Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. My remarks will be brief. I just want to thank the chairman, Senator Wyden, of the Finance Committee, for his commitment and for his leadership on these issues. I look forward to working with him to expand access to primary care in America and address the major shortage of healthcare workers in America. Mr. President, with that commitment, I will not object.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I wish to commemorate the life of Gus Newport, a long-time champion for human rights and advocate for racial and economic justice, who passed away on June 17, 2023. Gus will be remembered as a true progressive activist, having worked as the mayor of Berkeley, CA, as a member on the leadership committee of the National Council of Elders, the vice president from the U.S. to the World Peace Council serving on the United Nations Committee against Apartheid and the Committee on the Question of Palestine, as a member of the Unity Reform Commission, and the board president for the Middle East Children's Alliance, among others. I first met Gus when I was mayor of Burlington, VT, and I am proud to have called him my friend for the past 40 years. In addition to his work, Gus' family was important to him. As he said many times, his mom was his first role model, and the aspiration for his work came from his grandmother. At an early age, Gus immersed himself in local, national, and global politics. Throughout his life, Gus worked alongside civil rights leaders and political activists including Malcolm X, Angela Davis, and Danny Glover. His accomplishments span from groundbreaking political initiatives and the implementation of critical community economic development programs, to global solidarity. As mayor, Gus led the city of Berkeley to divest from apartheid South Africa, making them the first city in the U.S. to do so. Additionally, he created a domestic partner benefits program for LGBTQ+ families and childcare initiatives to aid working women. Gus also worked on affordable housing programs, rent control, policing reforms, environmental protections, and community development. In whatever task he took on, Gus worked with his whole heart and a deep sense of solidarity for humanity. As Gus said, ``We need to come back to what Martin [Luther King Jr.] called Building the Beloved Community-helping communities address education, incarceration, mental and physical health in an integrated and systematic way. If we want a better future for the next generation, we need to build a movement that is strategic and constant!'' I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Gus Newport for his tireless work on behalf of our communities and citizens. May the memory of Gus Newport be a blessing.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, the Senate is now debating an $886 billion Defense authorization bill, and unless there are major changes to that bill, I intend to vote against it. Let me take a few minutes to explain why. I think everybody in our country knows that we face enormous crises. As a result of climate change, our planet is experiencing unprecedented and rising temperatures. Along with the rest of the world, we need to make major investments to transform our energy system away from fossil fuels and into energy efficiency and sustainable energy. If we do not do that--not only America but China and countries all over the world--the planet we are leaving our kids and future generations will become increasingly unhealthy and precarious. In fact, there are some who wonder whether the planet will continue to exist in years to come unless we move aggressively on this existential threat. But it is not only climate change. Our healthcare system is broken, and it is dysfunctional--not a secret. Most Americans know that. While the insurance companies and the drug companies make hundreds of billions of dollars in profits, 85 million Americans are uninsured or underinsured. Unbelievably, our life expectancy, which is already lower than most major countries, is declining. Today, we have a massive shortage of doctors, nurses, mental health practitioners, and dentists--something that the committee I chair, the HELP Committee, is trying to address. But it is a reality today that our healthcare system is broken and dysfunctional. Our educational system is teetering. While we have one of the highest rates of childhood poverty of almost any major country, millions of parents in Vermont, Nevada, and all over this country are unable to find affordable and quality childcare. It is a major, major crisis which is only going to become worse as a result of the cliff that the childcare folks are going to be experiencing in a few months. But it is not just childcare. When we talk about education, we should appreciate that the number of our young people who graduate from college today is falling further and further behind other countries. In other words, we need to have the best educated country on Earth in order to compete internationally. Yet other countries are seeing a greater percentage of their young people graduating college. One of the reasons is the high cost of college. Many young people do not want to go $50,000 or $100,000 in debt to get a college or graduate school degree. Today, we have 45 million Americans who are struggling under the weight of student debt--something that President Biden, I, and others have been trying to deal with. But it is not only climate. It is not only healthcare. It is not only education. Today, all over this country, we are seeing a massive crisis in terms of low-income and affordable housing. While gentrification is causing rents to soar in many parts of our country, some 600,000 Americans are homeless. A few blocks away from right here in the Nation's Capital, there are people sleeping out in the streets. And we have some 18 million people who are spending more than half of their limited incomes on housing. So that is what the country faces. We have a planetary crisis in terms of climate change. Our healthcare system is broken and dysfunctional. Our educational system is teetering. Our housing stock is totally inadequate. These are just some of the crises facing our country. What is very clear, I think, to the American people and many people here in the Senate and those in the House is that we are not addressing those crises. We don't have any pretense--we are not addressing those crises. When is the last time the Presiding Officer has heard a serious debate here about how we address climate change, how we build up affordable housing, how we reform the healthcare system? It is not taking place. We are not addressing this. So that is one political reality that exists here in the Nation's Capital. But there is another reality, and that is the reality of the Pentagon and military spending, and that is a whole other story. Every year, with seemingly little regard for the strategic picture facing our country, this body, the House and the Senate, votes to increase the military budget. It just happens. We don't worry about people sleeping on the street. We don't worry about people who don't have any healthcare. We don't worry about people who can't afford prescription drugs. Every year, the military budget--hey, more money. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are over. Tens of thousands of American troops have returned home. Yet the Pentagon's budget continues to go up. Every year, despite sometimes very contentious partisan fights on all manner of things--you name it, big fights going on--Congress somehow comes together very quietly, with little debate, to vote for the one thing they agree on, and that is more and more money for the Pentagon. Right now, despite all of the enormous needs facing working families in this country, over half of the Federal discretionary budget goes to the military. Got it? Over half of the Federal discretionary budget goes to the military. I support a strong military. People don't have to convince me why we need a strong military. But I will oppose this legislation, this Defense authorization bill, for four major reasons. First, more military spending right now is unnecessary. The United States remains the world's dominant military power and is in no danger of losing that position. Alone, we account for roughly 40 percent of global military spending. This comes despite the end of the war in Afghanistan and despite the fact that the United States now spends more on the military than the next 10 countries combined, most of which are our allies. We spend more than the next 10 countries combined, most of which are our allies. Last year, we spent more than 3 times what China is spending on the military, and more than 10 times what Russia spent. While this year's National Defense Authorization Act would merely match the Pentagon's recordbreaking request, in most recent years, Congress has seen fit to give the Department of Defense more money than it even asks for. Imagine that. The 85 million people who are uninsured--we don't help them. People can't afford the high cost of prescription drugs--hardly doing anything on that. People sleeping out on the streets--can't do that. Kids can't afford to go to college-- can't do that. But we have, year after year, given the Pentagon more money than they have even requested, requiring them to submit ``wish lists'' of items to Congress; in other words, tell us what more you need. The Pentagon is routinely given so much taxpayer money that it literally doesn't know what to do with all the money Congress has thrown at them. According to the Government Accountability Office, the GAO, over an 11-year period, the Pentagon returned an astonishing $128 billion in excess funds to the Treasury. In other words, we gave them so much money that they couldn't even spend it, and they had to return some of it. So that is reason No. 1 why I oppose this legislation. No. 2, the Pentagon cannot keep track of the dollars it already has, leading to massive waste, fraud, and abuse in the sprawling military- industrial complex. The Pentagon accounts for about two-thirds of all Federal contracting activity, obligating more money every year than all civilian Federal Agencies combined. Yet the Department of Defense remains the only major Federal Agency that cannot pass an independent audit more than 30 years after Congress required them to do so. So we are throwing hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars into the Pentagon. Thirty years ago, Congress said: We want an audit; we want to know what is going on--a reasonable request. It has only been 30 years, and we still have not gotten an independent audit. Last year, the Department of Defense was unable to account for over half of its assets, which are in excess of $3 trillion, or roughly 78 percent of what the entire Federal Government owns. The Government Accountability Office, the GAO, reports that the Department of Defense still cannot accurately track its finances or capture and post transactions to the current accounts. Each year, auditors find billions of dollars in the Pentagon's proverbial couch cushions--just money lying around, you know, that pops up here and there. In fiscal 2022, Navy auditors found $4.4 billion in untracked inventory--couldn't find it, but there was $4.4 billion-- while Air Force auditors identified $5.2 billion worth of variances in its general ledger. These problems are why Senator Grassley and I have again introduced our Audit the Pentagon Act, with a number of cosponsors, which would force the Pentagon to get serious about their shortcomings by reducing by 1 percent the budget of any DOD component that cannot pass an audit. I don't think that is an unreasonable request. A meaningful effort to address this waste should be undertaken before Congress throws more money at the Pentagon. Yet this absolutely necessary oversight is again missing from this bill. So it doesn't matter. Next year, we will learn that tens and tens of billions of dollars can't be accounted for. So what is the problem? In June, the GAO found that in the preceding year, 1 single year, DOD's largest acquisition programs had seen cost estimates rise by $37 billion. It goes on and on and on. They come up with an estimate for a weapons system, and then they say: Oh, sorry, it turns out it is going to cost a lot more than we told you. This comes after decades in which we spent more than $2 trillion on ill-considered wars, in my view, in Iraq and Afghanistan. Somehow, despite this incredible record of waste and fraud, the military-industrial complex escapes meaningful scrutiny. The third point I want to make in opposition is that much of this additional military spending will go to line the pockets of hugely profitable defense contractors. It is corporate welfare by a different name. Almost half of the Pentagon budget goes to private contractors, some of whom are exploiting their monopoly positions and the trust granted them by the United States to line their pockets. Repeated investigations by the DOD inspector general, the GAO, and CBS News have uncovered numerous instances of contractors massively overcharging the Department of Defense, helping boost these companies' profit margins to nearly 40 percent and sometimes as high as over 4,000 percent, while costing U.S. taxpayers hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. TransDigm, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon are among the offenders, dramatically overcharging taxpayers, while reaping enormous profits, seeing their stock prices soar, and handing out massive executive compensation packages. Just one example, Lockheed Martin received $46 billion in unclassified Federal contracts last year, returned $11 billion to shareholders through dividends and stock buybacks, and paid its CEO $25 million. These companies are fully reliant on the U.S. taxpayer, yet their CEOs make over 100 times more than the Secretary of Defense and 500 percent more than the average newly enlisted servicemember. TransDigm, the company behind the over 4,000-percent markup on spare parts, touted $3.1 billion in profits on $5.4 billion of net sales, almost boasting to investors about just how fully it was fleecing the taxpayers. Indeed, over the past two decades, major defense contractors have paid billions of dollars in fines or related settlements for fraud or misconduct. Almost every major defense contractor has had to pay fines for fraud or misconduct. Just the other day--people may have seen it in the papers--the consulting firm of Booz Allen Hamilton was fined $377 million for overcharging the Defense Department. Yet these contracts never dry up. That is why I introduced an amendment to this year's NDAA to require the Secretary of Defense to produce an updated report on defense contractor fraud. That amendment was not included in what we will be voting on. Here is maybe the major point that I want to make: If the pandemic, the COVID pandemic, has taught us anything--and let us not forget for one minute that that pandemic cost us over 1 million lives--it is that national security relies on much more than just a strong military. It is funny, as chairman of the HELP Committee, a couple of months ago, we had those people who are responsible for protecting this country against future pandemics before us. And the question that everybody asked them, Democrat and Republican, is: Hey, are we prepared for the next pandemic that is likely to come? Without exception, the leaders of the government Agencies whose job is to protect us for the next pandemic said: No, we are not prepared. By the way, there are some right now who want to take money away from the Centers for Disease Control in this particular bill. The point is that when you lose over 1 million people to a pandemic and when the scientists tell us there is a good chance that another one may come, that is a national security issue. True security--if we are really looking at what true security is about--it means everything that we can do to improve the lives of ordinary Americans. True security is that we address the crisis of a declining life expectancy. The gap between the lifespan of the wealthy and the working class is over 10 years. If you are working class in this country, you are going to die 10 years shorter than the wealthy. Is that not an issue of national security? Do we not want to make sure that all of our people, whether they are rich or poor or middle class, have the right to live full and productive and healthy lives? I think so. That is called national security. National security has to do with the issue of education for our kids. How are we secure if our young people, from childcare to graduate school, are not getting the quality of education? There are millions of children who today, in America, as we speak, are food insecure. There are days that go by when they are hungry. How do we talk about national security and not talk about the crisis of childhood hunger, not to mention childhood poverty in general? How do we talk about national security when people are sleeping out on the street? How do we, in any sense of the word, talk about national security without understanding the weather in Texas, in the southwest, is now hitting recordbreaking levels? People are dying from the heat. Oceans are getting hotter. We are looking at drought. We are looking at extreme weather disturbances. My own State, just several weeks ago, experienced the worst natural disaster, torrential rainfalls that we haven't seen since 1927. That is national security. Whether people get forced out of their homes because of flooding, die from heat stroke-- that is called national security. This body--the Senate--could decide to have one or two fewer ballistic missile submarines, saving almost $15 billion over the next decade. And we could put that money--and it would go a long way--toward housing the homeless or feeding the 5 million children in this country who are food insecure. Instead, day after day, here in Washington, many of my colleagues tell the American people that we just don't have the money. We can't do what every other major country on Earth does--guarantee healthcare to all people; we can't provide affordable housing; we can't provide affordable childcare; we can't provide nutrition to kids in America who are hungry. We just can't afford to do any of those things. But come to the military budget and all the lobbyists around here from the defense contractors, my God, we can't stop throwing money at them. So what I would say is that the time is long overdue for our country to get our national priorities right, and one small step forward would be to say no to this very bloated and wasteful military budget and start reordering our priorities so that we pay attention to the needs of the middle class and working class and low-income people rather than just defense contractors. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, tomorrow morning, the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee will be marking up three landmark pieces of legislation which will make it easier for workers to form unions, it will guarantee up to 7 paid sick days for every worker in America, and it will make sure that women in our country finally receive equal pay for equal work. If these bills are signed into law, they would represent the most significant set of labor reforms in the modern history of our country and significantly improve the lives of many millions of American workers. We are living in a moment where corporate America and the 1 percent have more economic and political power than they have ever had in the history of our country. The time is long overdue for Congress to stand up for the working families of our Nation--60 percent of whom live paycheck to paycheck--and not just wealthy campaign contributors and lobbyists. Let us be clear. The American people are sick and tired of the unprecedented level of corporate greed they see every single day, and they are tired of the outrageous and illegal union-busting that is taking place throughout this country. They are sick and tired of CEOs making nearly 400 times more than the average worker--unheard of in American history. CEOs of major corporations now make 400 times more than their average employee. The American people are sick and tired of billions in stock buybacks going to the people on top, while millions of Americans today are struggling hard to put food on the table and pay their rent. The American people want justice, and that is what we are going to begin doing tomorrow in the HELP Committee. The American people look around them, and they see more income and wealth inequality in America today than ever before. Three people on top have more have wealth than the bottom half of American society--165 million Americans. Three people here, 165 million people, and that gap is growing wider. While the people on top do phenomenally well, over 18 million families in our country are paying more than half of their limited incomes on housing, which is soaring in many parts of the country, and some 600,000 Americans are homeless. American workers want to know why--why it is that despite huge advancements in technology and worker productivity, the average worker in America today makes about $50 a week less than he or she made some 50 years ago after adjusting for inflation. In other words, the very rich are getting richer, and the average worker is going nowhere in a hurry. Now, there are a number of reasons--many, many reasons--why the gap between the very, very rich and everybody else is growing wider and many reasons why wages have remained stagnant. One of the reasons, of course, is that we have a Federal minimum wage today, a starvation wage, of $7.25 an hour--a wage that has lost nearly 30 percent of its purchasing power over the last 14 years. Raising the minimum wage is something the HELP Committee is going to address in the near future, but probably above and beyond the need to raise the minimum wage, the most important reason that real wages are lower today in America than they were 50 years ago is the fact that corporate America and the billionaire class have been waging a war against the right of working people to exercise their constitutional privilege to form unions, constitutional right to form a union, freedom of assembly. As a result of that aggressive war against union organizing, trade union membership today is at its lowest level in the modern history of America. In our country today, 71 percent of the American people approve of labor unions. Labor unions today are more popular than they have been in a very long time. Yet, despite that, only 6 percent of private sector workers belong to a union. Tomorrow, the HELP Committee will be asking why, at a time of recordbreaking corporate profits, why are multibillionaires and CEOs of large corporations doing everything they possibly can to deny the working people of this country the right to join a union. Why? Why in their never-ending greed are they doing all kinds of illegal actions to prevent workers from forming unions and negotiating for decent wages and benefits? The answer to that question really is not that complicated. Corporate America understands what most people in this country understand, which is that when workers join a union, they earn better wages, they receive better benefits, and they work with better working conditions. In fact, union workers today earn nearly 20 percent more on average than nonunion workers. Corporate America also understands that 64 percent of union workers have a defined benefit pension plan that guarantees an income in retirement, compared to just 11 percent of nonunion workers. Corporate America understands that union workers are half as likely to be victims of health and safety violations compared to nonunion workers. For all of these reasons--the fact that union workers do better than nonunion workers, have better working conditions, better benefits--all of these reasons and more are why we are seeing a significant uptick in union organizing in America today. In fact, it is higher than we have seen in many decades. Workers understand that when they stand together in solidarity and can negotiate a decent contract, they are going to do a lot better than when they have to go begging to their employer. So what we are seeing today is more and more union organizing at blue-collar jobs. A couple of months ago, a factory in rural Georgia organized a steelworkers local. We are seeing it at white-collar jobs all over this country. We are seeing it on college campuses. Furthermore, very interestingly, as healthcare becomes more corporatized in America, we are seeing more and more nurses form unions. We are even seeing doctors form unions. At the University of Vermont Medical Center, among many others, resident doctors voted overwhelmingly to form a union. With that growth in union organizing, what we are also seeing in this country is a vicious corporate response, and that is that major corporations all across this country are taking unprecedented and illegal actions against employees who are fighting for economic justice. That is why major corporations like Starbucks and Amazon and others have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on union-busting campaigns and anti-union law firms. They hire these fancy consultants at outrageous prices because at the end of the day, they would rather spend millions and millions of dollars trying to prevent workers from forming a union than pay those very same workers decent wages and decent benefits. Part of the corporate strategy is the reality that over half of all employers in America threaten to close or relocate their businesses if workers vote to form a union. Imagine that. You work for a company for years. You want to form a union, and then your employer says: If you form that union, we are going to China; we are going to Mexico; we are going to leave this State. That is why, when workers become interested in forming a union, they almost always will be forced to attend closed-door meetings to hear anti-union propaganda. What employers do is bring people into a room, they have all of their executives there, and they tell them how terrible a union would be and the consequences to them if they formed a union. As Human Rights Watch has said, ``Freedom of association is a right under severe, often buckling pressure when workers in the United States try to exercise it.'' In other words, yes, in America, you have the constitutional right of freedom of assembly. You have the constitutional right to form a union. But if you exercise that right, all kinds of corporate power will be thrown at you to prevent you from succeeding. Here is something that really is quite incredible: Even when workers overcome all of these incredible obstacles and when they win their union elections, 63 percent of workers who vote to form a union do not get a union contract a year later. So what corporations do is they do everything they can to stop workers from forming a union. Then, if by some miracle workers vote to form a union, what corporations do is stall and stall and throw all kinds of legal minutia into the process to delay a first contract. Incredibly, on average, because of corporate obstructionism, it takes 465 days on average to sign a first contract after a union wins an election. Imagine that--well over a year after you win the election can you actually get a contract. One-third of successful organizing campaigns cannot get a contract in the first 3 years after a union victory. That is what corporate obstructionism is about, and that is what corporate greed is about. All of that is unacceptable. That should not be happening in the United States, and starting tomorrow, the HELP Committee will fight to change that reality by passing the Protecting Workers Right to Organize Act, otherwise known as the PRO Act. The PRO Act will make it easier for workers to exercise their constitutional right to form a union free from fear, intimidation, or coercion by their corporate bosses. Look, not every worker in America wants to form a union, and that is part of what freedom in America is about; but if you do want to form a union, you should not be hit with illegal activities to prevent you from doing so. This legislation will make it easier for workers to collectively bargain for better wages, benefits, and working conditions. It will finally hold corporate CEOs accountable for the unprecedented level of illegal union busting that is taking place all over this country. Under the PRO Act, corporations will finally be held accountable for violating Federal labor law. Mr. President, incredibly, in America today, corporations are charged with breaking labor law in more than 40 percent of all union elections. And yet--and this is the important point--the penalties for this illegal behavior are virtually nonexistent. In other words, you can break the law with impunity. Pathetically--pathetically--far too many corporations have made the calculated decision that it is much more profitable and beneficial to their bottom line to break the law than to follow the law. Ordinary people follow the law. Average people follow the law--not large corporations. As they have figured out, you can break the law, you can stall this thing out forever, and nothing is going to happen to you. In fact, the financial penalty for corporations retaliating against pro-union workers in America, today, under current law, is zero--no penalty at all. That will change under the PRO Act. Under this legislation, corporations will be fined up to $50,000 for violations of the National Labor Relations Act and up to $100,000 for each repeated violation. In other words--shock of all shock--large, profitable corporations will have to obey the law. I know that is a very radical concept in America today, but that is what I think should be happening. Under the PRO Act, we will ban captive audience meetings that are designed to intimidate, coerce, and threaten workers who support forming a union. Under the PRO Act, we will make sure that all workers have a first contract within 1 year after winning a union election to binding arbitration. In other words, it should not take years to work out a first contract. This is nothing more than a stalling tactic on the part of the corporate world. Under this legislation, we will ban, once and for all, the permanent replacement of workers who go on strike. No longer will companies be able to hire replacement workers or withhold benefits from workers who go on strike to improve their wages and working conditions. Mr. President, this legislation will override so-called ``right to work'' laws that have eliminated the ability of unions to collect dues from those who benefit from union contracts. This legislation will end the ability of corporations to misclassify workers as independent contractors or label ordinary workers as supervisors to prevent them from organizing. And yet, Mr. President, that is not all that the HELP Committee will be doing tomorrow. The second bill that we will be marking up is the Healthy Families Act, which will end, once and for all, the international embarrassment of the United States of America being the only major country on Earth not to guarantee paid sick days to workers. This legislation would guarantee that every worker in America receives up to 7 paid sick days from their employers. You know, we hear a lot of talk here in this town about family values. Everybody is deeply concerned, presumably, about family values. So let me be clear: When a wife is diagnosed with cancer and a husband cannot get time off of work in order to take care of her or spend time with her when she is struggling with cancer, that is not a family value. That is, in fact, an attack on everything that a family is supposed to stand for. When a working mom is forced to send her sick child to school because she cannot afford to stay home with that child, that is not a family value. That is also an attack on everything that a family is supposed to stand for. I don't think it is a terribly radical suggestion that in the wealthiest country in the history of the world, in 2023, people should not get fired because they stay home with sick children. Let us be clear: The United States of America is the only major country on Earth that does not guarantee 1 single day of paid sick days--not one. In Germany, workers are entitled to a total of 6 weeks of sick days at 100 percent of their salary. In France, workers are entitled to a total of 90 days of paid sick leave at 50 percent of their salary. In Denmark, workers are entitled to at least 30 days of paid sick leave capped at about $638 per week. In Canada, workers are entitled to 10 paid sick days at 100 percent of their salary and are eligible to receive 26 weeks of paid sick benefits at up to 55 percent of their salary. That is what Germany does, France does, Canada does--countries all over the world do. In the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, workers are entitled--workers are guaranteed a total of zero paid sick days. That's the reality, and that, my friends, has got to change. Last place is no place for the United States of America. We can't go around telling people we are the greatest country on Earth and be the only major country that doesn't guarantee 1 day of paid sick leave. It is time for the United States of America to join the rest of the industrialized world and guarantee at least 7 paid sick days to every worker in America. And in doing that, we will still be way behind most of the industrialized countries. Just a few months ago, the American people learned about what railworkers in this country were going through and the fact that they, as workers doing difficult, dangerous work, often in inclement weather, were not guaranteed one single day of paid sick leave--and we had a big discussion on that. I offered an amendment on that issue, which failed. But I am happy to tell you that as a result of a strong grassroots trade union movement and, I think, the railroad companies getting a sense of how the American people feel--that is beginning to change. Today, unlike a few months ago, over 50,000 railworkers are now guaranteed up to 7 days of paid sick leave. And I have the feeling that in the weeks and months to come, more and more railroad workers will get that benefit. We need to build on that momentum by guaranteeing 7 paid sick days, not just to rail workers, but to every worker in America. Last but not least, the third bill that the HELP Committee will be voting on tomorrow is the Paycheck Fairness Act introduced by Senator Murray. This legislation would end the absurdity--the unfairness--of women in America being paid just 84 cents on the dollar compared to men. As bad as that figure is, 16 percent less for women than for men, it is even worse--much worse--for women of color. In America today, Asian women make just 80 cents for every dollar a man earns; for black women, it is just 67 cents; and for Hispanic women and Native American women, it is just 57 cents. So, I don't think it is too much to ask in this country that people be paid equal pay for equal work, no matter who you are. And the truth is, of course, the current situation does not have to be that way. In Belgium, another industrialized country, the gender wage gap is just 1.2 percent. Women make virtually the same amount as men do. In Spain, Norway, and Denmark, the gender wage gap is 5 percent or less-- women make 95 percent of what men make. Across the European Union, the gap is just 10.6 percent, and in the United States, it is 16 percent. The Paycheck Fairness Act would close this gap by guaranteeing equal pay for equal work and making it easier for women to come together to file and win lawsuits against unscrupulous employers who commit wage discrimination. These bills are not only good policies, they are precisely what the American people want. According to the last polls I have seen, 87 percent of the American people support guaranteeing paid sick leave to every worker in our country; 84 percent of the American people support equal pay for equal work; and 59 percent of the American people support the PRO Act. The bottom line is that most Americans understand we live in a rigged economy. People on top are doing phenomenally well--have never done better. Ordinary workers are struggling to put food on the table, to purchase the healthcare they need, to take care of their families, to send their kids to college, to take some time off for a vacation. That is not what America is supposed to be about. Tomorrow, the HELP Committee begins the difficult and long journey of beginning to bring justice to the working class of this country and tell the CEOs and the corporate executives and the 1 percent that they cannot have it all, that this economy has got to work for working people and not just for the people on top. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I support the nomination of Glenna Wright-Gallo to be Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services at the Department of Education. Ms. Wright- Gallo has more than 25 years of public education experience supporting students with disabilities and 16 years of experience as a policy leader in State special education programs. She is currently a guest instructor at the Clark County School District in Las Vegas, NV. Before that, she served as the Assistant Superintendent of Special Education Services for the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction-- OSPI--in Washington State. During her tenure, she successfully secured an additional $155 million for state special education programs, $37 million for improvement of statewide inclusionary practices, $12 million for paraeducator training, and $60,000 to reduce the use of restraint and seclusion. Prior to her position at OSPI, Ms. Gallo spent 7 years as the State director of special education for the Utah State Board of Education. She has also twice served as the president of the National Association of State Directors of Education. Earlier this year, the Committee on Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, which I chair, reported her out of committee by a bipartisan vote. Ms. Wright-Gallo is a strong, dedicated advocate for special education services and supports and understands the unique challenges that children and youth with disabilities face. She will make an excellent Assistant Secretary, and I urge my colleagues to support her nomination.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. SANDERS. Senator Hagerty's bill aims to expand the use of title 42 to restrict the entry of people and goods from countries where ``substantial'' drug smuggling exists. I am very concerned about the increased use of fentanyl in this country. Everybody is. As you just heard, we have seen over 100,000 Americans die from drug overdoses in the last year alone. Unfortunately, this isn't the way to address this problem. Title 42 is a public health authority, and the use of it should be dictated by public health experts. Instead of proposing real solutions to address drug trafficking based on what will keep people safe, some of my Republican colleagues want to use title 42 as a political stunt to keep out people seeking asylum. I welcome the opportunity to work with my Republican colleagues on serious solutions to address drug trafficking. Unfortunately, this is not one of them. I object.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I wish to commemorate the life of Judy Heumann, a leader in the disability rights movement, who passed away on March 4. Judy was an internationally recognized leader in the disability community. She was instrumental in the development and implementation of major disability rights legislation, including the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act--IDEA--the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. She was a true public servant having served as the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services in the Department of Education from 1993 to 2001 and as the first Special Advisor for International Disability Rights at the Department of State from 2010 to 2017. In 1974, she helped develop legislation that became the IDEA while working on the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare--now the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, which I am proud to chair. Judy became known as the ``mother of the disability rights movement'' when she fought to implement the Rehabilitation Act. Her activism was a defining moment in the disability and civil rights movement paving the way for the future legislation. Judy changed the world for the one in four Americans living with a disability and one in six individuals with disabilities around the world. I join the disability community in honoring her contributions to the disability and civil rights movement. Judy was feisty in her many roles fighting for disability rights. And she will be remembered for the impacts her advocacy made to improve the lives of people with disabilities. May the memory of Judy Heumann be for a blessing.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, in accordance with rule XXVI.2 of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I submit for publication in the Congressional Record the subcommittee assignments for the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, as unanimously adopted by the committee on February 27, 2023. I ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee assignments be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, the vote on confirmation of the Calabretta nomination occur at 11 a.m. tomorrow, Thursday, February 16; that the cloture vote on the Martinez-Lopez nomination occur following disposition of the Reyes nomination; and if cloture is invoked on the Martinez-Lopez nomination, the confirmation vote occur following disposition of the Calabretta nomination; further, that the vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Kahn nomination be at 1:45 p.m.; finally, that following my remarks and the remarks of Senator Barrasso, the Senate stand in recess until 4 p.m.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, Senators should expect two rollcall votes at 4:30 p.m. today and three rollcall votes tomorrow.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions has adopted rules governing its procedures for the 118th Congress. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the committee rules be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I wish to commemorate the life of Robert ``Bobby'' Silverstein, a leader in the disability rights movement, who passed away on November 17, 2022. Bobby was a true public servant having worked in the Labor Department, the Health, Education and Welfare Department, the House of Representatives, and the Senate, including as staff director and chief counsel for the Subcommittee on Disability Policy of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources--now the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. He was known as the ``behind-the-scenes architect'' of the Americans with Disabilities Act and served as a consensus-builder making bipartisan disability legislation a reality. Bobby changed the lives of millions of people with disabilities by his work in prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability. I join former chairs of the HELP Committee in honoring his contributions to the disability and civil rights movement. Bobby was steadfast in his many roles fighting for disability rights after his time working in Congress. He will be remembered for the significant impacts his work made to improve the lives of people with disabilities. Finally, all who worked with Bobby tell of how kind and humble he was. He was beloved by all who knew him. May the memory of Bobby Silverstein be for a blessing.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, since 2010 I have sponsored a State of the Union essay contest for Vermont high school students. This contest gives students in my State the opportunity to articulate what issues they would prioritize if they were President of the United States. This is the contest's 13th year, and I would like to congratulate the seven volunteer judges who helped choose the contest winners and finalists. The contest relies on its committed team of judges. The judges take time to review each essay and evaluate the diversity in writing that engages students and will benefit them for years to come. The judges' willingness to participate in this project reflects their dedication to both the students and our state, and for that, I graciously thank them. The judges include: Andrew Chobanian of Oxbow High School--participant for one year Lauren Conti of Stowe High School--participant for one year Jason Gorczyk of Milton High School--participant for ten years Krista Huling of South Burlington High School--participant for ten years Mary Schell of White River Valley School--participant for one year Sarah Soule of Middlebury Union High School--participant for five years Terri Vest of Twinfield Union School & Vermont Virtual Learning Collaborative--participant for thirteen years I am very proud to enter the State of the Union Essay Contest judges into the Congressional Record to recognize their contributions.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, since 2010, I have sponsored a State of the Union essay contest for Vermont high school students. This contest gives students in my State the opportunity to articulate what issues they would prioritize if they were President of the United States. This is the contest's 13th year, and I would like to congratulate the 382 students who participated. It is truly heartening to see so many young people engaged in finding solutions for the problems that face our country. To my mind, this is what democracy is all about. A volunteer panel of Vermont educators reviewed the essays and chose August Howe as this year's winner. August, a junior at Twinfield Union School, wrote about the impact of misinformation on our society and our democracy. J Lahue, a freshman at Burr and Burton Academy, was the second place winner. J wrote about how to address political polarization. Keenan Wallace, a junior at Twinfield Union School, was the third place winner, with an essay on unions and labor rights. I am very proud to enter into the Congressional Record the essays submitted by August, J and Keenan:

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record some of the finalists' essays written by Vermont High School students as part of the 13th Annual State of the Union Essay contest conducted by my office. The material follows: Finalists

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I rise in strong opposition to Senator Paul's amendment. This amendment would require 67 Senators to waive a budget point of order instead of 60. In other words, if this amendment were passed, a tiny minority of U.S. Senators could prevent action on a national healthcare crisis, an economic crisis, or a natural disaster. That would put the people of this country, in my view, in a very dangerous position. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Paul amendment. Vote on Amendment No. 6561

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive all applicable sections of that act and any other applicable budget points of order for purposes of the pending message, and I ask for the yeas and nays. But before that, let me be very clear. If we do not waive this budget point of order raised by Senator Paul, it will kill the entire appropriations bill that we are debating, not just this section dealing with sequestration. In other words, if we do not waive this budget point of order, the government will shut down just before Christmas-- not a particularly nice Christmas gift to give to the American people. This bill--this omnibus bill--is not the bill that I would have written, not the bill that anybody else here would have written, but it includes a 30-percent increase in the Child Care and Development Block Grant Program, nearly $1 billion more for Head Start, doubles funding for community schools to $150 million, and does many other important things. I would urge my colleagues to waive this point of order, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as the other Senator from our small State of 630,000 people, I want to thank Senator Leahy on behalf of all Vermonters and people throughout this country for his 48 years of service here in the U.S. Senate. On a personal note, obviously, Senator Leahy and I have worked together for many, many decades. He was very helpful to me when I was mayor of the city of Burlington. We worked together when I was a member of the House. Obviously, we worked together for Vermont since I have been in the Senate. And I think if you drive around our beautiful State--and we want you all to visit us, maybe not this weekend where there is a snowstorm but come in the spring--you will see many of the impacts Senator Leahy has had on our State, really from one end of the State to the other. But it is not only the impacts he has had on Vermont, it is the impacts he has had on the Nation and, in fact, as Senator Schumer said, on the entire world. As a U.S. Senator, Senator Leahy has been a great chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, dealing with some of the major issues that committee has dealt with over the decades. He has been a great chairman of the Agricultural Committee. And now, as we all know, he has done an outstanding job as chairman of the Appropriations Committee, along with Senator Shelby. In the middle of the night, I gather, they finally finished this omnibus bill, and we thank them very much for that. As I think we have heard, Senator Leahy is known internationally for his efforts to ban the export and the use of land mines. That, in fact, has saved the lives of God knows how many people and prevented the maiming of many, many more. We thank Senator Leahy for that. We thank him for the work that he has accomplished to end the use of these terrible weapons and also his creation of the Leahy War Victims Fund to get relief for those harmed by these terrible weapons. Beyond that, Senator Leahy, very importantly, worked to pass what has become known as the Leahy War, a human rights law to prohibit the U.S. from providing equipment and training for foreign military suspected of gross human rights violation. In that sense, he is standing up for the values of this country. His international accomplishments are impressive, but in Vermont, our constituents know Senator Leahy for the work he has done on the issues that are much closer to home, like his support for agriculture, dairy, and organics. In 1990, as chairman of the Senate Agricultural Committee, Senator Leahy championed the Organics Foods Production Act. At that time, as he indicated, organics was not understood to be what it is today. But Senator Leahy understood that farmers in Vermont and around this country deserve to have standards in place to ensure a fair playing field. As a result of that, the organics industry has exploded. Today, in our rural agricultural State of Vermont, its small farmers struggle to compete against corporate agriculture, organic production, and organic standards have helped many stay afloat to this day, in no small part thanks to Senator Leahy. Beyond organic agriculture, Vermont dairy producers have also benefited from Senator Leahy's efforts to enact a Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact and establish the Milk Income Loss compensation bargain. All of us from agricultural States know how important it is to maintain family-based agriculture, and Senator Leahy has certainly been a leader on that. Just as important as his work on agricultural issues for Vermont has been Senator Leahy's work supporting Vermont's rural landscape and our beautiful environment. Senator Leahy has fought to protect wildlife refuges across the United States, including the Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge in Vermont, as well as national forest land, like Green Mountain National Forest. But perhaps the environmental work Senator Leahy is best known for in Vermont is his work as a champion of our beautiful Lake Champlain, which we consider one of the Great Lakes. Is that right, Senator Leahy? Through his work on the Appropriations Committee, Senator Leahy has secured funding for cleaning up and protecting Lake Champlain, as well as to study the lake to learn more about how to protect it for our kids and future generations. Throughout these last 48 years, Senator Leahy has had dozens of staff who have worked by his side, both in Vermont and in Washington, who have been dedicated to all of the many efforts he has championed. All of us who have served in the Senate know that we cannot do this work alone, and Senator Leahy's staff deserves the sincere thanks of all of us--including all Vermonters--for their hard work and dedication over these last many years. But as we have heard this morning, staff may come and go, but there has been one person by Senator Leahy's side every single day of his 48 years of service to Vermont, and that is his wife Marcelle. And I have had the privilege of knowing Marcelle for many of those 48 years, and Jane and I wish Marcelle and Pat the very best on their retirement years. While much has been said today about Senator Leahy's time in the Senate, those words cannot be said without adding the important role that Marcelle has played in his life. This year, the Senator and Marcelle celebrated their 60th wedding anniversary, and I can tell you that, just as all Vermonters know the name Pat Leahy, they also know Marcelle. And if there is such a thing as being ``First Lady of Vermont,'' Marcelle, that is you. So thank you very much for all you have done for our State. So with that, let me once again thank Senator Leahy so much for his years of service to Vermont and the country. We wish him and Marcelle the very best in the future.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask that the previous order with respect to the motion to discharge be vitiated.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I further ask that I be allowed to speak for up to 30 minutes, Senator Risch for up to 5 minutes, and Senator Menendez for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. SANDERS

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

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, this is an issue that I and a number of us Democrats and Republicans, progressives and conservatives, have been working on for a number of years. I was disappointed that the Biden administration has announced its opposition to the resolution I am bringing forth, but we have been in communication with the administration all day, and just a few minutes ago, we have received a commitment from them that they will work with us to end the war in Yemen and bring peace to that very troubled region. I don't know if the administration and those of us who want to go forward will end up being in agreement. If not, I assure the Members that we will be back with a resolution in the very near future, as soon as we can, because this is an issue that I and many of us feel passionately about. To the Members, I am not going to ask for a vote tonight, but I do want to express my concerns, deep concerns, about what is going on in that region. In 2014, with the active support of the U.S. military, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and a coalition of other countries intervened in the civil war in Yemen. The result of that intervention was the creation of the worst humanitarian crisis on the planet, and it really is almost hard to imagine what is going on in that impoverished country. Since the war began in 2015, over 377,000 people have been killed, including at least 130,000 people who have died from indirect causes like food insecurity and lack of healthcare as a direct result of the Saudi blockade of Yemen and the humanitarian obstruction by warring parties. Today, nearly 25 million Yemenis are in need of humanitarian assistance, 5 million are at risk of famine, and over a million are affected by cholera. According to UNICEF, by the end of this calendar year, nearly 18 million people, including over 9 million children, will lack access to safe water, sanitation, and hygiene services in Yemen, leading to regular outbreaks of preventable diseases like cholera, measles, and diphtheria. The 8-year war in Yemen has internally displaced over 4 million people, making Yemen home to one of the largest internal displacement crises in the world, with women and children bearing the brunt of that burden. According to the United Nations Population Fund, nearly 77 percent-- or 3 million--of those displaced in Yemen are women and children. Every 2 hours, a Yemeni woman dies during childbirth, an almost entirely preventable crisis. Furthermore, in Yemen today, more than a million pregnant and breastfeeding women are acutely malnourished, a number we may see double with rising food insecurity. According to the international relief organization Oxfam, the threat of famine is very serious. Despite ongoing humanitarian assistance, over 17 million people in Yemen remain food insecure, a number set to rise to 19 million by the end of this year. In Yemen today, over a million pregnant or breastfeeding women and over 2 million children under 5 require treatment for acute malnutrition--acute malnutrition. And if you think the suffering in that country cannot get any worse, unfortunately, you would be dead wrong. The United Nations reports that, if the conflict doesn't stop, the war in Yemen could lead to the deaths of 1.3 million people by the year 2030. And let us be crystal clear: The initiators of this terrible war in Yemen were Saudi Arabia, one of the very most dangerous countries on the face of this Earth. Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship that is doing everything that it can to crush democracy in its own country. It is a brutal regime that treats women as third-class citizens and tortures civilians. It is one of the worst human rights violators in the world. Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince, as I think many of us are familiar with, Muhammad bin Salman, ordered the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, a Washington Post columnist and American resident, with a bone saw in 2018. And there is little doubt about that. In a blatant attempt to jack up gas prices in the United States and harm our economy, Saudi Arabia agreed to partner with Vladimir Putin in the murderous war against the people of Ukraine. At a time when children in Yemen are facing mass starvation, when that impoverished country's healthcare system is collapsing, Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman bought himself a $500 million yacht, a $300 million French chateau, and a $450 million Leonardo da Vinci painting. And he can afford to do this because their family is worth some $1.4 trillion, one of the wealthiest, if not the wealthiest, families in the entire world. According to Freedom House, a respected human rights organization: Saudi Arabia's absolute monarchy restricts almost all political rights and civil liberties. No officials at the national level are elected. The regime relies on pervasive surveillance, the criminalization of dissent, appeals to sectarianism and ethnicity, and public spending supported by oil revenues to maintain power. Women and religious minorities face extensive discrimination in law and in practice. According to Human Rights Watch, under the government headed by Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman, ``Saudi Arabia has experienced the worst period of repression in its modern history.'' Human Rights Watch has reported that ``accounts have emerged of alleged torture of high- profile political detainees in Saudi prisons,'' including Saudi women's rights activists and others. The alleged torture included electric shocks, beatings, whippings, and sexual harassment. Enough is enough. We must fundamentally reassess our relationship with the murderous regime of Saudi Arabia. We can and we must begin to do that by ending our support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen, and that is why I have introduced a resolution that requires the United States to withdraw its forces from and involvement in the Saudi-led war in Yemen, which has not been authorized by the U.S. Congress. This obviously is not a radical idea. In 2019, the Senate passed a similar resolution by a vote of 54 to 46. Every Democrat who was present voted for it, along with seven Republicans. The House of Representatives passed that same resolution by a vote of 247 to 175. Every Democrat in the House who was present voted for it, along with 16 Republicans. Sadly, then-President Trump vetoed it, and it did not become law. It is long past time that we take a very hard look at our relationship with Saudi Arabia, a country whose government represents the very opposite of what we profess to believe in. Last year, President Biden and his administration did the right thing when it announced it would end U.S. support for offensive military operations led by Saudi Arabia in Yemen and named a special envoy to help bring this conflict to an end. The good news is that, as a result of these efforts--I think as a result of the resolution passed in the House and the Senate--the Saudis have paused their deadly airstrikes in Yemen, and, in April, the United Nations brokered a truce between the warring factions. The bad news is that this truce expired over 2 months ago, and there is now evidence that violence in Yemen is beginning to escalate. Now, I understand that the administration is opposed to this resolution, and let me briefly respond to some of their concerns. First, the administration claims that this resolution is unnecessary because Saudi Arabia has paused its bombing campaign in Yemen. Well, Mr. President, that may be true, but--let's be clear--there is no guarantee that Saudi Arabia will not start bombing Yemen tomorrow, relying on U.S. military support and U.S.-manufactured weapons to carry out those airstrikes, which in the past have done incalculable harm to the people of Yemen. In fact, a previously announced end to U.S. offensive support did not prevent devastating and indiscriminate Saudi airstrikes in Yemen, which occurred as late as March 2022. Passing this legislation would allow Congress to play a constructive role in the negotiation of an extension of the truce and a long-term and lasting peace. The resolution that we are debating today--we are discussing right now--will help ensure that Saudi airstrikes do not resume. Further, while it is true that the Saudi blockade is not as severe as it has been in the past, vital commodities like fuel and medicine are still in short supply; and Saudi Arabia, to this day, still has imposed restrictions on nearly all commercial imports into Yemen, including fuel. And Saudi Arabia still has control over Yemeni airspace, which has prevented thousands of patients with medical emergencies from leaving the capital of Sana'a, according to the Quincy Institute. This legislation that I have brought forward simply codifies what President Biden has already pledged to do by ending U.S. military assistance to the Saudi-led coalition's war in Yemen. Specifically, this resolution would achieve three important goals: First, it would end U.S. intelligence sharing for the purpose of enabling offensive, Saudi-led coalition strikes inside Yemen. Second, it would end U.S. logistical support for offensive, Saudi-led coalition strikes, including the provision of maintenance and spare parts to coalition members flying warplanes. Finally, it would prohibit U.S. military personnel from being assigned to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of or accompany Saudi-led coalition forces engaged in hostilities without specific statutory authorization from the Congress. Let us be clear. This is a narrowly targeted resolution that only affects Saudi Arabia's offensive operations in Yemen. This resolution would still allow for U.S. military support to be used to protect the territorial integrity of Saudi Arabia. In other words, nothing in this legislation prevents the United States from helping Saudi Arabia defend itself against attacks originating from Yemen. Further, this resolution would not affect America's support for Ukraine's self-defense, as some opponents of this legislation have claimed. That is why I am proud to be joined on this resolution by some of the staunchest defenders of Ukrainian sovereignty and U.S. national security interests, who, like me, are outraged by Saudi Arabia's collaboration with Russia and open support of illegal wars of aggression. They include Senator Durbin, Senator Blumenthal, Senator Peters, Senator Warren, Senator Markey, and a number of others who support this resolution. Passing this War Powers Resolution will send a very powerful message to Saudi Arabia that the war in Yemen must finally come to an end. There must be a peaceful resolution to this horrific conflict. Passing this resolution will also send a message to Saudi Arabia that its partnership with Russia, with respect to the war in Ukraine, is unacceptable. In October, after Saudi Arabia agreed to cut oil production, the Biden administration recognized the need to work with Congress to reexamine the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the United States. President Biden said he wanted action from Congress. This resolution is a narrowly tailored response that will help achieve that objective. In October, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Menendez, said: The United States must immediately freeze all aspects of our cooperation with Saudi Arabia, including any arms sales and security cooperation beyond what is absolutely necessary to defend U.S. personnel and interests. He continued: As Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I will not green-light any cooperation with Riyadh until the Kingdom reassesses its position with respect to the war in Ukraine. Enough is enough. I agree with that, and this resolution is our opportunity to send a powerful message to Saudi Arabia that Congress is, in fact, reexamining our relationship with that country; it is an attempt to defend the Constitution of the United States, which gives the power of making war to Congress, not to the President; and it is an effort to end our complicity in this horrendously bloody and horrible conflict. Congress has a narrow window now to do something important. Enacting the War Powers Resolution will send a powerful message to the Saudis and to the Houthis that the United States will not be a party to this war and that the warring factions must find a sustainable peace solution. The vote on this resolution is very important. And let me repeat: We, just a few minutes before I got to the floor, received word from the administration that they wanted to work with us in crafting language that would be mutually acceptable, and we are going to give them that opportunity. Whether we succeed or not, I don't know. And let me repeat: If we do not succeed, I will be back with many of my colleagues to bring forth this resolution, something that is very important. What this resolution, finally, is about is that it says that the people of Yemen need more humanitarian assistance, not more bombs. It is a vote that says that the Senate believes in the Constitution of our country, which makes it clear that the Congress, not the President, determines whether and when the United States goes to war. It is a vote that tells Saudi Arabia that we will not continue to give it a blank check with respect to war and foreign intervention. And it is a vote that says: No, we will not stand with Saudi Arabia while it is actively supporting Vladimir Putin's horrific war of aggression against the people of Ukraine. So, once again, where we are at is, I am not going to ask for a vote tonight. I look forward to working with the administration, which was opposed to this resolution, to see if we can come up with something that is strong, that is effective. And if we do not, I will be back. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have an additional 10 minutes.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, we are soon to be voting on the situation with the rail industry, which is an enormously important issue, not only for the 125,000 rail workers involved but for the entire country, because rail plays an enormous role in transporting very, very basic and important goods that all of us depend upon. It becomes a health issue, et cetera, et cetera. But I want to take a half a moment to put this rail issue into a broader context and then get back to the rail situation. And that is, what polls are telling us and what I think each and every Member of the Senate sees and hears from his or her constituents is, people in this country are increasingly disgusted with the kind of selfishness and corporate greed that we are seeing. Now, we don't talk about it much, and the media doesn't talk about it much, but there is more income and wealth inequality in America today than we have seen in at least 100 years. And the gap between the very, very rich and the middle class and everybody else is growing wider and wider. And today, in the midst of this inflationary period, when so many of our workers are struggling to put food on the table, when they are falling behind economically, the billionaire class has literally never had it so good. These guys don't know what to do with their money. You don't know how many mansions they can own, how many islands they can have. Some of them are building spaceships to take them to Mars. They don't know what to do with their many billions of dollars. And yet, as we speak, 85 million Americans can't afford health insurance; 60,000 a year die because they don't get to a doctor on time; 45 million people dealing with student debt; families can't afford childcare for their kids. We have 600,000 people who are homeless in America, including people a few blocks away from the U.S. Capitol. The rich are getting much richer. The middle class continues to shrink. And if you want to talk about the excesses of corporate greed, then you have got to talk about the rail industry and what is going on here right now. Now, everybody understands that businesses sometimes have trouble. They lose money. They are in trouble. They go to their workers and say: Hey, things are tough, we all have to cut back. We understand that. That is not the case today with the rail industry. For the rail industry, business has never been better, recordbreaking profits. This year alone, for the first three quarters, their profits are up by over $21 billion. They have so much money that they are able to give over $25 billion in stock buybacks and in dividends. That is what is going on with the rail industry. One of the CEOs in the rail industry makes $20 million a year. Another guy makes $14 million a year. They are doing phenomenally well. But what is also going on in the rail industry is that over the last 6 years, they have cut back on their workforce by 30 percent, which means that workers in the rail industry are asked to do more with less support. So for 3\1/2\ years, there have been negotiations between the industry and the 12 rail unions. And the end result of this is that the workers received a 24-percent increase in their wages. It sounds like a lot of money. That is for a 5-year period. They have not received a pay increase in the last 3 years. And if you average it out, that pay increase is less than inflation to date. It is not a great wage increase. It is not terrible, but it is not a great wage increase. I have heard talk about healthcare. They wanted healthcare. They didn't win on healthcare. What the industry, unbelievably, wanted to do, despite recordbreaking profits, is ask workers to pay more for their health insurance. That was beaten back. So they remain at a status quo. Not a victory, but not a defeat. But most egregiously, if you talk to the workers as I have--what is the issue? It is not wages. It is not benefits. Their issue is paid sick leave. They are one of the few industries in America today that have zero sick paid leave. Unbelievably, if a worker today on the rail industry gets sick, that worker gets a mark for missing work and can and--in some cases--will be fired. Can you imagine that? Here in Congress, we all--conservatives, progressives--we have staff--all of us, and people get sick. Of course, they take time off. You don't fire them. You don't give them marks. You don't punish them because they got sick. This is America, 2022. You don't treat people--especially in the rail industry, who are doing dangerous, difficult work. Now, I have to be honest. I know that the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Transportation have worked really hard on this issue. But I need to hear from them the willingness, which I think there will be, to demand that the industry do what has to be done, and that is to provide paid sick leave for their workers. I will have an amendment. I assume that is coming up in a few moments. This is not a radical idea. It is a very conservative idea. And it says, if you work in the rail industry, you will get 7 paid sick days. And I would hope that we would have strong support and the 60 votes that we need to pass this very, very important amendment that is wanted by every one of the rail unions and, I think, is overwhelmingly supported by the American people. With that, I yield all time back. Vote on Amendment No. 6503 I ask for the yeas and nays.