtful, innovative, and important Older Americans Act amendments.

We are at a critical moment in American history. In the midst of all the other challenges we face, let us not turn our backs on those who sacrificed, who fought the wars, who built the economies that made this country great. Let us support a strengthened and improved Older Americans Act.

Mr. President, democracy; that is, government of the people, by the people and for the people, does not thrive or even survive unless we have a well-informed and well-educated public who are thinking about, discussing and debating the important issues facing our country.

In order to stimulate that goal, I have, for the last 2 years, sponsored an essay-contest asking Vermont's high school students what they think the United States should be doing to address the major problems we face as a nation. In other words, while tonight we hear the President's views about the State of the Union, the essays these students wrote reflect Vermont students' views about the State of the Union.

I am delighted that 308 students, from 30 different schools throughout Vermont, thought about these challenges as they wrote their own State of the Union essay. And I want to thank each and every one of them for their participation in the contest and the time and effort they put into it. I also want to thank the five teachers who acted as judges for these contests. They are Brian Burgess of Hazen Union High School; Liz Lebrun of Poultney High School, Lois Little of Canaan Memorial High School; Joe Maley of South Burlington High School and Terri Vest of Twinfield Union High School.

The winner, selected by a panel of five Vermont teachers, is Jennifer Sikorski, a senior at Winooski High School. In addition to Jennifer, 18 students were named as finalists. The four runners-up were: Monica Allard, Milton High School; Kayleigh Ehler-Vock, South Burlington High School; Kate Raszka, Champlain Valley Union High School; Karolina Sowulewska, Burr and Burton Academy.

Because of the excellent quality of the essays, we also honored 14 other students with an honorable mention.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the winning essay be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 24, 2012, at 9:45 a.m.

Mr. President, I want to talk on a number of issues, but I would tell my friend from North Dakota, I very strongly disagree with him about this Keystone XL Pipeline. For those of us who are concerned about global warming, and all of the destruction that is currently taking place because of global warming, and will increase in years to come, this Keystone XL project is exactly what we should not be doing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the period for morning business be extended until 7 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, before I get to the Keystone issue, I want to suggest that at this particular moment, at the very end of the congressional session, before the end of the year's work, it is a strange moment in Congress because you have, behind closed doors, negotiators from the House and the Senate--Republicans and Democrats-- trying to put together large and complicated bills, and the concern I have--and I speak only for myself, but I think other Members in the Senate feel the same way--is we are suddenly going to be given a fait accompli, a complicated and long bill with many implications, many very important provisions, and then we are going to be asked to vote on it with not having had much input into the bill or even the ability to digest it fully and know what it means to our constituents.

Let me touch on some of the issues that concern me, and let me also say that what I am going to be referring to are reports in the media. I do not know what will be in the final product. I am not sure anybody does. But here is some of what the media is reporting that might be in the payroll holiday tax bill--or what might not be in it, for that matter.

One of the issues I believe very strongly about is that at a time when the middle class is disappearing, when poverty is increasing, and when more and more Americans understand that the wealthiest people are doing phenomenally well, and yet their effective tax rate is the lowest in decades--an issue Warren Buffett keeps reminding us about--that it is almost definitely going to be the case that while we continue to cut programs or raise revenue from the middle class and working families, the wealthiest people in this country will continue to avoid paying anymore in taxes. So we have a situation where the effective tax rates on the wealthiest people in this country are the lowest in decades, and yet, once again, as we talk about deficit reduction we are going to cut this program, we are going to cut that program, and yet the wealthy-- millionaires and billionaires--are not going to be asked to pay one nickel more in taxes. I think that is wrong, and people should understand that in all likelihood that is exactly what will happen again.

Furthermore, we have major corporations, companies on Wall Street, oil companies that in recent years have made billions of dollars in profit and yet have, in some cases, believe it or not, not paid one nickel in Federal corporate income tax because of a wide variety of loopholes.

We have a situation where we are losing tens and tens of billions of dollars--a hundred billion dollars--a year because of all kinds of tax havens which exist in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, other countries. Large corporations, wealthy individuals can shelter their money, not pay taxes, and then the result is revenue declines in the United States, and my friends in the Republican Party suggest: Cut this, cut that, go after Social Security, go after Medicare, go after Medicaid, go after education, go after environmental protection. Yet once again--once again--the wealthiest people in this country will not pay a nickel more in taxes, large corporations will continue to enjoy huge tax loopholes.

Second of all, as somebody who believes it is absolutely imperative this country transform its energy system away from fossil fuel, away from greenhouse gas emissions, and moves to energy efficiency and sustainable energy, I am very concerned that in the legislation we will be dealing with today or tomorrow--or Sunday or whenever--there will not be an extension of important programs for renewable energy.

One of the most important is the 1603 renewable energy extender. This is a Treasury grant program which helps provide financing for renewable energy projects by converting an existing tax credit into a grant.

This one program, which costs barely more than $1 billion, has leveraged $23 billion in private investments. It supports 22,000 renewable energy projects in all 50 States of our country. It has created up to 290,000 jobs. If we do not include the 1603 program in legislation, it will expire at the end of this year. What we have seen, time and time again--whether it is wind, whether it is solar--is, if we do not extend these programs, investments in these technologies significantly decline, we lose jobs, we lose our ability to compete internationally in terms of becoming a leader in sustainable energy.

I hope very much what I am hearing in the media and other sources is not correct. I hope, in fact, the 1603 Treasury grant program is included in any legislation that we vote on. That is an issue of major concern to me.

We have today a declining middle class. We have 50 million people who have no health insurance. We have a lot of elderly folks who, despite Medicare, pay a great deal of money out of their own pockets for health care. What I am hearing--again, I do not know what will be in the final package, but what some media reports suggest is, there are proposals out there to increase Medicare income-related premiums by 15 percent, starting in 2017, and also that there are some ideas out there which would decrease the income at which beneficiaries pay these income- related premiums to $80,000 for an individual and $160,000 for a couple. What this would mean is that older people will have to pay more for health care. In some cases they cannot afford to do that. I hope very much that does not happen.

When we talk about Medicare in this country, we have to talk about the overall health care crisis, which is not only that 50 million people are uninsured, it is not only that health care costs for all health insurance companies are soaring--or virtually all of them--but we have to ask why it is in the United States of America we end up spending almost twice as much per capita on health care as do the people of any other country.

Yesterday in my office I had a member of the Australian Parliament. In Australia, all people have health care as a right. Prescription drug coverage is largely covered by the government. Their costs for prescription drugs are much lower because their national health care program negotiates prices with the drug companies. Yet in our country the situation is very different.

What we want to do is not ask middle-income people to be paying more for their health care at a time when many of them are paying already more than they can afford. So the changes in Medicare which I have been reading about are something that concern me very much.

There is another area out there which I think will have profound implications for our economy. The House Republican leadership passed a bill recently as part of this conference negotiation going on now to slash unemployment insurance in half and cut up to 40 weeks of unemployment benefits. If this legislation were to become law--and I certainly hope it will not--it could lead to the loss of 140,000 jobs and hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers, who lost their jobs through no fault of their own, losing their benefits.

Here we have a situation where, in real terms, 25 million Americans are unemployed or underemployed, long-term unemployment is the longest on record, we have more people who are experiencing long-term unemployment than at any other time we can remember, and the solution our Republican

friends want to bring about--after fighting to make sure millionaires and billionaires are not asked to pay more in taxes--is to slash unemployment insurance in a very significant way.

Now, there is another issue dealing with employment above and beyond unemployment insurance; that is, that the House Republican bill, the ideas that they are bringing into the conference, would freeze Federal employee pay through 2015, and over a period of years reduce the civilian workforce by 10 percent, cutting some 200,000 decent-paying jobs.

Now, let's be clear. For Federal employees there has already been a pay freeze for the last 2 years. Those are the nurses in our Veterans' Administration hospitals. Those are people who are making $30,000, $40,000 a year. There is now a proposal to once again extend the freeze to them.

This is a real cut in real wages because inflation is going up for our Federal employees. But what concerns me equally is not only the impact this freeze would have on Federal employees, it sends a signal to every employer in America who says: Well, yes, I know you guys have not gotten a wage increase in a number of years. I know that I have asked you to pay more for health insurance. Yes, we have cut back on your pensions. But guess what. In Washington, the Congress says they are going to once again, for the third year, freeze Federal pay. In fact, they are going to ask Federal employees to pay more, too, for their pensions, which means a cut for many Federal employees. Well, if the Federal Government can do it, it says to private employers all over America so can they.

One of the points President Obama has been making and why he last fought for a middle-class tax cut is that he wants to put more money into the hands of working families. I understand that. I agree with that concept. But what is the sense of providing tax breaks for the middle class on one hand--a concept which I support----

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

What is the sense on one hand in saying, we need to put money in the hands of the middle class through a tax cut, and, on the other hand, send a green light to employers all over this country who will now look at the Federal Government and then say to their employees: Hey, the Federal Government has frozen wages for a third year, cut back on pension programs, and we are going to do that as well.

Lastly, but not least, for whatever reason, my Republican colleagues in the House have put into this mix of a payroll tax holiday a demand that the Keystone XL tar sands project be completed; that the President be forced, as I understand it, to make a decision on this within the next several months.

The reality is that among many other factors, the inspector general of the State Department is currently investigating whether the State Department acted inappropriately in appointing a particular company to do the environmental study which, amazingly enough, given the fact that I think they had a conflict of interest, ended up in a very positive light.

So the inspector general is now looking at a conflict of interest issue in terms of the environmental study which will take a bit of time. Furthermore, I think many of us understand that at a time when greenhouse gas emissions are rising rapidly in this country and all over the world, at a time when virtually the entire scientific community tells us that global warming is an enormously significant problem for the future of our planet, at a time when we are seeing increased floods and droughts and extreme weather disturbances, anyone who has studied the issue understands that in terms of global warming, the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is a very dangerous project.

Producing energy-intensive tar sands oil emits 82 percent more carbon pollution and contributes more to global warming than conventional oil, according to the EPA.

With that, let me conclude but just suggest that I think we need to be discussing publicly some of the issues that we may be voting on in a very short period of time.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to engage in a colloquy with my colleagues for the remainder of the Democratic time in morning business.

Madam President, I understand that some of my colleagues here in the Senate and in the House as well do not believe global warming is real and they do not want to see our country and, in fact, other countries around the world take the necessary actions to deal with this issue. That is fine; everybody is entitled to their opinion. But it does seem to me to make a bit of sense that we listen to the leading scientists of this world, not only in our own country but throughout the world, and hear what they have to say about global warming and the need to respond.

The National Academy of Sciences in our country, the United States, joined by academies of science in the United Kingdom, in Italy, in Mexico, Canada, France, Japan, Russia, Germany, China, India, Brazil, South Africa, have said ``climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated'' and the ``need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable.''

They are not talking about whether climate change is real or not real. What they are saying and what scientists all over the world are saying is that climate change is happening even faster than previously reported. Eighteen scientific societies, including the American Geophysical Union, the American Chemical Society, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science said:

Observations throughout the world make it clear that

climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research

demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human

activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are

based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary

assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of

the vast body of peer-reviewed science.

That comes from the American Geophysical Union, the American Chemical Society, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Further, it is not just scientists in our own country or throughout the world who are talking about climate change, who are talking about the need to respond vigorously to that crisis, but right within our own government, the U.S. Government, we have the Department of Defense saying:

Climate change is an accelerant of instability.

What that means is that when there is drought, when countries around the world are unable to grow the food they need, when there is flooding and people are driven off the land, and when people migrate from one area to another,

this creates international instability, which is of concern to the Department of Defense.

The CIA understands that ``climate change could have significant geopolitical impacts around the world, contributing to poverty, environmental degradation, and the further weakening of fragile governments,'' as well as ``food and water scarcity.'' That is from our own CIA.

But it is not just scientists around the world, not just government agencies in the United States; you have a business whose life and death, whose profit margin depends upon understanding this issue and that is the insurance industry. If the insurance industry ends up paying out a whole lot of money when there are disasters, they are going to lose money. They have to understand climate change and the disasters, the weather disturbances that occur from that. This is what they say, in a report from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. They found there is ``broad consensus among insurers that climate change will have an effect on extreme weather events.'' These are guys whose profit margins depend upon that analysis.

Many Americans and people around the world are concerned about the future impacts of global warming on our planet and what is going to happen 10 or 20 years down the line, and that is terribly important. We have to understand what climate change is going to do to our planet in years to come. But we do not have to just look at what may happen 20 or 30 years from today; we should be looking at what is happening right now, in the year 2011. The World Health Organization reports annual weather-related disasters have tripled since the 1960s, causing more than 60,000 deaths per year. The National Climatic Data Center shows that 26,500 record-high temperatures were recorded in weather stations across the United States this summer. Texas set the record for the warmest summer of any State since instrument records began in 1895. Oklahoma set a record for its warmest summer, exceeding records set during the Dust Bowl era of the 1930s. Drought in Texas has led to wildfires that destroyed more than 1,500 homes in Texas.

A 2010 heat wave in Russia killed 56,000 people. The heat wave in Europe in 2003 killed 35,000 people. We can look at Pakistan, which in 2010 had a record 129-degree temperature. All of that is consistent with what scientists have been warning us about for years.

NASA's James Hansen said climate change ``loads the dice'' in favor of more extreme weather events. Hansen said the answer to whether greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to these extreme weather disturbances is ``yes . . . humans probably bear responsibility for the extreme event.

There is much to be said. I think a number of colleagues are coming to the floor. But I want to yield the floor to a Senator who has been an absolute leader on this whole issue, fighting for the environment, and that is Senator Whitehouse of Rhode Island.

Mr. President, I want to reiterate the very important point that Senator Whitehouse has made. This struggle is not only to transform our energy system, to move away from fossil fuel, and to end the absurdity of importing over $300 billion a year in oil from Saudi Arabia and other foreign countries and move toward energy independence, this effort is to cut greenhouse gas emissions so that we save the planet. This effort also has to do with creating jobs in the midst of the worst recession since the Great Depression.

I hope that every Member of the Senate is on the side of the American workers in helping us to grow sustainable energy companies so we create the jobs we need in this country rather than let China and other countries dominate those industries.

Mr. President, I am very proud to give the floor over to the chairperson of the Environmental and Public Works Committee, certainly one of the great environmental leaders here in the Senate, Senator Barbara Boxer of California.

That would be fine.

I thank Senator Boxer very much, not only for her words but for her leadership on the Environment and Public Works Committee.

I wish to reiterate a very important point Senator Boxer made. She reminds us of great moments in the history of this country. This country, with great difficulty but persistence, built a railroad ahead of the rest of the world that went from the east coast to the west coast. It was not easy. This country led the world in putting a man on the Moon. It was not easy, at great expense, difficulties, but we did it. Does anybody not think this country can lead the world in transforming our energy system away from polluting fossil fuels to energy efficiency, to sustainable energies such as wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, other technologies? Can we not lead the world in making our own country more energy efficient, making our air cleaner but also in creating large numbers of jobs as we weatherize our buildings, as we build the solar panels we need to build the wind turbines, as we put more engineers and scientists to work to help us in this energy transformation.

I wish to pick up on a point Senator Whitehouse made a moment ago, which is that while we talk about energy transformation, while we all understand that over a period of years, the oil industry, for example, has received billions and billions of dollars of permanent tax breaks, what we are fighting for right now is to see that the 1603 renewable energy grant program is renewed. As Senator Whitehouse indicated, 1603 allows renewable energy developers to get a grant instead of a tax credit. Since 2009, when this program was enacted, it has leveraged nearly $23 billion in private investment supporting 22,000 projects in all 50 States and supported approximately 290,000 jobs, according to the National Renewable Energy Lab. Since 1603 was enacted, solar jobs doubled to more than 100,000 jobs.

We have to make sure that before Congress adjourns for the Christmas holidays, we renew 1603. It is enormously important for the renewable energy industry, enormously important for jobs in our country.

With that, I would yield the floor to Senator Whitehouse.

Mr. President, I wanted to thank the Senator from Maryland not only for his important remarks now but for, year after year, the strong work he is doing in trying to create jobs in America in sustainable energy.

I would like to yield to the Senator from Rhode Island for his thoughts.

I wish to thank my friend from Rhode Island for his remarks and for his extraordinary effort in fighting for jobs and protecting our environment.

If we read some headlines today in the media, we might think, especially the rightwing media, that renewable energy in America is on the verge of collapse. Quite literally--this is quite literally the case. A recent headline from FOX News said: ``Entire solar industry on brink of collapse.''

The reality is quite the contrary. The fact is, not only is the solar industry not on the verge of collapse, the reality is the American solar energy industry is thriving, as is the renewable energy industry more broadly. We have doubled the number of solar jobs in America since 2009. It does not sound to me like that industry is collapsing. It sounds to me like it is doing extraordinarily well.

Today, more than 100,000 Americans work in the solar industry, at more than 5,000 companies in every single State in our country, and that includes manufacturing, installation, and supply chain jobs.

Mr. President, last year we installed nearly 1,000 megawatts of solar power in the United States--more than double the amount installed in 2009. That doesn't sound like an industry that is collapsing to me. With the solar industry growing at a rate of 69 percent annually, it is one of America's fastest growing industries and is creating jobs all over our country. The cost of solar panels has fallen 30 percent over just the last 2 years, continuing a long-term decline in the price of solar and making it more and more competitive with other energy technology.

(Mrs. HAGAN assumed the Chair.)

Madam President, everyone, from Walmart to the U.S. Marine Corps, is looking toward a future in solar. Walmart is installing solar panels at 130 stores in California, and they say:

Walmart has reduced energy expenses by more than a million

dollars through our solar program.

The military--the U.S. Department of Defense--is using solar energy with battery storage to fully power forward operating bases in Afghanistan.

Marine COL Bob Charette said:

For the Marines, renewable energy is about saving lives by

reducing the number of dangerous fuel convoys needed for

resupply.

The reason I am making these points is that many people don't know the extent to which we are already making progress in sustainable energy. We are on the verge of something extraordinary. But it is important to understand where we are today and to refute those people who suggest that solar and wind are not the technologies for the future.

In terms of wind, that technology is growing rapidly. Texas alone has more than 10,000 megawatts of wind energy installed. That is equal in capacity to 10 nuclear powerplants--in Texas alone. Iowa now gets 20 percent of its electricity from wind. There are 75,000 wind energy jobs in America today and more than 400 manufacturing facilities

in 43 States. The price of wind energy has dropped by 90 percent since 1980, and wind electricity today is competitive with fossil fuels at 5 to 6 cents per kilowatt hour. At the same time, we are increasing American manufacturing of wind turbines, and now 60 percent of turbine components installed in the United States are made in America, up from 25 percent in 2005.

In the midst of this horrendous and painful recession, the story of renewable energy in the United States is actually a rare good news story. It is a good news story. Renewable energy is helping to cut pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, it is making our country more energy independent, and it is creating hundreds of thousands of jobs.

But all of this could be significantly slowed down if we do not continue Federal support for the renewable energy industries at a fraction of the kind of support we are giving to fossil fuels. It is absurd that we even have to fight to extend renewable tax credits and grants when fossil fuel industries enjoy permanent subsidies. Mature industries, such as oil and gas, continue to reap billions every year in Federal subsidies and massive tax breaks that never expire, despite the fact that the top five oil companies earned nearly $1 trillion in profits over the last 10 years. So here we are struggling to help wind and solar--new technologies--and we are giving massive tax breaks to mature industries that are incredibly profitable.

Contrast what we do for renewable energy to what we do with fossil fuel and specifically with regard to the production tax credit for wind energy, which was allowed to lapse three times in recent years--1999, 2001, and 2003--leading to an average dropoff of 81 percent in new wind energy installation each time the credit expired. The wind credit is set to expire again in 2012.

The point here is the one Senator Cardin made a moment ago. Unless there is predictability, unless the industry knows these tax credits will be there, they are not going to start investing or working on new projects only to have the rug pulled out from underneath them. They need stability and predictability, which is why we have to move not only to extending these tax credits but to making them permanent.

I also want to say a word about the Keystone XL Pipeline, and that is to say there are some in the House and some in the Senate who want to use year-end legislation to tack on a rider that says to the State Department: You have to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline within 60 days.

Let's be clear about what we are talking about in terms of the Keystone XL Pipeline. What we are talking about is a 1,700-mile oil pipeline from Canada to the gulf coast that would carry tar sands oil. Tar sands oil is not like regular oil. It requires an energy-intensive process to get it out of the ground, extract it, and, in fact, to refine it. That means it emits approximately 82 percent more carbon emissions when produced compared to regular oil, according to the EPA.

Tar sands oil is also hard to clean up when it spills. Refining tar sands also produces more toxic air pollution compared to conventional oil. A tar sands spill in the Kalamazoo River in Michigan that happened in 2010 is still being cleaned up, at a cost now exceeding $700 million.

In my view, the last thing we need is to eliminate the environmental and safety reviews now taking place and fast-track approval of this pipeline.

I also note to my colleagues who want to fast-track Keystone XL that I, along with several other Senators and Congressmen, asked the State Department inspector general to look into allegations of conflicts of interest in the preparation of the environmental impact study of Keystone XL. The contractor the State Department used for the impact study, Cardno Entrix, has financial ties to the project developer, TransCanada. Those ties need to be investigated to ensure that the Federal environmental and safety reviews were done correctly and without bias. That inspector general special review is under way right now. I think it is completely inappropriate to try to fast-track this pipeline when we have not even heard back from the inspector general about potential conflicts of interest. I urge my colleagues to allow that special review to play out before any decisions are made.

I will conclude my remarks this morning by thanking my colleagues for joining me--Senators Whitehouse, Boxer, and Cardin--who speak for many other Members of Congress and I think who speak for tens of millions of Americans, who see an energy future in this country in which we break our dependence on foreign oil, in which we no longer spend over $300 billion a year for oil from Saudi Arabia and other foreign countries; who see a future in this country where we move toward energy independence; who see a future in this country where the United States is a leader in reversing global warming by not only cutting greenhouse gas emissions in America but providing technology and expertise for countries all over the world, for them to do the same; and also understand that, as we move to energy efficiency--and I have to tell you that in Vermont we are leading the country in energy efficiency. What we are seeing as we weatherize homes is fuel bills going down for the middle-class, working-class people by 30, 40, 50 percent. We are investing in weatherization, and the payback is pretty good. It takes place over a very few years, when you cut fuel prices 30 to 50 percent.

In Vermont, we are probably doing as well as any other State in that area, but we can and will do a lot better. Tens of thousands of homes in our State can be weatherized. When we do that, we not only cut greenhouse gas emissions, we not only reduce the need to import foreign oil, we also create jobs. We create jobs for those people who are producing the insulation, the new doors, the windows, and the new roofing that makes homes and buildings more energy efficient.

Furthermore, in our State and around the country, we are seeing, as I indicated a moment ago, significant progress in moving to sustainable energy--the solar industry, growing very rapidly; wind energy, growing very rapidly; other technologies, growing very rapidly. As a nation, we should be proud of the change that is taking place. But understand that we have a long way to go to be the kind of energy efficient and sustainable energy Nation we know we can become and to help lead the world in a new energy direction.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 13, 2011, at 10 a.m. in room SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 13, 2011, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Breaking the Silence on Child Abuse: Protection, Prevention, Intervention, and Deterrence'' on December 13, 2011, at 10:15 a.m., in room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on December 13, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 13, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs' Subcommittee on Housing, Transportation, and Community Development be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 13, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Helping Homeowners Harmed by Foreclosures: Ensuring Accountability and Transparency in Foreclosure Reviews.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife of the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 13, 2011, at 10 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Our Nation's Water Infrastructure: Challenges and Opportunities.''

Mr. President, I am submitting a resolution to amend the U.S. Constitution. I do not do this lightly, nor have I ever done something such as this before. The U.S. Constitution is an extraordinary document which has served our country well for over 200 years and, in my view, it should not be amended often.

But in light of the disastrous Supreme Court's 5-to-4 decision in the Citizens United case, I see no alternative but a constitutional amendment. I should add that a similar resolution has been offered in the House by Congressman Ted Deutch of Florida. This constitutional amendment is supported by such grassroots organizations as Public Citizen, People for the American Way, and the Center for Media and Democracy.

Let me go on record as strongly as I can, and as clearly as I can, in stating that I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. In my view, a corporation is not a person. In my view, a corporation does not have first amendment rights to spend as much money as it wants, without disclosure, on a political campaign. In my view, corporations should not be able to go into their treasuries and spend millions and millions of dollars on a campaign in order to buy elections.

I do not believe that is what American democracy is supposed to be about. I do not believe that is what the bravest of the brave from our country, fighting for democracy, fought and died to preserve. Almost 2 years ago, in its now infamous Citizens United decision, the United States Supreme Court upended over a century of precedent, taking a somewhat narrow legal question and using it as an opportunity to radically change our political landscape, unleashing a tsunami of corporate spending on campaign ads that has just begun. Make no mistake, the Citizens United ruling has radically changed the nature of our democracy, further tilting the balance of power toward the rich and the powerful at a time when already the wealthiest people in this country have never had it so good.

In my view, history will record that the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision is one of the worst decisions ever made by a Supreme Court in the history of our country. While there is no way of knowing for sure, since there are no disclosure requirements in place to track what was spent, it is no secret that already in the 2010 midterm elections, corporations and some very wealthy individuals spent a huge and unprecedented amount of money to further their political goals. There is no question this is just the beginning of their efforts. At a time when corporations have over $2 trillion in cash in their bank accounts and are making recordbreaking profits, the American people should be concerned when the Supreme Court says these corporations have a constitutionally protected right to spend, spend, spend shareholders' money to dominate an election as if they were real live persons. There will be no end to the impact corporate interests can have on our campaigns and our democracy if we do not end this Citizens United decision and its impact on our Nation.

All of us in the Senate share one common characteristic. We all run for elections. We all live in the real political world. Let me speak for a moment what I think many of my colleagues in their heart of hearts know to be true; that is, that while the campaign finance system we had before Citizens United was, in my view, a disaster--there is no question it is a disastrous situation where candidates, Members of the Senate, spend huge amounts of time having to raise money, and I know that is distasteful not just for Democrats, it is distasteful to Republicans, it is distasteful for an Independent; that is what we do-- now, as a result of Citizens United, that bad situation has become much worse because

infinitely more money is going to come into the political process through nondisclosed donations suddenly appearing on TV screens in our States.

According to an October 10, 2011, article in Politico:

The billionaire industrialist brothers David and Charles

Koch plan to steer more than $200 million--potentially much

more--to conservative groups ahead of Election Day [2012].

What do we think? Do we think American democracy is about a couple of wealthy billionaires putting hundreds of millions of dollars into campaigns without disclosure? Is that the democracy Americans fought and died for in war after war? I think not.

It clearly is not just Republican operatives. There will be Democrats doing the same. So more and more money comes into the system. We do not know where it comes from, and in order to defend ourselves candidates are going to have to raise more money and become more and more dependent on big money interests. Does anybody believe that is what American democracy is supposed to be about?

Let's talk about the practical impacts. What happens on the floor of the Senate? The six largest banks on Wall Street have assets equal to over 65 percent of our GDP, over $9 trillion--six banks. When an issue comes up that impacts Wall Street--some of us, for example, think it might be a good idea to break up these huge banks. Members walk to the desk up there and they have to decide am I going to vote for this, am I going to vote against it--with full knowledge that if they vote against the interests of Wall Street, 2 weeks later, there may be ads coming down into their State attacking them. Every Member of the Senate, every Member of the House, in the back of their minds, will be thinking: Gee, if I cast a vote this way, if I take on some big money interests, am I going to be punished for that? Will a huge amount of money be unleashed in my State?

Everybody here understands that is true. It is not just taking on Wall Street, maybe it is taking on the drug companies, maybe it is taking on the private insurance companies, maybe it is taking on the military-industrial complex. But whatever powerful and wealthy special interest we are prepared to take on, on behalf of the interest of the middle-class and working families of this country, when we walk to that desk and we cast that vote, we know in the back of our mind we may be unleashing a tsunami of money coming into our State, and we are going to think twice about how we cast that vote.

I am a proud sponsor of a number of bills that would respond to Citizens United and begin to get a handle on the problem. I would like to acknowledge them very briefly. One is the Disclose Act, sponsored by Senator Schumer, which would force corporations spending money on campaign ads to disclose their identity, as candidates have to do. That is a good thing. I support it.

Another is the Fair Elections Now Act, sponsored by Senator Durbin, which would move us to publicly financed elections. I think that is a very good idea. I support that.

The third piece of legislation is a recent resolution for a campaign finance constitutional amendment, introduced by Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico, that would make it clear that Congress and the States have the authority to write laws to regulate campaign spending across the country and make sure our State and Federal elections are about what is right for our democracy, and I support Senator Udall's resolution. But even these excellent pieces of legislation are not enough.

The Constitution of this country has served us well for more than 200 years. But when the Supreme Court says--for purposes of the first amendment--corporations are people, that writing checks from the company's bank account is constitutionally protected speech, and that even attempts by the Federal Government and States to impose reasonable restrictions on campaign ads are unconstitutional, when that occurs, our democracy is in grave danger. Something more needs to be done. There needs to be something more fundamental and indisputable, something that cannot be turned on its head by a 5-to-4 Supreme Court decision.

We have to send a constitutional amendment to the States that says simply and straightforwardly what everyone--except five members of the U.S. Supreme Court--seems to understand; that is, corporations are not people. Bank of America is not a person. ExxonMobil is not a person.

The resolution I am offering calls for an amendment to be sent to the States that would do that. It would make perfectly clear, No. 1, corporations are not persons with equal constitutional rights as real- life, flesh-and-blood human beings; No. 2, corporations are subject to regulation by the people; No. 3, corporations may not make campaign contributions, which has been the law of the land for the last century; No. 4, Congress and States have the power to regulate campaign finance as Senator Udall's amendment would also say.

This amendment is cosponsored by Senator Begich of Alaska, and I would urge all my colleagues to cosponsor this amendment which, in fact, does what its title suggests, saves American democracy.

Mr. President, I am submitting a resolution to amend the U.S. Constitution. I do not do this lightly, nor have I ever done something such as this before. The U.S. Constitution is an extraordinary document which has served our country well for over 200 years and, in my view, it should not be amended often.

But in light of the disastrous Supreme Court's 5-to-4 decision in the Citizens United case, I see no alternative but a constitutional amendment. I should add that a similar resolution has been offered in the House by Congressman Ted Deutch of Florida. This constitutional amendment is supported by such grassroots organizations as Public Citizen, People for the American Way, and the Center for Media and Democracy.

Let me go on record as strongly as I can, and as clearly as I can, in stating that I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. In my view, a corporation is not a person. In my view, a corporation does not have first amendment rights to spend as much money as it wants, without disclosure, on a political campaign. In my view, corporations should not be able to go into their treasuries and spend millions and millions of dollars on a campaign in order to buy elections.

I do not believe that is what American democracy is supposed to be about. I do not believe that is what the bravest of the brave from our country, fighting for democracy, fought and died to preserve. Almost 2 years ago, in its now infamous Citizens United decision, the United States Supreme Court upended over a century of precedent, taking a somewhat narrow legal question and using it as an opportunity to radically change our political landscape, unleashing a tsunami of corporate spending on campaign ads that has just begun. Make no mistake, the Citizens United ruling has radically changed the nature of our democracy, further tilting the balance of power toward the rich and the powerful at a time when already the wealthiest people in this country have never had it so good.

In my view, history will record that the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision is one of the worst decisions ever made by a Supreme Court in the history of our country. While there is no way of knowing for sure, since there are no disclosure requirements in place to track what was spent, it is no secret that already in the 2010 midterm elections, corporations and some very wealthy individuals spent a huge and unprecedented amount of money to further their political goals. There is no question this is just the beginning of their efforts. At a time when corporations have over $2 trillion in cash in their bank accounts and are making recordbreaking profits, the American people should be concerned when the Supreme Court says these corporations have a constitutionally protected right to spend, spend, spend shareholders' money to dominate an election as if they were real live persons. There will be no end to the impact corporate interests can have on our campaigns and our democracy if we do not end this Citizens United decision and its impact on our Nation.

All of us in the Senate share one common characteristic. We all run for elections. We all live in the real political world. Let me speak for a moment what I think many of my colleagues in their heart of hearts know to be true; that is, that while the campaign finance system we had before Citizens United was, in my view, a disaster--there is no question it is a disastrous situation where candidates, Members of the Senate, spend huge amounts of time having to raise money, and I know that is distasteful not just for Democrats, it is distasteful to Republicans, it is distasteful for an Independent; that is what we do-- now, as a result of Citizens United, that bad situation has become much worse because

infinitely more money is going to come into the political process through nondisclosed donations suddenly appearing on TV screens in our States.

According to an October 10, 2011, article in Politico:

The billionaire industrialist brothers David and Charles

Koch plan to steer more than $200 million--potentially much

more--to conservative groups ahead of Election Day [2012].

What do we think? Do we think American democracy is about a couple of wealthy billionaires putting hundreds of millions of dollars into campaigns without disclosure? Is that the democracy Americans fought and died for in war after war? I think not.

It clearly is not just Republican operatives. There will be Democrats doing the same. So more and more money comes into the system. We do not know where it comes from, and in order to defend ourselves candidates are going to have to raise more money and become more and more dependent on big money interests. Does anybody believe that is what American democracy is supposed to be about?

Let's talk about the practical impacts. What happens on the floor of the Senate? The six largest banks on Wall Street have assets equal to over 65 percent of our GDP, over $9 trillion--six banks. When an issue comes up that impacts Wall Street--some of us, for example, think it might be a good idea to break up these huge banks. Members walk to the desk up there and they have to decide am I going to vote for this, am I going to vote against it--with full knowledge that if they vote against the interests of Wall Street, 2 weeks later, there may be ads coming down into their State attacking them. Every Member of the Senate, every Member of the House, in the back of their minds, will be thinking: Gee, if I cast a vote this way, if I take on some big money interests, am I going to be punished for that? Will a huge amount of money be unleashed in my State?

Everybody here understands that is true. It is not just taking on Wall Street, maybe it is taking on the drug companies, maybe it is taking on the private insurance companies, maybe it is taking on the military-industrial complex. But whatever powerful and wealthy special interest we are prepared to take on, on behalf of the interest of the middle-class and working families of this country, when we walk to that desk and we cast that vote, we know in the back of our mind we may be unleashing a tsunami of money coming into our State, and we are going to think twice about how we cast that vote.

I am a proud sponsor of a number of bills that would respond to Citizens United and begin to get a handle on the problem. I would like to acknowledge them very briefly. One is the Disclose Act, sponsored by Senator Schumer, which would force corporations spending money on campaign ads to disclose their identity, as candidates have to do. That is a good thing. I support it.

Another is the Fair Elections Now Act, sponsored by Senator Durbin, which would move us to publicly financed elections. I think that is a very good idea. I support that.

The third piece of legislation is a recent resolution for a campaign finance constitutional amendment, introduced by Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico, that would make it clear that Congress and the States have the authority to write laws to regulate campaign spending across the country and make sure our State and Federal elections are about what is right for our democracy, and I support Senator Udall's resolution. But even these excellent pieces of legislation are not enough.

The Constitution of this country has served us well for more than 200 years. But when the Supreme Court says--for purposes of the first amendment--corporations are people, that writing checks from the company's bank account is constitutionally protected speech, and that even attempts by the Federal Government and States to impose reasonable restrictions on campaign ads are unconstitutional, when that occurs, our democracy is in grave danger. Something more needs to be done. There needs to be something more fundamental and indisputable, something that cannot be turned on its head by a 5-to-4 Supreme Court decision.

We have to send a constitutional amendment to the States that says simply and straightforwardly what everyone--except five members of the U.S. Supreme Court--seems to understand; that is, corporations are not people. Bank of America is not a person. ExxonMobil is not a person.

The resolution I am offering calls for an amendment to be sent to the States that would do that. It would make perfectly clear, No. 1, corporations are not persons with equal constitutional rights as real- life, flesh-and-blood human beings; No. 2, corporations are subject to regulation by the people; No. 3, corporations may not make campaign contributions, which has been the law of the land for the last century; No. 4, Congress and States have the power to regulate campaign finance as Senator Udall's amendment would also say.

This amendment is cosponsored by Senator Begich of Alaska, and I would urge all my colleagues to cosponsor this amendment which, in fact, does what its title suggests, saves American democracy.

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

Mr. President, I wish to say a few words about an issue of enormous importance to the people of the State of Vermont and people all over this country; that is, the issue of making sure that in America this winter nobody goes cold, that nobody freezes to death, that children do not become ill because the thermostats in their homes are turned down so low.

The issue I am talking about is to ask for support for legislation that is being introduced by Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island and Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine which would level fund the LIHEAP program at $4.7 billion. As most of my colleagues know, LIHEAP is the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program.

Here is the problem we face. We are in the midst of a horrendous recession. Unemployment is sky high. In many cases, wages are in decline, poverty is increasing, and at the same time the price for home heating oil and propane gas is going up. According to the Energy Information Administration, average expenditures for households that heat with oil or propane are forecast to be higher than in any previous winter. Heating oil prices are currently averaging about $3.90 a gallon. So what people in the Northeast and people all over this country are looking at are the highest home heating oil prices we have ever seen, coming in the midst of a terrible recession, with unemployment high and wages in decline.

In Vermont, heating oil prices are already 34 percent higher than they were at the same time last year. It is currently $3.82 a gallon, compared to $2.85 a gallon last year. What is happening is that because of cuts--significant cuts--in LIHEAP funding, the average LIHEAP benefit in Vermont is 45 percent less this year than it was last year, and that is $474 per family as opposed to $866 last year.

One thing that has to be understood about LIHEAP is that nearly 80 percent of funding from this program goes to our citizens who are elderly, families with preschool kids, and the disabled. So the people who benefit from this program are some of the most vulnerable people in our country. Eighty percent of the funding, once again, goes to senior citizens, families with preschool children, young children, and people who are dealing with disabilities.

It is not uncommon in the State of Vermont and in other States for the temperatures to drop to 10 below zero or 20 below zero in the wintertime. When people do not have enough funds to heat their homes or their apartments, serious problems arise.

What I want to do is take a moment to read some comments my office has received from Vermonters all over the State who are trying desperately to stay warm this winter.

Josie Crosby, 81 years of age, of Brattleboro, VT, said this:

We will have money for one more tank. After that, I don't

know.

That is a woman who is 81 years of age who has money for one more tank of oil. After that, she is not sure how they will stay warm in the winter.

A 48-year-old from Orleans County in the northern part of our State wrote this:

I was able to get 100 gallons of fuel last week, and for

that I am grateful. The struggle begins now on how to stretch

that fuel as long as possible. I had to buy a portable

electric heater to keep halfway warm while waiting for fuel

assistance. I don't even want to see how high my electric

bill will be. I am an honorably discharged disabled veteran

and have limited funds. I have already slashed my food bill,

so what goes next? My meds, my electric service, my home?

That is from a disabled vet in the northern part of Vermont.

A 59-year-old woman in central Vermont writes:

I have been keeping my thermostat as low as I can

``almost'' tolerate. I bundle up in the house with several

sweaters, and even a coat and hat at times. When company

arrives, I am embarrassed at how ridiculous I probably

appear. I am just barely squeaking through each month. I have

made cuts everywhere possible, including food.

Wendy Raven, 62, from Whitingham, VT, writes:

I had to drag my bed out of my bedroom and put it in the

living room, then close off the bedroom for the winter. I

will have to eat even less than I do now in order to pay my

fuel bills. I have done everything I can to button up the

place, but now all I can do is pray I get through the winter

without a bill so large it will again take me until next fall

to pay it off.

Is that where we are in the United States of America--that we force people to live under those conditions?

A 31-year-old woman from Bennington, VT, writes:

We are now trying to stay warm by scraping up enough for a

gallon or two of heating oil a week, and keeping the

thermostat down very low. I turn the furnace off during the

day when my child is in school and turn it on an hour before

she gets home so that the house gets warm. We are hoping to

qualify for crisis fuel assistance or we are in trouble,

because there is nowhere to get the extra money needed to pay

for the fuel, especially considering its continuously

increasing cost. We have to choose what bills to pay each

month and what ones not in order to put food on the table.

In this great Nation, in the midst of a recession, in the midst of high unemployment, in the midst of growing poverty, we as the Senate must be very clear that nobody in this country is going to go cold this winter; that we are not going to pick up a paper in Maine or Rhode Island or Vermont or North Dakota and read that some senior citizen was found frozen to death. That is not what we are going to allow. That is why Senators Jack Reed, Olympia Snowe, I, and many others are working hard so that at the very least we can level fund LIHEAP so that nobody in our country goes cold this winter.