Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, the American people are increasingly disgusted at the level of corporate greed that we see today. We have more income and wealth inequality in America now than we have had in 100 years--billionaires getting richer, working people falling further and further behind. And there is no clearer example of corporate greed than what we see in the rail industry today. In the last year, that industry earned $21 billion in profits-- recordbreaking--and provided $25 billion in stock buybacks and dividends to their wealthy shareholders. And yet, today, in that industry, workers who do difficult and dangerous work have zero paid sick days. Zero. You get sick, you get a mark against you; couple of marks, you get fired. This cannot and must not happen in America in 2022. This amendment simply says 7 paid sick days for workers in the rail industry, and I hope we can win it. Vote on H. Con. Res. 119 I ask for the yeas and nays, and I yield back all remaining time on both sides.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 753.

Mr. SANDERS. I know of no further debate on the resolution.

Mr. SANDERS. I ask unanimous consent that the preamble be agreed to and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I have risen today to ask unanimous consent for S. Res. 753, expressing the sense of the Senate on the upcoming election in Brazil. This Sunday, October 2, Brazil will hold its Presidential election. According to many polls, it appears that the two major candidates are President Jair Bolsonaro and former President Lula da Silva. If no candidate receives over 50 percent of the vote, there will be a runoff election between the top two candidates on October 30. Madam President, over the past several months, Brazilians from all sectors of society have publicly expressed serious concern about ongoing efforts to undermine democracy in their country, including close to 1 million Brazilians who signed an open letter released on July 26, defending the democratic institutions of Brazil and the rule of law. And there is a very good reason why these people in Brazil signed that letter. And that is that the current President, and candidate for reelection, Mr. Bolsonaro, has made some very provocative statements which suggest that he might not accept the election results if he loses. In other words, he might attempt to destroy Brazilian democracy and remain in power no matter what the people of Brazil determine in a free, fair, and democratic election. And let me just quote some of what Mr. Bolsonaro has been saying over the last several years. Back in September 2018, before he won his election, Bolsonaro stated: I will not accept an election result that is not my own victory. On September 7, 2021, as reported by the Financial Times, Mr. Bolsonaro stated: There are those who think they can take me from the presidency with the mark of a pen. Well, I say to everyone I have only three possible fates: arrest, death or victory. And tell the bastards I'll never be arrested. Only God can take me from the presidency. According to Human Rights Watch, previously, President Bolsonaro had claimed, without providing any evidence, that the last two Presidential elections were fraudulent, including his own election, in which he claimed he got more votes than the final tally showed. But it is not just Bolsonaro's words that should be of concern to those of us who believe in democracy. According to a recent survey by the Federal University of the state of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil is facing a 335-percent increase in violence directed against political leaders in 2022 relative to 2019. Last month, a Workers' Party official was shot dead by a Bolsonaro supporter. Yesterday, Reuters reported that the Federal Police guarding former President Lula da Silva, who is the current frontrunner to unseat Bolsonaro, sent a classified memo to senior colleagues across Brazil calling for backup in order to protect Lula from possible assassination attempts. It is clearly not the business of the United States to determine who the next President of Brazil is or to get involved in Brazil's Presidential elections in any way. That is a decision to be made solely by the people of Brazil through a free and fair election. But it is the business of the United States to make clear to the people of Brazil that our government will not recognize or support a government that comes to power through a military coup or the undermining of a democratic election. In that regard, I have asked to receive unanimous consent today for a resolution that I introduced with Senator Tim Kaine, the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere. That resolution is also cosponsored by Senators Durbin, Leahy, Merkley, Blumenthal, and Warren. I would also like to thank Senator Menendez, the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, for allowing this resolution to come to the floor. This resolution is very simple and straightforward. It does not take sides in Brazil's elections. All it does is express the sense of the U.S. Senate that the U.S. Government should make unequivocally clear that the continuing relationship of the United States and Brazil depends upon the commitment of the Government of Brazil to democracy and human rights. It urges the Biden administration to make clear that the United States will not support any government that comes to power in Brazil through undemocratic means and to ensure that U.S. security assistance to Brazil remains compliant with our laws related to the peaceful and democratic transition of power. This includes longstanding legal restrictions on the provision of security assistance in the event of a military coup. In my view, it is imperative that the U.S. Senate make it clear through this resolution that we support democracy in Brazil. It would be unacceptable for the United States to recognize a government that came to power undemocratically, and it would send a horrific message to the entire world if we did that. It is important for the people of Brazil to know we are on their side, on the side of democracy. This resolution sent that message. And I thank my colleagues for supporting it. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the following nominations en bloc: Calendar Nos. 1056 and 1060; that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise today to say a few words about the state of democracy, both in terms of the upcoming election in Brazil as well as here in the United States. It is no great secret that, today, democracies around the world are under great threat from rightwing extremism. That obviously includes our own, as we all saw tragically on January 6, 2021, when there was an attack on this very building by those seeking to overturn our Presidential election. One of the countries where democracy is now under threat is Brazil, the largest nation in Latin America and one of the largest democratic countries in the world. On October 2, less than 2 weeks from now, Brazil will hold its Presidential election. According to many polls, it appears that the two major candidates in that election are President Jair Bolsonaro and former President Lula da Silva. If no candidate in that election receives over 50 percent of the vote, there will be a runoff election between the top two candidates on October 30. Mr. President, over the past many months, Brazilians from all sectors of society have publicly expressed serious concerns about ongoing efforts in that country to undermine democracy, including close to 1 million Brazilians who signed an open letter released on July 26, 2022, defending the democratic institutions of Brazil and the rule of law. And there is, in fact, a very good reason as to why the people in Brazil are concerned about their democracy, and that is that the current President and candidate for reelection, Jair Bolsonaro, has made some very provocative statements which suggest that he might not accept the election results if he loses. In other words, Bolsonaro might attempt to destroy Brazilian democracy and remain in power no matter what the people of Brazil determine in a free and democratic election. Here are just a few examples of what Mr. Bolsonaro has said over the years. Back in September 2018, before he won his election, Bolsonaro stated: I will not accept an election result that is not my own victory. On September 7, 2021, as reported by the Financial Times, Bolsonaro stated: There are those who think they can take me from the presidency with the mark of a pen. Well, I say to everyone I have only three possible fates: Arrest, death or victory. And tell the bastards I'll never be arrested. Only God can take me from the presidency. According to Human Rights Watch, previously, President Bolsonaro had claimed, without providing any evidence, that the last two Presidential elections were fraudulent, including his own election, in which he claimed he got more votes than the final tally showed. But it is not just Bolsonaro's words that should be of concern to those of us who still believe in democracy. According to a recent survey by the Federal University of the State of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil is experiencing a 335-percent increase in violence directed against political leaders in 2022 relative to 2019. Mr. President, it is obviously not the business of the United States to determine who the next President of Brazil is or to get involved in Brazil's Presidential elections in any way. That is a decision to be made solely by the people of Brazil through a fair and free election. But it is the business of the United States to make clear to the people of Brazil that our government will not recognize or support a government that comes to power through a military coup or the undermining of a democratic election. That is our business. In that regard, Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to support a resolution that I have introduced with Senator Kaine, S. Res. 753. And Senator Kaine, of course, is the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, and that is also cosponsored by Senators Leahy, Merkley, Blumenthal, and Warren. This resolution is very simple and straightforward. It does not take sides in Brazil's election, obviously, and that would be unacceptable. But what it does do is express the sense of the U.S. Senate that the U.S. Government will make it unequivocally clear that the continuing relationship of the United States and Brazil depends upon the commitment of the government of Brazil to democracy and human rights. This resolution urges the Biden administration to make clear that the United States will not support any government that comes to power in Brazil through undemocratic means and to ensure U.S. security assistance to Brazil remains compliant with our laws related to the peaceful and democratic transition of power--in other words, no military aid to a military coup in Brazil. This does not seem to be a complicated or, in my view, controversial piece of legislation. Yet--and I say this with a great deal of sadness, and maybe it tells us the state of democracy in the United States--we have not been able to get one single Republican to cosponsor this very simple, straightforward resolution. Why is that? And the answer is, I would love for my Republican colleagues to explain to me why they cannot support and add their names to a resolution that simply supports Brazil's democracy and the peaceful transfer of power. Obviously, it would be most effective if this resolution had bipartisan support, and I hope that it will. Mr. President, in my view, it is imperative that the U.S. Senate make it clear through this resolution that we support democracy in Brazil. It would be unacceptable to the United States to recognize a government that came to power undemocratically; and, if we did that, it would send a horrific message to the entire world. So it is important for the people of Brazil to know that we are on their side. We are on the side of democracy, and that is what this resolution is about. I ask my colleagues, in a bipartisan way, to support it.

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 Calendar No. 452, H.R. 6899.

Mr. SANDERS. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon table.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Thursday, September 22; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; that upon the conclusion of morning business, the Senate resume the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 484, S. 4822, with the provisions of the previous order in effect; further, that if cloture is not invoked, the Senate proceed to executive session to vote on confirmation of the Bennett nomination; that upon disposition of the Bennett nomination, the Senate resume consideration of the Prabhakar nomination and at 1:45 p.m. vote on confirmation of the nomination; finally, that if any nominations are confirmed during Thursday's session, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. SANDERS. For the information of the Senate, there will be two rollcall votes at 11:30 a.m. and one rollcall vote at 1:45 p.m.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I wish to submit to the Senate a budget scorekeeping report. The report, which covers fiscal year 2022, was prepared by my staff on the Budget Committee and the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 308(b) and in aid of section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended. This information allows the Senate Budget Committee to determine if budgetary points of order lie against pending legislation. The report shows the effect on spending and revenues of congressional action through September 15, 2022, as compared to the levels the Senate agreed to in the budget resolution for fiscal year 2022, S. Con. Res. 14. Since my last scorekeeping report on April 28, seven laws with significant budgetary effects have been signed by the President, and I have revised the levels in the budget resolution two times for legislation. The Democratic staff of the Budget Committee prepared tables 1 and 2. Table 1 compares the mandatory spending of each authorizing committee against the enforceable allocations under section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act. It shows 10 of the 16 authorizing committees are in compliance with their allocations, either because no legislation with significant budgetary costs was enacted or the legislation qualified under the budget resolution for an allocation adjustment. Most of the spending above allowable levels is attributed to either the CHIPS Act of 2022 or the Honoring our PACT Act of 2022. Table 2 shows the Senate pay-as-you-go--PAYGO--scorecard tallying enacted legislation with significant effects on mandatory spending and revenues. The scorecard shows a savings of $4.7 billion in 2022, a deficit of $174 billion over the 2022-2026 period, and a deficit of $528 billion over the 2022-2031 period. When compared to the allowable amounts on the PAYGO scorecard last adjusted on September 12, there is a deficit of $1.3 billion on the scorecard for 2022, $185 billion over the 2022-2026 period, and $667 billion over the 2022-2031 period. In addition to these tables, I am submitting a letter from the Congressional Budget Office with further detail. For fiscal year 2022, current budgetary levels are within allowed amounts. Current law budget authority is $2.6 billion below the maximum allowed in the revised budget resolution, outlays are $17 billion below the allowed maximum, and revenues are $68 million above the allowed minimum. The tables also show that there has been no net change for Social Security. I ask unanimous consent that the letter and accompanying tables from CBO be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I am really delighted that my colleague from Florida is suddenly concerned about transfers of wealth--I really am--because, as he may or may not know, over the last 30 years, there has been a massive transfer of wealth. The problem is, it has gone in the wrong direction. We are talking about the shrinking of the middle class. We are talking about trillions of dollars going to the top 1 percent. And we are ending up in a situation today where you have billionaires and you have large corporations that don't pay a nickel in Federal taxes. I always find it interesting that whenever Congress does something-- ever so rarely--that benefits working people and low-income people, there is an uproar: Oh my God, you are helping young people and working people; you are helping poor people. What a terrible thing to do. But there is massive silence when you give gigantic tax breaks to the 1 percent or large corporations that are now doing phenomenally well. So my colleague from Florida is interested in the transfer of wealth? Let's work together. Let's make sure that the working class in this country--not just the billionaires--get a fair shake. Let's help young people. Let's start canceling the student debt that we should have done years ago.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Would you like to bet on that?

Mr. SANDERS. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. SANDERS. And I will object. Let me thank Senator Burr for actually reading my tweets. Much appreciated. Just a correction of the record. I think Senator Wicker mentioned before that a number of unions had approved this agreement. As I think everybody knows, there cannot be an approval of a union agreement unless the workers themselves vote on it. They have not voted on it. So, in fact, there has been no approval by any union of the agreement. But before I go to the rail situation, I did want to say a few words and put this issue into a broader context, and then I will get to the rail situation. As I think most Americans know, today we have more income and wealth inequality than at any time in the history of our country. People on top are doing phenomenally well while working people are struggling to keep their heads above water. During the pandemic, while essential workers, like those employed at the railroads--while these people put their lives on the line and died by the thousands, the billionaire class--the people on top--saw a $2 trillion increase in their wealth. Workers died by the tens of thousands. People on top became much richer. Further, as healthcare costs soar, we have over 70 million Americans who are either uninsured or underinsured, and, in addition, the United States remains the only major country on Earth not to guarantee paid family and medical leave. That is the broad issue that we have got to look at as we look at the situation in the rail industry. As I understand it, it is not accurate to say that the President of the United States has agreed to what the PEB has come up with. They have come up with a proposal. But right now, as we speak, Labor Secretary Marty Walsh is currently meeting with the rail union's end management in trying to forge an agreement. And I happen to wish them well. And I hope that those meetings lead to an agreement that is fair and that is just. But let us make no mistake about what is happening in the rail industry right now--and I did not hear one word of that from my Republican colleagues--and that is that the rail industry has seen huge profits in recent years and last year alone made a recordbreaking $20 billion in profit. Last year, the rail industry made $20 billion in profit. And let me also mention that the CEOs of many of these rail companies are enjoying huge compensation packages. For example, last year, the CEO of CSX made over 20 million in total compensation while the CEOs of Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern made over $14 million each in total compensation. In other words, what is happening in the rail industry is what is happening all over this country. Corporate profits are soaring, and CEOs are making incredibly large compensation packages. I would also add that the parent company of BNSF--one of the largest freight rail companies in America--is Berkshire Hathaway, owned by Warren Buffett. Mr. Buffett is the fourth wealthiest man in America, worth nearly $100 billion. During the pandemic, as railworkers risked their lives to keep the economy going, Mr. Buffett became $33 billion richer. In the midst of all of those profit increases for the industry, in the midst of huge compensation packages for the CEOs of the industry, in the midst of increased wealth for those who own these companies, what is going on for the workers? I think that is a fair question to ask, if we are in the midst of negotiations. What is going on for the workers? How are they doing? It turns out that the key issue in the current negotiations is not about salaries. Apparently, there is an agreement on that. The key issue that is being contested is about the working conditions in the industry which are absolutely unacceptable and are almost beyond belief. Right now, if you work in the freight rail industry--one of the most grueling and dangerous jobs in America--you are entitled to a grand total of zero sick days. In case you missed it, let me repeat it: You are entitled to zero sick days. What that means is that if you as a worker get sick, if your child gets sick, if your spouse gets sick and you need to take time off of work, not only will you not get paid, you actually could get fired. And that is precisely what is happening today in the rail industry. How crazy is that? Let me remind you of what you undoubtedly know, that hundreds of Americans are still dying every day from COVID and tens of thousands are being hospitalized as a result of this deadly virus. What the freight rail industry is saying to its workers is this: It doesn't matter if you have COVID. It doesn't matter if you are lying in a hospital bed because of a medical emergency. It doesn't matter if your wife just gave birth to your child. It doesn't matter. If you do not come into work, no matter what the reason, we in the industry, we the bosses, have the right to fire you. Really? Do these conditions really exist in the United States of America, the wealthiest country on Earth in the year 2022? I do wonder if the CEO of the railroad or other top executives at that railroad--I wonder if they would get fired if they got sick or if they had a medical emergency in their families. I doubt very much that they would get fired. Further, I should add, that quite sensibly the Federal Government guarantees 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave to its workers. That is what we do as a Federal Government. So if you are an employee at the Department of Transportation in the United States, sitting behind a desk, you are, appropriately--I believe in this very much--guaranteed 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave. That is if you work at the Department of Transportation. But if you are an engineer running a train with tons of freight behind you--a very dangerous job--you get zero sick leave. Now, that may make sense to somebody, but it doesn't make sense to me. As a result of this reactionary policy of denying workers sick time, rail conductors, engineers, and other rail employees are coming into work sick and exhausted, which is a danger not only to themselves but to their coworkers and everyone else who is around them. As part of the contract negotiations, the railworkers are asking for 15 paid sick days. This is not a radical idea. We are the only major country on Earth that does not guarantee paid sick days. In Germany, workers are entitled to 84 weeks of paid sick leave at 70 percent of their salary. In Norway, workers are entitled to 1 year of paid sick leave at 100 percent of their salary. In the UK, workers are entitled up to 28 weeks of paid sick leave. The railworkers in the United States are not asking for 1 year of paid sick leave. They are not asking for 6 months of paid sick leave. They are asking for 15 days--15 days. The rail industry has said, as I understand it, that they just cannot afford to do that, just don't have the money. They say it would cost too much money to provide their workers with any paid sick days. They just can't afford to do it. Well, let's see. They made over $20 billion in profits last year, and they provide their CEOs with huge compensation packages. And here is something else that everyone should know who is getting involved in this issue: Last year, the rail industry spent over $18 billion, not to improve rail safety, not to address the supply chain crisis in America, but to buy back its own stock and hand out huge dividends to its wealthy stockholders. In fact, since 2010, the rail industry has spent over $183 billion on stock buybacks and dividends. So here is where we are. It turns out that guaranteeing 15 paid sick days to rail workers would cost the industry a grand total of $688 million a year. That is less than 3.5 percent of their annual profits. It seems to me if four major rail carriers can afford to spend over $18 billion a year on stock buybacks and dividends, please, please don't tell me they cannot afford to guarantee 15 paid sick days to their workers and allow these workers to have a reasonable quality of life, which they don't enjoy today. If the Burr-Wicker resolution passed, railworkers would be entitled to zero paid sick days and zero unpaid sick days. That is clearly unacceptable. The outrage over the lack of paid sick leave is not the only issue being negotiated. The railworkers of this country are sick and tired of unreliable scheduling, which is having a horrendous impact on their personal and family lives. In America today, railworkers are on call for up to 14 consecutive days, 12 hours a day. In fact, it is not uncommon for many railworkers to be on call virtually 24 hours a day with the requirement to report to work within 90 minutes for shifts that can last nearly 80 hours. My office has heard from railworkers who received calls from management at 2 in the morning requiring them to show up for work at 4 a.m. Again, this is not only unacceptable; it is dangerous, and it has led to a substantial increase in the rate of injuries in the freight rail industry. If the Burr-Wicker resolution were to pass, these unfair and unsafe working conditions would be allowed to continue, threatening the safety not only of the workers, but of passengers, as well. Finally, the Burr-Wicker resolution could allow the freight rail industry to substantially increase the cost workers would have to pay for healthcare. Let us be clear. We are talking about an industry that not only made $20 billion in profits last year and spent over $18 billion on stock buybacks and dividends, we are talking about an industry that has slashed its workforce by nearly 30 percent over the last 6 years, leaving its remaining workforce woefully understaffed and overworked. We are talking about an industry that has seen its profit margins nearly triple over the past 20 years. Today, what Congress should be doing is not passing the Burr-Wicker resolution and forcing railroad workers back to work under horrendous working conditions. What we should be doing is telling the CEOs in the rail industry: Treat your workers with dignity and respect, not contempt. Do not fire workers for the ``crime'' of going to a doctor when they are sick. Make sure that your workers have 15 paid sick days and adequate time off to rest and spend with their families. At a time when you, the industry, are making recordbreaking profits, do not increase the cost of healthcare for your employees. The CEOs in the freight rail industry need to understand that they cannot have it all. The rail industry must agree to a contract that is fair and that is just, and if they are not prepared to do that, it is time for Congress to stand on the side of workers for a change and not just the head of large multinational corporations. Railworkers have a right to strike for reliable schedules. They have a right to strike for paid sick days. They have a right to strike for safe working conditions. Railworkers have a right to strike for these benefits. The Burr-Wicker resolution would take these fundamental rights away from workers. We cannot allow that to happen. Therefore, I object.

Mr. SANDERS. My understanding, I say to my colleague from Mississippi, is that as we speak, the Secretary of Labor is in a room-- or has been today, with management and labor in trying to forge an agreement. So what is going on right now is they are trying to reach an agreement which is amenable to both sides, so that is a work in process.

Mr. SANDERS. I was not aware Senator Burr was a railroad worker, so let me, just to set the record straight, tell you what the railroad workers themselves understand the situation is. We might want to listen to those who live the experience. So let me very briefly quote you a statement from Jeremy Ferguson, president of SMART Transportation Division, and Dennis Pierce, president, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, Teamsters Rail Conference. This is what they say about their working conditions: Penalizing engineers and conductors for getting sick or going to a doctor's visit with termination must be stopped as part of this contract settlement. Let us repeat that, our members are being terminated for getting sick or for attending routine medical visits as we crawl our way out of a worldwide pandemic. No working-class American should be treated with this level of harassment in the workplace for simply becoming ill or going to a routine medical visit. That is from the unions themselves. So let us be clear. I don't think anybody wants a strike or wants a lockout. We hope that a settlement will be reached in the next day. But, in my view, if we are going to reach a settlement, I would hope that the railroads, which are making huge profits, start treating their workers with the respect that they deserve. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, it is hard for me to imagine how anyone could defend a healthcare system in which over 70 million people today are either uninsured or underinsured. As we speak, this moment, there are millions of Americans who would like to go to a doctor, who need to go to a doctor, but cannot afford to go to a doctor because of the outrageous cost of medical care in this country. Frankly, I am tired of talking to physicians who tell me about the patients who died--who died--because they were uninsured or underinsured and who walked into the doctor's office when it was too late. Time and time again, I hear from doctors who tell me about a patient who walked in, and they said to the patient: Why didn't you come in when you first noticed your symptoms? The patient responded: I don't have the money; I can't afford the copayment; or I have no insurance at all. Madam President, we are talking about--and I know we don't talk about it much, and maybe we should--we are talking about some 68,000 Americans who die every single year because they are uninsured or underinsured and don't get the medical care that they need. This is the United States, the wealthiest country in the history of the world; 68,000 Americans should not die every year unnecessarily. I am tired of seeing working-class families and small businesses pay far more for healthcare than they can afford, which results in more than 500,000 Americans every year declaring bankruptcy because of medically related expenses. Half a million Americans declare bankruptcy because of outrageous healthcare bills they simply cannot afford to pay. Families in America should not be driven into financial ruin because someone in that family became seriously ill. Sickness should not be a cause of financial ruin. I am tired of hearing from Americans who lost loved ones because they could not afford the unbelievably high cost of prescription drugs, and I am tired of hearing from constituents who are forced to cut their pills in half due to the cost. Today, unbelievably, almost one out of four patients cannot afford the prescription drugs their doctors prescribe. When you want to talk about an irrational and dysfunctional healthcare system, think about a system in which people go to a doctor, they get diagnosed as to their healthcare problem, they get a prescription drug prescribed to them, but they can't afford to buy the drug the doctor prescribes. So what ends up happening? They end up getting sicker. Maybe they end up in the emergency room at an outrageous cost. Maybe because they couldn't afford the prescription drugs in the first place, they end up in the hospital at a very high cost. Maybe they die. That is an irrational and absurd healthcare system. I am tired of talking to people and families of people who are struggling with mental illness but cannot afford the mental health counseling they desperately need. Last year, as you know, a recordbreaking 100,000 Americans died of drug overdoses. And I will tell you that in my office--and I am sure that in every other Senate office--we get desperate calls from family members looking for affordable mental health counseling. Far too often, that care simply is not there in the community. People are struggling with husbands, wives, kids who are on the verge of doing something terrible to themselves, to others, and yet, in this country, despite spending far more for healthcare than any other country, we don't have the capability of helping those people. It is not there. The mental health counseling, the help that people need is not there because in this system, geared toward the profits of the insurance companies rather than the needs of the American people, we don't have enough psychologists, counselors, or social workers. Unbelievably, despite spending far more per capita on healthcare than any other nation, we don't even have enough doctors. We are facing a major doctor shortage in America now, which will only get worse in the years to come if we don't address it. We don't have enough nurses. We don't have enough dentists. We don't have enough medical providers in general. We have, however, more than enough people who bill us and more than enough debt collectors who hound us to pay for a bill we cannot afford, but we just don't have enough people to provide the healthcare that we desperately need. By the way, the crisis of lack of healthcare providers is only going to get worse as our society continues to age. At a time of declining life expectancy in the wealthiest country on Earth, your health and your longevity should not be dependent on the amount of money you have. It is an absolute outrage and grossly un- American that the number of years we live in this country is dependent upon our income. Studies have shown that the top 1 percent of Americans live 15 years longer than the poorest people in our society. It is not only the very top as opposed to the very bottom; it is wealthy people in general versus working-class people. If you got the money, you are going to live longer in this country than if you do not have the money. In my view, healthcare is a human right that all Americans, regardless of income, are entitled to, and all Americans deserve the best quality healthcare that our country can provide. Further, as chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, it is not acceptable to me that we end up spending over twice as much as virtually every other major country on Earth per capita--twice as much per capita--while our life expectancy and other healthcare outcomes lag behind most other countries. This is really quite an amazing thing. We spend more; yet our results are worse than in other countries, unbelievably. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, we are now spending $12,530 per capita on healthcare. Imagine that--over $12,000 for every man, woman, and child in this country. This is, frankly, an outrageous and unsustainable sum of money. In comparison, the United Kingdom spends just $5,300; France spends $5,400; Canada, $5,900; Germany, $7,300. We spend over $12,000 per year. The question that everyone should be asking is, How does it happen that we spend so much money for healthcare, but we get so little in return? Let's be clear. The current debate over healthcare in the United States really has nothing to do with healthcare. Frankly, it is hard to defend this dysfunctional system. The healthcare debate has everything to do with the unquenchable greed of the healthcare industry and their desire to maintain a system which fails the average American but which makes the industry huge profits every single year. While ordinary Americans struggled to pay for healthcare during this pandemic, the six largest health insurance companies in our country made over $60 billion in profits last year, led by UnitedHealth Group, which made $24 billion in 2021. While millions of Americans cannot afford soaring healthcare costs, the top executives in the insurance industry receive huge amounts of compensation. In 2020--remember, 70 million uninsured and underinsured and 68,000 dying every year because they don't get to a doctor on time--the CEOs of 178 major healthcare companies collectively made $3.2 billion in total compensation--up 31 percent from the previous year-- all in the midst of the pandemic. People were dying every single day, and the cost of healthcare was soaring; yet the CEOs saw a 31-percent increase in their compensation. According to Axios, in 2020, the CEO of Cigna, David Cordani, took home $79 million in compensation. The CEO of Centene, Mr. Neidorff, made $59 million. The CEO of UnitedHealth Group, Mr. Wichmann, received $42 million in total compensation. But it is not just the health insurance companies that are ripping off the American people; it is the drug companies as well. In terms of the pharmaceutical industry, last year, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and AbbVie--three giant pharmaceutical companies--increased their profits by over 90 percent to $54 billion. How is it that, in the midst of a pandemic, during which we lost over a million people and millions and millions of people have become sick, the profits of the major drug companies went up by over 90 percent? The CEO of Moderna got a $926 million golden parachute after his company received $2.5 billion in taxpayer dollars to develop the vaccine. We all appreciate the development of the vaccine, which is saving lives every day. But, really, does the CEO of the company that received $2.5 billion of taxpayer money deserve a $926 million golden parachute? That is an indication, a manifestation, of a sick and broken healthcare system. And while over 330,000 Americans died during the pandemic because they could not afford to go to a doctor on time, the CEO of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals made over $450 million in total compensation. The current system is failing the American people, and the American people want change--real change. In March, a few months ago, I was pleased to introduce Medicare for All legislation, with 15 Senate cosponsors. Companion legislation in the House now has 122 cosponsors. This legislation would improve and expand Medicare to cover, over a 4-year period, healthcare to every man, woman, and child in this country. In other words, what this legislation finally does is make sure that the United States joins every other major country and that we guarantee healthcare to all of our people. This legislation is comprehensive, and it would end out-of-pocket expenses. Unlike the current system, it would provide full freedom of choice regarding healthcare providers. In other words, under Medicare for All, there would no longer be insurance premiums, deductibles, or copayments, and no more networks which deny you your choice of doctors. And, when I talk about Medicare for All being comprehensive, it would cover dental care, vision, hearing aids, prescription drugs, and home- and community-based care. In other words, it would do precisely what the American people want us to do. Would a Medicare for All system be expensive? Yes, but while providing comprehensive care for all, it would be significantly less expensive than our current dysfunctional system because it would eliminate an enormous amount of the bureaucracy, profiteering, administrative costs, and misplaced priorities inherent in our current for-profit system. Remember, we currently pay twice as much for healthcare as do the people of virtually any other country, and all of those countries manage to provide universal healthcare. So, yes, we can provide quality care for all at a much, much lower cost per person. Under Medicare for All, there would no longer be armies of people billing us, telling us what is covered and what is not covered, and hounding us to pay our hospital bills. This not only saves substantial sums of money but will make life a lot easier for the American people, who would never again have to fight their way through the nightmare of insurance company bureaucracy. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, estimated that Medicare for All would save Americans $650 billion a year. Now, trust me. I do know the 30-second ads from the insurance and drug companies that have told us that if Medicare for All becomes law, your taxes will go up. What they forgot to tell you is that, under Medicare for All, you will no longer be paying premiums, deductibles, copayments, and out-of-pocket expenses to private health insurance companies. What they certainly won't tell you is that Medicare for All will save--save--the average American family thousands of dollars a year. In fact, a study by RAND found that moving to a Medicare for All system would save a family with an income of less than $185,000 about $3,000 a year on average. Now, one might ask, fair enough: If Medicare for All is so good, if it has so many advantages, if it is what the American people want, why hasn't it been enacted by now? Why hasn't the United States joined every other major country in guaranteeing healthcare for all? That takes us to our corrupt political system and the outrageous way we fund campaigns. So I would suggest if you want to know why we are stuck with a dysfunctional healthcare system that fails the American people but that makes the drug companies and the insurance companies wildly profitable, follow the money. Follow the money. Since 1998, in our corrupt political system, the private healthcare sector has spent more than $10 billion on lobbying. Got that? More than $10 billion on lobbying since 1998. Over the last 30 years, it has spent more than $1.7 billion on campaign contributions to maintain the status quo. In terms of their lobbying efforts, let's be clear. They are very, very bipartisan. There are former Democratic Party leaders and former Republican Party leaders who are working together to represent the insurance companies and the drug companies. And, by the way, of course, in terms of the campaign contributions, the insurance companies and the drug companies are also very bipartisan. In fact, their contributions go to many Members of both the Democratic and Republican Parties. It doesn't really matter if you are a Democrat or a Republican; what matters is you protect the interests of the drug companies and the insurance companies. But, you know, what I believe is that maybe, just maybe, now is the time for Congress to do what the American people want--not what the lobbyists want, not what the drug companies want, not what the insurance companies want. And maybe, just maybe, we should have the courage to take on the powerful special interests that dominate healthcare in the United States. And maybe, just maybe, now is the time to provide healthcare to every man, woman, and child as a human right by passing a Medicare for All, single-payer program. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I understand that there is a lot that is going on in the world today. We are worried about climate change and what that is doing to our planet. We are worried about the terrible war in Ukraine and all of the destruction taking place there. We are worried about inflation and the fact that wages are not keeping up with the prices that people are paying. We are worried about the massive level of income and wealth inequality that exists in our country and the increased concentration of ownership that we see in the United States, among many, many other things that are on people's minds. But to my mind, Madam President, the American people remain and always are deeply concerned about an issue that, by definition, touches each and every one of us, and that is our collapsing and dysfunctional healthcare system. While it is not discussed much in the corporate media or here in the Halls of Congress, we have today in the United States the most inefficient, bureaucratic, and expensive healthcare system in the world. And that is not just what I believe; that is what the American people know to be true because of their lived experience with the healthcare system. Madam President, I would hope that all Members of Congress take a hard look at a poll that was published yesterday by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, and this is some of what the poll disclosed. At a time when I hear many of my colleagues tell us that we have the best healthcare system in the world, it turns out that, according to this poll, just 12 percent of the American people believe that healthcare in general is handled very well or extremely well in the United States. Twelve percent. At a time when we pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, only 6 percent of the American people believe that prescription drug costs in the United States are being handled well or extremely well. Six percent. At a time when COVID has exacerbated the crisis, only 5 percent of the American people believe that the mental health care system in the United States is being handled well or extremely well. Five percent. When so many older Americans have died unnecessarily in nursing homes and when so many cannot even find the nursing home bed that they need, just 6 percent of Americans believe that the quality of care at nursing homes in the United States is very good or exceptional. Six percent. Madam President, the American people increasingly understand, as I do, that healthcare is a human right, not a privilege, and that we must end the international embarrassment of the United States of America being the only major country on Earth that does not guarantee healthcare to all of its citizens. Again, that is not just Bernie Sanders talking; that is what the overwhelming majority of the American people believe. According to yesterday's AP poll, 66 percent of the American people believe it is the Federal Government's responsibility to make sure that all Americans have health insurance coverage. Sixty-six percent. Over 86 percent of the American people believe that it is absurd that millions of senior citizens lack dental care, hearing aids, and vision care, and they believe that Medicare should be expanded to cover these basic healthcare needs. It happens to be an issue I have been working on for several years. Eighty-six percent of the American people believe that Medicare should cover dental care, hearing aids, and vision care. Eighty-six percent. At a time when our long-term healthcare system is in shambles, 81 percent of the American people believe that Medicare should cover the outrageous cost of long-term healthcare for senior citizens and people with disabilities. Eighty-one percent. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this AP-NORC poll.

Mr. SANDERS

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

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, section 3002 of S. Con. Res. 14, the fiscal year 2022 congressional budget resolution, allows the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to revise budget aggregates, committee allocations, and the pay-as-you-go ledger for legislation considered under the resolution's reconciliation instructions. I find that H.R. 5376, an act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of S. Con. Res. 14, fulfills the conditions found in section 3002. Accordingly, I am revising the allocations for eight of the reconciled committees and revising other enforceable budgetary levels to account for the budgetary effects of the law. This adjustment reflects the estimate of the law as enacted provided by the Congressional Budget Office on September 7, 2022. This adjustment supersedes the adjustments I previously made for the processing of Senate amendment Nos. 5194, 5472, and 5488 to H.R. 5376 on August 6 and 7. 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, I rise this morning to express my strong opposition to the so-called side deal that the fossil fuel industry is pushing to make it easier for them to pollute the environment and destroy our planet. But, before I do, let me put my opposition to this disastrous side deal into a broader context. As the father of four kids and the grandfather of seven, I very much wish that I did not have to say what I am going to say, but the most serious challenge facing our country and the entire world, far and away, is, in fact, the existential threat of climate change. That is not the opinion of Bernie Sanders, who failed physics in college. That is what the scientific community is telling us in a virtually unanimous voice. The latest report from the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, is very clear, and it is very foreboding. If the United States, China, Russia, and the rest of the world do not act extremely aggressively in cutting carbon emissions, our planet will face enormous and irreversible damage. In fact, the world that we will be leaving to our kids and to future generations will become increasingly unhealthy and uninhabitable. That is not Bernie Sanders. That is the virtually unanimous conclusion of the scientists who study this issue. The truth is that we don't need the scientists or another study to tell us what is happening. We see it with our own eyes here in the United States and all over the world. The American people, today, and people throughout the globe are seeing the devastating impact climate change is having on their communities and their families--with their own eyes. That is what they are seeing right now as I speak. Please understand--and this may be the most important point I want to make this morning--that, with everything being equal, what is happening right now will become worse and worse and worse. This is not, ``Oh, boy, we have torrential rain,'' or, ``Oh, boy, ain't it hot?'' With everything being equal, everything we are seeing today will become worse in the years to come. Let's just take a brief look at what is happening right now in the United States and around the world. The past 8 years have been the hottest years in recorded history. Right now, the western half of the United States is experiencing its worst drought in over 1,200 years. Right now, in California, Nevada, and Utah, they are experiencing recordbreaking heat waves. Historic rainfall and devastating floods took place over a 5-week stretch this summer in eastern Kentucky; eastern Illinois; St. Louis, MO; Death Valley, CA; and Dallas, TX. These are supposed to be once-in- 1,000-years torrential rainfalls, and we are seeing them coming all together within a few weeks. Right now, Europe is experiencing its worst drought in over 500 years. And let's remember that when we talk about drought, it is not only, ``Boy, isn't it hot?'' it impacts agricultural production and the quantity and quality of food that we eat. A massive heat wave in Spain and Portugal killed more than 2,000 people in July. Historically hot weather in London and China literally melted bridges, airplane runways, and rooftops. Let me repeat that. The extremely hot weather in London and in China this summer literally melted bridges, rooftops, and airplane runways, with all of the consequences that that has. Recordbreaking forest fires in Europe have already burned 1.6 million acres of land--56 percent more than the previous record set in 2017. That is a size that is over eight times bigger than New York City. Recordbreaking drought in China has caused parts of the Yangtze River to completely dry up. The Yangtze River is the third largest river in the world. It is the source of drinking water for 400 million people. Catastrophic rainfall and massive floods have been going on for weeks in Pakistan, killing at least 1,200 people and displacing another 10 million as one-third of Pakistan is now underwater. If all of this is not sobering enough and if it is not frightening enough, a glacier in Antarctica that the scientists have dubbed the ``doomsday glacier'' has been in ``rapid retreat'' and is melting much faster than previous predictions. Without this glacier and its supporting ice shelves, sea levels could rise by 3 to 10 feet, which could cause entire coastal communities to flood and go underwater forever. We are talking about major cities here in the United States and across the world that could be underwater in the coming decades. Just think for a moment about the massive dislocation, turmoil, and international tensions that will occur when millions and millions of people migrate from where they have lived into new areas. The tragedies and disturbances and destruction goes on and on and on. In the past, a series of climate disasters like these might have seemed like a silly plot in a bad movie about the apocalypse. Unfortunately, however, what we are living through now is not a movie. It is reality. This is what we are experiencing right now in front of us. Again, this entire scenario--what we are seeing now--will almost definitely become worse in the years to come if the United States, China, and the rest of the world do not get our act together and break our dependency on fossil fuels. One of the strange ironies about this moment is that, if the United States did all of the right things tomorrow, it would not be enough. We need the cooperation of China and of countries throughout the world. We as a planet are in this together, and we are going to have to act decisively. In my view, the largest economy in the world, which is the United States of America, must lead this effort. If we retreat, it sends a terrible message to countries all over the world. If we retreat, clearly, what we will be seeing are more floods, more rising sea levels, more extreme weather disturbances, more ocean acidification, more drought, more famine, more disease, and more human suffering. Today, to all of my colleagues here in the Senate who have kids and grandchildren--I think that is almost everybody--I just ask you to think ahead 10, 15, 20 years. Think about the discussions you will be having with your kids or your grandchildren when that young person looks you in the eye and says: Dad, Grandma, what did you do to save the planet? I want you to think about that. We all know that climate change is real. We know that climate change is caused by carbon emissions. No one disagrees with that. We know that climate change is already causing devastating destruction throughout the world. We know that, if we don't rapidly transform our energy system away from fossil fuels and toward energy efficiency and renewable energy, the situation will only become much worse, and our planet will face irreparable and irreversible harm. That is the simple reality. Yet, given all that we know and given all that the scientists are telling us, what is the U.S. Congress about to do? Well, the U.S. Congress is seriously considering legislation to provide a huge giveaway to the fossil fuel industry to drill, produce, and sell more oil and gas. Really? At a time when climate change is threatening the very existence of our planet, why would anybody be talking about substantially increasing carbon emissions and expanding fossil fuel production in the United States? What kind of message does this send to the people of our own country, to the young people, and to suffering people all over the world? It is that, in the midst of this horrific crisis caused by fossil fuel emissions, we are about to pass legislation to increase fossil fuel production. Like every other Member of the Senate, I have a pretty good understanding of how politics works in our corrupt political system. Like every other Senator, I understand what campaign contributions are about. I understand what the thousands of lobbyists all over Capitol Hill do, and I surely understand the extraordinary power of the fossil fuel industry to push the legislation that they want. In fact, they were successful for decades in lying to the American people about the reality of climate change. So I know about the power of the fossil fuel industry. But, today, I beg of my colleagues that, at this moment, when the future of the world is literally at stake, that we have the courage to stand up to the fossil fuel industry and to tell them and the politicians whom they sponsor that the future of the planet is more important than their short-term profits. In the coming weeks and months, the Senate has a fundamental choice to make. We can listen to the fossil fuel industry and the politicians they pay, who are spending huge amounts of money on lobbying and campaign contributions to pass this dirty side deal, or we can listen to the scientists and the environmental community that are telling us loudly and clearly to reject this side deal and eliminate the $15 billion in tax breaks and subsidies Congress is already providing to big oil and gas companies each and every year. While the legislative text of the side deal has not been made public, according to a one-page summary that was released last month, this bill would make it easier for the fossil fuel industry to receive permits to complete some of the dirtiest and most polluting oil and gas projects in America. Specifically, this deal would approve the $6.6 billion Mountain Valley Pipeline--a 303-mile fracked gas pipeline spanning from West Virginia to Virginia and potentially on to North Carolina. We are talking about a pipeline that would generate emissions equivalent to 37 coal plants or over 27 million cars each and every year. It is hard for me to understand why anyone--anyone who is concerned about climate change--would consider for one second voting to approve a pipeline that would be equivalent to putting 27 million more cars on the road each and every year, especially at a time when we are trying to transition into electric vehicles. On August 24, over 650 environmental and civil rights organizations wrote a letter to Majority Leader Schumer and Speaker Pelosi urging them to reject this side deal. This letter was signed by the Sierra Club, the Sunrise Movement, Friends of the Earth, Physicians for Social Responsibility, 350.org, Greenpeace, Public Citizen, People's Action, and the NAACP. Here is a summary of what the letter says. This is a letter signed by 650 environmental and civil rights groups: On behalf of 653 frontline communities and environmental . . . organizations representing millions of members and supporters nationwide, we are writing to express our strenuous opposition to any additional fossil fuel giveaways. Alarming proposals have been referenced by Senator Manchin, in a short memo, and in legislative language that was clearly drafted in consultation with the American Petroleum Institute. . . . It has been reported that Manchin has demanded these handouts to the fossil fuel industry as a further price for his vote on the Inflation Reduction Act, which already included large giveaways to polluters. We call on you to unequivocally reject any effort to promote fossil fuels, advance unproven technologies, and weaken our core environmental laws. . . . This fossil fuel wish list is a cruel and direct attack on environmental justice communities and the climate. This legislation would truncate and hallow-out the environmental review process, weaken Tribal consultations, and make it far harder for frontline communities to have their voices heard by gutting bedrock protections in the National Environmental Policy Act and Clean Water Act. . . . Supporting this legislation would represent a profound betrayal of frontline communities and constituents across the country would have called on you to . . . advance a just, renewable energy future. That is from 650 environmental organizations. I could not agree more. The entire letter can be found online at https:// peoplevsfossilfuels.org/dirty-deal-letter/. I should also add that at least 59 of our colleagues in the House of Representatives will soon be releasing a letter expressing strong opposition to this side deal. Let me briefly quote from that letter: According to media reports, there is agreement to advance a series of anti-environmental and anti-environmental justice provisions through the House, at the behest of the American Petroleum Institute. . . . These destructive provisions will allow polluting manufacturing and energy development projects to be rushed through before the families who are forced to live near them are even aware of the plans. . . . We remain deeply concerned that these serious and detrimental permitting provisions will significantly and disproportionately impact low-income communities, indigenous communities, and communities of color. The inclusion of these provisions in a continuing resolution, or any other must-pass legislation, would silence the voices of frontline and environmental justice communities by insulating them from scrutiny. Such a move would force Members to choose between protecting environmental justice communities from further pollution or funding the government. We urge you to ensure that these provisions are kept out of a continuing resolution or any other must-pass legislation this year. That is a letter that comes from over 50 of our colleagues in the House of Representatives. I ask unanimous consent to have that letter printed in the Congressional Record.