Floor Statements

Mr. President, I wish to say a word about a critical issue for the State of Vermont and for my State's energy future, and that deals with the Vermont Yankee nuclear powerplant. The Vermont Yankee nuclear powerplant is one of 23 plants in our country with the same design--General Electric Mark One--as the Fukushima plants that have experienced partial or perhaps full meltdowns in Japan.

All of us feel terribly about what has happened in Japan, and our hearts go out to that struggling country. But at the same time, in our Nation, we also have some very disturbing developments regarding nuclear power, and I wish to touch this afternoon on two of them.

The first is, we have a situation in the State of Vermont in which a powerful $14 billion energy company called Entergy is trying to force the people of my State to keep an aging and troubled nuclear reactor open for another 20 years. This is a plant that is 40 years old. They want to keep it open for another 20 years. The Vermont Yankee plant's original 40-year license expires in March of 2012, and I firmly believe 40 years is enough. But that is not just my opinion.

Vermont, uniquely, thanks in part to an agreement between the State and Entergy when it purchased Vermont Yankee in 2002, has asserted its authority through our State legislature to decide whether Vermont Yankee should operate beyond March of 2012. The Vermont State Senate, representing the wishes of the people of our State, voted on a bipartisan basis, 26 to 4--26 to 4--not to grant an extension of the license of that plant. The law is clear that States have the right to reject nuclear power for economic reasons, and that is exactly what the Vermont State Senate did in an overwhelming bipartisan vote.

We know Vermont Yankee has had serious problems in the last several years, including a collapse of its cooling towers in 2007 and radioactive tritium leaks in 2005 and 2010. The tritium leaks came from pipes plant officials claimed under oath did not exist.

In support of the Vermont legislature's decision, the Vermont congressional delegation has been clear that Entergy should respect Vermont's laws. In other words, what we are saying--the delegation here--is that Entergy should respect the laws of the State of Vermont and what our State senate has done. However, just last week, we learned that Entergy's well-paid corporate lobbyists and lawyers have been meeting in secret with Federal agencies, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff, pushing the Federal Government to intervene in the lawsuit Entergy filed against Vermont. Entergy wants the Federal Government to take up its extreme argument that Vermont's right to decide its own energy future is preempted by Federal nuclear safety laws.

It so happens that NRC Chairman Greg Jazcko, who is, in my view, a fairminded public servant, does not agree with Entergy. He told me last week at a Senate hearing that ``I see nothing that would tell me that there's a preemption issue here.'' He said in a conversation with reporters that Vermont had a ``role to play in determining Vermont Yankee's future'' and that he ``doubted the NRC would do anything to interfere with the state's process.'' I believe the Chairman's position is correct. The NRC regulates safety--safety--although some Vermonters believe they do not do that very well. Nevertheless, it is not the arbiter of political or legal disputes between a powerful energy company and the State of Vermont. That is not the business of the NRC.

So I was very surprised to learn last week that against the Chairman's public recommendation, the NRC voted in secret, by a 3-to-2 margin, to tell the Department of Justice to intervene on Entergy's behalf. When I questioned the NRC's Commissioners at a hearing last week, they refused to tell us how they voted. Several of them admitted they had not even read the major 1983 Supreme Court opinion on this issue--a case between PG&E v. California, where the Supreme Court said--and I quote an important point regarding States rights and nuclear energy. This is the quote from the Supreme Court:

The promotion of nuclear power is not to be accomplished

``at all costs.'' The elaborate licensing and safety

provisions and the continued preservation of state regulation

in traditional areas belie that. Moreover, Congress has

allowed the states to determine--as a matter of economics--

whether a nuclear plant vis-a-vis a fossil fuel plant should

be built. The decision of California to exercise that

authority does not, in itself, constitute a basis for

preemption. . . . the legal reality remains that Congress has

left sufficient authority in the states to allow the

development of nuclear power to be slowed or even stopped for

economic reasons.

That is the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, 1983.

I reminded the NRC at that hearing, and do so again today, that this lawsuit is none of their business, and their getting involved damages the credibility of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The NRC opted to relicense Vermont Yankee based on safety, and that is where their concern and authority begins and ends. The main point is this: The NRC does not represent the people of Vermont and has no right to tell us what kind of energy future we will have. The people of Vermont believe--and I agree--that our future lies significantly with energy efficiency and sustainable energy. Today, I renew my call on the floor of the Senate for the Federal Government to stay out of this case. Entergy is a $14 billion corporation. They have all kinds of lobbyists and they make all kinds of campaign contributions. They don't need the help of the Federal Government.

Yes.

I tell my good friend from California, day after day, we hear from some of our colleagues how they don't trust the Federal Government and they don't want the Federal Government getting involved in the issues impacting their constituents. So the answer to the Senator's question is yes.

Yes, that is true.

I thank Senator Boxer for her thoughts and the extraordinary leadership she is providing on the Environment Committee.

I think everyone understands that the function of the NRC is very simple. It is to make sure the 104 nuclear powerplants in this country run as safely as possible. That is their job. Their job is not to tell the State of Vermont or the State of California or the State of Pennsylvania what future they might want to pursue in terms of energy. They are not supposed to be a proponent of the nuclear industry. That is not their job. Their job is to make sure our nuclear plants are being run safely. So in terms of economics, the people of Vermont or any other State in this country have the right to determine what the future of nuclear powerplants is in their State. What our State is saying is, after 40 years, we want to shut down Vermont Yankee. We want to move in a new direction that we think benefits our State. We do not want the Department of Justice to intervene in this case, where Entergy is suing Vermont.

Let me conclude, while we are on the issue of nuclear power, and point out that the Associated Press recently revealed that 48 out of 65 nuclear power sites in this country have leaked radioactive tritium, and Vermont Yankee is one of those sites. Thirty-seven facilities had leaks at levels that violated Federal drinking water standards, and some leaks have migrated off the sites, contaminating private wells, although none is yet known to have contaminated public drinking water supplies.

These allegations by the Associated Press are extremely disturbing. Safety at our nuclear plants should be the most important priority at the NRC, particularly after what we saw happen in Japan. The function of the NRC is not to represent the nuclear power industry; it is to represent the needs of the people of the United States.

That is why I will be working as a member of the Environment Committee, which has oversight over the NRC, with our chairperson, Senator Barbara Boxer, and others on the committee who are interested in this issue, to call for a GAO investigation of the allegations made by the Associated Press. We need to determine whether it is true that the NRC is systematically working with the industry to undermine safety standards for aging plants in order to keep them operating.

Let me conclude by mentioning that around the world there is growing concern about the dangers of nuclear power, and I think that concern has been heightened by the terrible tragedy in Japan. It is important to note that Germany has decided to close all 17 nuclear plants in the next decade and not to build any new ones. They are getting out of the nuclear business. Switzerland is also phasing out nuclear power. In Italy, just a few weeks ago, 94 percent of the people voted in an election against restarting the nuclear power industry.

Here in the United States, some States are moving in the same direction. In addition to Vermont, New York, led by Governor Cuomo, wants the Indian Point plant shut down. Massachusetts is supporting Vermont in its lawsuit to preserve States rights to decide their own energy future, and I believe other States will support us as well.

The bottom line--and the law supports this--is that if States such as Vermont want to move away from aging and troubled nuclear reactors and to a sustainable energy future, we have the right to do that. I will fight tooth and nail to protect that right.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. President, I think every American understands that the very high price of oil and gas is having a very negative impact on our fragile economic recovery. Also, in rural States, such as Vermont, Montana, and other rural States, it is wreaking real hardship on working people who in many cases drive long distances to work. In Vermont certainly, it is not uncommon for people to be driving 50 miles to their job and 50 miles back. When the price of gas gets to be $3.80 a gallon or $4 a gallon, it really hurts. When wages are stagnant, when many people have seen a decline in their paychecks, high gas prices have just taken another chunk out of their limited income. It is something that as a Congress we have to address.

The price of oil today, while declining somewhat in recent weeks, is still over $97 a barrel. In Vermont, it is over $3.80 a gallon at the pump. The theory behind the setting of oil prices that we learned in high school is that oil prices are set by supply and demand. When there is limited supply and a lot of demand, oil prices go up. When there is a lot of supply and limited demand, oil prices should go down.

So let's be clear: The fact is today there is more supply than there was 2 years ago, today there is less demand than there was 2 years ago; therefore, oil prices should be substantially lower than was the case 2 years ago. The fact, however, is just the opposite. In Vermont today, gas prices are $3.80 a gallon. Two years ago, they were approximately $2.44 a gallon. So the explanation of supply and demand in terms of why oil prices have soared just does not carry any weight.

While we cannot ignore the fact that big oil companies have been gouging consumers at the pump for years and have made almost $1 trillion in profits over the past decade, there is mounting evidence that the increased price of gasoline and oil has nothing to do with supply and demand and everything to do with Wall Street speculators who are dominating the oil futures market and driving prices up, up, and up. Ten years ago, speculators only controlled about 30 percent of that market. Today, Wall Street speculators control over 80 percent--over 80 percent--of the oil futures market, and many of them will never use one drop of that oil. So we are not talking about airlines that use gas and oil. We are not talking about trucking companies. We are not talking about home heating companies. We are talking about speculators whose only function in this entire process is to make as much money as they can by raising prices and then selling.

This is not just Senator Bernie Sanders making this point. Let me quote from a June 2 article from the Wall Street Journal:

Wall Street is tapping a real gusher in 2011, as heightened

volatility and higher prices of oil and other raw materials

boost banks' profits . . . by 55 percent in the first

quarter.

Banks' profits are soaring as a result of oil speculation. That is the fact. It is not just the Wall Street Journal. The CEO of ExxonMobil, Rex Tillerson, in response to a question at a recent Senate hearing, estimated that speculation was driving up the price of a barrel of oil by as much as 40 percent. That is the CEO of ExxonMobil. He might know something about that issue.

The general counsel of Delta Airlines--a major consumer of fuel--Ben Hirst, and the experts at Goldman Sachs have all said that excessive speculation is causing oil prices to spike by 20 to 40 percent.

Even Saudi Arabia, the largest exporter of oil in the world, told the Bush administration back in 2008--when the Bush administration went to them and said: We need to drive prices down. Produce more oil. Sell more oil--they said that is not the problem. Saudi Arabia said: We have all the oil we need. The problem is speculation. And they estimated that speculation could result in about $40 a barrel.

In other words, the same Wall Street speculators who caused the worst financial crisis since the 1930s through their greed, recklessness, and illegal behavior are back at it again, and this time they are ripping off the American people by gambling that the price of oil

and gas will continue to go up and up and in that process are driving the price of gas and oil up and up.

Sadly--and this is the important point--this spike in oil and gasoline prices was entirely avoidable. This was avoidable. The Wall Street Reform Act that we passed last year, the Dodd-Frank legislation, required--underline ``required''--the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to impose strict limits on the amount of oil Wall Street speculators could trade in the energy futures market by January 17 of this year.

We passed legislation that said to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission: You have to impose rules by January 17 with strict limits on excessive oil speculation.

Mr. President, 6 months have come and gone. They have not done what they were required to do.

Almost 5 months later, the CFTC has still not imposed those speculation requirements. In other words, the chief regulator on oil speculation is clearly breaking the law and is not doing what he is supposed to be doing.

Last month I held a meeting in my office with Mr. Gary Gensler, who is the Chairman of the CFTC, and six other Senators. I have to tell you that I was extremely disappointed in both the tone of that meeting and the complete lack of urgency at the CFTC with respect to cracking down on oil speculators as required by the law.

Therefore, today I have introduced legislation, along with Senators Blumenthal, Merkley, Franken, Whitehouse, and Bill Nelson to end excessive speculation once and for all--once and for all. The American people cannot continue to be ripped off by Wall Street which is artificially driving up the price of oil and gas.

I am very pleased to also announce that Congressman Maurice Hinchey will be introducing this legislation in the House. This legislation mandates that the Chairman of the CFTC take immediate action to eliminate excessive oil speculation within 2 weeks--2 weeks.

One. Our bill requires the Chairman to establish speculative oil position limits equal to the position accountability levels that have been in place at the New York Mercantile Exchange since 2001.

Two. This bill requires the Chairman of the CFTC to double the margin requirements on speculative oil trading so that Wall Street investment banks back their bets with real capital.

Three. Under this bill, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and other Wall Street investment banks engaged in proprietary oil trading would be classified as speculators instead of bona fide hedgers.

Four. The Chairman of the CFTC would be required under this bill to take any other action necessary to eliminate excessive speculation and ensure that the price of oil accurately reflects the fundamentals of supply and demand.

I am pleased to announce that this legislation already has the support of a very diverse group of organizations representing small businesses, fuel dealers, consumers, workers, airlines, and farmers. Some of those organizations are: Americans for Financial Reform; the Consumer Federation of America; Delta Airlines; the Gasoline and Automotive Service Dealers of America; the International Brotherhood of Teamsters; the Main Street Alliance; the National Farmers Union; New England Fuel Institute; Public Citizen; and the Vermont Fuel Dealers Association. This is just a few.

I want to thank all of those organizations for their support. The American people are sick and tired of being ripped off at the gas pump. People in the northern States, whether it is Vermont or Minnesota, worry about what the price of home heating oil will be next winter. What we are seeing now in terms of excessively high oil and gas prices has nothing to do with supply and demand and everything to do with Wall Street speculation.

This Congress has told the CFTC to act. They have failed to act. Now is the time for us to tell them exactly what must happen.

Mr. President, I think every American understands that the very high price of oil and gas is having a very negative impact on our fragile economic recovery. Also, in rural States, such as Vermont, Montana, and other rural States, it is wreaking real hardship on working people who in many cases drive long distances to work. In Vermont certainly, it is not uncommon for people to be driving 50 miles to their job and 50 miles back. When the price of gas gets to be $3.80 a gallon or $4 a gallon, it really hurts. When wages are stagnant, when many people have seen a decline in their paychecks, high gas prices have just taken another chunk out of their limited income. It is something that as a Congress we have to address.

The price of oil today, while declining somewhat in recent weeks, is still over $97 a barrel. In Vermont, it is over $3.80 a gallon at the pump. The theory behind the setting of oil prices that we learned in high school is that oil prices are set by supply and demand. When there is limited supply and a lot of demand, oil prices go up. When there is a lot of supply and limited demand, oil prices should go down.

So let's be clear: The fact is today there is more supply than there was 2 years ago, today there is less demand than there was 2 years ago; therefore, oil prices should be substantially lower than was the case 2 years ago. The fact, however, is just the opposite. In Vermont today, gas prices are $3.80 a gallon. Two years ago, they were approximately $2.44 a gallon. So the explanation of supply and demand in terms of why oil prices have soared just does not carry any weight.

While we cannot ignore the fact that big oil companies have been gouging consumers at the pump for years and have made almost $1 trillion in profits over the past decade, there is mounting evidence that the increased price of gasoline and oil has nothing to do with supply and demand and everything to do with Wall Street speculators who are dominating the oil futures market and driving prices up, up, and up. Ten years ago, speculators only controlled about 30 percent of that market. Today, Wall Street speculators control over 80 percent--over 80 percent--of the oil futures market, and many of them will never use one drop of that oil. So we are not talking about airlines that use gas and oil. We are not talking about trucking companies. We are not talking about home heating companies. We are talking about speculators whose only function in this entire process is to make as much money as they can by raising prices and then selling.

This is not just Senator Bernie Sanders making this point. Let me quote from a June 2 article from the Wall Street Journal:

Wall Street is tapping a real gusher in 2011, as heightened

volatility and higher prices of oil and other raw materials

boost banks' profits . . . by 55 percent in the first

quarter.

Banks' profits are soaring as a result of oil speculation. That is the fact. It is not just the Wall Street Journal. The CEO of ExxonMobil, Rex Tillerson, in response to a question at a recent Senate hearing, estimated that speculation was driving up the price of a barrel of oil by as much as 40 percent. That is the CEO of ExxonMobil. He might know something about that issue.

The general counsel of Delta Airlines--a major consumer of fuel--Ben Hirst, and the experts at Goldman Sachs have all said that excessive speculation is causing oil prices to spike by 20 to 40 percent.

Even Saudi Arabia, the largest exporter of oil in the world, told the Bush administration back in 2008--when the Bush administration went to them and said: We need to drive prices down. Produce more oil. Sell more oil--they said that is not the problem. Saudi Arabia said: We have all the oil we need. The problem is speculation. And they estimated that speculation could result in about $40 a barrel.

In other words, the same Wall Street speculators who caused the worst financial crisis since the 1930s through their greed, recklessness, and illegal behavior are back at it again, and this time they are ripping off the American people by gambling that the price of oil

and gas will continue to go up and up and in that process are driving the price of gas and oil up and up.

Sadly--and this is the important point--this spike in oil and gasoline prices was entirely avoidable. This was avoidable. The Wall Street Reform Act that we passed last year, the Dodd-Frank legislation, required--underline ``required''--the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to impose strict limits on the amount of oil Wall Street speculators could trade in the energy futures market by January 17 of this year.

We passed legislation that said to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission: You have to impose rules by January 17 with strict limits on excessive oil speculation.

Mr. President, 6 months have come and gone. They have not done what they were required to do.

Almost 5 months later, the CFTC has still not imposed those speculation requirements. In other words, the chief regulator on oil speculation is clearly breaking the law and is not doing what he is supposed to be doing.

Last month I held a meeting in my office with Mr. Gary Gensler, who is the Chairman of the CFTC, and six other Senators. I have to tell you that I was extremely disappointed in both the tone of that meeting and the complete lack of urgency at the CFTC with respect to cracking down on oil speculators as required by the law.

Therefore, today I have introduced legislation, along with Senators Blumenthal, Merkley, Franken, Whitehouse, and Bill Nelson to end excessive speculation once and for all--once and for all. The American people cannot continue to be ripped off by Wall Street which is artificially driving up the price of oil and gas.

I am very pleased to also announce that Congressman Maurice Hinchey will be introducing this legislation in the House. This legislation mandates that the Chairman of the CFTC take immediate action to eliminate excessive oil speculation within 2 weeks--2 weeks.

One. Our bill requires the Chairman to establish speculative oil position limits equal to the position accountability levels that have been in place at the New York Mercantile Exchange since 2001.

Two. This bill requires the Chairman of the CFTC to double the margin requirements on speculative oil trading so that Wall Street investment banks back their bets with real capital.

Three. Under this bill, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and other Wall Street investment banks engaged in proprietary oil trading would be classified as speculators instead of bona fide hedgers.

Four. The Chairman of the CFTC would be required under this bill to take any other action necessary to eliminate excessive speculation and ensure that the price of oil accurately reflects the fundamentals of supply and demand.

I am pleased to announce that this legislation already has the support of a very diverse group of organizations representing small businesses, fuel dealers, consumers, workers, airlines, and farmers. Some of those organizations are: Americans for Financial Reform; the Consumer Federation of America; Delta Airlines; the Gasoline and Automotive Service Dealers of America; the International Brotherhood of Teamsters; the Main Street Alliance; the National Farmers Union; New England Fuel Institute; Public Citizen; and the Vermont Fuel Dealers Association. This is just a few.

I want to thank all of those organizations for their support. The American people are sick and tired of being ripped off at the gas pump. People in the northern States, whether it is Vermont or Minnesota, worry about what the price of home heating oil will be next winter. What we are seeing now in terms of excessively high oil and gas prices has nothing to do with supply and demand and everything to do with Wall Street speculation.

This Congress has told the CFTC to act. They have failed to act. Now is the time for us to tell them exactly what must happen.

I ask unanimous consent that the final 10 minutes be equally divided and controlled between Senators Snowe and Boxer, with Senator Boxer controlling the final 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes of majority time.

Mr. President, there are a number of huge issues facing our country. Our middle class is collapsing. Poverty is increasing. We are in two wars. We are concerned about global warming, the quality of our education, and massive unemployment. So this country today has its share of serious problems we have to address.

Right now, a whole lot of attention, not inappropriately, is on our very large deficit and a $14 trillion-plus national debt. This is an issue which is perhaps going to come to a head over the next few months as it becomes tied to whether we raise the debt ceiling. I wish to say a few words on this issue.

No. 1, when we talk about deficit reduction, it is important for us to understand how we got to where we are today. How did it happen? How do we have a $1.5 trillion deficit this year, and a $14 trillion-plus national debt? Let's remember that not so many years ago, at the end of President Clinton's tenure, this country had a significant budget surplus and the expectation was that surplus was going to grow in the years to come.

But then a number of things happened during the Bush years. No. 1, we became engaged in two wars. No. 2, we passed a Medicare Part D prescription drug program. No. 3, we bailed out Wall Street. And No. 4, we gave huge tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this country. Then, as a result of the Wall Street-caused recession, revenue dropped, and the result was that we now have a very high deficit and a very large national debt. But it is important to remember how we got to where we are today.

It is also important when we talk about deficit reduction to take a look at American society today in order to determine what is a fair way--a fair way--to address deficit reduction. When we look at American society today, the trends are very clear. The middle class is, in many ways, disappearing as a result of stagnant or, in fact, lowered wages for millions and millions of American workers. Median family income over the last 10 years has gone down by about $2,500. The middle class is hurting. Many millions of Americans, in fact, have left the middle class and entered the ranks of the poor. Poverty is increasing. But at the same time as the middle class is shrinking and poverty is increasing, there is another reality we cannot ignore--or I am afraid many of my colleagues choose to ignore it--and that is that the people on top are doing phenomenally well. Over a recent 25-year period, 80 percent of all new income went to the top 1 percent. The top 1 percent now earns more income than the bottom 50 percent. When we talk about distribution of wealth, we have the top 400 Americans--the 400 wealthiest Americans--owning more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans.

That gap between the very rich and everybody else is growing wider. It is important to discuss that issue about what is happening to the middle class, to lower income people, and the growing gap between the wealthy and everybody else when we address the issue of deficit reduction.

My Republican colleagues in the House came up with an idea that I think most people almost can't even believe they would pass; it seems so incomprehensible. At a time when the middle class is hurting and things are getting worse as a result of a recession, our Republican colleagues say, Well, what we want to do is move toward deficit reduction by making savage cuts in Medicaid, in education, in infrastructure, in nutrition, in virtually every program that low- and moderate-income Americans depend upon. Furthermore, what we want to do in the House--what they have done--is to end Medicare as we know it, convert it into a voucher program, giving seniors a check for $8,000 and have them go out and get a plan from a private insurance company which clearly will be totally inadequate for most seniors and end up raising their out-of-pocket expenses.

Then when it comes to the wealthiest people who are doing phenomenally well, not only do our Republican colleagues not ask the wealthiest people or the largest corporations to pay one nickel more in taxes to help us with deficit reduction, they come up with this brilliant idea that we are going to give $1 trillion in tax breaks over a 10-year period to the wealthiest people in America. So the rich are getting richer, and they get tax breaks. The middle class is shrinking, and what they are asked to do is to assume huge cuts in programming which will impact them very strongly.

This is clearly the Robin Hood proposal in reverse. We are taking from working families who are hurting and giving it to the wealthiest people who are doing phenomenally well. The Republican plan is clearly absurd, and I think most Americans understand that.

The question is, What will the President do? What will the Democrats do? It is my very strong hope Democrats will be strong on this issue. The President has to be strong on this issue. The President has to go out to the American people and win the support that is there for a deficit reduction package of shared sacrifice. We need to say very clearly to the American people: No, we are not going to move toward deficit reduction solely on the backs of the most vulnerable people in this country. No, we are not going to decimate Medicare so elderly people will not be able to get the health care they need when they are old and sick. No, we are not going to throw millions and millions of people off of Medicaid and endanger families who have their parents in nursing homes. We must have shared sacrifice. The wealthy and large corporations must be involved and contribute toward deficit reduction.

There is a lot of responsibility on the President, but let me make it very clear. I, personally, as a member of the Budget Committee and as a Senator from Vermont, will not be supporting any package that does not call for shared sacrifice.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes, and I thank my friend from Alabama.

Mr. President, let me begin by saying that I get a little bit tired of being lectured to about deficit reduction and how significant a problem our deficit is by many folks who voted for legislation time after time over the last 10 years that, in fact, has caused the deficit crisis we are in right now.

Some of us voted against the war in Iraq, which will end up costing $2 trillion to $3 trillion, unpaid for. Some of us voted against the Wall Street bailout. Some of us voted against tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires. Some of us voted against the Medicare Part D prescription drug program written by the insurance companies. Those four programs have resulted in trillions of dollars in debt. To those people who voted for that, please don't lecture us about the deficit crisis. We didn't help to cause it.

The debate over deficit reduction comes at a very unusual moment in American economic history. While the middle class is in rapid decline, while

real median family income is going down, while wages for millions of workers are going down, while poverty is increasing, we also are at a moment when the wealthiest people in this country have never had it so good. Over a recent 25-year period, 80 percent of all new income went to the top 1 percent.

Today, as a nation with the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major country, we have the 400 wealthiest people in America--just 400 people--owning more wealth than the bottom 125 million. When we deal with deficit reduction, we have to take into consideration the decline of the middle class, the increase in poverty, and the growing disparity in income and wealth between the people on top and everybody else.

Given the reality of record-breaking corporate profits and the increasing wealth of the people on top, it should surprise no one that poll after poll shows that the overwhelming majority of Americans want our deficit crisis to be addressed through shared sacrifice--not just coming down heavily on working families and the middle class, the children, the sick, and the elderly. The American people, in poll after poll, have said they want everybody to contribute and help toward deficit reduction, not just the most vulnerable people in this society.

Unfortunately, the House-passed budget moves us in exactly the wrong direction. It would end Medicare as we know it by giving senior citizens inadequate vouchers to buy health insurance from private companies. Seniors would, on average, see their out-of-pocket expenses double by about $6,000 a year. Seniors at the age of 65 would be given an $8,000 voucher to go to a private insurance company.

Now, you tell me--if you are 65 and you are suffering with cancer or another illness--what an $8,000 plan will do for you. It would be a disaster.

Furthermore, the Republican plan would cut, over 10 years, $770 billion from Medicaid, vastly increasing the number of uninsured and threatening the long-term care of the elderly who live in nursing homes.

The Republican budget would also make savage cuts in education, nutrition, affordable housing, infrastructure, environmental protection, and virtually every program on which low- and moderate- income Americans depend. With all of the focus on spending cuts, however, the Republican budget does nothing to reduce unnecessary military spending at a time when our military budget is triple what it was in 1997.

What people in Vermont tell me is what people in Oregon are telling the Presiding Officer--that the time is now to begin accelerating our troops out of Afghanistan. It is the right thing to do public policy- wise, and it is certainly the right thing to do for our budget.

Here is the kicker of this whole thing: The House Republican budget does not ask the wealthiest people in this country, whose tax rates are now the lowest on record, to contribute one dime more for deficit reduction--not one dime more. Yet we can voucherize Medicare, slash Medicaid, education, infrastructure, and environmental protection, but to ask the wealthiest people in this country to pay one penny more in taxes after they receive hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks, my goodness, we can't do that.

I have another issue--and not just with the Republicans. It has to do, frankly, with the Democrats and with President Obama. Will the President demand that any deficit reduction agreement end the Bush-era tax breaks for the wealthy? Will he stand up and be tall and fight for that important principle? Will the President fight to eliminate corporate tax loopholes? Will he end the absurd policies that allow the wealthy and large corporations to avoid taxes by establishing phony addresses in offshore tax havens? We are losing about $100 billion a year from the corporations and the wealthy who stash their money in the Cayman Islands and Bermuda.

My hope is--and I think the American people are hoping--that the President will stand firm in fighting to end those absurd loopholes. As a Vermont Senator and a member of the Budget Committee, I will not support a plan to reduce the deficit that does not call for shared sacrifice. At least 50 percent of any deficit reduction plan must come from increased revenue from the wealthy and large corporations. We must have the top 2 percent of income earners, who currently pay the lowest upper income tax rates on record, start paying their fair share. Instead of making it harder for working families to send their kids to college, we must end the foreign tax shelters that enable the wealthy and large corporations to avoid U.S. taxes.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, everybody knows this country faces a major deficit crisis and we have a national debt of over $14 trillion. What has not been widely discussed, however, is how we got into this situation in the first place. A huge deficit and huge national debt did not happen by accident. It did not happen overnight. It happened, in fact, as a result of a number of policy decisions made in recent years and votes that were cast right here on the floor of the Senate and in the House.

Let's never forget, as we talk about the deficit situation, that in the year

2000, when President Clinton left office, this country had an annual Federal budget surplus--let me underline that, a surplus--of over $200 billion with projected budget surpluses as far as the eye could see. That was when Clinton left office.

What has happened in the ensuing years? How did we go from huge projected surpluses into horrendous debt? The answer, frankly, is not complicated. The CBO has documented it. There was an interesting article on the front page of the Washington Post on April 30, a few weeks ago, talking about it as well. Here is what happened. It is not complicated.

When we spend over $1 trillion on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and we forget to pay for those wars, we run up a deficit. When we provide over $700 billion in tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this country and we forget to pay for those tax breaks, we run up a deficit. When we pass a Medicare Part D prescription drug program written by the drug companies and the insurance companies that does not allow Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices and ends up costing us far more than it should--$400 billion over a 10-year period--and we don't pay for that, we run up the deficit. If we more than double military spending since 1997, excluding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we don't pay for that, we drive up the deficit.

Yesterday, my good friend from Alabama, Senator Jeff Sessions--and he is a good friend--came to the floor and suggested that Senator Bernie Sanders was one of those big government types. I would say to my friend, Senator Sessions, and all of those others who are now wanting to make savage cuts in programs for working families, the elderly, the sick, and the poor: Guess what. I am the deficit hawk. You guys are the big spenders.

This Senator, when he was in the House, did not vote for the war in Iraq which will end up costing us some $3 trillion by the time we take care of our last veteran. I did not vote for that. Senator Sessions did vote for that.

I did not vote for the huge tax breaks for the richest people in this country--no, no. I am the deficit hawk. My Republican friends, in every instance, voted for those huge tax breaks.

I did not vote for the Medicare prescription drug program, $400 billion over 10 years. I am the deficit hawk. The big spenders on the other side said we could spend that money and not pay for it.

My point is, I am not sympathetic to being lectured about deficits by the same people who caused this crisis and who, on legislation after legislation, voted to significantly increase the deficit and forgot about paying for it--just put it on the credit cards for our children and grandchildren. So, please, don't lecture me on deficit spending.

My Republican friends have come up with an interesting idea as to how we can deal with this crisis, with the deficit crisis. In the House of Representatives, they voted, I believe, unanimously, for the so-called Ryan budget.

What they said is, at a time when the middle class is collapsing, poverty is increasing, unemployment is sky high as a result of this terrible recession, they think the best way to deal with the deficit and the national debt is to make savage cuts in health care; that is, to do away with Medicare as we know it today, convert it into a voucher program, massive cuts in Medicaid. So at a time when 50 million Americans have no health insurance, that number will go up. I am not quite sure what people do if they get sick and lose their health insurance. I don't know what they will do. I don't know how many more people will die if we slash Medicaid and throw millions of people off of that program.

Their brilliant idea of how to move toward deficit reduction is to make major cuts in education, Pell grants. All over this country middle-class families, working-class families are struggling to be able to send their kids to college, and Pell grants are an important part of how they do it. Cut it, so large numbers of young people never get the chance then to go to college.

Nutrition, cutting back on food stamps, on the Women, Infants, Children Nutrition Program. People in America are hungry. Cut back on those programs. Housing, cut back on those programs. Head Start, giving low-income kids an opportunity to do well--cut back on those programs. Childcare--you name it, they are going to cut back on it.

The deficit is caused by unpaid-for wars, tax breaks for the rich, the Medicare Part D prescription drug program, the bailout of Wall Street, a declining economy, and less revenue coming in. Their solution is to balance the budget on the backs of the sick, the elderly, the children, the poor, to cut back on environmental protection, to cut back on transportation. It is an interesting idea. I think it is a pretty dumb idea myself.

But inherent in that whole approach is another factor. In the United States today, while the middle class is disappearing and poverty is increasing, there is another economic reality; that is, the wealthiest people in this country have never had it so good. Over a recent 25-year period, from 1980 to 2005, 80 percent of all new income went to the top 1 percent. The top 1 percent now earn 23 percent of all income in America, more than the bottom 50 percent.

Today, if you can believe it, the top 400 individuals in America now own more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans, the bottom half of America. Four hundred people own more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans.

Interestingly enough, at a time when the rich are becoming richer, when the effective tax rates for the wealthiest people, at 16.6 percent, are the lowest on record, at a time when the wealthiest people have received hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks, at a time when corporate profits are at an all-time high and major corporations making billions of dollars pay nothing in taxes, my Republican colleagues, in their approach toward deficit reduction, do not ask the wealthiest people or the largest corporations to contribute one penny more for deficit reduction.

Their idea of moving toward a balanced budget is to go after the middle-class, working families, low-income people, but make sure the millionaires and billionaires and largest corporations in this country who are doing phenomenally well, that they do not have to participate in shared sacrifice. They are protected. This is the Robin Hood philosophy in reverse. This is taking from the poor and giving to the rich.

Many viewers may not believe me, and I ask them to check it out; that in the midst of all of this--huge deficit, huge national debt, the Republican proposal to slash programs that working families, middle- class people desperately need--in the middle of all this, our Republican friends have another brilliant idea. Let's give $1 trillion in tax breaks to the very wealthiest people in this country. We are going to throw millions off of Medicaid, we are going to cut back on Pell grants, we are going to make savage cuts in nutrition programs, and whether we get all of those savings, $1 trillion in savings, do you know what we are going to do with it? We are going to give it to the richest people in this country. We are going to lower the tax rate, the personal income tax rate for the rich from 35 to 25 percent.

At a time when major corporations such as General Electric and ExxonMobil make billions of dollars in profit, pay nothing in Federal income taxes, do you know what we are going to do to them? We are going to give them even more tax breaks.

The President has recently come up with an approach toward deficit reduction which is certainly a lot better than the Republican approach, but to my mind is by no means as strong as it should be. I was disturbed, not happy, to hear that his approach calls for $2 in spending cuts and only $1 in additional revenue. So at a time of significant, severe recession, millions of people are hurting, the President is calling for $2 in cuts in spending but only $1 in additional revenue. I think that is a bad idea. I think that is an inadequate idea because if the President starts at that position, $2 in spending cuts, $1 in revenue, by the time we deal with the Republicans in the House, that number is going to go up and will probably end up 3 or 4 to 1 in terms of spending cuts.

Senator Kent Conrad, chairman of the Budget Committee in the Senate, has done a better job. He has not gone anywhere near as far as I think he should go but has at least come up

with a budget that I think most Americans think is sensible, by saying at the very least let's have $1 of spending cuts and $1 of additional revenue. Let's at least have shared sacrifice. Let's not balance the budget on the backs of the weak and vulnerable.

My office put together a list of ideas that are out there as to how we can raise revenue in a fair and progressive manner. I want to touch on them for a second.

No. 1, I want everybody to hear this: If we imposed a 5.4 percent surtax on millionaires who have been doing phenomenally well, over a 10-year period we can raise $383 billion. What do you think? We can throw millions of people off of Medicaid, we can end nutrition programs for low-income kids, or we can ask the wealthiest people to pay a little bit more. The cause of this recession we are in right now has to do with the greed, the recklessness, and illegal behavior on Wall Street. The crooks on Wall Street who made huge sums of money ended up driving this country into a terrible recession. If we passed a speculation fee, a fee on Wall Street speculators, we could raise as much as $100 billion a year, and, by the way, have the added benefit of cutting back on speculation.

We could raise more than $580 billion over 10 years by erasing tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. Right now we have a tax policy that says shut down a plant in America, go to China, and guess what. They are going to get a tax break. I think that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

The estate tax--which my Republican friends refer to as the so-called death tax--only applies to the top three-tenths of 1 percent, the very wealthiest people in this country. Instead of lowering the estate tax, as we recently did, we could raise $330 billion over 10 years by establishing a responsible estate tax that asks the top three-tenths of 1 percent of Americans who inherit over $3.5 million in wealth to pay a fair estate tax.

We do raise $736 billion over 10 years by taxing capital gains and dividends as ordinary income. Warren Buffett, one of the wealthiest people in the world, has said he pays a lower Federal tax rate than his secretary, than do nurses and police officers and teachers, because most of his income and most of the income of very wealthy people is generated by capital gains. Our provision could correct that problem-- taxing capital gains and dividends as ordinary income.

We could raise $40 billion over the next 10 years by ending tax breaks and subsidies for Big Oil and gas. I do understand there is legislation going to be coming to the floor which I strongly support. It doesn't go as far as I would go, but it basically says the top five oil companies that have made billions of dollars in profits and are now charging us $4 a gallon--prices are soaring despite the fact that supply today is greater than it was a year ago and demand is less--that maybe we do away with some of the tax breaks they have enjoyed.

And $40 billion over 10 years is what I would propose we can get. We can raise $100 billion a year by prohibiting abusive and illegal offshore tax shelters. The Senate Budget Committee has a photograph of a building in the Cayman Islands. It is an infamous building. It is a four-story building that houses 18,000 corporations. That is right. One building, 18,000 corporations. Obviously the whole thing is a scam. This is being used as a postal address for corporations and wealthy individuals who want to avoid paying taxes to the U.S. Government.

The Budget Committee estimates that we are losing about $100 billion a year by having corporations and wealthy people stash their money in the Cayman Islands. That is a lot of money, $100 billion a year. We could raise up to $500 billion over 10 years by establishing a currency manipulation fee, and, by the way, create up to 1 million new jobs in the process.

So what is my point? My point is this deficit was caused by actions voted upon by many of my Republican friends: the war, tax breaks for the rich, Medicare Part D, that in the middle of a recession when the middle class and working families are already hurting, when poverty is increasing. It is not only immoral, it is bad economics to balance the budget on working families and the most vulnerable people in this country.

When people are hurting, when they have lost their jobs, when their incomes are going down, you do not say to those people: We are throwing you off of Medicaid. We are going to ``voucherize'' Medicare, we are going to cut back on Federal aid to education so your kid cannot go to college. That is not what you say in a humane and fair society.

On the other hand, at the same time when the wealthiest people are becoming phenomenally wealthier, and when large corporations are making huge profits, and in many cases not paying any taxes at all, it is appropriate to say to those people: Sorry, you are also American. You have got to participate in shared sacrifice. You have also got to help us reduce the deficit.

That is where we are right now. We are in the midst of a major debate, but it is not only on financial issues. It is very much a philosophical debate. It is a debate about which side are you on. Do you continue to give tax breaks to the very rich and make savage cuts for working families, for children, the elderly, the poor, the most vulnerable?

I am going to continue doing everything I can to make sure the budget that is finally passed here in the Senate is a fair budget, is a responsible budget, is a just budget.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, today I wish to honor the students who participated in Vermont's fourth annual Junior Iron Chef Competition. Forty Vermont middle schools and 16 Vermont high schools sent teams to the day-long event, a cooking competition which promotes local agriculture and healthy choices in school nutrition. I was very impressed, when I attended the competition, to see the creativity and energy the students brought to this endeavor.

Vermont's Junior Iron Chef Competition brings aspiring chefs together for a timed ``cook-off.'' Middle schools face off in one division and high schools in another. Each team is composed of up to five students and is accompanied by an adult supervisor who is allowed to offer guidance but not take part in the actual cooking.

Contestants must use their culinary skills to create original school lunch dishes using at least five ingredients produced by local farmers. Prizes were awarded in three categories. I would like to recognize the winners from each category and commend the students from all competing schools for their excellent effort. Teams from Twin Valley swept the Best in Show prizes; Team Murdock winning at the middle school level and Hakuna Matata for high school. The Barre City Chefs of Barre City Elementary Middle School won the award for Most Creative Dish for middle schools and the Food Fighters from Centerpoint School won in the high school category. The awards for Greatest Number and Best Use of Local Ingredients went to the Barretown Bobcats of Barre Town Middle School and the Rebel Chefs from South Burlington High School.

In addition to extending education beyond the traditional classroom, I admire the competition for promoting local agriculture and healthy eating choices. Junior Iron Chef attempts to change the often stale homogeneity of school lunches by bolstering what is now a statewide effort, led by groups like Vermont Food Education Every Day, FEED, and the Burlington School Food Project. It attempts, successfully, to reconnect young Vermonters with our state's agricultural roots and to restore a bond between our schools and the food that Vermont produces.

Vermont is, I believe, among the leaders in promoting small scale agriculture. While Vermont has long been known for its dairy farms, smaller scale agriculture is growing rapidly in our State.

Scientific studies have shown that the health of Americans is threatened by an overdependence on fast food, on sugar-enhanced drinks, on snacks low in nutrition and high in fats. Too often we, adults and children alike, turn to processed fast foods instead of eating nutritionally balanced meals. Our national diet is, unfortunately, responsible for many unhealthy results, including a surge in both childhood obesity and childhood diabetes. Creative efforts like Vermont's Junior Iron Chef Competition are terribly important in the effort to effectively combat unhealthy diets and the rise of childhood obesity and childhood diabetes.

To the Junior Iron Chef Competition sponsors, Vermont's agriculture community and its forward thinking school systems, to those who organized the event, to the adult supervisors, and especially to the Vermont students who participated in the Junior Iron Chef Competition, let me offer my congratulations.

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

Mr. President, we are at an extraordinary crossroads in American history, both from a moral perspective as well as an economic perspective.

The reality today, as I think most Americans understand, is that the middle class of our country is collapsing. Over the last 10 years, median family income has gone down by $2,500. Millions of Americans who have lost their jobs secured new jobs at substantially lower pay. Younger workers are finding it very hard to get a job at a livable wage.

Furthermore, what we don't talk about terribly often here on the floor of the Senate or certainly in the corporate media is the rather unfortunate reality that in the United States, we have the most unequal distribution of income and of wealth of any major country on Earth. Today, the top 1 percent of earners make 23 percent of all income. The top 1 percent earn 23 percent of every dollar, and that is more than the bottom 50 percent. The top 1 percent make more money than the bottom 50 percent. The percentage of income going to the top 1 percent has nearly tripled--nearly tripled--since the 1970s. Between 1980 and 2005, 80 percent--80 percent--of all new income in America went to the top 1 percent.

Today, when we talk about distribution of wealth--not income--the numbers are, frankly, beyond belief. Today in America, if my colleagues can believe it, the wealthiest 400 Americans--400 Americans, a very small number out of a nation of over 300 million people--own more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans. So 400 on one side, 150 million on the other, and that gap between the very, very rich and everybody else is growing wider.

I don't have to describe economically what is going on in this country because almost everybody understands it. Real unemployment today is not 8.9 percent; it is closer to 16 percent. Today in America, 50 million people have no health insurance. Today in America, seniors and disabled vets understand they have not received a Social Security COLA in 3 years.

So what we start with when we look at America today is a middle class which is disappearing, poverty which is increasing, and the people on top doing phenomenally well. Given that reality, one might think the Congress would be actively involved in trying to protect the middle class and working families and lower income people, but if one believed that, one would be sorely mistaken.

Just last December, 4 months ago, Congress passed legislation to provide huge tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires by extending the Bush tax cuts to the top 2 percent and by even more by lowering the estate tax for the top three-tenths of 1 percent. So at a time when the people on top are already doing phenomenally well, what Congress did against my vote in December was make the wealthiest people even wealthier.

Four months ago, after giving huge tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires and growing the deficit, our Republican friends and some Democrats come back and they say: Well, now we have a real deficit problem. We made the problem worse in December, so now we really have to deal with the deficit, and we are going to do it by making devastating cuts to programs that low- and moderate-income Americans desperately depend upon.

What we are looking at is the Robin Hood principle in reverse: We are taking from working families who are struggling to survive--taking hundreds of billions of dollars and giving it to millionaires and billionaires. In my view, this is grossly immoral, and it is also very bad economics.

Let me touch on some of the cuts that are coming down the pike in this, the 2011 budget. At a time of soaring fuel prices--in the State of Vermont and I am sure in Minnesota, a lot of people heat with oil-- the cost is going up. The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, would be cut by $390 million. In Vermont, many of the people who use the LIHEAP program are low-income senior citizens. So we give tax breaks to billionaires, and we go after low-income senior citizens and say: Sorry, you may have to go cold.

At a time when the cost of college education is getting unaffordable for many low- and moderate-income families in this country--hundreds of thousands of young people have given up their college dream because of the high cost of college--Pell grants would be reduced by an estimated $35 billion over 10 years, including a nearly $500 million cut this year, and Pell grants are the major source of Federal funding to help low- and moderate-income college students go to school.

At a time when 50 million Americans have no health insurance, community health centers would be cut by $600 million. This is an issue on which I have worked very, very hard. Community health centers provide access to primary health care, dental care, low-cost prescription drugs, and mental health counseling for some 20 million Americans right now. Our hope was to expand that to 40 million Americans. When we do that, we save money because people do not end up in the emergency room; they do not end up in the hospital sicker than they should have been. So $600 million for community health centers was cut. The Children's Health Insurance Program was cut by $3.5 billion.

At a time when poverty is increasing, the WIC Program--women, infants, and children--a nutrition program for pregnant women and children, will be cut by $500 million.

At a time when we have such high unemployment rates and we want to put Americans to work rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, including our rail system, which is now far behind Europe, Japan, and even China, Federal funding for high-speed rail will be eliminated in the budget we are going to be voting on very soon, representing a cut of $2.9 billion. Public

transportation would be cut by nearly $1 billion--a 20-percent reduction.

I know in Vermont, and I expect all over this country, local communities are struggling with their budgets. Police departments are not getting the budgets and the manpower they need. Yet, in this budget we will be voting on, local law enforcement funding would be cut by $296 million.

At a time when homelessness is increasing, when we need more low- income housing, public housing would be cut by $605 million.

That is the 2011 budget agreement that was just reached a few days ago. What is absolutely incredible about that budget is that deficit reduction falls totally on the backs of low-and moderate-income families, on people who will not be able to get health care at community health centers, young people who will not be able to go to college, and senior citizens who will not be able to heat their homes in the wintertime. That is where this budget is balanced--on the backs of the weak, the vulnerable, the children, the elderly, and the poor. Yet, at the same time as the wealthiest people are becoming wealthier, this budget does not ask for one penny--not one penny--from millionaires and billionaires.

At a time when major corporation after major corporation enjoys huge tax loopholes--so not only do they avoid paying any Federal income taxes, but in many cases, such as General Electric, they actually get a rebate from the IRS--this budget does not ask corporate America to pay one penny more in corporate income taxes.

That is where we are with the 2011 budget, and now we are looking in a short period of time at the 2012 budget. If my colleagues think this 2011 budget is a moral and economic disgrace, wait until we hear what this 2012 budget, the so-called Paul Ryan tea party budget, which, as I understand it, will be voted upon in the House, likely passing later this week--that budget will slash trillions of dollars from Medicare, converting Medicare into a voucher program, meaning that seniors will have to pay substantially more for their health care than they currently do. The interesting question that has not yet been answered about this is, if you will be--when this Ryan budget would go into effect--a senior citizen living on $14,000 or $15,000 a year, which millions of seniors currently live on, how are you going to be able to come up with thousands and thousands of dollars to pay for your cancer treatment or the other problems senior citizens have? There is no money available for you to do it.

What Ryan's budget does is demand that low-income seniors pay with money they don't have. I am not sure I have heard the answer to the question: If you are a low-income citizen and you are asked to come up with thousands of dollars, and you don't have that money, what do you do? The Ryan budget would savage Medicaid, education, the environment, infrastructure, and other programs that tens of millions of Americans depend upon.

Here is the kicker. We savage Medicare, Medicaid, education, and many other programs that moderate and middle-class families depend upon in order to give even more tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this country and the largest corporations. After savaging health care in America for middle and low-income families, the Ryan budget would reduce the tax rates for the wealthiest people in this country from 35 to 25 percent, and it would cut corporate income taxes to the same level, from 35 to 25 percent.

I suspect there are people listening to me who don't believe that: Come on, you are not serious; at a time when the middle class is collapsing and the rich are getting richer, you are not telling me that the House is about to vote on a budget that will give huge tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires and throw millions more off of health care--you are not serious. Check it out. I am serious. This is what the Ryan tea party budget, which will likely pass the House, will do.

As I began saying, we are at a pivotal moment in the modern history of this country. That question is whether we move, in a sense, into an oligarchic form of society, where a few people on top have incredible amounts of wealth and incredible amounts of political power, while the middle class disappears and poverty increases. That is where we are right now.

I hope very much the American people engage in this debate and tell Members of the Senate and the House that it is morally wrong and very poor economics to cut back on programs that are desperately needed by working families, while giving huge tax breaks to people who absolutely don't need them.

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

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

Madam President, we are at a unique and enormously important moment in American history. The decisions that will be made by the Congress and the President in the coming days, weeks, and months, will in many ways determine how we go forward as a nation and will impact the lives of virtually every one of our 300-plus million citizens.

The reality today, as I think most Americans know, is that within our economy we have a middle class which is collapsing. In the last 10 years, median family income has declined by $2,500. Millions of American workers are working longer hours for lower wages. If you look at real unemployment rather than the official unemployment, we are talking about 16 percent of our people unemployed or underemployed. Numbers may be even higher for certain blue collar workers and for young workers. The middle class is in very dire straits.

Poverty in America is increasing. Since 2000, nearly 12 million Americans have slipped out of the middle class and into poverty. As a nation we have 50 million Americans today who have no health insurance and that number has increased. In recent years we have the highest rate of child poverty of any major country on Earth. We are deindustrializing at a rapid rate. In the last 10 years we have lost 50,000 of our largest manufacturing plants as many of our largest corporations have decided it is more profitable to do business in China and other low-wage countries rather than invest in America.

That is one reality. Then there is another reality that we don't talk about too much. It is while the middle class disappears and poverty increases, people on the top are doing phenomenally well. Today, about 1 percent of top income earners earn about 23 percent of all income. That is more than the bottom 50 percent--the top 1 percent earn more income than the bottom 50 percent and the gap between the very rich and everybody else is growing wider.

Not widely discussed but true, in America today the wealthiest 400 families own more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans--400 families, 150 million Americans. That is an unbelievable gap in terms of wealth, between a handful of families and the vast majority of the American people. That gap is growing wider.

In 2007, the wealthiest 1 percent took in 23.5 percent of all the income earned in the United States; the top 0.1 percent took in 11 percent of total income. The percentage of income going to the top 1 percent has nearly tripled since the 1970s, and between 1980 and 2005, 80 percent of all new income generated in this country went to the top 1 percent.

We are living in a society where the very wealthiest people are becoming wealthier; the middle class is disappearing; poverty is increasing. That takes us to the budget situation our Republican friends are pushing.

At a time when the richest people are becoming richer, what the Republicans say is the answer is let us give millionaires and billionaires even more in tax breaks. At a time when the middle class is in decline, poverty is increasing, what our Republicans are saying is let us attack virtually every significant program that improves lives for low-income or moderate-income people. The rich get richer, they get more. The middle class gets poorer, they get less. Maybe that sense of morality makes sense to some people. It does not make sense to this Senator and I do not believe it makes sense to the vast majority of the American people.

Our Republican friends outlined their immediate budget proposals for 2011, for the CR, in their bill H.R. 1. Let me briefly review it because I want everybody in America to understand what these folks want to see happen and it is

important that we discuss it. Fifty million Americans have no health insurance today. The Republican solution is slash $1.3 billion for community health care centers that provide primary health care to 11 million patients.

What happens when you are sick, you have no insurance, you don't have any money, you can't go to a doctor--what happens? Perhaps you die, perhaps you suffer, perhaps you are lucky enough to get into a hospital. We spend huge sums of money treating you when you could have been treated a lot more cost effectively through a community health center.

Today, in my office and I suspect in your office, people will tell you that it takes too long for them to get their claims from the Social Security Administration, the disability claims--the waiting line is too long. The Republican solution is slash $1.7 billion from the Social Security Administration, making seniors and the disabled wait even longer. Everybody in America knows how hard it is for a middle-class family to send their kids to college. The most significant Federal programs, such as the Pell grant program, make it easier for low and moderate-income families to afford college. The Republican solution is slash $5.7 billion from Pell grants which means that over 9 million American students will lose some or all of their Pell grants. Many of them will not be able to go to college.

Everybody, every working family in America, knows how hard it is today to find quality, affordable childcare. In most American middle- class families the husband works, the wife works--they want to know their kids are in a safe, good-quality childcare center. For decades now, Head Start has done an excellent job in providing quality early childhood education for low-income kids. In the midst of that childcare crisis, the Republican solution is slash Head Start by 20 percent, throw 218,000 children off of Head Start, lay off 55,000 Head Start instructors.

On and on it goes. In my State it gets cold in the winter, 20 below zero. Many seniors living on Social Security cannot afford the escalating costs of home heating oil. The Republican solution: Slash $400 million in funding for LIHEAP, making it harder for seniors and other low-income people to stay warm in the wintertime.

What we should be very clear about as we discuss the budget is the Republican proposals for the continuing resolution for the remainder of fiscal year 2011 are only the first step in their long-term plan for America. Yesterday what we saw is the real vision of the Republican Party, for where they want to take this country into the future. While I applaud them for being straightforward about that vision, I think the more the American people take a hard look at where they want this country to go, the more outraged will be millions and millions of citizens as they understand the Republican proposal for the future.

Right now, if you are a senior citizen and you get sick and you need to go to the hospital, you have a health insurance program called Medicare, which has been lifesaving for millions of seniors. The Republican budget as outlined by Congressman Ryan yesterday essentially ends Medicare as we know it and converts it into a voucher-type program that will leave seniors paying out of pocket for many lifesaving health care costs.

In other words, if you end up, at the age of 75, with cancer or another illness, what the Republican proposal does is give a voucher to a private insurance company--$6,000, $8,000, we are not exactly sure-- and after that, good luck, you are on your own. You have an income of $15,000, you have cancer, how are you going to pay for that? The Republicans say there will be a voucher, ending Medicare as we know it right now.

The Republican proposal would force seniors to pay $3,500 more for prescription drugs. The proposal would reopen the prescription drug doughnut hole, requiring that seniors pay full price for prescription drugs. At a time when so many of our people have no health insurance, the Republican budget contains $1.4 trillion in Medicaid cuts over 10 years by turning it into a block grant program. We are now reading in various States that have budget problems that their solution to the budget problems is simply to throw people off of Medicaid, including children. What happens if you have no health insurance and you get sick?

We are beginning to talk about death panels. That is what we are talking about. If you are sick, you have no health insurance, what do you do? My guess--we have options--you die, you get sicker, you suffer in ways that you did not have to suffer.

The Republican proposal, as outlined by Congressman Ryan yesterday, also includes over $1.6 trillion in cuts over the next decade for education, Pell grants, infrastructure, affordable housing, food stamps, food safety, and other vital programs for the middle class, the elderly, the sick, and the children.

What is also interesting--it is literally beyond belief to me--is while Republicans are slashing programs for low- and middle-income people, what they are also doing--I think people will think I am not serious, but I am--at the same time as the rich are getting richer and they are slashing programs for low- and moderate-income people, the Republican budget plan would significantly lower taxes for millionaires and billionaires.

So we cut Head Start, we cut Pell grants, we cut community health centers, but at the same time we give huge tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires. Furthermore, the Republican proposal would also lower taxes for the largest corporations in this country. My point is, we all do understand that this country has a serious deficit problem and a $14 trillion national debt. I think every Member of the Senate is concerned about the issue and wants to address it.

The question is, Do we move toward a balanced budget on the backs of the weakest, most vulnerable people in our country, on the backs of the poor, the children, the elderly, the disabled? That is one way we can do it or do we ask for shared sacrifice? Do we say to the wealthiest people in the country, do we say to the largest corporations in this country: You are part of America, too, and you have to help us get out of this deficit crisis.

Last week, I issued a list of 10 major corporations--10 major corporations that paid nothing in taxes in recent years, and, in some cases, actually got a rebate from the Federal Government after making huge profits. To my mind, instead of cutting back on Head Start and Pell grants and community health centers--which will have a devastating impact on low- and moderate-income Americans--maybe we might want to ask General Electric, which made $26 billion in profits over the last 5 years and received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS, maybe we might want to ask them to pay something in taxes.

I think it is a bit absurd that the average middle-class person pays more in Federal income taxes than does General Electric. Maybe we want to change that. Maybe we want to ask Chevron, which made $10 billion in profits in 2009, which got a $19 million dollar refund from the IRS, maybe to pay something in taxes so we can move toward deficit reduction in a way that is fair.

Here is the bottom line: corporate profits are at an alltime high. The richest people in this country are doing phenomenally well. The middle class is in decline. Poverty is increasing. Republican answer: More tax breaks for the very rich, lower corporate taxes, but stick it to working families in a horrendous way, which will cause massive pain.

We are at a fork in the road in terms of public policy. Do we develop public policy which protects all our people, which expands the middle class, or are we at a moment in history which moves this country aggressively toward oligarchy, in which we have a small number of people at the top with incredible wealth and incredible power, while the middle class continues to disappear.

Now is the time, in my view, for working families all over this country to stand and say: Enough is enough. We need shared sacrifice as we go forward. We do not need to see the middle class in this country further disappear.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I wish to say a few words about the debate over the budget that is currently taking place here in Washington.

I wish to express a viewpoint that I think is shared by the vast majority of the people in our country. That is, No. 1, I think we all recognize the deficit of $1.6 trillion is an enormously serious problem, as is the case with a $14 trillion national debt. I think most Americans and virtually everybody in Congress understands this is an issue we have to deal with. However, at a time when this country is in the midst of severe recession; when real unemployment--not official unemployment--is close to 16 percent; when poverty in America is increasing and when we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country on Earth; at a time when 50 million Americans have no health insurance at all and we are losing about 45,000 Americans every year because they don't get access to a doctor; at a time when many of our people are working longer hours for lower wages, I think what most Americans are saying is: Yes, we have to deal with the deficit, but we have to deal with it in a way that is fair and in a way that requires shared sacrifice.

It is absolutely wrong to be talking about balancing the budget and deficit reduction simply on the backs of working people, the middle class, low-income people, the sick, the elderly, the

most vulnerable people in this country. That is morally wrong and economically unwise. What we must be talking about is shared sacrifice where all segments of our society are participating in the effort to balance the budget and reduce our deficit.

While the middle class in this country is disappearing and while poverty is increasing, there is another reality this Senate must address, and that is that the people on top are doing phenomenally well. Many of my colleagues have seen articles which talk about corporate profits today being at all-time highs. The middle class is collapsing, poverty is increasing, and corporate profits are at an all- time high. Today, the wealthiest people in our country are doing phenomenally well. Our friends on Wall Street, who helped cause the recession we are in through their greed and their recklessness and illegal behavior, are now earning more money than they have ever earned before. Three out of the four largest banks today, before we bailed them out because they were too big to fail, are even bigger. So the guys on Wall Street are making more money than they did before we bailed them out, corporate profits are at record-breaking levels, and the wealthiest people in this country are doing phenomenally well.

In a recent 25-year period, 80 percent of all income went to the top 1 percent, and we now have a situation where the top 1 percent earn about 23 percent of all income in America more than the bottom 50 percent. So that is where we are: corporate profits soaring, wealthiest people doing phenomenally well. Then we have folks who come here and say, Well, we have to balance the budget. We have to move toward deficit reduction. The way we do it is on the backs of those people in the middle class, working class, lower income people who are already being beaten over the head because of the recession.

I would point out that the deficit reduction package passed by our Republican colleagues in the House would cut Head Start by $1.1 billion, throwing over 200,000 little children out of Head Start. There is a major childcare crisis in America today. We have to expand Head Start. They want to throw 200,000 kids off of Head Start.

With 50 million Americans having no health insurance--people can't get to a primary health care doctor; they are getting sick when they shouldn't be sick; they are ending up in the emergency room; they are ending up in the hospital--our Republican friends want to cut $1.3 billion from community health centers, denying 11 million patients access to primary health care. They are balancing the budget on the backs of little kids, low-income kids; balancing the budget on the backs of sick people who have no access to a doctor. College education costs are soaring. Middle-class families can't afford it. Our Republican friends want to reduce the Pell grant program--the major source of Federal funding for moderate and low-income families for sending their kids to college--by 17 percent, which would mean that over 9 million low-income college students would lose some or all of their Pell grants.

The Community Service Block Grant Program would be cut by $405 million, and that is the program that helps the poorest of the poor get by day by day. And on and on it goes.

I wish to introduce another aspect into this discussion. Not only have we given huge tax breaks to the richest people in this country, driving up the deficit--and I hear very little discussion about asking them to pay any more to help us toward deficit reduction--we have another scandal out there. Major corporation after major corporation, many of which have powerful lobbyists right here on Capitol Hill, not only pay nothing in taxes but in many cases get a refund from the IRS. I wish to list the 10 worst corporate tax avoiders: ExxonMobil, the largest oil company in the world, made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no Federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to SEC filings. So instead of throwing children off of Head Start or cutting back on community health centers, maybe--maybe--we want to ask ExxonMobil to actually pay taxes rather than get a refund.

Bank of America, No. 2, received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year. Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund, although it made $4.4 billion in profits. Maybe they might want to contribute a little bit more before we cut back, as the Republicans want, on the Social Security Administration.

Over the past 5 years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.

Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.

If you are a working stiff and making $30,000 to $40,000 a year, you are paying taxes, but if you are Chevron and you made $10 billion in profits in 2009, you don't have to pay any taxes; you get a $19 million refund. Yes, let's go after little kids; let's go after the elderly; let's go after the sick; let's go after the most vulnerable; but apparently in the Senate, we can't ask Chevron to pay taxes.

Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year. Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America, with $68 billion in sales last year, received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS.

Goldman Sachs, our good friends on Wall Street, in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes, even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received almost $800 million from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.

Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no Federal income taxes.

ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009 and received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deductions.

Over the past 5 years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its Federal income tax rates dropped during those years to 1.1 percent.

So the point is if you go out and you work for a living, you pay 10, 15 percent of your income in taxes. But if you are on Wall Street, if you are a major oil company and have lobbyists all over this place, not only can you avoid paying any taxes, in many cases you will actually get a tax refund from the IRS.

What is the point? The point is that at a time when we have a $1.6 trillion deficit, maybe we have to reduce that deficit not simply on the backs of working families, low-income people, children, the sick, the elderly; maybe--maybe--we might want to call for shared sacrifice. Maybe ExxonMobil and some of the large oil companies might be asked to pay something in taxes. Maybe General Electric might be asked to pay something in taxes. Maybe the wealthiest people in this country might be asked to pay something in taxes.

These are serious times for our country and we need serious answers. We need shared sacrifice.

Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on Saturday, March 26 several hundred medical students from across the country came to our State Capital in Montpelier, VT, to rally in support of Vermont going forward with a Medicare for All Single Payer health care system.

These young people were absolutely clear in understanding that for them to be the great physicians and nurses that they want to be, our health care system must change. They believe, as I do, that health care is a right and not a privilege and that a single payer program is the most cost-effective way of achieving that goal. I am very pleased to submit for the Record the statement of principle signed by these medical school students.

I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, it was my intention to offer a modification of the amendment I offered yesterday on Social Security. Given the parliamentary situation right now, I can't do that. I intend to do that as soon as I can.

Mr. President, the original Social Security protection amendment that I introduced earlier would have prevented Congress from cutting Social Security benefits, raising the retirement age or privatizing Social Security without the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Senate and the House.

I introduced this amendment because I strongly believe that Congress should not be able to cut the hard-earned Social Security benefits of current or future eligible recipients without a super-majority vote in both the Senate and the House, and I continue to hold those views.

I have heard from some of my colleagues--colleagues who strongly support protecting Social Security--that adopting this amendment would have the effect of changing the rules of the Senate and establishing new precedents. While I do not share those views, I have 1istened to my colleagues' concerns and worked with the majority leader to modify this amendment.

As a result, Majority Leader Reid is a cosponsor of this modified amendment. There is not one Senator or Member of the House who is more committed to protecting Social Security than Majority Leader Reid and I thank him for his leadership on this issue.

The Sanders-Reid amendment expresses the Sense of the Senate that, as part of any legislation to reduce the Federal deficit, Social Security benefits for current and future beneficiaries should not be cut and that Social Security should not be privatized.

The Sanders-Reid amendment makes it clear that Social Security has never contributed one dime to the Federal budget deficit or the national debt.

The Sanders-Reid amendment makes it clear that Social Security currently has a $2.6 trillion surplus that is projected to grow to $4.2 trillion in 2023.

The Sanders-Reid amendment makes it clear that it would be absurd to be discussing Social Security within the context of deficit reduction.

Let me repeat what I said yesterday. Social Security has not contributed one nickel to our deficit, and it makes no sense to conflate the serious problems of our deficit and national debt with Social Security. That is not an accurate projection of reality.

As I think we all know, in 1983, Social Security did face a crisis. Within a 6-month period of that point, it would not have been able to pay out benefits it owed to eligible Americans. Today, Social Security can pay out all benefits owed to all Americans who are eligible for the program for the next 26 years.

I will speak more about this issue. I wanted to inform my colleagues that we intend to modify the amendment we have offered. We will do that when the parliamentary situation allows us to do that.

I thank the Senator from Louisiana for allowing me to say a few words.