Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I will object to the unanimous consent request by Senator Scott and offer my own resolution. Unlike Senator Scott's resolution, mine is short and to the point, and I think it expresses the feelings of the overwhelming majority of people in our country and, in fact, throughout the world. This is what our resolution says: Whereas every Palestinian life matters; and Whereas every Israeli life matters: Now, therefore be it resolved that the Senate urges an immediate cease-fire to prevent any further loss of life; and further escalation of conflict in Israel and the Palestinian territories, and supports diplomatic efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, to uphold international law and to protect the human rights of Israelis and Palestinians. I would like to thank my colleagues Senator Warren, Senator Van Hollen, Senator Kaine, Senator Carper, Senator Heinrich, Senator Murphy, Senator Merkley, Senator Ossoff, Senator Leahy, and Senator Markey for cosponsoring this resolution. I would also like to point out that those of us who are supporting an immediate cease-fire are certainly not alone. We join with nearly unanimous calls from the European Union, with United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres, with Pope Francis, and with many others. In other words, all over the world people are seeing the terrible tragedy that is taking place in the region, and they want an end to it as quickly as possible through a cease-fire. Now, I happened to have read Senator Scott's resolution, and I was particularly struck by one sentence in it on page 2. What it says: The Senate mourns the loss of innocent life caused by Hamas' rocket attacks. That is on page 2. Now, I certainly agree with that, and I think every Member of Congress agrees with that. The loss of 12 innocent Israeli lives is, in fact, a tragedy. But what about the loss of 227 Palestinian lives, including 64 children and 38 women? Does Senator Scott not believe that the loss of those Palestinian lives, 64 children and 38 women, among others, is not a tragedy? I believe that we should be mourning the loss of Israeli life, but we should also be mourning the loss of Palestinian lives or perhaps some people think that Palestinian lives don't matter. I would hope not. And let us be very clear that when we talk about the tragedy that is now taking place in Gaza, what we are talking about is not only the terrible loss of life. As I hope most people know, Gaza, before this war, was an extremely poor and desperate community, and the latest Israeli bombardment has only made a bad situation much, much worse. Let us remember, Gaza has been under a blockade since 2007, imposed by Israel and Egypt. Most people are unable to leave. Basic necessities are extremely hard to obtain. Gaza is the home to about 2 million inhabitants. Its population density is among the highest in the world--just a huge amount of people squeezed into a very small area. More than half of the population of Gaza, some 56 percent, live below the poverty line. Seventy percent of the population is receiving aid, according to estimates by the United Nations. Food rations constitute most of that aid. Unemployment in Gaza is around 45 percent; 48 percent of the population is under the age of 18; and 70 percent--let me repeat--70 percent of the young people in Gaza are unemployed, with no hope for the future. And because of this war, the bombardment from Israeli planes, the situation has gotten even worse. Today's New York Times reports that the Israeli bombardment has--this is from the New York Times--``damaged 17 hospitals and clinics in Gaza.'' Got that? Seventeen hospitals and clinics have been damaged. The bombardment has ``wrecked its only coronavirus test laboratory, sent fetid wastewater into its streets and broken water pipes serving at least 800,000 people. Sewage systems inside Gaza have been destroyed. A desalination plant that helped provide fresh water to [a quarter of a million] people in the territory is offline. Dozens of schools have been damaged or closed, forcing some 600,000 students to miss classes. Some 72,000 Gazans have been forced to flee their homes.'' That is from the New York Times this morning. Perhaps the situation has gotten even worse. I don't know. I want everybody to think for a moment what it means to be living in a very small territory, with dozens and dozens of planes attacking and bombing. What does it mean, in particular, to the children of Gaza? Jess Ghannam, a professor of psychiatry at the University of California San Francisco who specializes in the psychological effects of armed conflict on children, told USA Today: [What] children in Gaza are exposed to on a regular basis exceeds anything, anything that any children anywhere else in the world experience. There's basically no place to go for these children. They are unable to escape. When you put people under this sort of continued, intense pressure, with no hope for a better future, you cannot be surprised when violence erupts. Indeed, 3 years ago, in May of 2018, I wrote a letter, with 12 of my colleagues, urging the Trump administration to do more to alleviate the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza. In that letter, we cited Israeli defense officials--Israeli defense officials--who were warning that if the crisis was not addressed, it could lead to yet another eruption of violence. Why didn't we take notice then? And when this latest war ends, will the United States once again turn away? Will we consign those children, once again, to the horrible conditions they are forced to live under today? And I would hope that my colleagues appreciate that we must not do that. Senator Scott's resolution says a lot about Hamas terrorists in Gaza. And let us be clear, Hamas is a terrorist organization. It is a corrupt organization, and it is a repressive organization. But here is the irony: It is resolutions like Senator Scott's that help Hamas. Hamas would be overjoyed if Senator Scott's resolution were to pass. Now, why is that? Let us understand that one of Hamas's goals is to show Palestinians that they represent the real resistance to the occupation. Senator Scott's resolution would help them do just that. By making this all about Hamas, Hamas, Hamas, Senator Scott is effectively echoing Hamas's own argument that Hamas is the true face of Palestinians' struggle, and I reject that, because, my friends, day after day, year after year, decade after decade, nonviolent Palestinian activists struggle against the daily violence and harassment of occupation--violence and harassment subsidized, by the way, with billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars. Let us be very clear. No one is arguing that Israel or any government does not have the right to self-defense and the responsibility to protect its people. We should understand that, while Hamas's firing rockets into Israeli communities is absolutely unacceptable, today's conflict did not begin with those rockets. It goes much, much deeper. For years we have seen a deepening Israeli occupation in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and a perpetual blockade on Gaza, all of which makes life increasingly unbearable for the Palestinian people. The truth is that these policies, like this current war, will continue to strengthen--to strengthen--extremists on both sides, including Hamas. If you want to strengthen Hamas, support this war. We, Congress, must understand that in more than a decade of his rightwing rule in Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu has cultivated an increasingly intolerant and authoritarian-type of racist nationalism. In his frantic effort to stay in power and avoid prosecution for corruption, Netanyahu has legitimized extremist forces, such as the Jewish Power party, by bringing them into the government. Moreover, we should understand that these dangerous trends are not unique to Israel. What was going on and what is going on in Israel, in my view, is a political tragedy, but it is part of a trend that is going on around the world, including here in the United States, where we are seeing the rise of authoritarian nationalist movements. These movements exploit ethnic and racial hatreds in order to build power for a corrupt few, rather than prosperity, justice, and peace for the many. For the last 4 years, these movements have had a friend in the Trump White House, and on January 6, those forces attacked this very Chamber. It is no accident that the only European Union country that did not join the nearly unanimous statement yesterday calling for a cease-fire was Hungary. Hungary did not join the rest of the European Union, and Hungary, of course, is led by the ethno-nationalist authoritarian Viktor Orban, a strong ally of both Netanyahu and Donald Trump. Now, some may choose to be on that side, but that is not the side I choose to be on. We must be on the side of those who want to build a society based on real security and political equality and based upon the principles of economic justice, racial justice, political justice, social justice, and environmental justice. I believe we must stand in solidarity with those Palestinians and Israelis working to build a future of equality and peaceful coexistence and not with the intolerant extremists on either side, who wish to destroy that future. In this moment of crisis, the United States should be urging an immediate cease-fire. My colleagues, I strongly believe that the United States has a major role to play in helping the world build a more peaceful and prosperous future, one in which human rights are upheld and the life of every human being is valued. We should be leading the world in combating the existential threat of climate change. We should be leading the world in making sure that every person on Earth, no matter what country he or she lives in, receives a vaccine to protect them from the COVID-19 virus, and, yes, we should lead the world in attempting to bring the Israeli people and the Palestinian people together. If the United States is going to be a credible voice on human rights on the global stage, we must recognize that Palestinian rights matter. Palestinian lives matter. Madam President, I object to the Scott resolution.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 225, submitted earlier today; further, that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I find this resolution somewhat odd, if I may say so. There are enormous crises facing our country and the world. The fact that we are spending time on the floor of the Senate to condemn a proposition or a theory does not seem to me to be the best way to be spending our time. And the implication--and I think the Senator from Indiana made this implication--that the President of the United States is objecting to raising taxes is simply not factual. The President has come forward with some very specific tax proposals, but his proposals are not meeting much support on the other side of the aisle because he is saying that he doesn't want to raise taxes on anybody in this country earning less than $400,000 a year, but he does want to raise taxes on some of the wealthiest people in America and some of the largest corporations that today may be paying zero in Federal income tax. And he shares a concern that many of us share and that Warren Buffet reminds us of, that the effective tax rate for the billionaire class is actually lower than it is for working families. The President's view, which I share, is that this Congress must address the enormous crises facing working families, and that is rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, making sure that our kids have quality childcare and pre-K, that we have to address the existential threat of climate change, and we have to address many of the other problems facing working families, and one way we do that is demanding that the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes. When we talk about resolutions condemning something--I am not, again, sure why we are condemning a particular theory--we might be today thinking about condemning the actions of the Republican Party in the House of Representatives today. They got rid of a Member of their leadership for the crime of suggesting that that party should not maintain a big lie implying that Donald Trump won the election. Shall we condemn that? I think that is worth condemning. I think we might want to condemn the fact that we have more income and wealth inequality today in America than at any time since the 1920s. Let's condemn that. Maybe we want to condemn the fact that every scientist who has studied the issue tells us that climate change is a threat to our Nation and the world, and we have done virtually nothing to lead the world in addressing climate change. Let's condemn that inaction. Let's condemn the fact that in the richest country in the history of the world, we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost any major country on Earth. How about condemning that? Let's condemn the fact, maybe, that half of our people are living paycheck to paycheck. Let's condemn the fact that we live in a country which has institutional racism. We can go on and on. There are a lot of things to condemn, but I don't know that it is in the best interest of the U.S. Senate to be condemning a particular economic theory. You don't like it, argue against it. That is fine. But I don't know that we have to spend our time condemning it. So with that, I object.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, if I could respond?

Mr. SANDERS. I am not sure--the Senator from Indiana suggested a moment ago that the President was not interested in raising taxes, and, of course, he has a very specific proposal to raise taxes. And I would suggest to my colleague from Indiana that if we want to talk about the burden on our kids and on our grandchildren as a result of the national debt, maybe we should also be discussing the fact that, under the last administration, a massive tax break was given to the very wealthiest people in this country and the largest corporations. We were told that that tax plan would pay for itself, but, in fact, it will result in almost $2 trillion in additional national debt, and virtually all of those benefits went to the people on top. So all that I am saying is, we can argue taxation; we can argue economic policy; we can argue why we are the only major country on Earth not to guarantee healthcare to all people; we can argue why we are paying, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs; we can argue why we have a political system that allows billionaires to buy elections--a lot of things that we could be talking about, but I am not sure that it is in the best interest of the Senate to be condemning a particular economic idea that some economists have brought up.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SANDERS. I know of no further debate on the Stroman nomination.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to recognize the extraordinary work of Vermont's Meals on Wheels Programs. Each March, we celebrate March for Meals to draw attention to the incredible work of Meals on Wheel throughout the country, including in my home State of Vermont. All across our State, hundreds of volunteers regularly deliver freshly cooked, nutritious meals to thousands of older people in their homes, many of whom otherwise might not have enough to eat. These volunteers play a critically important role in helping ensure that older Vermonters have access to adequate nutrition. In and of itself, that is no small matter. In a typical year, Meals on Wheels volunteers do so much more than delivering meals. These volunteers provide critical social interaction for the people they visit, which goes a long way to combat the effects of isolation that many Vermonters face, especially in rural areas. Without this social interaction, seniors are more likely to have feelings of loneliness and depression, which puts them at higher risk for dementia, chronic disease, falls, and hospitalization. Their regular visits serve another purpose as well. The volunteers know each person they visit and recognize immediately if something does not seem right. It is no exaggeration to say that volunteers have literally saved Vermonters' lives by following up when no one answers the door, taking the time to discover that someone had fallen and been injured. During the COVID-19 pandemic, volunteers--both new and existing-- stepped up to deliver over 1 million meals to over 7,500 Vermonters. This represents a 30-percent increase in the number of meals and almost a 20-percent increase in the number of people receiving meals through this vital Federal program. At a time when so many Vermonters struggled with the dual hardship of loneliness and hunger cause by the COVID-19 pandemic, Meals on Wheels served as a critical lifeline. In addition to the many Meals on Wheels volunteers throughout Vermont, I also want to recognize and thank the caring and dedicated professionals who run Vermont's Meals on Wheel Programs. From the chefs who prepare the nutritious meals with skill and care, to the program staff who ensure that everything runs smoothly, these Vermonters are the backbone of what makes Meals on Wheels the success that it is. In March, when so much of our State shut down due to the pandemic, these dedicated people immediately pivoted to expand Meals on Wheels and ensure that any older Vermonter who wanted a meal could get one. This was particularly important for all those who had previously relied on congregate meal programs, which were unsafe during the pandemic. Together, every single Meals on Wheels volunteer and staff person forms an indispensable link in our social safety net and has my sincere appreciation for their remarkable work. As more and more Vermonters are now vaccinated and the State begins a careful reopening, following the science and ensuring the safety of all our people, I look forward to a day when I and my Vermont staff can once again visit the Meals on Wheels Program and meet the volunteers and recipients in person.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 1868, an act to prevent across-the-board direct spending cuts, which was received from the House and is at the desk. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. SANDERS. I object.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, section 3001 of S. Con. Res. 5, the fiscal year 2021 congressional budget resolution, allows the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to revise the allocations, aggregates, and levels in the budget resolution for legislation considered under the resolution's reconciliation instructions. I find that H.R. 1319, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, as passed by the Senate, meets the conditions found in section 3001 of S. Con. Res. 5. Accordingly, I am revising the allocations for the reconciled committees and other enforceable budgetary levels to account for the budgetary effects of the bill. This adjustment reflects the estimate of the bill provided by the Congressional Budget Office on March 10, 2021. This adjustment supersedes the adjustments I previously made for the processing of S. Amdts. 891 and 1378 to H.R. 1319 on March 5, 2021. I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying tables, which provide details about the adjustments, be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, section 3001 of S. Con. Res. 5, the fiscal year 2021 congressional budget resolution, allows the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to revise the allocations, aggregates, and levels in the budget resolution for legislation considered under the resolution's reconciliation instructions. I find that Senate Amendment No. 1378 fulfills the conditions found in section 3001 of S. Con. Res. 5. Accordingly, I am revising the allocations for the reconciled committees and other enforceable budgetary levels to account for the budgetary effects of the amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying tables, which provide details about the adjustments, be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I rise to offer an amendment to increase the Federal minimum wage from a starvation wage of $7.25 an hour to $15 an hour over a 5-year period. As I think you know, Congress has not raised the minimum wage since 2007. The result of that is that half of our people are now living paycheck to paycheck, and many, in fact, are working for wages that are much too low in order to take care of their families. So, to my mind, the American people in poll after poll and State after State understand that we have to raise that minimum wage to a living wage of 15 bucks an hour. I intend to do everything that I can to make that happen, and I will be offering that amendment this morning. Madam President, before I do that, let me begin my remarks by explaining why this reconciliation bill that we are debating today, the American Rescue Plan, is so enormously important that it must be passed and must be passed as quickly as possible, in my view. This legislation is the most consequential and significant legislation for working families that Congress has debated for many, many decades. Now, why is that? The answer is that, as I think all Americans know, the last year that we have gone through has been, in so many ways, the very worst year in our lifetimes. That is what it has been. The working families of our country today are hurting in a way that they have not hurt since the Great Depression, and they want their government to hear their pain and come to their aid, and that is not too much to ask. There are a lot of folks in this country--there are estimates of maybe 30 to 40 percent of Americans--who have literally given up on democracy. They are moving toward authoritarianism. They are hurting. Their kids are hurting. Their parents are hurting. They look to Washington for help in their democratic society, and they don't see Washington responding. What they see year after year are policies which make the very, very rich richer, which enable large, profitable corporations to not pay a nickel in taxes, but for them, they face eviction; they face hunger; they don't have healthcare; they can't afford to send their kids to college. They are asking: Does anybody-- anybody--in Washington care about their lives? So what today is about, in a very profound way, is whether or not we stand with the working class of this country and say: Yes, we live in a democratic society. We understand what you are going through, and we are going to move as aggressively as we can to respond to your pain and improve your lives. This is not just a healthcare bill. It is not just an economic bill. It is not just an educational bill. It is perhaps more than that. This is a bill which will answer a profound question: Are we living in a democratic society, where the U.S. Congress will respond to the needs of working families rather than just the wealthy and large corporations and their lobbyists? That is what today is about. It is dealing with the pandemic. It is dealing with the economy. It is dealing with education and so much more, but most importantly it is dealing with the issue of whether or not we are hearing the pain that is out there and if we are responding to it. During the last year, as everybody knows, over 500,000 Americans have died of COVID, and millions more have been made ill. Unbelievable. It is unbelievable what we have gone through in terms of this terrible pandemic. COVID has not only caused massive death and illness; it has resulted in a way we have never experienced social isolation. That means, all over this country, we have old people, elderly people, in their homes. They can't interact with their grandchildren, with their own kids, with their friends. You have young people who want to go to school, who want to socialize, who want to date, who want to do things that young people do. They can't do it and have been unable to do it for the last year, and that has resulted in a very sharp increase in mental illness in this country--something, by the way, that this legislation also deals with. Many Americans, young and old and middle- aged, are now dealing with depression, anxiety disorder, addictions. We are seeing the growth of addictions and even suicidal ideation. So this has been just an awful year for people in our country and, in fact, throughout the world. This last year has not only been a public health crisis, as bad as that has been. The pandemic, as we all know, has led to a terrible economic downturn, which has resulted in millions of Americans losing their jobs and their incomes, and it has led to the shutting down of something like one out of four small businesses in this country. That is just an unbelievable number. Go to any town in America, and you will see its Main Street shuttered down. Thriving businesses no longer exist. Real unemployment in this country today is now over 10 percent. Further, countless Americans face the threat of eviction. We have a moratorium on evictions, which is the right thing, but there is going to be a day when that ends. People are saying: I am $5,000, $8,000 in debt. What happens to me when the moratorium ends? How am I going to pay my rent? Am I going to be one of the 500,000 people already sleeping out on the streets? Millions more--and we have seen this in Vermont, and I know the Acting President pro tempore has probably seen it in Minnesota, for it is all over this country--are lining up in their cars for food, and it is something that none of us ever dreamed. It is right in my own community of Burlington, VT--hundreds of people, while in their cars, lining up for food. Many of them, never in a million years, would have dreamed that they would be in that position. Today, the level of hunger in America is at the highest level it has been in decades. Then, on top of all of that, we are in the midst of a pandemic. People are scared to death about coming down with COVID. Yet, because of our dysfunctional healthcare system, we have over 90 million people who are uninsured or underinsured in the midst of a pandemic. It is not only the public health crisis we worry about; it is not only the collapse of our economy that we have to worry about; it is what is happening to our young people because the pandemic has created a massive disruption in our educational system, from childcare through graduate school. The majority of our young people have seen education disrupted. Think about all of the implications of what that means. It is likely that hundreds of colleges in America, which were struggling before the pandemic, will cease to exist. So you have the public health crisis with a half a million people dead, an economic crisis with real unemployment at 10 percent and small businesses going out of business, and an educational crisis. Meanwhile, in the midst of all of that, it is important to note that not everybody in this country is hurting. What we are seeing, in the midst of massive income and wealth inequality, is a moment when, in fact, that gap between the very, very rich and everybody else is growing wider. Incredibly, during this pandemic, over 650 billionaires in America have increased their wealth by more than $1 trillion. The 50--five zero--richest people in America now own more wealth than the bottom half of American society, some 160 million people. So the bottom line here is very simple: In this moment of unprecedented crises, the U.S. Senate must respond to the pain of working families all across this country, and we must respond in an unprecedented way, which is what this legislation is about. Now I want to say a few words about some of what is in this bill. This is a 600-page bill, and I will not read it all again. I think our clerks had enough fun reading it last night, but I do want to summarize some of what is in it. Most importantly, what the American people want is, they want to get back to a normal life. They want their kids to go to school. They want to go to work. They want their businesses open. And what the American Rescue Plan does is enable us to aggressively crush this pandemic and enable the American people to return to their jobs and their schools. It will establish a national emergency program to produce the quantity of vaccines that we need and get them into the arms of our people as quickly as possible. Clearly, we are making progress in that area. More and more people are getting vaccinated. But we still have a lot of work to do, and this legislation will enable us to do that. At a time when so many of our people are hurting, this legislation will allow us to provide $1,400 in direct payment to every working- class person in this country and to their kids, and this is on top of the $600 that we provided last month. So if you are out there and you are a family of four earning less than $150,000 or an individual earning less than $75,000, you are going to get that check for $1,400, and for that family of four, that is $5,600. Now, I know that to some that isn't a whole lot of money. You know, 5,600 bucks ain't that much. But for a family that is struggling right now and can't pay their rent and can't feed their kids, that $5,600 for a family of four could be the difference between desperation and dignity. Further, at a time when so many of our people are unemployed, this Budget Reconciliation Act will provide $400 a week in supplemental unemployment benefits to over 10 million Americans until the end of August. If you are unemployed right now, you are worried--if your unemployment check is your only source of income, you are worried that it is going to cease, well, it is not. This legislation will continue that check coming until the end of August. This legislation understands that we have a childcare crisis in America, and we provide the resources to provide childcare to 875,000 children. And very importantly--we don't talk about this enough--one of the absolute disgraces of our economy right now is the level of childhood poverty in America, which is one of the highest for any major country on Earth. This legislation will go a long way toward cutting childhood poverty. Some studies suggest we are going to cut it in half by expanding the child tax credit from $2,000 to $3,000 and $3,600 for kids under the age of 6. In other words, we are about to cut childhood poverty in half in this country. This legislation, obviously, deals with the horror of so many of our people facing hunger. We put in very substantial amounts of money for nutrition assistance for working families, for kids, for the disabled, and the elderly. This legislation will provide rent relief, utility assistance, and mortgage assistance to millions of tenants and homeowners who are in danger of eviction and foreclosure. This legislation will protect the pensions of many millions of workers who are in danger of seeing their retirement benefits cut by as much as 65 percent. Not only is this $1.9 trillion emergency COVID relief package the right thing to do for people from a moral perspective, it is exactly what the overwhelming majority of the American people want us to do. The American people didn't want us to give tax breaks to billionaires. The American people did not want, as the Republicans fought to do, throw 30 million people off the Affordable Care Act. The American people didn't want that, but that is what the Republicans tried to do under reconciliation. Well, we have a different idea. Yeah, we are going to use reconciliation, which requires only 51 votes. We are going to use it, not for tax breaks for the rich, not to throw people off of healthcare but to provide the help that working-class people need all across this country. Madam President, I am introducing, as I mentioned earlier, legislation--an amendment--today to raise the minimum wage to 15 bucks an hour. Because of an unfortunate and, in my view, misguided decision by the Parliamentarian, this reconciliation bill does not include an increase in the minimum wage to $15 an hour. In my view, it should have, and I think the Parliamentarian was dead wrong. But more importantly, it is an absurd process that we allow an unelected staffer, somebody who works for the Senate, not elected by anybody, to make a decision as to whether 30 million Americans get a pay raise or not. I don't care how the Parliamentarian rules. No Parliamentarian should have that power. If people here want to vote against raising the minimum wage, you have that right. You want to vote for it, and I hope you do, you have that right. But we should not shuffle off that responsibility to an unelected staffer. That is wrong. The amendment I am offering today to raise that minimum wage to $15 an hour is cosponsored by Majority Leader Schumer, and I thank him for his strong support; Senator Patty Murray, who is the chair of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee; Senator Ron Wyden, who is the chair of the Finance Committee; and many others in this Chamber. In fact, this amendment is similar in many ways to the legislation that I have offered which is cosponsored by 38 Members of the Senate. And let us not forget, this legislation was passed in the House, and I want to thank my friends and colleagues in the House Progressive Caucus for their extraordinary leadership on this issue. This amendment is supported by some 300 national organizations, including the AFL-CIO, and virtually all of the major unions in our country. I want to thank in particular the SEIU, one of the great unions in America, who have led this effort for years in terms of the Fight for $15, where people working in McDonald's and Burger King have gone out on strike and said: No, we can't make it on 10 bucks an hour, 11 bucks an hour. I want to thank the SEIU. And this legislation will help workers all across the board, but it will significantly help women who are unfortunately forced into low- income work more than the general population, more than men, and it will disproportionately help African Americans and Latinos, who disproportionately are forced into low-income work. This legislation is supported not only by 300 organizations but by groups like the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. They understand that if we are going improve the standard of living of the African-American community, we ought to raise that minimum wage. It is supported by the National Organization for Women because, again, this raising the minimum wage is a women's issue in a very significant way--not totally, believe me. There are a lot of men out there who are working for 9, 10, 11 bucks an hour, but disproportionately it impacts women. It is supported by Unidos and other Latino organizations. It is supported by the American Association of University Women, supported by Indivisible, Justice for Migrant Women, the National Domestic Workers Alliance, and the National Women's Law Center. Here is the simple truth, and that is that in the richest country in the history of the world, we can no longer tolerate millions of our workers being unable to feed their families because they are working for starvation wages. And that is not what I say, although I do say it; it is what the President of the United States says. He very, very strongly supports raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, and I thank him for his support. You know, when we look at the economy, people look at the stock market, and they look at a whole lot of indices out there, but at the end of the day, we have to ask ourselves: What is going on in the lives of ordinary people? It is not acceptable to me that half of our people are living paycheck to paycheck and millions of people are trying to get by on 9, 10, 11 bucks an hour. And do you know what? You can't do that. You can't do that in Vermont, and you can't do it in California, and you can't do it in Minnesota. You can't do that. Our job is to make sure that we have an economy that works for all and not just for the few, and in order to do that, we are going to have to raise that minimum wage to 15 bucks an hour. Frankly, it is disgraceful that Congress has not passed an increase in the minimum wage since 2007. Think of all the things that have transpired since then. But Congress has not raised the minimum wage since 2007. The reality is that the minimum wage has lost over 30 percent of its purchasing power since 1968. The minimum wage is worth a lot less now than it used to be. When we increase the minimum wage, we will be giving over 32 million Americans a much needed pay raise. Let's be clear. Raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour is an enormously popular idea. More than 60 percent of the American people, in poll after poll, support raising the minimum wage. Since 1998--this is really amazing. You know, I have some friends here who are nervous: Oh, my goodness, how radical can it be? Should we raise the minimum wage? Oh, my God, I am scared of the American Restaurant Association. Well, since 1998, every time a State has had an initiative on the ballot to raise the minimum wage, it has won. In conservative States, in progressive States, put it on the ballot, it wins. Just as one example, in November, just this last November, election time, Joe Biden lost Florida. Donald Trump won Florida by three points. But in that same election, the people of Florida--and I say that to the two Senators from Florida--61 percent of the people in Florida voted to raise the minimum wage to 15 bucks an hour. Florida voted for Donald Trump and voted to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Eight States--over the years, 8 States and over 40 cities have adopted laws to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. It is not a radical idea. And, as you know, over just a few days ago, the House of Representatives did the right thing and voted to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. This is not a radical idea. People want it. States have done it. The House of Representatives has done it, and now it is our turn to do what the American people want. Now, in the last few days, I have heard some concerns from my colleagues about one part of our amendment, and that is the provision to raise the tip wage, which now stands--I want everybody to hear that--the tip wage for waiters and waitresses and all those people who get tips now stands at $2.13 an hour. No, you did not mishear me--$2.13 an hour. That is the Federal minimum wage for waiters and waitresses, for barbers, for hairstylists, for parking attendants, and others. That tip minimum wage has not been raised since 1991, 30 years ago. You think maybe it is time to raise the tip wage from $2.13 an hour, passed 30 years ago? I think so. The proposal in this legislation would raise that tip wage from $2.13 an hour to $14.95 over a 7-year period. Now, time and again, our legislation gets misrepresented. People say: Oh, you are raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour tomorrow. No, we are not. The tip wage is going to take 7 years. For better or worse, that is what it is. Now, the National Restaurant Association, a very powerful lobbying organization, has suggested to Members of Congress that this legislation is opposed by restaurant workers and would be harmful to their interests. This is not true. One Fair Wage, an organization representing service employees, has just delivered to the White House a petition with 140,000 signatures from service workers who are demanding that they receive the same minimum wage as every other worker in their State. Polling among service employees and nonservice employees also supports the reality that Americans want our waiters and waitresses and other service employees to get a fair minimum wage. Now, I heard from some people that those people who are working in the service industry are doing really well, you know, and they don't want an increase in the Federal minimum wage. The tips that they are receiving are covering all of their needs. ``Leave well enough alone,'' they say. Well, today, 70 percent of tipped workers are women who suffer from three times the poverty rate of the rest of the U.S. workforce. They are not doing so well. They use food stamps at double the rate of the general workforce and suffer, by the way, from the highest rates of sexual harassment of any industry because they must tolerate inappropriate customer behavior to get the incomes that they need. Further--and this is important, and I want all of my colleagues to hear this. The idea of moving tipped wages to the same level as the overall minimum wage is not a radical idea. It has been done in State after State. It already exists in seven States in our country, including California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Montana, Alaska, and Minnesota. I should point out that all of those States experienced a growth in the number of small businesses and restaurants after they abolished the tipped minimum wage. And guess what. Waiters and waitresses in these States received more tips, not less, and let's be clear: This pandemic has made a bad situation worse for waiters and waitresses. So, right now, it is absolutely imperative that we raise that minimum wage to a living wage for all of our workers and that we raise the tipped wage as well, which is already law in seven States of the country right now. And I see the Senator from California, Mr. Padilla, and we are delighted that he is joining us. And his State has been one of the leaders in this country in raising the minimum wage, and I would yield the floor to him for his remarks.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, my colleague, the ranking member, Senator Graham, says: Why?--$1.9 trillion, a lot of money. We have spent money over the last year. He is right. Why did we spend the money? The answer is because we are facing a series of unprecedented crises and because the American people are reaching out to us, and they are saying: We are hurting. We are in desperate condition, and we need help from the Federal Government. That is why we are responding. Half a million people have died in this country from COVID, and many millions more have been made ill. And what the long-term impact of those illnesses are nobody at this point knows, but certainly no one will deny that we have a pandemic crisis. Our job is to make sure that we produce the vaccines that the American people desperately need and that we develop an effective mechanism to get it into the arms of the American people. And the truth is--I want to thank the President and his team--we have made progress in the last month, but we still have a long, long way to go. To produce the vaccines, to hire the people who will make sure that people get those vaccines, inject people with the vaccines, it is going to take money. Everybody in this Senate and, I assume, in the country wants our kids to get back to school. Well, you just can't open the schools unless they are safe. Parents are not going to send their kids back to those schools. Teachers are not going to teach. Childcare workers are not going to provide the care that the little ones need. And do you know what? To make those schoolrooms and school buildings safe is going to require resources, but, for the sake of our children, we need to reopen the schools as quickly as possible and do it in a safe way. There is money in this bill--Senator Graham didn't mention it--to make sure that, this coming summer, school districts all over this country have the resources to provide strong, well-staffed summer programs so kids who have missed significant amounts of school can make up some of what they have lost, in addition to getting some recreation and associating with their fellow young people in a way that is safe. There was a poll that came out just last week. It was rather shocking at what it said. It said that 63 percent of the American people are living paycheck to paycheck. Senator Graham says: Why are we spending all of this money? The answer is we don't believe that children in America should go hungry. We don't believe that working people should be evicted from their apartments or lose their homes. We don't believe that, in the midst of a pandemic, people should not be able to afford to go to a doctor. So making sure that people have those direct payments, yeah, we believe in that. We believe that if a family is struggling today through no fault of their own, having lost their income, yeah, we are going to get them a check for 1,400 bucks and a family of four a check for $5,600. There are a lot of people in this country who are doing very well, and they are wondering: What is this big deal about $1,400? That is not a lot of money. You go to a corporate lunch, a bunch of people come in, and they can spend $1,400 on a lunch. But if you are struggling to put food on the table for your kids, that $5,600 for a family of four is life and death; it is dignity or desperation. People are wondering: How am I going to pay the rent that I owe after the rent moratorium, the eviction moratorium expires? How am I going to feed my kids? How am I going to take care of the basic necessities of life? So, yes, we are providing $1,400 per working-class family because that is desperately needed. So when the Senator says: Well, why are we spending all of this money? The answer is because we are living in the most difficult moment in the modern history of this country and, arguably, even a more difficult moment than the Great Depression of the 1930s. People are hurting, and, in a democratic society, government is supposed to respond to the people who sent us here. Now, I know that there is controversy, and Senator Graham raised this issue. Democrats have a majority, a bare majority with the Vice President--51 votes. Why are we not working with our Republican colleagues? We have reached out time and time and time again. The President has reached out: Work with us. But you have got to understand the severity of the crisis, and they have not done this. Using reconciliation, by the way, as the Presiding Officer well knows, is not a new idea. When our Republican colleagues had the majority, they used reconciliation. What did they use it for? They used it for massive tax breaks for the rich. That is what they used reconciliation for. They used reconciliation in order to try to throw 32 million Americans off the Affordable Care Act, something that Trump was fervent about. And by one vote--Senator McCain--we prevented 32 million people from losing their health insurance through the reconciliation process. So our response is, you want unity? Well, do you know what? We probably have more unity today in America around this package than anything that I can remember. The polls vary: 65, 70 percent of the American people understand the crisis we are facing. They want us to respond. This legislation is enormously popular, not just from progressives, not from moderates, but from Republicans, as well, depending on the poll. Forty, fifty percent more Republicans support it because they can't afford to pay their rent. They can't afford to go to the doctor. They understand that government has to help. So the real question here--and President Biden has raised this issue--is, we believe in unity, we believe in bringing people together. How does it happen that when 40, 50 percent of Republicans support this legislation, we can't get one vote from Republicans here? What is going on? And the answer is, I am afraid, that my Republican colleagues have moved so far to the right that they have lost contact with the needs of working families. As I said earlier, this legislation is not just about dealing with the pandemic and healthcare. It is not just dealing with the severe economic downturn that we are facing. It is not just dealing with the disruption of education in America and so much more. It is not just dealing with the worst moment in the modern history of this country. This amendment, this legislation, has everything to do with restoring the confidence of the American people in democracy and in their government. And if we can't respond to the pain of working families today, we don't deserve to be here. Senator Graham said it is going to be a long night. Bring it on. We are ready. But at the end of the day, we are going to do what the American people want, what the American people need. We are going to pass the American Rescue Plan.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. There are some people here who do not understand the crises facing the American people. Sixty-three percent of our people today are living paycheck to paycheck. Every day that we do not vaccinate somebody, there is somebody unnecessarily dying. Our kids are not in school. We are suffering a mental health epidemic. This country is demanding that Congress act now and stand up for the working families of this country. People are tired of obstructionism. They are tired of delays. They want action. Let's do it. I yield. Vote on Motions to Commit

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the technical amendment and in very strong support of the overall bill, the American Rescue Plan. Let's be clear. This bill that we are completing now is the most significant piece of legislation that benefits working people in the modern history of this country. Not only are we going to go forward to crush this pandemic, to rebuild our economy, and to get our kids back to school safely, we are going to do something even more important. We are going to help restore faith in the U.S. Government among the people of our country. The people are hurting, and today we responded.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, in accordance with section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of all applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections of that act and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of amendment No. 972, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, President Biden is right. He canceled the Keystone Pipeline because he is listening to the scientists, and what the scientists are telling us is that we have a small number of years-- 5, 6, 7 years--before this country and this world face irreparable--I underline the word ``irreparable''--harm because of climate change. My friends here talk about creating jobs. Well, we all want to create jobs. Do you know where the jobs are? The jobs are in energy efficiency. The jobs are in sustainable energy. That is where the jobs of the future are. If we love our kids and if we love our grandchildren and if we want to leave them a country and a planet that is healthy and is habitable, yes, this country is going to have to lead the world, work with the world, in transforming our energy system away from fossil fuel. I urge opposition to this amendment. Point of Order Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment is not germane and therefore violates section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, given the unprecedented series of crises this country now faces, the Republican amendment simply does not accomplish what the American people need or what they want. Our bill would substantially expand the child tax credit and cut child poverty in this country in half. Our bill provides a full $1,400 direct payment to every working-class adult and their kids. Under the Collins amendment, if you are a single parent earning $50,000, you get zero, nothing at all, while millions of children would receive just $500 instead of the full $1,400 payment. Our bill provides $130 billion to public schools so our kids can get back to school and get back safely. The Republican alternative does not. Our plan provides $40 billion to colleges and universities, which have already lost 650,000 jobs, and many are----

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that for the duration of the Senate's consideration of H.R. 1319, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, the majority and Republican managers of the bill, while seated or standing at the managers' desks, be permitted to deliver floor remarks, retrieve, review, and edit documents, and send email and other data communications from text displayed on wireless personal digital assistant devices and tablet devices. What do we think about that? All right. I further ask unanimous consent that the use of calculators be permitted on the floor during consideration of the bill; further, that the staff be permitted to make technical and conforming changes to the bill, if necessary, consistent with the amendments adopted during Senate consideration of the bill.

Mr. SANDERS. I yield back my time as well.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, section 3001 of S. Con. Res. 5, the fiscal year 2021 congressional budget resolution, allows the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to revise the allocations, aggregates, and levels in the budget resolution for legislation considered under the resolution's reconciliation instructions. I find that Amendment 891 fulfills the conditions found in section 3001 of S. Con. Res. 5. Accordingly, I am revising the allocations for the reconciled committees and other enforceable budgetary levels to account for the budgetary effects of the amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying tables, which provide details about the adjustments, be printed in the Record.