Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask the Senate set aside the pending amendment so I can call up amendment No. 207.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 207.

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

Mr. President, this amendment is identical to the Social Security Protection Act I introduced yesterday with Senators Mikulski, Boxer, Sherrod Brown, Blumenthal, Stabenow, Akaka, Whitehouse, Begich, and Lautenberg.

This legislation has the strong support of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, the American Federation of Federal Employees, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Military Order of the Purple Heart, and the Jewish Veterans of America, among others.

Social Security is the most successful and reliable Federal program in our Nation's history. For 75 years, through good times and bad, when the economy was strong and when the economy was weak, Social Security has paid out

every nickel owed to every eligible American. While we take that for granted, that, in fact, is an extraordinary accomplishment. It is all done at very modest administrative costs.

Social Security has been enormously successful in accomplishing exactly what its founders hoped to accomplish. Before President Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law in August of 1935, approximately half our senior citizens lived in poverty. Before Social Security, about half our seniors lived in poverty. Today, fewer than 10 percent of seniors live in poverty. That number is too great, but it is a significant improvement over what occurred before the establishment of Social Security.

What we should be very clear about, given the volatility of today's economy--there is a great deal of anxiety among the American people about whether they are going to be able to retire with dignity. At a time when millions of Americans have seen the value of their private retirement plans plummet, at a time when major corporations have significantly cut back on the defined benefit pension plans and 401(k) contributions, it makes no sense to me that anybody in this Chamber would contemplate dismantling the one retirement program that has been there for 75 years and has worked for 75 years.

There was an interesting article in USA Today yesterday. These are just a couple facts they threw out in yesterday's USA Today. The percentage of workers who are not at all confident about saving enough money for a comfortable retirement reached 27 percent in 2011 compared with 22 percent just last year--a significant increase in a 1-year period. When combined with those who said they are ``not too confident,'' the total reaches 50 percent of workers. So we are in a situation, according to USA Today, where almost 50 percent of American workers lack confidence about whether they are going to have enough money to retire with dignity. There is another point that the article made. This is what they say:

Quite a few workers virtually have no savings or

investments. In 2011, 29 percent said they have less than

$1,000.

Well, you are not going to go too far in your retirement with less than $1,000.

56 percent said that their savings and investments,

excluding their home value, totals less than $25,000.

The bottom line is, for a variety of reasons, A, the Wall Street collapse of a few years ago, the fact that wages for millions of workers have not kept up with inflation, a significant part of our older workforce today is extremely worried about what will happen to them when they retire.

Within that context, why there are people in the Congress who would want to start dismantling the one program that has, without fail, been there for 75 years, makes no sense to me at all. Let me also make another point. I think it is important to make this point 24 hours a day because we hear so much misinformation coming to us from pundits, from the media, and from Members of Congress. So let me be very clear.

This country has a very serious national debt problem and a very serious deficit problem. We just heard about that, a $1.6 trillion deficit. That is serious business. In my view, Congress has to be aggressive to address that issue. But here is the point. Social Security has not contributed one nickel to the Federal deficit or the national debt--not one penny.

So when you hear people say we have a serious deficit problem, therefore we have to cut benefits in Social Security or raise the retirement age, what they are saying makes no sense at all. These are two very separate issues.

In fact, Social Security currently has a $2.6 trillion surplus. Let me repeat that. Social Security has a $2.6 trillion surplus. That is projected to grow to $4.2 trillion in 2023. In 1983, when we look back a little bit, it turns out that Social Security did face a crisis. At that point, in 1983, if the Congress and then-President Reagan had not acted, Social Security was projected to run out of necessary funding in 6 months--6 months. That is a crisis.

As a result of the discussions and negotiations and a committee put together by the President, Tip O'Neill, et cetera, a resolution was reached to that problem. The Congress overwhelmingly voted for it. Today is not 1983. Today the Social Security Administration has estimated that Social Security will be able to pay out 100 percent of promised benefits to every eligible recipient for the next 26 years.

This country does face a whole lot of crises: Unemployment is off the wall; childhood poverty is too high; we have serious deficit problems; two wars; we are worried about global warming. We have a lot of problems. But it seems to me to be totally absurd that people would say: Oh, my goodness, we have to cut Social Security because it can only pay out benefits for the next 26 years.

Go to Minnesota and say to a business person: If you could pay out all that you owe for the next 26 years, do you think it is a crisis? People would be shaking their heads.

I should point out that after those 26 years, if nothing is done--and I think something should be done--Social Security will be able to fund about 78 percent of promised benefits. So it seems to me that given the enormous importance of Social Security not only to the elderly but to people with disabilities, to people who are widows and orphans who have lost the income that a bread winner had brought into the family, we have to do everything we can to protect Social Security.

We have to make it very clear that Social Security is strong, can pay out every benefit for 26 years, that has not contributed one nickel to the deficit. And that is the amendment that I will be bringing up as soon as I possibly can.

I sure would.

I think it is a hair higher than that. I think it is about $14,000 a year. But the point is, I would say to the Senator from Louisiana, there are millions of seniors for whom that is either all or almost all of their income. That is it. That is it. In this day and age, that is the average. So your point is, there are people certainly below the average.

Here is the story. I agree with you. I find it hard to understand that there are people who get up here--and we hear the speeches every day. They say we have a serious deficit crisis. It is unfair to leave that burden to our kids and our grandkids. We agree with that.

We say, OK, let's address the deficit crisis. But let's do it in a way that is not on the backs of the sick, the elderly, the children, the most vulnerable people in the country. So what this Senator is pointing out is that in the last number of years what we have seen is that the people on top have been doing very well--the top 1 percent now earns about 23 percent of all income, which is more than the bottom 50 percent. The effective tax rate for the very wealthiest people in this country is about 16 percent, which is the lowest in recent history. We have given huge amounts of tax breaks in recent years to these very same people.

So what I think the Senator from Louisiana is saying, and I agree with her, is, if we are going to go forward with deficit reduction, which you and I agree we should, let's do it in a way that calls for shared sacrifices.

The Senator from Louisiana knows that H.R. 1, the Republican House- passed bill, would throw over 200,000 kids off of Head Start. Millions of students who are trying to get through college would either get lower Pell grants or no Pell grants at all.

It is an attack, a devastating attack, a cruel attack, against some of the most vulnerable people in this country. They are cutting back on the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,

Infants, and Children. There are low-income women now, who are trying to make sure they do not give birth to low-weight babies--cut back on their program. But when we say, well, maybe billionaires--who are doing phenomenally well--might be asked to pay a little bit more in taxes, oh, my word. We will have none of that at all.

So the issue is shared sacrifice. Do not balance the budget on the backs of the weak and the vulnerable.

Will my friend yield?

Mr. President, let me make a few points, if I may.

Is the Senator leaving?

I did wish to make a few points.

No. 1, the Senator from Oklahoma gave his understanding about what the debt commission would do to Social Security. I do not agree with his characterization. In point of fact, what the debt commission does do is cut retirement benefits by more than 35 percent for young workers entering the workforce today. Today's 20-year-old workers who retire at age 65 would see their benefits cut by 17 percent if their wages average $43,000 over their working lives, by 30 percent if their wages

average $69,000 over their working lives, and by 36 percent if their wages average $107,000 over their working lives, according to the Social Security Chief Actuary. The proposed cuts would apply to retirees, disabled workers and their families, children who have lost parents, widows, and widowers. It is not accurate to say that the debt commission left unscathed workers--quite the contrary. There are devastating cuts to young workers.

If the Senator from Oklahoma wants to make sure Social Security is financially solvent for the next 75 years--and I want to see that as well--there is an easy and fair way to do it. It is a way that doesn't require slashing benefits for younger workers. When Barack Obama ran for President, he had a pretty good idea. I hope he still has that idea. What he said is that it is important to understand that right now somebody making $1 million a year pays the same amount of money into the Social Security trust fund as somebody who makes $106,000. If we lift that cap, start at $250,000, ask those people to contribute into the Social Security trust fund, we will go a very long way to solving the financial solvency of Social Security. I think we should do that. That is certainly not what the deficit reduction commission recommended.

We keep hearing that the Social Security trust fund has a pile of worthless IOUs. The fact is, Social Security invests the surplus money it receives from workers, from the payroll tax, into U.S. Government bonds, the same bonds China or anybody else purchases. These bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. And in our entire history--and many of us want to make sure this continues--the U.S. Government has never defaulted on its debt obligations.

The point is, to say these are worthless IOUs is not dissimilar to saying: Guess what. Because we have a deep deficit and a deep national debt, we don't have any money to fund equipment for soldiers who are in the field in Afghanistan or Iraq. They are just worthless IOUs, and we can't fund them.

That is, of course, nonsense.

Do we have to address the deficit crisis? Yes, we do. But my friend from Oklahoma did not respond to the issue of why, if he and his friends are so concerned about our deficit crisis, they vote year after year for hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks for the wealthiest people or why they want to repeal the estate tax, which will provide $1 trillion dollars in tax breaks to the top three-tenths of 1 percent.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I think we all know elections have consequences. I doubt seriously, however, that when most voters went to the polls last November, they were voting for more of their kids to get aggravated asthma or more people to go to the hospital with respiratory problems or more people to get sick in general. I do not think the people went to the polls this past November to vote to put big oil and big polluters in charge. I didn't see those TV ads.

But make no mistake. People may not have voted for a polluter poison agenda, but that is exactly what they are getting from Republicans in the House and their colleagues in the Senate. Their agenda is to deregulate polluters, even if it harms our national security. They want to gut the bipartisan Clean Air Act, even if doing so harms public health. Republicans claim the Inhofe amendment would lower gas prices. That claim was found to be false by politifact.com. Meanwhile, the Clean Air Act is actually raising fuel economy standards and is projected to save drivers $2,800 on gas for new vehicles.

The reason for that is pretty obvious. We are making an effort to see that cars manufactured and sold in this country get decent mileage per gallon. We wonder why all over the world people are driving cars that get 40, 50, 60 miles per gallon, and we are stuck with cars that get 15 or 20. We can, we must, and we are doing better in that area. We have to continue to go forward.

The Clean Air Act standards are projected to save 2.3 billion barrels of oil. When we get cars that are energy efficient--hybrids, electric cars--we are not consuming oil from Saudi Arabia. We all talk in the Senate about the need to move this country toward energy independence. But the Clean Air Act is actually helping to deliver it. That is good news for our national security but not for polluters. The Inhofe amendment would keep us dependent on foreign oil, something we certainly do not want to be the case.

My Republican friends claim the Clean Air Act regulations are destroying the economy. That claim is also false. This chart shows that even as we have reduced pollution in the air by 63 percent since 1970, our economy grew by 210 percent and added nearly 60 million jobs. In fact, the Clean Air Act and other environmental laws have helped create hundreds of thousands of jobs in environmental technologies and pollution control industries. If we invest properly in energy efficiency and in such sustainable energies as wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, over a period of years we will, in fact, not only clean up our environment, not only move toward energy independence but create millions of good-paying jobs.

For every $1 invested in clean air, we see up to $40 in return in economic and health benefits to America. We should all understand, however, that while big polluters may not like the Clean Air Act, it benefits every American. Why is it that after we have made significant progress in beginning to clean up our air, there are people who want to bring us back to the days when polluters could fill the air with all kinds of soot and other harmful products which cause disease all over America?

Thanks to the Clean Air Act, we are actually saving 160,000 lives each year. People are not dying from premature deaths, as they would have if the air they were breathing was dirty. We are literally avoiding sending tens of thousands of people to the hospital and emergency rooms every year, avoiding thousands of cases of heart attacks, skin cancer, aggravated asthma, and lung damage thanks to the Clean Air Act.

Senator Merkley made the point a few moments ago about the view of the American Lung Association on this issue. They have strong concerns as to what will happen to respiratory illnesses if we weaken the Clean Air Act. We are currently reducing toxic pollution such as mercury that the CDC has said causes major developmental problems for children. Our Nation's leading public health experts, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Preventative Medicine, the American Public Health Association, the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, the American Heart Association, and the American Lung Association, recently said the Clean Air Act's continued implementation is ``quite literally a matter of life and death for tens of thousands of people and will mean the difference between chronic debilitating illness or a healthy life for hundreds of thousands more.''

That is what is at stake. I will vote against the Inhofe amendment and urge my colleagues to vigorously oppose this attack on our public health. While this amendment may benefit wealthy oil companies, it is an attack on the health of all Americans who want to breathe healthy air and drink clean water.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I will try to bring this budget debate down to Earth and talk a little bit about the reality of what is happening and go beyond the amount of numbers that are out there.

My good friend from Alabama who sits with me on the Budget Committee makes the point that this country has a severe budget crisis. He is right. The question is, How did we get to where we are today and how do we go forward in a way that is fair and responsible to address it? In that regard, the Senator from Alabama and I have very strong disagreements.

How did we get to where we are today when not so many years ago, the day George W. Bush became President, we had a significant surplus? We had a surplus when Clinton left office. Now we have a major deficit crisis. There are a number of reasons:

No. 1, against my vote, we are fighting a war in Iraq which, by the time we take care of our last veteran, is going to cost us some $3 trillion. I didn't hear any of my Republican friends saying we can't go to war unless we figure out a way to pay for it.

No. 2, my Republican friends for years have been pushing huge tax breaks for the very wealthiest people. I didn't hear them ask how that was going to be paid for.

No. 3, under President Bush, with strong Republican support and against my vote, Congress passed a $400 billion-plus Medicare Part D prescription drug program, written by the insurance companies and the drug companies. It drove up the deficit.

No. 4, against my vote, Congress voted for a massive bailout of Wall Street. I didn't hear too many people talking about how we would pay for that, $700 billion to bail out Wall Street. I didn't hear them arguing that it was too much money and it would drive up the deficit.

Yesterday, the Republicans brought forth and voted on H.R. 1. Almost all of them voted for it. Those who did not actually wanted to go further.

The main point I wish to make is, A, we do have to address the deficit crisis, but, B, we have to address it in a way that is fair and responsible and not solely on the backs of working families, the middle class, the elderly, the sick, and the poor. That is immoral. That is wrong. That is bad economics.

To my mind, it is absolutely absurd that when my Republican friends talk about deficit reduction, they forget to talk about the reality that the wealthiest people have never had it so good; that the effective, the real tax rate for the richest people is the lowest on record; and that the wealthiest people, the top 2 percent, have received many hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks.

I ask my Republican friends, why do they want to balance the budget on the backs of low-income children, low-income senior citizens, those who are sick, those who are vulnerable, without asking the wealthiest people who have never had it so good to put one penny into deficit reduction? I think that is wrong, and the American people think that is wrong. When we talk about deficit reduction, we have to talk about shared sacrifice, everybody playing a role, not just little kids, not just the elderly, not just the sick, but even--dare I say it--people who have a whole lot of money and who have never done so well.

I have not been impressed at how the media has been covering this issue. They have not made it clear to the American people how devastating the cuts are that Republicans want to impose on working families. Let me briefly tick off some of them.

The Republicans want to throw over 200,000 children off of the Head Start Program. Every working family in America knows how hard it is today to come up with affordable childcare, early childhood education. We have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world. The Republican solution is to slash Head Start by 20 percent, cut 218,000 kids off of Head Start, and lay off 55,000 Head Start instructors.

The cost of college education today is so high that many young people are giving up their dream of going to college, while many others are graduating deeply in debt. Republican solution: Slash Pell grants by $5.7 billion and reduce or eliminate Pell grants for 9.4 million low- income college students. Middle-class families, working-class families, do they hear that? We are going to balance the budget by either eliminating or lowering Pell grants--the ability of young people to go to college--for over 9 million college students.

I know in my office we get calls every week from senior citizens, people with disabilities, widows who are having a hard time getting a timely response toward their Social Security claims. It takes too long to process the paperwork. What the Republicans want to do is slash the Social Security Administration, the people who administer Social Security for seniors and the disabled, widows and orphans, by $1.7 billion. That means half a million Americans who are legally entitled to Social Security benefits will have to wait significantly longer times in order to receive them.

We have 50 million Americans with no health insurance today, and 45,000 Americans die because they don't get to a doctor in time. Last year, as part of health care reform, I worked very hard with many Members to expand community health centers so that more and more low- and moderate-income people could walk into a doctor's office, get health care, dental care, low-cost prescription drugs, mental health counseling. In H.R. 1, the bill they voted for yesterday, Republicans want to deny primary health care to 11 million Americans at a time when State after State is cutting back on Medicaid. What are you supposed to do if you are 50 years old, you have a pain in your chest, and you don't have any health insurance? Where do you go? Republicans want to deny health care to another 11 million Americans.

For the poorest people, community services block grants provide the infrastructure, the ability to get out emergency food help, emergency help to pay the electric bill, LIHEAP. They are the infrastructure of this country that protects the poorest and most vulnerable. Republicans want to slash $405 million from the Community Services Block Grant Program. That is wrong. And the President's proposed cut to the community services block grant is also wrong.

In real terms, 16 percent of our population today is really unemployed, if we add together the official unemployment--those people who have given up looking for work, those people who work part time and want to work full time. Republicans want to slash $2 billion in Federal job-training programs.

Republicans want to slash $400 million in LIHEAP. That is the program that in my State and all over the country enables people to stay warm in the winter. We have a lot of senior citizens in Vermont getting by on $13,000 or $14,000 a year in income. They need help. It gets cold in Vermont. It gets 20 below zero. People don't have the income. LIHEAP is a very valuable tool. Republicans want to slash $100 million for

Mr. President, I will try to bring this budget debate down to Earth and talk a little bit about the reality of what is happening and go beyond the amount of numbers that are out there.

My good friend from Alabama who sits with me on the Budget Committee makes the point that this country has a severe budget crisis. He is right. The question is, How did we get to where we are today and how do we go forward in a way that is fair and responsible to address it? In that regard, the Senator from Alabama and I have very strong disagreements.

How did we get to where we are today when not so many years ago, the day George W. Bush became President, we had a significant surplus? We had a surplus when Clinton left office. Now we have a major deficit crisis. There are a number of reasons:

No. 1, against my vote, we are fighting a war in Iraq which, by the time we take care of our last veteran, is going to cost us some $3 trillion. I didn't hear any of my Republican friends saying we can't go to war unless we figure out a way to pay for it.

No. 2, my Republican friends for years have been pushing huge tax breaks for the very wealthiest people. I didn't hear them ask how that was going to be paid for.

No. 3, under President Bush, with strong Republican support and against my vote, Congress passed a $400 billion-plus Medicare Part D prescription drug program, written by the insurance companies and the drug companies. It drove up the deficit.

No. 4, against my vote, Congress voted for a massive bailout of Wall Street. I didn't hear too many people talking about how we would pay for that, $700 billion to bail out Wall Street. I didn't hear them arguing that it was too much money and it would drive up the deficit.

Yesterday, the Republicans brought forth and voted on H.R. 1. Almost all of them voted for it. Those who did not actually wanted to go further.

The main point I wish to make is, A, we do have to address the deficit crisis, but, B, we have to address it in a way that is fair and responsible and not solely on the backs of working families, the middle class, the elderly, the sick, and the poor. That is immoral. That is wrong. That is bad economics.

To my mind, it is absolutely absurd that when my Republican friends talk about deficit reduction, they forget to talk about the reality that the wealthiest people have never had it so good; that the effective, the real tax rate for the richest people is the lowest on record; and that the wealthiest people, the top 2 percent, have received many hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks.

I ask my Republican friends, why do they want to balance the budget on the backs of low-income children, low-income senior citizens, those who are sick, those who are vulnerable, without asking the wealthiest people who have never had it so good to put one penny into deficit reduction? I think that is wrong, and the American people think that is wrong. When we talk about deficit reduction, we have to talk about shared sacrifice, everybody playing a role, not just little kids, not just the elderly, not just the sick, but even--dare I say it--people who have a whole lot of money and who have never done so well.

I have not been impressed at how the media has been covering this issue. They have not made it clear to the American people how devastating the cuts are that Republicans want to impose on working families. Let me briefly tick off some of them.

The Republicans want to throw over 200,000 children off of the Head Start Program. Every working family in America knows how hard it is today to come up with affordable childcare, early childhood education. We have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world. The Republican solution is to slash Head Start by 20 percent, cut 218,000 kids off of Head Start, and lay off 55,000 Head Start instructors.

The cost of college education today is so high that many young people are giving up their dream of going to college, while many others are graduating deeply in debt. Republican solution: Slash Pell grants by $5.7 billion and reduce or eliminate Pell grants for 9.4 million low- income college students. Middle-class families, working-class families, do they hear that? We are going to balance the budget by either eliminating or lowering Pell grants--the ability of young people to go to college--for over 9 million college students.

I know in my office we get calls every week from senior citizens, people with disabilities, widows who are having a hard time getting a timely response toward their Social Security claims. It takes too long to process the paperwork. What the Republicans want to do is slash the Social Security Administration, the people who administer Social Security for seniors and the disabled, widows and orphans, by $1.7 billion. That means half a million Americans who are legally entitled to Social Security benefits will have to wait significantly longer times in order to receive them.

We have 50 million Americans with no health insurance today, and 45,000 Americans die because they don't get to a doctor in time. Last year, as part of health care reform, I worked very hard with many Members to expand community health centers so that more and more low- and moderate-income people could walk into a doctor's office, get health care, dental care, low-cost prescription drugs, mental health counseling. In H.R. 1, the bill they voted for yesterday, Republicans want to deny primary health care to 11 million Americans at a time when State after State is cutting back on Medicaid. What are you supposed to do if you are 50 years old, you have a pain in your chest, and you don't have any health insurance? Where do you go? Republicans want to deny health care to another 11 million Americans.

For the poorest people, community services block grants provide the infrastructure, the ability to get out emergency food help, emergency help to pay the electric bill, LIHEAP. They are the infrastructure of this country that protects the poorest and most vulnerable. Republicans want to slash $405 million from the Community Services Block Grant Program. That is wrong. And the President's proposed cut to the community services block grant is also wrong.

In real terms, 16 percent of our population today is really unemployed, if we add together the official unemployment--those people who have given up looking for work, those people who work part time and want to work full time. Republicans want to slash $2 billion in Federal job-training programs.

Republicans want to slash $400 million in LIHEAP. That is the program that in my State and all over the country enables people to stay warm in the winter. We have a lot of senior citizens in Vermont getting by on $13,000 or $14,000 a year in income. They need help. It gets cold in Vermont. It gets 20 below zero. People don't have the income. LIHEAP is a very valuable tool. Republicans want to slash $100 million for

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 10, 2011, at 9:30 a.m.

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 March 10, 2011, at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Fiscal Year 2012 Budget for the Sec.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 10, 2011, at 10 a.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 10, 2011, at 9:30 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to

meet during the session of the Senate on March 10, 2011, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Innovations in Child Welfare Waivers: Starting on the Pathway to Reform.''

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 ``Bridgepoint Education, Inc.: A Case study in For-Profit Education and Oversight'' on March 10, 2011, at 10 a.m., in 430 Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 10, 2011, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 10, 2011, at 3 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Information Sharing in the Era of WikiLeaks: Balancing Security and Collaboration.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on March 10, 2011, at 10 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 10, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, as you well know, Congress is now engaged in a debate of huge consequence; that is, the budget. The budget of a nation, like the budget of a family, expresses who we are as a people and what our priorities are. Where you spend your money, where you make your investments tells you everything about what we believe in.

I am more than aware that this country faces a $1.6 trillion deficit and a $14 trillion national debt. And these are enormously important issues, but they are issues that have to be dealt with in a sensible way, and they are issues that have to be dealt with within a broader context.

So I think the very first question we have to ask is, How did we get to where we are today? Is the problem, in fact, that we spend too much money on Head Start and childcare, that we just shower so much on our children, or is the converse the truth in that we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country on Earth?

How did we get into the deficit? Well, let me tick it off. And when we discuss how we got into the deficit situation, the irony here is that those people who are yelling loudest about the deficit, who are fighting hardest to make savage and Draconian cuts on basic programs, are precisely the people who led us to where we are today.

I voted against the war in Iraq for a number of reasons, one of them being that it was not paid for. Do you happen to recall that as we went into the war in Iraq--which will end up costing us about $3 trillion by the time we take care of our last veteran--do you recall much discussion about how that war was going to be paid for? In fact, do you remember one word of how that war was going to be paid for? I don't remember that. I was in the middle of that debate. Mr. President, $3 trillion, and no one said: Oh, we cannot afford it.

When the crooks on Wall Street, through their illegal behavior, their reckless behavior, drove this country into the recession we are in right now and they came begging to the Congress for their welfare check of some $800 billion, do you recall too many of the people who voted for that saying: Gee, we cannot afford to do it. It is going to drive up the deficit. How are we going to provide Wall Street with an $800 billion bailout? I don't recall that discussion.

When I was in the House a number of years ago, Congress passed an initiative from President Bush for a Medicare Part D prescription drug program. I believe seniors must have prescription drugs, but that legislation, which was written by the insurance companies and the drug companies, was not paid for.

When our Republican friends fought vigorously for tax breaks for billionaires, which would result in significantly less money coming into the Treasury, driving up the deficit, do you recall much discussion about how we were going to pay for that? I don't recall that discussion.

I find it ironic that when we give tax breaks to billionaires, no worry about the deficit. When we bail out Wall Street, no worry about the deficit. But suddenly when we provide childcare to low-income children who are in desperate need of help in the midst of a recession, suddenly everybody is concerned about the deficit. Frankly, I call that absolute hypocrisy. It is hypocrisy to say we can give tax breaks to billionaires and not worry about the deficit, but we have to cut back on the needs of working families, the middle class, the sick, the poor, and the elderly.

This country, at this particular moment, has to make some very basic decisions. The decision we must make is whether, in the midst of this horrendous recession, when the middle class is hurting, when poverty is increasing, do we go after, as our Republican friends in the House want us to, programs that are virtually life and death for millions and millions of working-class and lower income people.

I don't know about West Virginia, but I can tell my colleagues that in Vermont it is very hard for working families to get adequate, affordable, and good-quality childcare, early education for their children. It is a major problem all over the country. Yet our Republican friends say we should balance the budget by cutting Head Start $1.1 billion, a 20-percent cut from 2010, and throwing over 200,000 kids off Head Start. If you are a working mom who sends her kids to Head Start now, it feels pretty good that your kid is getting a good quality, early childhood education, getting nourishment. They watch these kids for health care problems. We are going to throw over 200,000 kids off Head Start.

I worked very hard to expand the community health center program, which I know is so important in West Virginia and Vermont. The Presiding Officer and I argue about which State has the greater coverage. It is enormously important. A few years ago, about 20 million people accessed the community health center program. We are now working so that in 5 years 40 million Americans will be able to walk in the door, regardless of their income, get health care, dental care, low- cost prescription drugs, and mental health counseling. It is working. President Obama has been very strong on this issue. Secretary of HHS Kathleen Sebelius has been very strong on this issue. It is working.

Here is the irony. When we give people good quality primary health care, they don't have to go to the emergency room. The emergency room costs 10 times more than treatment at a community health center. When we open the doors for primary health care, people do not get very sick. They don't end up in the hospital. Study after study shows that when we invest in community health centers, we save the taxpayers money. We save Medicaid money and Medicare money because people have access to medical care when they need it. The Republican House wants to cut community health centers by $1.3 billion, denying 11 million Americans the opportunity to receive the health care they need.

In my State--and I am sure all over the country--people who are applying for disability help, for Social Security are upset about how long the process takes. Our Republican friends want to make major cuts in the Social Security Administration, which means that half a million people are going to find delays in getting their claims processed.

Everybody in America knows that one of the great problems we face is the expense of college. We know hundreds of thousands of bright young people can't even afford to go to college. We know that many people are graduating deeply in debt. One of the accomplishments we have managed to bring about in the last few years is to significantly expand the Pell grant program so low- and moderate-income families will find it easier to send their children to college. Our Republican friends in the House have decided, in their wisdom, that what they want to do is reduce by 17 percent Pell grants, which means that 9.4 million lower income college student would lose some or all of their Pell grants. Here we are, trying to compete with the rest of the world. We are falling, in many cases, further and further behind in terms of the percentage of our young people graduating college. The costs of college are soaring. The Republican solution is to cut the major program which makes it easier for working families to send their kids to college.

The Community Services Block Grant Program is the infrastructure by which we get emergency services, food, help to pay for emergency services for lower income people, housing needs, making sure people keep the electricity on. That would be decimated by the Republicans.

In the midst of a recession, what they want to do is to cut $2 billion from the Workforce Investment Act and other job training programs when we desperately need that job training to make sure our people can get the jobs that are out there and available. Often they don't have the skills to do that.

My point is a pretty simple one. As a nation, we have to make some choices. The top 1 percent today are doing phenomenally well. That is a fact. Our friends on Wall Street whom we bailed out are now making more money than they did before they caused this recession. The top 1 percent now earns about 23 percent of all income in America, more than the bottom 50 percent. The top 1 percent, the richest people in terms of their effective tax rate, what they pay is now lower than at any time in memory. So we have the wealthy doing phenomenally well, tax rates going down. We have showered huge tax breaks on them. Then we say, to balance the budget, we have to cut nutrition programs for our kids, Social Security Administration, Pell grants, Head Start, and many other programs which millions of people depend upon.

The question we as Americans have to decide is, When the rich get richer, do we give them more tax breaks while the poor get poorer and we cut programs for them? I don't think, frankly, that is what the American people want.

There was a poll that came out yesterday or today. It was an NBC News and Wall Street Journal poll. The questions dealt with the deficit and how the American people think we should go forward in dealing with the deficit. Here are some interesting results. When asked what do Americans want the Federal Government to do to reduce the deficit, the highest percentage said it is totally acceptable or mostly acceptable to impose a surtax on millionaires to reduce the deficit. Eighty-one percent of the people said that for obvious reasons. The rich are getting richer. Given the choice of asking people who are already doing well to pay a little more in taxes or to cut programs that working families need, the choice is not terribly hard.

Seventy-four percent of the American people believe it is totally acceptable or mostly acceptable to eliminate tax credits for the oil and gas industry. Sixty-eight percent of the public believe it is totally acceptable or mostly acceptable to phase out the Bush tax cuts for families earning over $250,000 a year.

What the American people are saying in this poll, and I believe all over the country, is obvious. Given the choice of decimating programs that working families depend upon or asking the wealthiest people who have been receiving huge amounts of tax breaks to start paying their fair share, it ``ain't'' a tough answer. The answer the American people are saying is: We cannot move toward a balanced budget just by cutting, cutting, and cutting. A budget has two parts. Everybody in America understands that. It is the money we spend; it is the money that comes in. In the case of the U.S. Government, we have to address our budget deficit in both ways. We have to raise revenue. We do that primarily by asking the wealthiest to pay a little bit more in taxes. Yes, we do have to cut some programs. There is waste out there. There

are programs that can and should be cut. That is what we do. We don't just cut, cut, cut and then give tax breaks to the very wealthiest people.

The Senate has, along with our friends in the House, the responsibility, the constitutional responsibility of coming up with a budget. I certainly hope the President intends to play an active role. I hope the President is prepared to do the right thing and to understand that revenue, asking the wealthiest to start paying their fair share of taxes, is one important component of how we move forward toward a balanced budget. But if the President chooses not to participate or if the President chooses not to take that avenue, that does not mean to say that we in the Senate should not go forward. I intend to work as hard as I can to come up with a deficit reduction program which is fair but responsible. Being responsible means it includes revenue and not only cuts. There are a whole lot of ways to bring in revenue in a fair and progressive way. It is not only asking the wealthiest to pay their fair share of taxes, it is ending abusive and illegal offshore tax shelters. According to a number of studies, we will lose $100 billion this year because corporations and wealthy individuals are stashing their money in tax havens in the Cayman Islands and in Bermuda. Before we cut nutrition programs for pregnant women, maybe we do away with those tax havens.

We have to begin the process of ending tax breaks for big oil and gas companies. ExxonMobil, the most profitable corporation in the history of the world, not only paid nothing in Federal income taxes in 2009, but they received a $156 million tax refund from the IRS, according to their own shareholders report. Maybe before we start cutting the Social Security Administration or Pell grants for college students, we might want to ask the most profitable corporation in America to start paying some Federal income tax.

On and on it goes. My point is, now is the moment when we have to do the right thing for working families. There is a lot of pain out there. A lot of people are hurting. This recession has taken a heavy toll. In the middle of these tough times, we don't stick a knife into the people and make it even worse. We have to move toward deficit reduction. I believe that. But I believe we don't do it on the backs of the sick, the elderly, the poor, and the most vulnerable. I think we need shared sacrifice. Some of the wealthiest people are going to have to play their part in deficit reduction as well.

Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, there will be no further rollcall votes today. The next rollcall vote is expected on Monday at 5:30 p.m.

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

Madam President, we face as a nation some of the most difficult circumstances this country has faced since the Great Depression. Two of the major issues we are facing is the collapse of the middle class and, simultaneously, while poverty increases and the middle class in this country disappears, we also find ourselves with a $14 trillion national debt and a $1.6 trillion deficit.

At this momentous time in American history, the question arises as to how we, in fact, will deal with the deficit. Will we deal with it in a way that is fair and just or will we, at a time when the gap between the very wealthy and everybody else is growing wider, in fact, try to balance the budget on the backs of the middle class, on the backs of the poor, on the backs of the elderly, the sick, the children?

That is the question we have to address right now.

Yes, the deficit is a serious problem. Yes, we have to go forward in deficit reduction. But, no, in the midst of a major recession, it is morally wrong and economically bad policy to balance the budget on the backs of those people who are already hurting.

I find it interesting that some of the loudest voices who come before us every day talking about the serious problem of the deficit are precisely those people who have voted time after time after time to raise the deficit, raise the national debt. Yet now they come forward and say we have to cut programs for the elderly, the poor, and the children in order to balance the budget.

I suppose it turns out that now I and a few others are the real deficit hawks in the Senate. When it came to the war in Iraq--which will end up costing us some $3 trillion--I didn't hear a whole lot of discussion about how that war was going to be paid for. I voted against that war.

When it came to giving huge tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this country, I didn't hear my Republican friends say: Oh, gee, we can't do that because it is going to drive up the deficit. I voted against tax breaks for the wealthy.

When it came to passing an unfunded $4 billion Medicare Part D prescription drug program--written by the insurance companies and the drug companies--I didn't hear my Republican friends say our kids and grandchildren are going to have to pay for that. I voted against that.

Madam President, you will recall that after the crooks on Wall Street drove this Nation into a recession and they needed a bailout from the American people, you didn't hear too many of our friends who voted for that bailout say: Oh, we can't do that; it is unpaid for. It is going to drive up the deficit and the national debt. You didn't hear that.

But now, suddenly we have people who have great concern about the national debt and the deficit, and they intend to balance that budget on the backs of working people, the elderly, the sick, the poor, and the children. Among other things, which is incomprehensible to me, at a time when approximately 16 percent of our people are truly unemployed-- way above the official levels, the official numbers, because the official numbers do not include those people who have given up looking for work, those people working part-time when they want to work full- time--the Republicans come up with a deficit reduction package which will cost us some 700,000 jobs.

Now, I don't know how or why in the middle of a severe recession, when unemployment is so high, they would come up with a proposal that costs 700,000 jobs.

Madam President, you well know that we do an abysmal job in this country in terms of taking care of our children. We have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world. We have a totally inadequate early childhood education program in this country. Head Start, to the degree that it is funded adequately, does a good job. But in the midst of the crisis in early childhood education and childcare, the Republican proposal would cut Head Start--Head Start-- one of the most important programs in America, giving low-income kids a chance to maybe get into school in the first grade, in kindergarten, on par with the other kids. They want to cut that program by 20 percent from fiscal year 2010, depriving over 200,000 little kids the opportunity not only to receive early childhood education but health care benefits and nutrition benefits from this important program.

I worked very hard to expand community health centers in America because maybe--just maybe--it is a bad idea that 45,000 Americans are going to die this year because they do not get to a doctor. Pick up the papers all over America. Tens of thousands of people are going to be thrown off Medicaid. What do you do if you don't have health insurance and you are 40 or 50 years of age and you get sick? What do you do? Yet the Republican proposal would cut community health centers by $1.3 billion, denying 11 million patients access to quality primary health care. In the midst of a major health care crisis, when millions of people are uninsured--50 million uninsured and people being thrown off Medicaid--you don't shut down community health centers and deny people access to health care.

In Vermont--and I am sure in New York State--young people are finding it very difficult to afford a college education. They are coming out of college deeply in debt. In some cases, they can't go to college. We are falling behind other countries in terms of the percentage of our young people graduating from college. Yet the Republican proposal would reduce by 17 percent the average Pell grant, and 9.4

million low-income college students would lose some or all of their Pell grant.

At this moment in American history where we are involved in an international, global economy, with so much pressure from abroad, we have to invest more in education, more in higher education, not less.

In the State of Vermont, the Community Services Block Grant Program provides vital services to low-income people who are in need of emergency food, emergency housing--emergency services. They do a great job. The Republican proposal would cut the Community Services Block Grant Program by $405 million, which would harm 20 million low-income people, including millions of seniors.

Lastly--not lastly because there is a long list of these cuts which make no sense to me--I want to mention a cut of $1.3 billion to the Social Security Administration. Our Republican friends say we are not cutting Social Security, but they are proposing a $1.3 billion cut to the Social Security Administration--the people who administer the program. What does that mean?

Right now, there is a significant delay if you are looking for disability benefits--a huge delay. People are calling my office all the time saying they can't find anybody to process their claims. Yet the Republicans would propose a $1.3 billion cut, which would delay Social Security benefits to about 500,000 Americans.

The issue is pretty clear: The top 1 percent in America earns 23 percent of all income, more than the bottom 50 percent. The wealthiest people in this country over the last 20 years have seen a reduction--a reduction--in the tax rates they pay. Today, at 16 percent, the wealthiest people in this country are paying the lowest tax rates that the rich have paid in many decades.

This is not a complicated issue. This issue is, do we move forward to balance the budget on the backs of people who are on Social Security, on the backs of little children who need Head Start, on the backs of seniors in the State of Vermont who depend upon heating assistance? Do we balance the budget on the backs of the weak, the vulnerable, the elderly or the poor or do we say: When we have an increasingly unequal distribution of income--the rich are doing very well--do we ask the wealthiest people to start paying their fair share of taxes?

The American people are pretty clear on this matter. They think it is wrong to balance the budget on the backs of those people who are already hurting in a recession. Let's ask the people on top to start paying their fair share so we can see some shared sacrifice in the midst of this recession.

Madam President, with that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I rise to briefly do three things. No. 1, there are a lot of politicians and pundits and economists who are proclaiming all over the country that the recession is over. They have some economic models by which they determine that the recession is over. I suggest those pundits and economists and politicians take a look at the booklet we recently produced in my office. It is called ``Struggling Through the Recession--Letters from Vermont.''

We have also received letters from other States, people in other States as well. We sent out a request for people to tell us, as we enter the third year of this recession, what is happening in their lives. We got, from my small State, over 400 responses. That is a lot from a small State. We probably received an equal number from around the rest of the country.

The problem I had with these letters, some of them are so painful to read that it is hard to read more than a few at a time because you get sick to your stomach hearing what good and decent and hard-working people are going through.

I wish to take a few moments to read a handful of the letters I am receiving from Vermont, in answer to the question: Is the recession over?

This comes from a young lady from central Vermont. She says:

I have been fortunate to hold onto my job throughout the

past 3 years, especially since I have about $42,000 remaining

on my school loans.

One of the recurring themes we hear from all over Vermont--and I suspect it is true in New Mexico and all over the country--is a lot of young people are graduating with a heck of a lot of debt. The jobs they are getting are not sufficient, in terms of pay, to help them pay off that debt.

She writes:

Anyway, what I want to write isn't about me--it's about my

boyfriend, a talented mechanical engineer that graduated with

about $80,000 in school loans.

We are telling the young people of this country: Go out and get an education. They are coming out with huge loans, having a hard time getting a job.

He was laid off in November 2009 and it has not only caused

financial hardship, but it has put all of our future plans on

hold. He fortunately has temporary employment now after

nearly a year of searching, but my qualm is with the high

cost of education and how people in their twenties are

supposed to move forward with their lives with school debt

lingering over them.

That is a very significant point.

Here is another one. This is a young man from Barre, VT, in the central part of the State.

In 2002, I received a scholarship to Saint Bonaventure

University, the first in my family to attend college. Upon

graduation in 2006, I was admitted to the Dickinson School of

Law at Penn State University and graduated in 2009 with

$150,000 of student debt.

That is not uncommon.

In Western New York I could find nothing better than a $10/

hour position stuffing envelopes.

Another example of a young person graduating from college, doing all the right things, and yet ending up with very substantial debt.

That is from some of the younger people. Then we got letters from middle-aged people. This is from a woman from the central part of the State.

My husband lost his job in 2002 and has been self-employed

as a carpenter ever since due to the lack of jobs in central

Vermont.

I should tell you the recession has been less disastrous in Vermont than in other parts of the country. These are stories from a State that has not been hit as hard as other States.

He's had no insurance and we have not saved a cent since

2002. We've depleted our savings account paying for property

taxes. We've been burning wood to save money heating the

house. The cost of fuel for the house and vehicles puts a

huge burden on making ends meet. Being self-employed is

extremely challenging due to the economic situation.

Again, she is touching on an issue that millions of people are aware of. The price of gas to get to work is going up. The price of home heating fuel in States such as Vermont is going up. Wages are low for millions of people. How do they survive in that crisis?

We also have stories from older people. This is from a woman named Beth, who lives in the northeastern part of our State, a very rural part of Vermont. She is 69 years of age. She writes:

I don't know what kind of a future my grand kids will have.

How will they be educated if we can't help them? It is great

there are loans out there for education but they are being

charged more for the schools than I paid for my house. They

will be in debt their whole lives.

Here is a woman who is worried about her grandchildren. Here is another woman, Ellen, who lives in Rutland County.

All I can say is I still have a job for all it is worth. I

feel making $8.81 an hour at 17 hours per week is ridiculous!

This woman is 63 years of age.

I don't bring home enough to help out with the major

household expenses I used to pay half on. I'm lucky if my

paycheck reaches $130 a week. By the time I pay a few bills

gas up and pick up a few needed items I'm lucky if I have any

left for spending. I earned less than $8,000 this year. It

[is] just about what I made back in the 1970's and lived

better.

So the point here is, A, if folks tell you the recession is over, read some of these stories. These stories are available on my Web site: ``Sanders.Senate.gov.'' These are mostly from Vermont, but I think they touch the same themes that exist all over our country. For millions and millions of people, not only those who are unemployed--those who are underemployed, those who are working full time and not making a living wage--trust me, the recession is not over.

The reason I ask people to send me these letters is I think it is important as a Senate to understand we have to address these economic issues. When 16 percent of our people are either unemployed or underemployed or have given up looking for work, when millions more are working with inadequate wages, we cannot say we should not be vigorously going forward in creating millions and millions of jobs that our people desperately need.

Social Security

I also want to say a word on Social Security. What I want to say is, I get very tired watching the TV or hearing some of my colleagues tell me that Social Security is going bankrupt, that Social Security will not be there for our kids or that Social Security is part of the serious deficit and national debt problem we face. Let me say a few words on that.

No. 1, Social Security has existed in this country for 75 years, and it has been an enormous success. We take it for granted. But for 75 years, Social Security has paid out every nickel owed to every eligible American in good times and bad. When Wall Street collapsed a few years ago, millions of Americans lost all or part of their retirement savings when the stock market crashed. All over America, during the last 10, 20 years, corporations that had promised defined benefit pension plans to their employees rescinded on that promise. People had worked for years, expecting a pension from a company. That pension never came. Yet during all of that period, Social Security has paid out every nickel owed to every eligible American at minimal administrative cost. That is a pretty good record. Our job now is to make sure Social Security is strong and vibrant 75 years from now and continues to do the excellent job it has done in the past 75 years.

People say: Social Security is going broke. Social Security is in crisis. A lot of people believe that because they hear it over and over, and it is repeated in the media again, again, and again.

What are the facts? The facts are that not only is Social Security not going broke, Social Security has a $2.6 trillion surplus--a $2.6 trillion surplus--which, by the way, is going to go up before it goes down.

Social Security, according to the Social Security Administration and the Congressional Budget Office, can pay out every nickel owed to every eligible American for the next 25, 26, 27 years, at which point it will pay out between 75 and 80 percent of all of the benefits. The challenge we face, therefore, is how, in 25 or 30 years, do we make up that 20 percent gap? That is the challenge.

So Social Security is strong and will pay out every benefit owed to every eligible American for the next 25 or 30 years. People say: Oh, yeah, well, that is just worthless IOUs, that Social Security trust fund.

Absolutely not true. The U.S. Government, from the day of its inception, has paid its debt. Social Security is backed by the faith and credit of the United States of America. We have never yet--and I certainly hope we never will--default on our debt.

So the first point I want to make is, Social Security is strong. Social Security will pay out benefits for the next 26 years. For people to come forward and say we have to privatize Social Security, we have to raise the retirement age, we have to lower benefits, is absolutely wrong, to my mind. We made a promise to the American people regarding Social Security, and that is a promise we have to keep.

In the dialog around Washington, people lump the very serious problem of a $1.5 trillion deficit and a $14 trillion national debt with Social Security. So let's ask a very simple question. How much has Social Security contributed to our national debt? How much? The answer is, not one penny--not one penny--because Social Security is not paid out from the U.S. Treasury. Social Security comes from the payroll taxes that workers and employers contribute into the Social Security trust fund. That trust fund today has a $2.6 trillion surplus. So when people say we have a very significant national debt and, therefore, we have to cut Social Security, that is absolutely a wrong thing to say.

Let me say, I will do everything I can to protect a program that has worked extremely well for the American people.

Why are we hearing all of this opposition against Social Security? Where does it come from? It does not come from ordinary people. They know Social Security has been successful, it is worth preserving, worth protecting. By the way, as we all know, Social Security is not just there for the elderly, the retirees; it is there for people with disabilities; it is there for widows and orphans through the survivors fund.

Where is all of this opposition coming from?

It is coming from two places.

No. 1, it is coming from folks on Wall Street--from Wall Street--who are saying: Gee, we could make many billions of dollars if we ended the Social Security system right now and Americans had to invest in retirement accounts on Wall Street. And we can make all kinds of commissions doing that work.

That is one of the areas, one of the sources of the opposition to Social Security.

Second is from many of my very conservative Republican friends. Very honestly, they do not believe government should be playing a role in making sure elderly people have a secure and dignified retirement. They do not believe much in government. They do not think government should be playing a role in those areas, and they want to get government out of those areas.

I understand where they are coming from. It is an honest position. I strongly disagree with them. I think in a civilized, democratic society we have to make sure when you get old it has to be guaranteed-- guaranteed--as it has been for 75 years, that you are going to get the help you need. I believe government should be playing that role.

I would remind you, Mr. President, before Social Security was developed in the mid 1930s, 50 percent of the elderly people of our country at that point lived in poverty. Today, that number is too high, but it is 10 percent--50 percent before Social Security; 10 percent today. That is a pretty good record.

So I would respectfully disagree with my Republican friends who say: Well, if people want a retirement account, let them invest in Wall Street, let them do it through the private sector. I do not agree with that. I think Social Security has worked well for 75 years. We have to make sure it works well for another 75 years. I will do everything I can as chairman of the new Defending Social Security Caucus to make that happen.

The Deficit and National Debt

The last point I want to make: I want to talk a little bit about the deficit and our national debt.

I think it is appropriate for the American people to be reminded about how we got into the very difficult situation we are in right now. I have to tell you, I find it a bit amusing that some of the ``loudest'' deficit hawks in the Congress are precisely the same people who helped drive up the deficit and the national debt--the same people.

Let's try to determine how we got into the recession.

No. 1, in the midst of a recession, by definition, less money is coming in. That is obviously an important part of why we have the deficit and the national debt we have today. But there are other factors.

Mr. President, you will recall that this country, during the Bush administration, began two wars--a war in Afghanistan, a war in Iraq. The war in Iraq is estimated, by the time we take care of the last veteran, to run up a tag of about $3 trillion. Does anybody quite remember how we paid for those wars? Well, the answer is we did not pay for those wars. Those wars were put on the credit card. President Bush said: We are going to go to war, but we do not have to worry about how we pay for them.

The second area: As a result of President Bush's tax policies, which have recently been extended, against my vote, in the Obama administration, we provided many hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires. The wealthiest people in this country are doing phenomenally well. The effective tax rate for the wealthiest people in this country is lower than at any time on record, in many cases lower than what working people are paying. Yet we decided, against my vote, to give them hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks, driving up the deficit.

Congress voted, against my vote, to bail out Wall Street--unpaid for, driving up the deficit. Some years ago, Congress, against my vote, decided to pass an insurance company-written Medicare Part D prescription drug program--very expensive program, unpaid for.

So all of these things are unpaired for. The national debt goes up, the deficit goes up. Then our Republican friends say: Oh, my goodness, we have a very large deficit. What are we going to do? We are going to have to cut back on programs that are important to working people and lower income people.

I think that is absolutely unacceptable.

So the first point I would make is, I regard it as incomprehensible that there are folks who supported hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires and then they tell us they are concerned about the deficit and the national debt. That is absolute hypocrisy.

In my view, the Congress should not be about cutting back on programs for low- and moderate-income people after we have given huge tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this country.

Second of all, I think the time is long overdue that we start ending a lot of the corporate tax loopholes which now are preventing this country and this government from getting the revenue we need. Before we talk about major cutbacks for our kids or for the elderly, maybe we should end the absurdity of the tax havens that exist in the Cayman Islands and Bermuda, where the wealthiest people in this country and large corporations are stashing their money away, to the tune of about $100 billion a year--$100 billion a year--in taxes that are not being paid because of the tax havens that exist.

I would also argue it is somewhat absurd we have a situation where last year ExxonMobil paid no Federal income taxes at all and got a $156 million rebate from the IRS, after earning $19 billion in profits.

What I would say is, yes, deficit and national debt are very important issues. But it is important for us to understand how we got to where we are. It is important for us to understand that the top 1 percent today earn more income than the bottom 50 percent and have enjoyed huge tax breaks. So before we start slashing programs the middle class and working families of this country need, let's take a look at some of those issues as well.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I honor the Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont. NOFA Vermont is a nonprofit association of farmers, gardeners, and consumers working to promote an economically viable and ecologically sound Vermont food system for the benefit of current and future generations. This year it celebrates its 40th anniversary of helping farms thrive, making locally grown and organic foods available to all, and increasing consumer access at farmers markets across our Green Mountain State.

NOFA Vermont was founded in Putney in 1971, making it one of the oldest organic farming associations in the United States. Today, they are proud to have more than 1,200 members throughout the State and to certify over 525 farms and processors to the USDA national organic program standards. They are passionate about increasing the acreage of certified organic land in Vermont, while also increasing access to local organic food by all Vermonters. The entirety of their programs strives to meet these goals, whether it involves working with schools to bring local foods into the cafeteria, or providing business planning services to farmers to ensure their businesses stay viable.

With a vision that consists of small farms and agriculturally based businesses that are improving the ecology of Vermont foodscapes, where organic farms and gardens supply food to all members of their communities and where everyone knows their farmers, I see NOFA-VT as an exemplary national leader for the USDA campaign ``Know your Farmer, Know your Food.''

Executive director, Enid Wonnacott, has led this exceptional organization for the past 30 years. She and her dedicated team offer technical assistance and revolving loan funds; and supply information on energy management, apprenticeships, and educational and electronic resources. They have built direct markets between farmers and consumers through the VT Farmers Market Association and have sponsored outstanding conferences yearly. This year they expect more than 1,500 farmers to attend their winter conference, which is extremely well-run, worthwhile, and fun. They provide knowledgeable speakers, workshops brimming with information and healthy attitudes for the 21st century of farming.

Finally, I have been very impressed with their commitment to Vermont's future and our children as NOFA-VT has been a significant partner in the advancement of the Vermont Food and Farm Education program, FEED. This critical program provides schools, farmers, food service directors, and community partners with technical assistance, training, and professional development to advance student achievement, improve childhood nutrition, and create community-based farm to school programs. It is through programs such as these that children are able to connect with the farm in their community, understand where their food comes from, and have the opportunity to eat local healthy food in their school meal programs.

I offer my sincerest congratulations to NOFA-VT on the occasion of their 40th anniversary of service to our great State of Vermont and wish them many more years of continued success.

Mr. President, it is very hard for me to understand how anyone could be voting to repeal the entire health care bill. Because when you do that, among other things, what you are saying is that we will continue the odious practice by insurance companies of denying health care to people who have preexisting conditions.

For 8 years under President Bush, more and more people lost their health insurance, the cost of health care soared, and our Republican friends had virtually nothing to say on health care.

Now that a bill has been passed, which I am the first to agree is not the best bill we could have passed--and I will tell you why. It has its share of problems which should be remedied. But to say right now, when 50 million Americans have no health insurance, when States all over this country are wrestling with huge budget deficits, which no doubt will result in millions more being thrown off health insurance, to say we should retreat to where we were is beyond comprehension.

Second of all, for my Republican friends to say let's repeal health care, there are millions of families who now are beginning to be able to include within their own health care plans their sons and daughters, up to the age of 26. Goodbye to that. Furthermore, in a nation which ends up spending more on health care, almost double per person, compared to any other nation on Earth, we have put in the health care reform bill billions of dollars for disease prevention.

We are, as a nation, very weak in terms of trying to keep people healthy, trying to keep them out of the hospital. We spend a fortune on people after they are sick. In this bill, we have made some significant steps forward in terms of disease prevention, wellness, which is very cost effective in terms of health care dollars, not to mention human pain and suffering.

In that regard, I am proud to have worked with a number of other Senators in doubling, in that bill, the number of community health centers in America, which are providing the most cost-effective primary health care that is provided in this country, keeping people out of emergency rooms, keeping people out of hospitals, giving them access to primary health care, dental care, low-cost prescription drugs, and mental health counseling.

In the midst of an extraordinary crisis in terms of primary health care, where everybody recognizes we do not have enough primary health care doctors or nurses or technicians, we tripled funding for the National Health Service Corps, and it is already working effectively in getting doctors and dentists and nurses and other practitioners into underserved areas. All that would be undone. I think that makes no sense whatsoever.

Now, to my mind, what we have to do is not to repeal this bill but to make it a better bill. I will give you one very specific suggestion that I have worked on now for over 1 year. Senator Wyden has worked on this, others have worked on it. That is to say, that if a State in this country, the State of Vermont, the State of Alaska, any other State, can maintain the high standards for quality health care and coverage that the national health care bill did, then that State should be given significant flexibility to perhaps do it in their own way and do it more cost effectively.

I should tell you that in the State of Vermont, our new Governor is a supporter of a Medicare-for-all single-payer program. There are other States that want to move in a different direction, maintaining high standards but doing it perhaps in a different way than has been proposed by the national legislation.

In my view, they should have that right. And if Vermont is effective in doing what I believe we could--providing quality health care to all of our people in a cost-effective way--I suspect other States around the country can learn from Vermont's experience. I think that is a positive step forward.

The beauty of our Federalist system: 50 States--every State has a good idea. I think if we maintain standards that are high and give States flexibility, this can improve the health care reform bill we passed last year. But killing this whole bill makes no sense to me at all.

Social Security

Mr. President, I also want to say a word on an issue which is getting more and more attention; that is, Social Security.

In my view, Social Security has proven itself to be the most successful social program in American history. Over a 75-year period-- and this is really extraordinary; we take it for granted, but it is an extraordinary success story--in good times and in bad times, Social Security has paid out every nickel owed to every eligible American. And it does that with a minimal administrative cost.

Despite its strong record of success over the last 75 years, Social Security now faces unprecedented attacks from Wall Street, from many of my Republican friends, and from some Democrats. I have to be very clear: If the American people are not prepared to stand up and fight back, we could begin to see the dismantling of Social Security this very year.

Let me cite the facts with regard to Social Security. I know when we watch TV tonight there will be some guy up there saying: Social Security has gone bankrupt. Social Security is collapsing. That is absolutely untrue. There has been a significant number of misstatements regarding Social Security. Here are the facts that nobody denies.

No. 1, according to the latest report of the Social Security Administration, Social Security will be able to pay out 100 percent of all benefits owed to every eligible American for the next 26 years. Now, you tell me how a system is going bankrupt--we have a lot of problems in this government, and our country faces enormous problems, but when you can pay out every benefit owed to every eligible American for the next 26 years, do not tell me this is a program in crisis or going bankrupt. After 2037, Social Security will be able to pay out 78 percent of promised benefits. Do we have to deal with that over the next 26 years? Yes, we do. But it is not a crisis, and this Senator will do everything he can to oppose any effort toward privatization, any effort to raise the retirement age, any effort to lower benefits.

Second point. Everybody is concerned about the deficit crisis we face--a $14 trillion national debt. How much has Social Security contributed to the deficit and the national debt? How much? Well, not one penny. Not one-half a penny. Social Security is funded by the payroll tax. Social Security has a $2.6 trillion surplus. That surplus will go up. To attack Social Security because of the deficit crisis is grossly unfair.

Do you want to know why the deficit went up? We are in the middle of a recession. We fought two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and forgot to pay for those wars. We gave hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to the wealthy; bailed out Wall Street; Medicare Part D prescription drug program, written by the insurance companies--all unfunded. Those are the reasons you have a deficit. Social Security has nothing to do with it.

So I would suggest that in the midst of all of this financial instability that is out there, with the middle class shrinking and poverty increasing and people really worried about their retirement years, one of the most significant things we as a Congress can do is stand up and say: We are there. We are going to protect Social Security. We are not going to cut it. And we are going to make it stronger so that, while it has done a great job for the last 75 years, it will continue to do a good job for the next 75 years.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to share the powerful words of 12 Vermont students. As I toured the schools of Vermont, I encouraged students to write me focusing on issues of concern to young people and to recommend short- and long-term priorities for the President. I received more than 225 State of the Union essays about the declining middle class, climate change, and health care reform. These students truly answered, what is the state of our Union?

It is important to remember that part of our jobs is to represent the young people of our States and not just their parents. We all know that what happens in Washington, DC, impacts every American and all of us, including young people, should be thinking about these issues. Although Vermont is doing a better job than most States, there is certainly a legitimate concern that young people are not learning enough about civics. I think these essays demonstrate that students do understand the role they can play in American democracy.

As President Barack Obama presents his State of the Union Address to a joint session of Congress tonight, I think it is appropriate that the top dozen essays are printed in the Record, so that the entire country can see the excellent work that Vermont students are doing. I also want to thank the teachers--Jennie Gartner from Rutland High School; Elizabeth Lebrun, of Poultney High School; Joe Maley of South Burlington High School; and Terri Vest of Twinfield Union High School in Plainfield--who helped me select these essays.

Keenan Villani-Holland from Vermont Commons School was the teachers' top choice. In addition to Keenan, the other finalists, in alphabetical order, are: Iain Axworthy, Essex High School; Emily Berk, South Royalton School; Molly Burke, Champlain Valley Union High School; Jonah Cantor, Champlain Valley Union High School; Molly Cantore, St. Johnsbury Academy; Kristen Donaldson, Champlain Valley Union High School; Susannah Johnson, Vermont Commons School; Ingrid Klinkenberg, Edmunds Middle School; Ezra Mount-Finette, Champlain Valley Union High School; Lisa Ogorzalek of Rutland High School; and Bryn Philibert, Champlain Valley Union High School.

I am pleased the students of Vermont are thinking about these complex issues, which are of critical importance to not only our State but indeed the Nation. The decisions that we make on the Senate floor today will impact generations of Americans to come. That is why I would like to share with you what these students' wrote. I ask that they be printed in the Record.

The material follows.

Keenan Villani-Holland, Vermont Commons School

The world is changing, and the United States has the

opportunity to lead that change. Oil is running out, global

warming is reaching or has already passed a significant

tipping point and tensions with North Korea and Iran are

escalating. On the home front, the middle class is rapidly

disappearing due to an economic crisis that has been

festering for years, we are losing out in education to China

and our people have completely lost touch with the government

and vice versa.

In older times, nations would go through major catastrophes

often: devastating wars, plagues, bloody revolutions, etc.

often enough to keep them new. In this day and age, these

enormous crises are largely averted in the western world.

Make no mistake, this is a great thing. However, it means we

need to take it upon ourselves to renew our Nation, rather

than waiting for a catastrophe that won't come.

We need to change quickly on three main fronts: The

environment, the economy, and education. It is time to

realize that fighting to save the environment is not in the

least altruistic. The planet doesn't care about global

warming or melting ice caps. We, on the other hand, should.

Our current economic model is failing all but the richest of

our Nation, as it slowly squeezes the middle class dry to

supply the rich. Finally, our educational system clearly

isn't working when China is easily surpassing us in education

and our students feel more overworked and overstressed every

day.

Let me first talk about the environmental front. Once we

realize that it is no longer a fight to save polar bears, and

that it is a fight to save ourselves, it will be easy.

However, that realization will not come quickly. We need a

huge-scale public awareness campaign to bring that point home

to American people. After that, we need to start with large

scale energy reform, focusing on renewables and following a

European model.

On the economy, we need to throw away our preconceptions

about the free market and start over. Heavy regulation to

ensure the economic safety of the American people, and

measures to start moving wealth back down the ladder to the

middle and lower classes are essential.

Finally, our educational system needs deep reforms to focus

on actually teaching children, rather than preparing them to

do well on tests. Children want to learn. That's what they

are supposed to be doing at that point in their life. It's

just a matter of taking the time for each individual and

giving them the attention they need and actually being

invested in them learning new material.

All of these ideas are fluid and adaptable, as any part of

government should be. We should never be afraid to change the

course we are taking in favor one that may be more

beneficial. The past decade was one about ``Staying the

course.'' This next one will be known as the one when we

``Changed the course.''

Iain Axworthy, Essex High School

Our Nation faces many challenges entering into the new

year. A recession has about 9.4 percent of our population out

of work, we have a government deficit that must be paid off,

and a tarnished image of America abroad must be mended.

Though these challenges are great they present us with what I

see as an opportunity unparalleled in recent history. Our

role as a world leader has come into question as of late and

good times provide little opportunity to change that view.

When times are hard real leaders take it upon themselves to

set the tone of the moment and show others how to react. It

is time for America to lead once again.

Our troubles at home and our troubles abroad are

tremendous. Our economy is in a weak phase of recovery, our

federal deficit is larger than it ever has been, and our

armed forces are engaged in a costly war. Relations have

become strained between the United States and much of the

world. The policies we enact in the coming months and years,

both domestically and overseas, must be exemplary. The US has

been the center of world commerce and culture for so long

that we almost seem to fear up-and-comers. Instead viewing

the coming shift of power as a loss we must view it as a win.

In the wake of World War II the US helped set up a system of

commerce that allowed many countries to develop into world

powers. The fact that countries other than ours are realizing

their potential should be seen as a great victory.

As we watch new world powers emerge we must see too that

they will look to us as a role model. It is our duty and our

privilege to set the right example in all areas, both in and

out of the government. The private sector must become more

responsible for its actions and create shared value within

its partner communities. Our consumers must spend and save

responsibly. Finally the people who represent us in Congress

and our state legislatures must depolarize and find the

mutual respect that has lately been non-existent. Once the

correct tone is set and our leaders act as they would have us

act, then we can look forward to a better tomorrow.

While our Nation sets an example on the world stage,

Vermont has the ability to set an example on a national

level. Vermont has powered though this recession with some of

the lowest unemployment figures in the Union, and though we

face our own issues we must acknowledge that we are much

better off than many other states. As such, we ought to make

concessions in Congress to aid those states hit hardest by

the recession. Though Vermonters may be few in number we can

show the rest of the country how citizens ought to act and

put the good of the nation before our own comfort.

Emily Berk, South Royalton School

Growing up in rural, Middle Class America in the 21st

century hasn't impacted my life or my immediate family's

life. The current state of the union is coming out of a

recession. Personally, I've been very lucky. Both of my

parents are educated professionals that have stable jobs,

which they were able to keep through this economic downfall.

But it didn't mean that we weren't using more of our

disposable income to afford our basic needs, such as food,

health insurance, medications, fuel, oil, and utilities.

Meaning, we weren't able to go on as many vacations, but we

weren't losing our house. But I have family and friends that

have been affected by the economic downfall. With the

relations that I have with the people whom I know that are

being affected by this, I believe that the Presidents

ultimate goal should be to stabilize the economy, and support

our own.

I believe that in order for the economy to become

stabilized, a short-term goal should be that more jobs become

available. Jobs will stimulate the economy and let people who

are on unemployment to go back to work and earn more money.

And to allow people under employed to have better employment

for their education and ability. I believe by creating more

jobs, people will make more money, and more money will then

be spent, going to the government to start getting us more

and more out the recession. ``Creating jobs in the United

States

and ensuring a return to sustainable economic growth is the

top priority for my Administration,'' Barrack Obama said in

an Executive Order last March on his National Export

Initiative. With little short-term goals such as more jobs,

it will help start to stabilize the economy.

Another priority that I believe that should be on the

Presidents list is to support military families. Families

with family members in the military struggle with every day

life. I personally have a family being affected by it. My

cousin's father is in the war. He is on his second tour. He

has missed his children grow up, with a daughter who is now

15 and a 10 year old son. His wife is forced to be a single

parent. With support through programs, financial support and

counseling we could help the families being affected by war.

With programs set up for single parents with their partner in

the war nobody can understand better then another parent with

their partner in war. They would be able to share stories and

understand how one and another copes with them gone. And more

appreciation for those serving our country. They're fighting

for their lives, causing their families live's to become

difficult and change the way they live. Another priority

should be Student Loan Reforms.

Student Loan Reforms are important because the change will

eliminate private banks, the ``middlemen'' in the loan

process and will save the US government about $68 billion

dollars over a span of 11 years, according to the White

House. Because fewer fees will be paid to the local banks and

more money will be available to lend to students because the

money's coming directly from the government. The banks also

charge the government money for each loan because they're not

going to give students money for free. But for students, the

loans will look relatively the same--same terms, same fees,

same interest rates. The loans will most likely become more

accessible to students as well.

These are some of the short-term goals I believe should be

considered to help our country. I believe that this economic

downfall, can, with work, be fixed. If we really want

something we can achieve it. If people in our Nation come

together and act as one, we can do it. I hope that I was able

to give you good ideas about what goals I believe can help

our nation. Even though I am just a 15 year-old girl living

in a small town in Vermont, I still have a voice, and it will

be up to my generation to keep us out of another depression.

Molly Burke, Champlain Valley Union High School

Fellow Americans,

I'm writing to inform you of the current state of the

Nation and concerns I feel must be addressed in 2011.

The overuse of fossil fuels and its impact on the

environment is an issue I feel should be more extensively

addressed. The United States of America needs to end its

dependency on foreign oil and begin looking into alternative

energy sources. Wind energy, and solar energy are infinite

commodities that will steer the nation towards self-

dependency, sustainability and a cleaner environmental

future. The development of alternative energy sources may

also create jobs.

Since June 2009, the United States has been slowly

recovering from a severe economic recession. With an

unemployment rate greater than 9 percent, it is clear we must

focus our energies on job creation. Generating jobs in the

environmental field and re-building our nations

infrastructure including roads, bridges, and rail networks,

which are deteriorating, will provide job opportunities. In

order to meet many of these objectives, we need to take a

look at our current educational system to ensure we are

providing the necessary tools and training for the youth of

this country and accurately preparing them for the work

force. In particular, we must stress the importance of math

and science to remain at the forefront of innovation and

technology.

The United States has a $1.4 trillion deficit. This issue

relates directly to the amount of overspending in this

country. The proposal by the Republican Party, requesting to

keep the Bush-era tax rates to aid job creation instead of

placing higher taxes on affluent citizens is not enough to

reduce the national debt. Raising taxes on the wealthiest

people in this country will help decrease the national

deficit without severely impacting their financial situation.

We need to make hard choices, we need to cut spending and

raise taxes in order to reduce the deficit.

Healthcare is a benefit that should be given to each

citizen of the United States. In the Declaration of

independence, each person was guaranteed the unalienable

right to ``Life.'' This right should be protected by

universal healthcare, which provides citizens with the

medical care and treatment necessary for their survival and

well-being. Universal healthcare is a basic right for each

citizen.

The United States needs to continue to be a world leader,

however it no longer has the resources to be the ``worlds

policeman.''The United States needs to work more effectively

with other emerging superpowers like China, and Russia to

solve large global issues. Collectively, we have a

responsibility and duty to solve global problems.

To accomplish these goals and create a more effective

government, there needs to be a more civil discourse between

the Democratic and Republican Parties. As the leader of this

Nation, I strive to make positive progress towards these

goals however this can only be achieved if both parties are

willing to make compromises. Working together as one Nation

will strengthen the union. Thank you. God bless you. And God

bless the United States of America.

Jonah Cantor, Champlain Valley Union High School

My fellow Americans, today I will address issues you and I

are facing as a country. Our country's trade deficit with

foreign nations, the flaws of our education system, and the

need for healthcare reform are the problems I will present

and propose solutions for. It is important to attend to these

issues so we can resolve them efficiently as a country.

There is an obvious issue with how disproportionate the

amount our country imports compared to exports. It is time

for America to not only supply itself with a sufficient

amount of goods, but also foreign countries. Of course, this

increase in exports will require more factories to operate.

This increase in factories will affect the economy in

positive ways, mainly through the creation of jobs. More jobs

leads to less poverty and more money flowing throughout the

country. A healthy economy needs money and power distributed

among its citizens.

A successful democracy is dependent on a well-informed and

educated public. The education system in this country has

been slipping in recent years, letting down the citizens. It

is time to give children and young adults opportunities to

experience an excellent education program. More money will be

invested in the educational system, the overall quality of

the education being received will be higher, the equipment in

the classrooms will be up-to-date, and lastly, public

colleges and universities will become affordable. An educated

public leads to more politically-active citizens and a

healthier society. It is critical to give every citizen an

education that will help lead him or her and our country to

success.

There are millions of Americans who currently don't have

healthcare and millions more who are under insured. In the

long run, this fact costs everyone money. These people with

inadequate or no healthcare do not tend to take care of

themselves. Going to see a doctor costs money that they don't

have, so many simply don't go at all. But when one of these

people needs care because of an emergency, everyone pays for

it.

These are all large problems, but they are not

surmountable. We will need to be determined to put in hard

work to accomplish these goals, but the rewards we will have

earned will be great. I hope we can work as a country to

achieve our goals to make a more perfect society.

Molly Cantore, St. Johnsbury Academy

Each year, the president of the United States addresses

issues the people want to be addressed. While the president

tackles many topics in the State of the Union Address, an

important question arises about one topic in particular

within the economy. Should reducing unemployment become a

short-term goal as the national deficit grows, to be dealt

with on a long-term basis, or vice versa? Another important

topic of discussion and worthy of being addressed is the

encouragement of civic responsibility.

The economy encompasses two closely related topics of much

debate: unemployment and the national deficit. Two points are

more than clear, however. People remain unemployed and the

Nation remains in trillions of dollars in debt. Which concern

takes priority? While creating jobs is excellent for the

economy, it is also hurtful. In order to fight unemployment,

we are dragged further into debt, as the government provides

stimulus money to create more jobs. As the national debt

continues to grow, its triple-A credit rating is at risk of

dropping, which could hinder the U.S.'s ability to borrow

money to finance the deficit. However, if the government

focuses on lessening the deficit, unemployment will increase.

While climbing out of debt pleases the government, the

shrinking job pool displeases the people. The president,

elected by the people, does everything in his power to please

the people, in order to get reelected. Creating more jobs may

put the U.S. in jeopardy of losing its ability to borrow

money in order to finance its deficit, and focusing on

lessening the deficit cuts jobs which displeases the people,

who play a very important role in the democratic government.

Thus, this growing debate should be focused on in the State

of the Union Address.

The people are pertinent to a democratic government. They

have responsibilities as citizens to play that role, called

civic responsibility. In order to participate in and take

action in the government, a citizen must first be informed of

the issues, problems, and challenges that face the country. A

very important part of civic responsibility is voting. People

have a right to vote, and voters, especially young and new

voters, are responsible for being informed of the candidate's

stances and goals. An informed voter will elect the candidate

best fit for guiding the United States to recovery and

prosperity. As the article, ``Mr Obama's unpromising year''

in The Economist states, young and first time voters, ``who

in 2008 were electrified by his person rather than his

policies'' should have instead been informed and should have

voted for President Obama because of his stances and

policies. Therefore, encouragement of civic responsibility,

especially being an informed voter, is a very important issue

that should be addressed in the State of the Union Address.

The State of the Union Address is an important opportunity

in which the voices of the people can be heard. Two important

topics that should be addressed include the encouragement of

civic responsibility and the ever-growing debate of

unemployment versus the deficit.

Kristen Donaldson, Champlain Valley Union High School

My fellow Americans, our history as a country has had its

ups and downs. We've seen hardships like most nations have

never seen before, but also we've seen prosperity that most

nations do not even deem possible. At this point, our Nation

is struggling in one of these ``lows''. However, because of

our proud ``high'' moments that we have in this country, I

know that change is possible with just a few alterations.

Although the unemployment rate has dropped from 10.6

percent to 9.3 percent, that still means 21,830,360 Americans

are unemployed. No way to pay their rent that is riding over

their heads, not sure if they will make it through the

winter, and still have a house to their name. That is the

reality for almost 1 in 10 Americans. We need to create more

jobs, so we can continue to see that percentage decrease. One

way is to create new jobs by initiating a clean energy start.

Hundreds of thousands of jobs lie on the creation and

innovation of clean energy. Why not reduce our unemployment

rate, while leading the world on a new, greener path.

Outsourcing is the second main reason for unemployment

rates. As a country, we need to put our priorities first, and

make sure that we hold onto our jobs. We need to step back up

to the plate again, and continue our stronghold on the title

of the world's powerhouse.

Now, along with instability in jobs, comes the concern of

our overriding deficit. This deficit is like the elephant in

the room. Everyone knows it's there, but no one is doing

anything about it. Our country is in over 14 trillion dollars

of debt. The only viable fix is to cut all of the programs

that simply aren't working. We need to re-think our

approaches, and decide what is needed and what isn't.

Finally, the issue of the rising education costs is

plaguing our Nation, holding children back from their full

potential. If students are able to go to school, \2/3\ of

them will be stuck under student loans once they graduate.

Colleges and universities need to cut their costs, because if

they do so, more students will have a chance at education.

More of these educated citizens will be able to contribute to

our nation.

Ladies and gentlemen, America's history has been a

rollercoaster of ups and downs. We've seen it all, and we

know how to recover from it. By addressing the most prevalent

problems, America will have the opportunity to possibly not

see a ``down'' for a long time.

Susannah Johnson, Vermont Commons School

We Will Not be Perfect, But We Will Be Better

I try to use the word ``perfect'' seldom. In my short life

I've worked with lots of different people in many different

places. And I have come to the sad conclusion that the world

will never be perfect.

The United States, like every country, has problems deeply

concerning to young people. Yet our voices are rarely heard.

Here's my voice.

In my opinion the priority issues are those that involve

the overall wellbeing of people: the economy, renewable

energy, and health care.

The Economy--Since the Recession began in 2008 the economy

has splintered. Thousands of people lost their jobs, lost

their homes, and found themselves struggling to pay for

things like housing, college tuitions, even food on their

tables. In response to the recession, President Obama created

the Recovery Act which helped create three million jobs. The

law helped avoid another Great Depression. But it is

important for the President to face all aspects of the

economic crisis and create a new plan for a ``new era of

responsibility'' (his words). The plan needs to include the

creation of more jobs, a strategy to keep families in their

homes, and finally a plan to get credit flowing again so that

small businesses can reform and hire workers so families are

able to pay for their children to go to college.

Energy--Renewable energy is another long-term goal

President Obama needs to focus on. So far the President's

programs have helped provide short-term relief to families

who struggle to pay for gas at the pump, produce one million

Plug-In Hybrid cars which get up to 150 miles per gallon, and

has told America that by 2012 10 percent of our electricity

must come from renewable sources. These actions have helped

lead the country in the right direction. But more steps need

to be taken. It is important for us to reduce our dependence

on foreign oil. The U.S. should also become the world leader

on climate change. The more people that are aware of the

issue and its effects, the more ideas people will have about

how to resolve it. Creating jobs that are ``green'' is also a

strategy that would be beneficial.

Health Care--More and more Americans have lost their health

insurance over time. They just can't afford good medical

care. There should be no debate whether health care reform is

necessary--it is. Period. Nearly 46 million Americans have no

insurance, and this needs to change. It would be beneficial

to create a health insurance program that would be an option

for all Americans. It's very unfair that there are people who

don't qualify for health insurance because of ``pre-

existing'' health conditions. A program needs to be created

in which nobody is discriminated against, regardless of their

health history. To create a program that does these things

will be expensive, so the President needs to be creative and

figure out where this money will come from. He's smart, he

can do it.

Ingrid Klinkenberg, Edmunds Middle School

The state of our Union can be addressed in many topics; the

economy, education, achievements, failures, and so much more.

There are many things that have happened in the past year, we

have achieved some of our goals, but we have fallen short on

some of our goals as well. A couple of years ago, our country

was in a severe economic decline. Since then our economy has

been improving and looking promising. This is a step in the

right direction. In the other direction, this year our

poverty rates went up by 10.3 percent. If we can do something

to lower the poverty rate in coming years that would be

beneficial. The state of our Union is stronger today than it

was last year, and it can be stronger next year if we stay

focused.

Poverty in the United States is a big problem. Right now

about 13 percent, or nearly 40 million people, are living in

poverty. Many of these people live without a roof over their

head, food on the table, and many work multiple jobs just to

survive.

It would be beneficial to make the opportunity of education

more accessible, education provides opportunities. When more

people have the opportunity of education, more people are

able to have better paying jobs, which will allow them to

better support themselves. Even though education would offer

a brighter future for many, there still will be poverty. It

is an unsolved problem the whole world is faced with. It has

existed in the past, it exists now, and it will exist in the

future. What we can do to make a difference is to decrease

poverty in the future. Better education and more

opportunities will be one of the keys.

In the past few years the U.S. has been recovering from a

devastating economic crisis, which impacted the whole country

and most of the world. Financial institutions collapsed, the

stock markets fell, people's retirement savings were reduced,

and people became more conservative in their spending. Many

jobs were lost, resulting in people not being able to pay for

their homes and the real estate market weakened. The future

for many Americans continues to be uncertain. This past year

our economy has been getting more healthy and promising. The

credit markets have begun to unfreeze allowing companies to

borrow the money they need to expand. Company profits have

improved, which has allowed the stock markets to go up,

benefiting investors. 2010 has been a year that we have been

able to make our economy stronger and healthier.

One sentence to describe this past year, and the change in

the U.S., I would say, ``We are headed in the right

direction, we just need to make a little more change

happen.'' Overall our economy has improved, and if we keep it

at a steady rate like it is now, we will be in a better

position in a couple of years. The poverty rates went up

which told us that we need to work harder on that aspect of

our Union. That is what better and more affordable education

will do in the United States. There were defiantly postitives

and negitives about the state of our Union this past year,

and I think it was a good step in the right direction for a

better future in our Union.

Ezra Mount-Finette, Champlain Valley Union High School

Mr. Speaker, Vice president Biden, Members of the Congress,

distinguished guests and fellow American citizens.

I am here before you today, to full fill one of my

constitutional responsibilities to address congress on the

current state of union. My speech tonight is not meant just

for the hundred and twelfth congress but also to the citizens

concerned in the condition of our country.

Half way through my presidential term, we have brought our

country out of a recession, passed a health care bill that

delivered healthcare to every single United State citizen,

constructed loan programs helping students pay for college,

and cut taxes for everyone. Yet we still have a growing 14.5

trillion dollar debt, 9.4 percent of the country is out of

work and we have troops stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq.

We have work to do, and I am first going to address the

subject of partisanship, not just in Congress but also

throughout the country. We might be Muslim, Jewish,

Christian, old, young, African-American, Mexican-American,

Caucasian, democrat or republican but there is one thing we

all are; citizen of this great country. I want to remind

Congress that their duty is to represent the United States

and what is in the country's best interest. That there are no

two sides of an issue just two opinions; both with there own

reasoning behind them. Your job as Congressmen is to create

the optimal legislation that benefits the citizens of the

country, not legislation that is beneficial to a party, a

company or yourself, but to the three hundred million other

people that live in the United States of America. Take those

two ideas and work together to compromise. Look past the D or

R that is by your name

and look at your passport, your license and tax forms and

stare at the word ``America'' that is printed on them.

Our economy is not on the brink of collapse, but on the

brink of success. As I stood hear last year, banks were in

trouble and weren't loaning out money. The stock market was

plummeting and everyone was panicking. People were wondering

how they would make it through the next year. Now the banks

are stabilized and have started to give out more loans, the

stock market is gaining point and people are feeling more

comfortable about their future. With Unemployment still at

one of its highest levels in the past century I am looking

forward to working with my fellow colleagues in drafting

legislation that will bring jobs back into the economy. We

have almost recovered from this current recession. By the

time my term in office is complete I promise that I will

bring our economy out of the trouble that the previous

administration created for us.

I look forward to working and helping with the new Senate

and House of representatives in restoring this country to the

greatness it deserves.

Thank you, God bless you and God Bless the United States of

America. Thank you

1Lisa Ogorzalek of Rutland High School

Dear Mr. Speaker, Vice President Biden, Members of

Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans:

During the terms you all have been in office, the United

States has gone through many changes. Many changes have been

for the benefit of our economy, and many have created

problems for the people of America. This country has many

issues that need to be resolved if we want to make this

generation stronger than the ones that came before it. By

having a specific short-term goal, such as having healthcare

for all, and having a specific long-term goal, such as

reducing the national deficit, I think the young people of

this Nation will have the opportunity to thrive.

First, a short-term goal that I think would benefit America

right now is having healthcare for all. Many young people's

families in this country cannot afford healthcare, and their

wellness is suffering with each day. To make healthcare

available to all, I propose to have health insurance

companies share a percent of their revenue with the

government, based on their yearly income. With this money,

the government can then fund designated hospitals to provide

healthcare for the people who cannot afford it. This way, the

people who receive healthcare through their jobs can keep it,

and young people who are not fortunate enough to have it can

get it through government aid.

Next, a longer-term goal that would benefit America's youth

would be to decrease the national deficit. Our Nation's

budget is complex and divided into many parts, and as a

result of these components, we are in trillions of dollars of

debt. Although it would be difficult to significantly reduce

our debt in the next few years, there are some arrangements

that would help lower the amount of debt we hold. For

example, we could raise taxes for people who make at least

half a million dollars a year. This would create an increase

in tax revenue. If we could keep this increase steady and not

spend more than the rate of inflation, or Nation's debt would

be significantly reduced. As a result, we would be less

dependent on foreign countries, such as China. Since they

hold 11 percent of our debt, we could reduce this number to

let our nation's money go to other important matters, such as

poverty and research for illness.

Overall, this Nation has gone through many changes in the

past few decades. If we could make healthcare available to

all, especially young people, and reduce the national

deficit, then this generation has the opportunity to really

succeed. These changes would also help improve our economy,

global position, and overall wellness of the young people in

America.

Bryn Philibert, Champlain Valley Union High School

My fellow Americans,

This year our country has risen out of a recession that

threatened the economic stability of many Americans. We have

taken great strides to restore the hope and promise America

has always stood for. In 2010 we have made great progress but

there is still much more to do moving forward, which is why I

am taking this opportunity to address you. I am addressing

you all to call to all esteemed members of Congress to step

up and help me once again put the United States back on top

as a world leader in democracy and peace.

Two years after the recession devastated our people, we

finished this past year with an unemployment rate of 9.4

percent, down 0.6 percent from the end of 2009. Consumer and

business confidence is on the rise and we have finally come

to a bipartisan agreement on new tax-cut legislation. We

reached a compromise to improve economic growth, help the

struggling middle-class families, and business development.

We have also made historic steps towards the promise of

equality for all with the repealing of the ban on open

homosexual service men and women in our armed forces.

This year's Health Care Reform Bill set forth legislation

to expand coverage to 32 million currently uninsured

Americans. Along with this, the bill allowed health care to

became less expensive for people to purchase and starting in

2014 insurance companies will no longer be able to deny

coverage to anyone based on pre-existing conditions. This

marks the turning point that great Americans, like the late

Senator Ted Kennedy, worked their entire lives for.

By August of this past year we had shrunk the number of

troops in Iraq to 50,000 down from 110,000 a year ago, and we

have ended all U.S. combat missions in Iraq. By the end of

2011 all American troops will be withdrawn from Iraq. There

is still much to be done around the world to ensure a terror

free future, but we have made substantial steps towards that

goal in the past year.

America has faced challenges this year such as the oil

spill in the Gulf. We have learned from this environmental

crisis and we are moving forward with new knowledge on how to

respond to the economic impacts of a crisis like this.

It is a known fact of American politics that U.S.

politicians rarely agree in issues across the board, but I

know that all of us in this room can agree that we come here

every day to ensure that all American people get the

opportunity to live in our great country. Now more than ever

bipartisanship is going to be imperative to the achievements

of the upcoming year. I urge you all, Democrats and

Republicans, to work together to live up to the promise of

America as our forefathers have.

Thank you.

Mr. President, today I wish to introduce to you one of my constituents, Lawrence ``Rip'' Kirby of Rutland, VT, who has written to me outlining his ideas on how Congress can and should address our $13.8 trillion national debt in a fair and sensible way. I am pleased the citizens of Vermont are engaged on this issue, which is of critical importance to not only our State, but indeed the Nation. The decisions that we make on the Senate floor today will impact generations of Americans to come. That is why I would like to share with you what Mr. Kirby wrote:

To reduce the deficit and accumulated debt we must

understand their root causes and history:

Short-term problem: The near-collapse of the economy was

arrested by means of deficit spending, including corporate

bailouts, extended unemployment benefits, and stimulus

initiatives. While arguably necessary to stave off an even

worse catastrophe, these measures have added to the deficit

and the debt.

Solution(s): Our emphasis should not be on recovery of sunk

costs but on prevention of future disasters. Break up ``too

large to fail'' businesses through anti-trust laws. Regulate

imprudent, secretive, or unfathomable financial arrangements

like derivatives. Increase regulated safety margins like

reserve requirements for banks and loan limits based on

borrower credit ratings. Eliminate conflicts of interest like

permitting bond rating agencies to have a financial stake in

the companies they rate.

Medium-term problem: Our wars overseas have been funded by

massive deficits with no real strategy for repayment. The

unexpected length and intractability of these conflicts

exacerbates the problem.

Solution(s): Stop the financial bleeding and provide a

financial transfusion. To stop the bleeding we must get out

of these conflicts within a short time (two years at most).

Continue intelligence-gathering and maintain air power, but

get the boots off the ground. To provide a transfusion, enact

a temporary and progressive ``war surtax'' with a sunset

provision.

Long-term problem: Entitlement spending (Medicare, Social

Security, etc.) has exceeded its funding as America's

longevity has climbed faster than its typical retirement age

without tax increases to keep up. The mass retirement of the

baby boomers will aggravate this problem as they become

greater consumers of entitlements and a lesser source of

taxes.

Solution(s): Recognize that longevity is really an

advantage, and make better use of people's lengthening

ability to work and to contribute. In short, this means

gradually raising the age of entitlement eligibility. We must

also end the regressive and irrational Social Security tax

exemption for earnings above $108,000.

Long term problem: Our K-12 school system has deteriorated

while foreign students have surged ahead in critical subjects

like math, science, and language skills. The underlying cause

is debated endlessly, but I believe we have replaced the hard

work of learning with trendy feel-good initiatives that

represent the path of least resistance for both educators and

students. We also underfund education, thereby encouraging

the employment of second-rate teachers, curricula, and

facilities. This exacerbates the deficit by degrading our tax

base as emerging generations of Americans are prepared for

only menial jobs paying low wages.

Solution(s): Stop experimenting and do what works--get back

to basics and pay for excellence. Reward teachers who

cultivate competence. Emphasize math, science, and language

skills, as well as less tangible, but important skills like

inquiry and logic. Recognize sports programs as a way to

teach critical social skills, not as a career path. Treat

standardized testing as a means to excellence, not as an end

in itself. And finally, forget self esteem--it will come on

its own when it is earned.''

Lawrence ``Rip'' Kirby

Rutland, Vt.

Thank you, Mr. President, for allowing me to share with you these words of wisdom from an average Vermonter. I hope my colleagues in the Senate take note of Mr. Kirby's sage advice.

Mr. President, I would appreciate it if at the end of 9\1/2\ minutes you could alert me, please.

Mr. President, let me begin by adding Senators Whitehouse and Begich as cosponsors of this amendment No. 4809.

As I think many people know, I have been extremely critical of the agreement struck between the President and the Republican leadership. I have spoken out against it and I voted against cloture just yesterday. It is one thing to be critical of a proposal; it is another thing to come up with a better alternative, and I think I have done that today.

I believe the amendment I am offering is a significant improvement over the agreement struck between the President and the Republican leadership, and I hope very much we can get strong bipartisan support for it. Let me very briefly tell my colleagues what it does.

First, as I think most Americans appreciate, at a time of a recordbreaking deficit and a $13.7 trillion national debt, it makes very little sense to be

providing huge tax breaks to the wealthiest people in our country. It drives up the national debt and forces our kids to pay higher taxes in the future to pay off that national debt. This amendment ends--it ends--all the Bush tax breaks for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans beginning on January 1 of this year.

What does it do with the savings? That is perhaps the most important point I wish to make. Over the long term, this amendment would devote half the revenue raised by this provision--by eliminating the tax breaks for the top 2 percent--to reduce the deficit. Half that money goes to deficit reduction, which I hope appeals to many of my Republican friends who have consistently and appropriately talked about high deficits and the danger of those high deficits to this country. Half the savings by eliminating tax breaks for the wealthy goes to deficit reduction. What does the other half go to? It seems to me that while we should be and must be concerned about the deficit, we must also understand we continue to be in a major recession. Millions of our fellow Americans are unemployed. We have to do everything we can to create decent-paying jobs and put those people back to work.

What the other half of the savings does is invests in our infrastructure. I don't have to tell anybody here our infrastructure is crumbling. So it will go to repairing our roads, our bridges, schools, dams, culverts, housing, and transforming our Nation's energy sector. We need to put billions of dollars into building a 21st century rail system. When we do that, we not only create jobs now--and this is the fastest way I know to create jobs--we make our country more productive and internationally competitive in the future. If we do not build our infrastructure, if it continues to crumble--and the engineers out there tell us we need trillions of dollars of investment--we are going to lose our place in the global economy. So we have to invest in infrastructure. Half the savings does just that.

In addition, this amendment replaces the payroll tax holiday with a 1-year extension of the Making Work Pay credit. In other words, we are giving targeted tax breaks to the middle class, not reducing payroll taxes for millionaires and Members of Congress. This proposal would not endanger Social Security and, in fact, it would go to the people who most need it. It would be a lot fairer because lower income people would do better. Upper income people would not get it.

It also addresses a concern I think many Americans have; that is, diverting money away from the payroll tax endangers the long-term solvency of Social Security. As Eric Kingson, the cochair of the Strengthen Social Security campaign, an organization representing tens of millions of senior citizens and workers, recently said:

Extending and expanding the Making Work Pay tax credit is

far superior to the payroll tax cut for most Americans. The

Making Work Pay tax credit is more stimulative, fairer in

distribution, imposes no new administrative costs to

employers and includes over 6 million public sector employees

who will receive nothing from the payroll tax cut. And it

doesn't run the risk of undermining Social Security's

financing and the economic security of working Americans . .

.

So it addresses that issue as well.

Third, this amendment addresses another issue I know a lot of people in this country have concern about; that is, the estate tax giveaway in the underlying bill, by inserting in its place the 2009 estate tax rate for 2 years. Let's be clear. The estate tax only applies to the top three-tenths of 1 percent. What we are doing now is not lowering estate tax and raising exemptions which only benefit the very wealthiest people in this country; what we are doing now is bringing us back to the 2009 estate tax rates for 2 years.

Further, this amendment addresses an issue that, to me, is very important, and I know to many Members here, because we had a lot of support for it when I brought up this amendment last week. As the Presiding Officer well knows, our seniors who are on Social Security and disabled vets have not received a COLA in the last 2 years. A lot of those folks are trying to get by on $14,000, $15,000, $16,000 a year. What this amendment also includes is a $250 COLA for over 57 million American senior citizens, veterans, and persons with disabilities. Without this provision, seniors, as I mentioned, would be going through their second year without a COLA, and I think that is unfair.

Further, of course, this amendment would keep all of what I consider to be the positive aspects of the President's agreement with the Republicans. Obviously, it would extend middle-class tax cuts for 98 percent of Americans. It would extend unemployment insurance for 13 months. It would extend the child tax credit, earned-income tax credit, college tax credit expansions included in the Recovery Act.

So I think what we are doing is bringing forth a far better proposal than the agreement struck between the Republicans and the President.

Let me summarize. It ends tax breaks for the rich, uses half that money for deficit reduction and half that money to create millions of jobs rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. It would replace the payroll tax holiday, which many people have concerns about; diverting money away from Social Security with a 1-year extension of the Making Work Pay credit--much more targeted to low- and moderate-income people, not to Members of Congress and the richest people in this country and not threatening Social Security.

This amendment would strike the estate tax proposal in the underlying bill, and insert the 2009 estate tax rates for 2 years. That is a much fairer proposal than giving even more tax breaks for the very wealthiest people in this country.

Lastly, this amendment would provide a $250 COLA for over 57 million American senior citizens and disabled veterans and people with disabilities. It also includes an extension of the middle-class tax cuts for 98 percent of Americans, an extension of unemployment insurance for 13 months, an extension of the child tax credit, the earned income tax credit, and the college tax credit expansion.

This is the alternative many Americans wish to see. It creates jobs, cuts the deficit, and it is much fairer than the underlying bill we will vote on.

Motion to Suspend

With that, I move to suspend rule XXII for the purposes of proposing and considering amendment No. 4809 to the House message to accompany H.R. 4853, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.