Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. I will be very happy to yield to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, this amendment is extremely important because it addresses not only the foreclosure crisis we are seeing in this country, but it is also an issue that impacts millions and millions of Americans every single day of their lives well above and beyond the housing crisis. What this amendment essentially says is the time is long overdue for this Congress to have the courage to stand up to the banks, credit card companies, and mortgage lenders who are charging outrageously high interest rates and ripping off the American people. I know when I go back to Vermont, I talk to people who say: Why is it I am paying 20, 25, 28 percent interest rates on my credit card? I can tell you, as a former member of the Financial Services Committee in the House, we heard horror story after horror story about payday lending. We know mortgage brokers are, in some cases, bringing forth unscrupulously dishonest packages that drive interest rates up far beyond what should be charged in this country. This is an issue we must address, and now is the time to do that. Specifically, this amendment would cap all interest rates at 8 percent above what the IRS charges income tax deadbeats. Currently, the IRS charges a 6-percent interest rate to Americans who are late on paying their income tax returns. The IRS adjusts these rates every quarter based on the Federal funds rate. If the Federal funds rate rises, the interest rate the IRS charges late filers goes up as well. If the Federal funds rate goes down, so does the interest rate the IRS charges late filers. If the amendment I am offering were to become law today, all interest rates would be capped in this country at 14 percent, including subprime mortgages, credit cards, auto loans, payday loans, and income tax refund anticipation loans. Why 14 percent? How did we come up with that magical number? Well, it is interesting. I will tell you why we came up with that number. In 1991, our former colleague, the Republican Senator from New York, the former chairman of the Banking Committee, as I recall, Al D'Amato, offered an amendment that would cap credit card interest rates at 14 percent. Senator D'Amato was not remembered as a radical extremist. He was the chairman of the committee. Here is what is interesting. That amendment to cap interest rates at 14 percent for credit cards won on the floor of the Senate by a vote of 74 to 19; it was not even close. It had strong bipartisan support. If I might, obviously, 1991 was a while ago and many people who served are no longer here. But a number of people who served in 1991 are still here today. These are the people who voted in 1991 for the D'Amato amendment to cap credit card interest rates at 14 percent in alphabetical order: Senators Akaka, Baucus, Biden, Byrd, Cochran, Conrad, Dodd, Domenici, Grassley, Inouye, Kennedy, Kerry, Kohl, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, McCain, Mikulski, Reid, Rockefeller, Shelby, Specter, Stevens, and Warner. Those 25 Members, in 1991, voted to cap interest rates at 14 percent on credit cards. In truth, this amendment goes beyond credit cards to other areas where people are today paying very high interest rates. Similar to my amendment, the D'Amato amendment of 1991 was also pegged slightly above the interest rates for late income tax filers. We are using the same formula D'Amato used. Let me quote Senator D'Amato on the floor in 1991: Fourteen percent is certainly a reasonable rate of interest for banks to charge customers for credit card debt. It allows a comfortable profit margin but keeps banks in line so that interest rates rise and fall with the health of the economy. Other people went to the floor and also spoke on this issue. Senator Lieberman spoke on it and Senator Domenici spoke on it as well. What I say to my colleagues is, if this legislation, which passed with overwhelming support in 1991, made sense then, let me tell you, it makes a lot more sense today. A recent report published by Tamara Draut, the director of the Economic Opportunity Program at Demos, found that one-third of all credit card holders in this country are paying interest rates above 20 percent and as high as 41 percent--more than double what they paid in interest in 1990. So if we had over 70 Members of the Senate voting to cap interest rates at 14 percent in 1991, today the vote should be even higher because the crisis is far more severe. Between 1989 and 2006, Americans' overall credit card debt grew by 315 percent, from $211 billion to $876 billion. All over this country, people who are not earning enough money to pay for basic needs are buying groceries and gasoline to fill up their car with credit cards. And then, in turn, what happens is they are paying 20, 25 percent interest rates, and we have the cycle of misery going around and around, where they are too poor to pay with cash, so they pay with credit, and credit card interest rates are soaring, and they go deeper into debt. I know this is a hard vote. It is no secret to anybody in the Senate that the financial services industry is enormously powerful. But it is time for us to think about the folks back home who are going deeper into debt and to stand with them and put a cap on interest rates. One-third of low- and middle-income families reported going into credit card debt to pay for rent, utilities, and food in 2006. That same year, Americans charged $51 billion worth of fast food on their credit card, a 29-fold increase since 2001. All of this, and more, has allowed credit card companies to earn $90 billion in interest in 2006 alone. I will repeat that. But credit card companies are not the only ones charging outrageous interest rates. That is why this amendment I am offering expands on the D'Amato amendment to cover all forms of loans. For example, the Center for Responsible Lending has found some American consumers are paying interest rates for payday loans as high as 800 percent. I think all the Senators understand this. These types of outrageous interests should not be allowed to continue. When the Federal Reserve has slashed the Federal funds rate five times, from a high of 5.25 percent to 2.25 percent, credit card interest rates should be going down, not up. Interest rates for payday loans should be going down, not up. If the Fed is cutting interest rates, how in God's name-- and why--are people paying higher and higher interest rates on their credit cards, their mortgages, and in other areas? One of the reasons for this scam, this rip-off, is the virtual lack of regulation in this country when it comes to interest rates. For example, credit card companies are able to raise interest rates at any time for any reason. I suspect I am not the only Member of the Senate who talked to a constituent who said: I pay my credit card bill on time every single month, and I used to be paying 9 percent, but now they raised it to 14 percent. What did I do wrong? Why are they raising my interest rates? Every Member of the Senate has, himself or herself, received, along with everybody else in this country, all these fancy prospectives that come from the credit card companies, saying zero percent interest rate or 2 percent interest rate. But they forget to tell you in big bold print what is in the little print on page 4: They can raise interest rates any time for any reason. You don't even have to be late paying your phone bill or rent. They can raise it for any reason whatsoever. One of the interesting facts, in terms of credit cards, is people would be stunned to know that the credit card companies send out, every single year--do you know how many of these things they send out? Four billion. We are a country of 300 million people. I thought I was getting all of them but apparently not. They seem to come to my house twice a day. Apparently, others are getting them as well. They send out 4 billion of these fancy brochures, urging you to buy into the credit card thing and it costs them a fortune. But, obviously, they can afford to do that because they are ripping off the American people, and they are charging 20, 25, and 30 percent, in some cases, in interest. This is unacceptable behavior. Lenders should not be able to raise interest rates at any time for any reason. I am not going to go into a religious theme now. I am not going to do that. But I know the Presiding Officer is a religious person and probably more familiar with the Bible than I am. But he will know that the word ``usury'' is mentioned in the Bible on many occasions. I will not quote from them, but in Leviticus chapter 25, verses 35 to 37, the issue about usury rates is, in fact, addressed. I will talk about Dante's ``Divine Comedy.'' In the ``Divine Comedy'' by Dante, he speaks about a special place for people who charge usurious interest rates, and that is the inner ring of the Seventh Circle of Hell. I don't particularly wish that on the banking industry and all the lobbyists who come here every day. I don't wish that on them. But I do wish they would take a deep breath and understand that this is not just an economic issue, it is a moral issue. People who are struggling to pay their bills, who are going into debt, through no fault of their own, should not have to pay 25 or 30 percent interest rates.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay the pending amendment aside so I may call up my amendment No. 4401 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

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

Mr. SANDERS. With pleasure. I thank the Senator from Illinois. Mr. President, I will conclude because the Senator from Illinois made the point better than I can make it. Every Member of the Senate knows this is a huge issue. In their heart, every Senator knows there is something immoral, that there is something outrageous about hard- working people paying 25, 30 percent, especially at a time when the Fed is lowering interest rates. I say to my colleagues, it is no great secret. The financial services industry is very powerful. We all know that. They make huge campaign contributions. They have a lot of power here. But I hope that on this amendment, we have the courage to stand up to them. In concluding, I remind my colleagues that in 1991, when Senator D'Amato offered a similar amendment, there was overwhelming bipartisan support. The American people want us to act on this issue. As the Senator from Illinois indicated, this is directly related to the housing crisis, and I think it is time we move forward and put a cap on interest rates. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I congratulate Majority Leader Reid and Minority Leader McConnell, as well as Committee Chairman Dodd, and ranking committee member Shelby for their hard work in beginning the process of trying to bring relief to families who are struggling to hold on to their homes. I think they are taking a good step forward. I think we have to do a lot more to address this very serious crisis. It is no secret to anyone that the middle class in this country is in great danger. It is shrinking. Some think it is on the verge of collapse. Workers today who are going to fill up their car's gas tank are paying $3.20 for a gallon of gas in the State of Vermont, and there is a fear that may go higher. People are paying higher and higher prices for food. Since President Bush has been President, some 8 million Americans have lost their health insurance, health care costs are soaring, and a college education is unaffordable. In the meantime, wages, the real median family income for the average American family is going down, and the gap between the very rich and everybody else is getting wider. So we have some very serious problems. Among other aspects of that crisis is that the personal savings rate today is below zero, which, up until 2005, hasn't happened since the Great Depression. So what is happening is that people are working longer and longer hours, their wages are going down, we are losing good-paying jobs, and they do not have enough money to survive on so they are borrowing more and more money. That is the reality. There is a lot, to my mind, that we have to consider as a country to begin addressing the fact that poverty is going up, the middle class is declining, and the gap between the rich and everybody else is growing wider. There is a lot we have to do. But as we now focus on the mortgage crisis, we have to take a hard look at interest rates in this country. I intend to offer an amendment to the housing bill that I want to say a few words on now and I will speak to at greater length later. My amendment will clearly not solve all of the problems facing the middle class, but it will do one very important thing: It will take one action that is long overdue, and that is it would stop big banks, credit card companies, payday lenders, mortgage bankers, and other lenders from ripping off American consumers by charging outrageous interest rates. I do a national radio show every Friday afternoon where people call in. And you know what they say? They say: We are sick and tired of paying 20, 25, 30 percent interest rates when, in fact, we pay our debt on time every single month. That is what they are saying. People who are borrowing money to send their kids to college are paying outrageously high rates, and certainly we know, given the crisis we are debating today, that mortgage interest rates are off the charts. With this amendment I will be offering, it would cap all interest rates at 8 percent above what the IRS charges income tax deadbeats. That is the formula we are using. Currently, the IRS charges a 6- percent interest rate to Americans who are late on paying their income tax returns. That is what we are doing today. The IRS adjusts these rates every quarter based on the Federal funds rate. If the Federal funds rate rises, the interest rate the IRS charges late filers goes up. If the Federal funds rate goes down, so does the interest rate the IRS charges late filers. If the amendment I am offering were signed into law today, all interest rates in this country would be capped at 14 percent, including subprime mortgages, credit cards, auto loans, payday loans, and income tax refund anticipation loans. Why 14 percent? Why do we pick that number? It is an interesting point. I am glad you asked that question, Mr. President, and here is the answer. Because 14 percent happens to be the same level that former Senator Al D'Amato chose when he offered an amendment in 1991 to cap credit card interest rates. Al D'Amato, Senator from New York, offered that amendment. Do you know what the vote was on that bipartisan amendment, offered by the Republican Senator from New York? That amendment passed the Senate by a vote of 74 to 19--74 to 19--a huge bipartisan vote. And among those Members who are today in the Senate, and who cosponsored that amendment, were Senators Specter, Lieberman, and Domenici, among others. Unfortunately, that amendment ended up not being signed into law. Like my amendment, the D'Amato amendment was also pegged slightly above the interest rates for late income tax filers. I have the feeling that in my career in the Senate I will not often be quoting former Senator D'Amato, probably won't be doing that, but let me quote what Senator D'Amato said on the Senate floor in 1991. This is what he said. Fourteen percent is certainly a reasonable rate of interest for banks to charge customers for credit card debt. It allows a comfortable profit margin, but keeps banks in line so that interest rates rise and fall with the health of the economy. He was then the chairman of the Banking Committee. I say to my colleagues that if the Senate in 1991 thought that interest rates should be capped, trust me, we should at least do as much today, because the problem is in fact much more severe. A recent report, published by Tamara Draut, the Director of the Economic Opportunity Program at Demos, found that one-third of all credit card holders in this country are paying interest rates above 20 percent and as high as 41 percent--more than double what they paid in interest rates in 1990. In other words, if we had a problem then, the problem today is much more severe. Between 1989 and 2006, Americans' overall credit card debt grew by 315 percent from $211 billion to $876 billion. One-third of low- and middle-income families reported going into credit card debt to pay for rent, utilities, and food in 2006. Now, I don't know about Nebraska, but I will tell you that in the State of Vermont there are a lot of people who are buying their food with credit cards. They do not have the cash. They have to go in debt to buy food and pay for other basic necessities. All of this--high interest rates--has resulted in credit card companies earning $90.1 billion in interest in 2006 alone--credit card companies ripping off the American people and earning huge profits. But credit card companies aren't the only ones charging outrageous interest rates, and that is why my amendment expands on the D'Amato amendment to cover all forms of loans. For example, the Center for Responsible Lending has found that some American consumers are paying interest rates for payday loans as high as 800 percent. And if you want to know why these outrageous levels of interest on credit cards and payday loans are relevant to the debate on foreclosure, let me quote from two articles on the subject. The first is a recent Reuters article entitled ``Pay Day Loans Exacerbate Housing Crisis.'' According to this article: As hundreds of thousands of American homeowners fall behind on their mortgage payments, more people are turning to short- term loans with sky-high interest rates just to get by. While figures are hard to come by, evidence from nonprofit credit and mortgage counselors suggests that the number of people using these so-called ``pay day loans'' is growing as the U.S. housing crisis deepens, a negative sign for economic recovery. The second article is from a recent front-page story from USA Today. The title of the article says it all. ``Facing losses on bad loans, banks boost credit card rates.'' According to the article: Even as the Federal Reserve has aggressively slashed short- term interest rates, banks are raising rates on credit cards. Federal Reserve lowering; banks increasing. This should not happen. When the Federal Reserve has slashed the Federal funds rate five times, from a high of 5.25 percent down to 2.25 percent, credit card interest rates should be going down, not up. Interest rates for payday loans should be going down, not up. Mortgage interest rates should be going down, not up.

Mr. SANDERS. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes, please.

Mr. SANDERS. Unfortunately, in many cases interest rates for consumers are going up at the worst possible time. One of the reasons for this is the virtual lack of regulation when it comes to interest rates. For example, credit card companies are able to raise interest rates at any time for any reason, and recently that is exactly what, for example, the Bank of America has done. According to a recent Business Week article: Bank of America sent letters notifying some responsible card holders that it would more than double their rates to as high as 28 percent, without giving an explanation for the increase. Fine print at the end of the letter advised calling a 800 number for the reason, but consumers who called said they were unable to get a clear answer. What is striking is how arbitrary the Bank of America rate increases appear, credit industry experts say. This is unacceptable. Lenders should not be able to raise interest rates at any time for any reason. There are Biblical references to what can be described as usury; that when people are down and in need of money, there is a strong moral objection to charging them sky-high interest rates. In the ``Divine Comedy'' by Dante, there is reserved a special place for people who charge usurious interest rates, the inner ring of the Seventh Circle of Hell. I don't wish this on the credit card companies or the mortgage lenders, but this is what I do say. In this country today, especially as interest rates go down from the Fed, it is an outrage that millions of our fellow Americans are paying 25 percent or 30 percent interest rates, and our amendment would begin to address this issue. The time is long overdue for us to move in that direction. I ask at the appropriate time for the support of my colleagues.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4218.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I thank Senators Durbin, Kennedy, Clinton, Harkin, Schumer, Mikulski, Brown, Casey, and Menendez for cosponsoring this amendment. I also thank dozens of national organizations representing tens of millions of Americans for supporting it, including the AFL-CIO, the SCIU, the Children's Defense Fund, the YWCA, and many other organizations. This amendment cannot be simpler. The wealthiest people in the country have not had it so good since the 1920s. Their incomes are soaring, while at the same time the middle class is shrinking, and we have by far the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country. The time is now to begin changing our national priorities and moving this country in a different direction. This amendment restores the top income tax bracket for households earning more than $1 million a year, it raises $32.5 billion over 3 years, and invests that in our kids, including $10 billion for special education, because the time is long overdue that we kept our word regarding special education.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. I thank the Senator very much. Mr. President, I find it interesting that almost every candidate for President today is talking about change. It is not only the candidates for President. For candidates at every level across this country, the mantra out there is: change, change, change. And the reason the candidates at all levels are talking about change is they understand something. They understand that from one end of our country to the other, by vast majority, the American people want to move America in a new direction. They want a new set of national priorities. The American people are angry. They are frustrated with the status quo, with politics as usual, and they want action not talk. They want action from their elected officials. The American people are tired of paying $3.20 for a gallon of gas, when ExxonMobil is enjoying recordbreaking profits. The American people are tired of paying more and more for health care, and over 8 million Americans have lost their health insurance since President Bush has been in office, while the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry continues to rip them off. The American people are tired of seeing their good-paying jobs go to China or the other low-wage countries while they work 50 or 60 hours a week to pay the bills. When we talk about the economy today, let's not forget the American people now work the longest hours of any people in the industrialized world. People are working incredibly long hours, two or three jobs, to pay the bills. Most importantly, the American people are deeply worried that the American dream is disappearing, that no matter how hard they work, no matter how many hours they spend on the job, that for the first time in the modern history of the United States, their kids will likely have a lower standard of living than they do. From a values perspective, I believe the American people are tired of the culture of greed which has been so pervasive in recent years, a culture which says: Yes, I am rich and I am powerful and I have billions and I want billions more. I do not care about anybody else in our society; I have got it; I want more. That is the culture of greed which is so pervasive in our society today. The amendment that will be offered today, that I am offering, is cosponsored by Senators Kennedy, Durbin, Clinton, Harkin, Schumer, Brown, and Mikulski. I am quite confident that if this amendment is adopted, it will not be solving all the problems facing our country. But on the other hand, if this amendment is passed, it will begin to move America in a very different direction, with a very different set of moral and economic values. This amendment will tell the American people we understand that Washington must adopt a new set of national priorities, that we must be concerned not with the wealthy and the powerful who have so much influence over what goes on in Congress but that the time is long overdue for Congress to begin paying attention to the needs of the middle class and low-income people who have been ignored and left behind year after year after year. I am very proud to tell you my amendment has been endorsed by over 50 groups representing tens of millions of Americans. These groups include the AFL-CIO, AFCSME, the National Education Association, the Children's Defense Fund, the American Federation of Teachers, the YWCA, and the National Organization of Women, among many other groups. The budget President Bush recently sent to Congress was nothing less than a disaster. It gave much to those who did not need any help, while it took from those who need help, including those living in desperation. As I mentioned to the people in my home State of Vermont, it was a Robin Hood proposal in reverse. It took from the poor and it gave to the rich. As a member of the Budget Committee, I am happy to say that under Chairman Conrad's leadership and hard work, the budget we passed out of committee was far superior to what the President proposed and is quite a reasonable document. I think we can improve upon that document. We can improve upon that budget. That is why I am offering this amendment today with my colleagues who are cosponsoring it. This amendment addresses three major trends in American society that we must deal with in the budget process. First, the United States has the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major nation in the industrialized world; and the gap between the very rich and everyone else is growing wider. Secondly, it is a national disgrace that here in the United States of America, this great Nation we are so proud of, that we have by far the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country on Earth. And third, year after year, we have had recordbreaking deficits, and our national debt is now approaching $10 trillion, a grossly unfair burden to leave to our children and grandchildren and, in fact, a staggering sum of money which is economically unsustainable. This amendment addresses all three of those issues. The amendment I am offering today puts the needs of our children, working families, seniors on fixed incomes, persons with disabilities, and the middle class ahead of the needs of the wealthy. It says to the wealthy: You do not need any more tax relief when the middle class is shrinking, when poverty is increasing, and when the top 1-percent level has never had it so good since the 1920s. It says to my colleagues in the Senate, let's get our priorities right. Specifically, this amendment simply restores the top income tax bracket to 39.6 percent for households earning more than $1 million per year and uses that revenue to address the most urgent unmet needs of our children, for job creation, and for deficit reduction. Mr. President, 99.7 percent of Americans would not be impacted by this amendment. The only families that would be impacted are those earning at least $1 million a year. That is the top three-tenths of 1 percent. What we are simply doing is asking that the upper tax rates go back to where they were during the Clinton administration when, I remind my colleagues, the economy was far stronger. According to the Joint Tax Committee, restoring the top income tax bracket for people making more than $1 million to what it was in 2000 would increase revenue by $32.5 billion over the next 3 years, including $10.8 billion in fiscal year 2009 alone. Instead of giving $32.5 billion in tax breaks to the very wealthiest people, including people who have billions and billions of dollars, people who really don't need any more tax breaks, this amendment would invest money in the following areas over the next 3 years. It would put $10 billion into special education, into the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Over 30 years ago, the Federal Government made a promise that it would fund 40 percent of the cost of special education. Unfortunately, the Federal Government--shock of all shocks--has not kept its promise. Today we only spend about 17 percent of the cost of special ed. What does this mean? I can tell you what it means in Vermont and I am sure it is the same all over the country. School districts are faced with growing costs regarding an influx of special ed kids. Property taxes are going up to accommodate those increased costs, and kids with special ed needs do not get the attention they deserve. This amendment begins to reverse that process, begins to tell school districts all over America that we are going to keep our promise. We will begin adequately funding special education. Secondly, this amendment increases Head Start funding by $5 billion over the next 3 years. The simple truth is, Head Start works. Its goal is to make sure that when low-income kids get into kindergarten or the first grade, they are not already far behind everybody else so that by the time they are in the fourth or fifth grade, they have given up, they have dropped out intellectually. Head Start works. The problem is, there are many families who want to take advantage of Head Start, but communities don't have the resources to open the doors for those kids. After adjusting for inflation, Head Start has been cut by 11 percent compared to fiscal year 2002. Boy, is that moving in the wrong direction. Meanwhile, less than half of all eligible kids are enrolled in Head Start and only 3 percent of eligible children are enrolled in Early Head Start. This amendment will not solve all of those problems, but $5 billion will help open the doors to large numbers of kids who desperately need Head Start education. This amendment would also provide $4 billion for the Child Care Development Block Grant Program. I can tell you the issue of childcare is one of those issues that we have managed in Congress to sweep under the rug, from one end of this country to the other. Where you have mom and dad both working, where is that working family going to find the affordable, quality childcare they desperately need? We tell single moms, go out and work, but we forgot to tell them where they are going to find the childcare they need to take care of their kids. This amendment begins to do that with a $4 billion increase for the Child Care Development Block Grant Program. This amendment would provide $3.5 billion more for the Food Stamp Program. I don't have to tell my colleagues that in the United States, shamefully, disgracefully, we are seeing more and more of our citizens go hungry. I know in Vermont, and I expect in communities all over the country, we are seeing working people, not unemployed people, working people going to food shelves to get the food they need to take care of their families. That is not the way it should be. This $3.5 billion increase for food stamps is a step forward. This amendment would also increase funding for LIHEAP, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, by $4 billion. In Vermont and other States, it gets very cold in the winter. We have seniors living on fixed incomes who cannot pay the rapidly escalating cost of home heating oil. LIHEAP is a successful program. It is underfunded. Nobody should go cold, and we put $4 billion into LIHEAP. We also provide more for school construction. Not only is it terribly important that our kids study in decent schools, schools that are not falling apart, schools which are energy efficient, but by putting money into school construction, we create a lot of good-paying jobs, and that is what that provision does. Finally, last but certainly not least, this amendment would also reduce the deficit by $3 billion. In other words, at a time when we have seen recordbreaking deficits, we are now closing in on a $10 trillion national debt. This amendment takes a small step forward in lowering this year's deficit. Let me quote from a letter I received in support of this amendment from over 50 groups across the country, including the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, the NEA, the Children's Defense Fund, the American Federation of Teachers, the WYCA, the National Head Start Organization, SEIU, and the National Organization for Women, among others: The economic downturn is creating a crisis for parents who work hard but struggle to afford nutritious meals as food prices escalate; to pay for energy for their homes and fuel for their cars; to pay for child care so that they can work; and to assure that their young children receive the building blocks of a solid education to prepare them for the future. Programs that assist in meeting these needs have been cut significantly in recent years, while tax breaks for millionaires have soared. Your amendment addresses these needs. . . .We are urging the Senate to adopt your fiscally responsible amendment to address the pressing needs of working families while restoring greater progressivity to the tax system. I thank these organizations that represent tens and tens of millions of working Americans. The choice we face is simple. A lot of rhetoric goes on around here. It is pretty warm in this Chamber, and it is not only from the heat. It is from a lot of hot air from all of us. The time for talk is over and the time for action is now. This amendment will not solve all the problems, but it does say to the American people that the time is long overdue for us to move in a new direction. It is a very simple choice we have to make. The richest people in this country have not had it so good since the 1920s. Frankly, they do not need any more tax breaks. They are doing just fine. But our children are not doing just fine. Senior citizens on fixed incomes are not doing just fine. What this amendment begins to do is to develop a new set of priorities for our Nation. It tells the people we understand that working people are in trouble, they need assistance, and that the time is now to ask the wealthiest people to rejoin the United States and to help us address some of our major social needs. My understanding is that later this afternoon this amendment will be offered. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS. My understanding, I ask Senator Murray, is that my amendment will be called up later this afternoon; is that correct?

Mr. SANDERS. Twenty.

Mr. SANDERS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SANDERS. I don't know if it is a New England characteristic that I share, but we make the same points over and over again. The Senator is the ranking member of the Budget Committee. He has heard my point. Let me make it again. My friend from New Hampshire, from the other side of the Connecticut River, says we have a progressive system. My God, those rich people are paying a fortune. Well, wealthy people do pay a lot. Do you know why? The richest people in this country are earning far more than they used to, while the middle class is shrinking and poverty is increasing. For example, according to Forbes magazine, the collective net worth of the wealthiest 400 Americans increased by $290 billion last year--400 families, $290 billion. The wealthiest 1 percent earn more income than the bottom 50 percent. Yes, my friend from New Hampshire, I do know they pay more in taxes. The reason is, they get all of the money. Every economist understands that in recent years what has been going on is the middle class is shrinking, real income is going down, and poverty is increasing. The rich are making out like bandits. Yes, they are paying more in taxes because they are making a huge amount more. That is not progressive taxation. What that is about is the fact that we have the most unfair distribution of wealth and income of any major nation on Earth. I ask my friend, don't you agree with me? That is my question. Of course, you do.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me begin by commending my friend from Oklahoma, who I think makes some very important points. There is no question that there is an enormous amount of waste and fraud and abuse in this Government. There is no question, in my mind, that Congress has not been vigilant enough in rooting out that waste and fraud to the tune of billions and billions of dollars. I would simply say that while it is absolutely appropriate to condemn the Congress, it is also important to note that we have an administration in this city, in Washington, DC, and the function of an administration is to administer. That means that when there is waste and fraud, you have an administration that should also be on top of that situation. And I think of the many failings of the Bush administration, which, in my view, will go down in history as one of the worst in our country's history--clearly their overall incompetence will be one of those areas people will focus on. The second point I would make--and I see my friend from Oklahoma has left--is that he is absolutely right that a $9.2 trillion national debt is unsustainable. But one of the areas I don't believe he mentioned in terms of driving up that national debt is the war in Iraq. Now, we can have a great debate about the wisdom of that war. I voted against it when I was in the House. I think we should bring our troops home as soon as possible. But right now, we are not on the war, we are on the budget. And the question regarding the budget is, For all those people who support the war, why don't you pay for the war now rather than forcing our kids and grandchildren to pay to the tune of $150 billion a year? And some say the cost of this war eventually will run into the trillions of dollars. So all of those people who talk about fiscal irresponsibility refuse not to pay for the war. I was reading a book about Dwight David Eisenhower, and in the book it points out that during the Korean war, Truman imposed a surtax on people's personal income tax and an excess-profits tax in order to pay for the war. I don't see the advocates of the war in Iraq coming forward and saying: We don't want to leave that burden of $150 billion a year to our kids and grandchildren, so we are going to come up and pay for it now. I didn't hear my friend from Oklahoma raise that issue. I hear other people coming to the floor and they say: Well, we have this tremendous national debt, and they have pictures of the kids, and yet they propose to completely eliminate the estate tax, which over the course of 20 years will cause us a loss of $1 trillion. How is that going to be paid for? Oh, I guess we don't have to pay for it. I guess we can just pass that on to the kids. So I think that some of our friends who talk about fiscal responsibility might, in fact, want to pay for this war today, not pass it on to future generations. And when they are talking about giving huge tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this country, let them understand that is all they are doing, is driving up the national debt so that our kids and grandchildren will be forced to pay for that. We are in the midst of a debate about the budget, and as you know a budget is a lot more than just numbers; it reflects the values and the priorities of our Nation. And when we look at what is going on in this country, as important as a $9.2 trillion national debt is, it is not the only issue of importance. What is also important is to understand today what is going on in terms of the needs and the lives of middle- class and working people. One of the realities we do not talk about very much today is that poverty in America is increasing. In fact, since President Bush has been in office, almost 5 million more Americans have joined the ranks of the poor. That is part of the Bush economy. We now have almost 36.5 million Americans who are living in poverty. Many of these people are working, and they are working 40 or 50 hours a week, but they are making 8 bucks an hour, they are making 7 bucks an hour, and they are just not making enough money in order to lift themselves out of poverty. In fact, the United States of America today has the highest rate of poverty of any major nation on Earth, and that is an issue which we should address here in the Senate. When we are talking about Americans living in poverty, we are not, of course, just talking about adults. Tragically, we are also talking about children. I know our President and many others talk about family values. Well, this is not a family value. Under President Bush's administration, since he has been in office, 1.2 million more children are now living in poverty, and we have almost 13 million kids in this country who live in poverty. That is not a family value. That is a national disgrace. As a matter of fact, the United States has the dubious distinction of having the highest childhood poverty rate in the industrialized world. I hear some of my friends coming to the floor to compare this or that aspect of American society or our tax policy with Europe and other countries. Well, I think it is important that we look at this chart-- how we treat our children. What this chart shows is that Finland, Norway, and Sweden all have childhood poverty rates of less than 5 percent. Switzerland, Belgium, Austria, France, Denmark, and Germany all have childhood poverty rates of less than 10 percent. The Netherlands has a childhood poverty rate of slightly more than 10 percent. But in the United States of America, the childhood poverty rate is 21.9 percent, or more than double that of France, Germany, Austria, or the Netherlands. Now, why is that an important fact? It is important, obviously, that the children are vulnerable; that as adults, we are responsible for the children and we are failing those children. But it is also important to note that we have, as a nation, more people behind bars, incarcerated, than any other nation on Earth, including China. And if anyone thinks there is not a direct correlation between high poverty rates for kids and kids who mentally drop out of society, get involved in self- destructive activity at young ages, and then end up in jail, you would be kidding yourself. And the issue here is whether we address this crisis of 21 percent of our kids living in poverty, whether we provide for those kids or, 15 or 18 or 20 years later, whether we lock them up at $50,000 a pop. There have been recent discussions about the economy, whether we are in a recession or entering a recession. But the truth is, despite President Bush's assertions, this economy has been a disaster for middle-income and working families from day one. Since President Bush took office in 2001, median household income for working-aged Americans has declined by almost $2,500. That is what we call the collapse of the middle class. Over 8\1/2\ million Americans have lost their health insurance. That is what we call the disintegration of the health care system in America. Three million workers have lost their pensions. And the idea of a defined pension program is increasingly becoming ancient history. More and more workers are wondering what is going to happen to them when they retire, and the idea that there will really be a defined pension program for them when they retire, that is not something most workers, especially younger workers, believe. The annual trade deficit since President Bush has been in office has more than doubled, and over 3 million good-paying manufacturing jobs have been lost. The price of gas at the pump and home heating oil has more than doubled, while ExxonMobil made $40 billion in profits last year--more than any company in the history of the world. That is $3.20 for a gallon of gas, which working people in Vermont can't afford. Workers in Vermont often travel long-distance to and from work. And $40 billion in profit for ExxonMobil. Home foreclosures, of course, are now the highest on record. Meanwhile, while the middle class is shrinking and poverty is increasing, the wealthiest people in this country have not had it so good since the 1920s. My friend from Oklahoma mentioned that there are issues we just don't talk about, and he has a point. But one of the issues we don't talk about in this body--for pretty obvious reasons, to my mind, because who pays for the campaigns around here--is the growing disparity, the outrageous disparity of income and wealth in this country. What this chart shows is that the wealthiest 1 percent of the population now owns 34 percent of the Nation's wealth, while the bottom 90 percent owns only 29 percent of our wealth. That is here. So what you see is the richest 1 percent owns more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. Is that what America is supposed to be about? Is that the kind of society we want? There is a lot of discussion that takes place on the floor of the Senate, in the House, about the economy. But at the end of the day, when you look at the economy, what is important, most important, is not economic growth, not GDP, what really is most important is what is happening to the average person. You can have all of the growth you want, and you can see ordinary working people experiencing a decline in their real wages. You can see a lot of wealth being created, but it does not mean a whole lot to ordinary people if most of that income and wealth is going to the people on top. The bottom line is that in the economy there are winners and losers. It is very clear that in the economy today, the middle class is losing. Lower income people are being decimated while the upper income people have never had it so good. I know my friends in the Senate on both sides of the aisle--I speak as an Independent--hesitate to talk about that issue. But it is imperative that we do talk about it. Let me go to another chart. This chart talks about the economy in terms of how different groups are doing. This chart shows that the wealthiest 1 percent saw its total income rise by $180,000 in 2005 or more than what the average middle- class family makes in 3 years. This is the rise in income, not what they make; this is just their increase. So the wealthiest 1 percent are doing phenomenally well. That is on average. That is a pretty good year, on average, seeing an increase of $180,000 in the year 2005. This is according to the Congressional Budget Office. Meanwhile, the average middle-class family received a $400 increase. That is that small little box down here, an increase in annual income in 2005. CBO also found that the total share of aftertax income going to the top 1 percent hit the highest level on record, while the middle-class and working families received the smallest share of aftertax incomes on record. So when people understand in their gut that what is happening is the middle class is shrinking and the rich are getting richer, well, that is what it is about. That is the fact. That is precisely what is happening in America. In addition, according to Forbes magazine, the collective net worth of the wealthiest 400 Americans--400 Americans, that is not a lot of people--increased by $290 billion last year, increased by $290 billion to a total of $1.5 trillion. Not only have the wealthiest 400 families, the richest 400, seen an increase in their wealth, their combined income has more than doubled from 2002 to 2005. At the same time, the average income tax paid by the wealthiest 400 Americans has fallen from 30 percent to 18 percent. That is not Bernie Sanders, that is according to the Wall Street Journal. The reason the average income tax for the wealthiest people who are making astronomical sums of money, why that has been cut in half, is mainly due to Bush's tax cuts, according to the Wall Street Journal. The middle class is shrinking, poverty is increasing, and the wealthiest people have not had it so good since the 1920s. That is an overview of the state of our economy. Now, why do I raise these issues? I raise these issues because if we truly do not understand what is going on around our country in the lives of ordinary people, people who cannot afford to fill up their gas tank, cannot afford a college education for their kids, cannot afford childcare, cannot afford to take care of their parents, if we do not understand that reality, it is pretty hard for this body to make good public policy. The question then is, what do we do? What do we do? Well, President Bush gave us his answer in his budget. What President Bush, in his budget, said is, at a time when the richest people in America are becoming richer, what should we do? Well, let's give them even more tax breaks. That makes a lot of sense to the richest people in America and George W. Bush. And what did he say to the poorest people in America? Well, poverty is increasing. There is a level of desperation going on in this country that we have not seen in many years. So at a time when poverty is increasing, what do we do? Well, according to George W. Bush, you cut back on the aid and programs that help low-income and middle-income people. That is precisely what Bush's budget was about; one of the more absurd documents that I have ever seen in my life. Fortunately, that budget has been placed where it belongs; that is, in the garbage can. We are now debating a much different budget, a budget that is far better, the budget that we have before us. I am proud to be a member of the Budget Committee, working with Chairman Conrad, on a far better budget than the President's budget. But, in my view, we can make improvements on it. We can do better than the budget we are now debating. To that regard, I will be introducing an amendment, and I want to thank the Presiding Officer for being one of the cosponsors of that amendment. Let me very briefly talk about that. It seems to me, as we look at some of the trends that we should be addressing in this budget, at least three come to mind. No. 1 is the middle class is declining, No. 2 is our children are suffering, and No. 3 is that we have, among other things, a major infra-structural crisis in this country. It is my view that we need a budget which will address some of those issues. I am very proud I will soon be introducing an amendment which is being cosponsored by Senators Clinton, Durbin, Kennedy, Harkin, Schumer, Mikulski, and Brown. This amendment is a pretty simple one. It puts the needs of our children, it puts the needs of our working families and people with disabilities and senior citizens ahead of the wealthy few. At a time when our Presidential candidates in both parties are talking about change, change, and change, at a time when the American people overwhelming understand that it is imperative that we move this country in a different direction, this amendment can begin the process of change right here in the Senate, and, in fact, change our national priorities. The choice the Senate will have in terms of this amendment is a pretty simple one: Do we continue to give tax breaks to the very wealthiest people in this country, people who have never had it so good, or do we invest in our children, our working families, and those people who are in need? What this would do is restore the top income tax bracket to 39.6 percent for households earning more than $1 million per year. Those are the only people who would be affected. And we would use that revenue to begin to address some of the most urgent, unmet needs of our children. We would address the issue of job creation; we would address the issue of deficit reduction. Now, 99.7 percent of Americans would not be impacted by this tax change, only the top three-tenths of 1 percent would see their income tax rates go back to where they were during the Clinton administration when few would deny that the economy was far stronger than it currently is. According to the Joint Tax Committee, restoring the top income tax brackets for people making more than $1 million to what it was in 2000 would increase revenue by about $32.5 billion over the next 3 years, including $10.8 billion in 2009 alone. So here is the choice. We can continue over a 3-year period to give $32.5 billion in tax breaks to the top three-tenths of 1 percent, people who economically are doing phenomenally well today, or we can invest it in the people in our country and use some of that for deficit reduction. What could we do with $32.5 billion? Well, let me tell you. We could, as our amendment does, expend $10 billion for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; that is, special education. Over 30 years ago, the Federal Government made a promise that it would fund 40 percent of the cost of special education. Unfortunately, today we only spend about 17 percent of the cost of special ed. I know in Vermont--I do not know about Ohio, but I can tell you that in Vermont, in school district after school district, property taxes are going up. And one of the reasons is the very high cost of special ed. You are seeing more and more kids coming into the system who have special ed needs. Educating those kids is very expensive. The Federal Government has not kept its promise in adequately funding special ed. So it is the local property tax payers who have to pick up the cost. By putting $10 billion more into special ed, not only can we help people stabilize their property taxes, but we can pay more attention to the kids with special ed needs. And both of those goals, to my mind, are goals that we should strive for. This amendment would also increase Head Start funding by $5 billion over the next 3 years. After adjusting for inflation, Head Start has been cut by over 11 percent compared to fiscal year 2002. Meanwhile, less than half of all eligible children are enrolled in Head Start, and only about 3 percent of eligible children are enrolled in Early Head Start. This amendment would begin to correct this situation. What Head Start is about is what its title indicates. What we have known for a very long time is the most important intellectual and emotional years of a human being's life are their earliest years. If kids are not exposed to books and they are not exposed to ideas and they are not learning how to socialize and they do not have good emotional development, those kids are going to go off in a bad direction. And what Head Start was about, and what Head Start has been successful about, is giving kids the opportunity so that when they get into kindergarten and first grade, those kids will then be in a position in which they can learn effectively and can socialize well with their peers. Head Start works. The problem right now is that it is inadequately funded, and millions of families simply cannot get into this very good program. In addition to funding special education and Head Start, my amendment would also provide a $4 billion increase for the childcare development block grant. One of the issues that we very rarely discuss in the Senate but that every working family with young children knows is a major crisis in America is the lack of availability of childcare, affordable, quality childcare. How many millions of kids are now being minded by untrained people and being stuck in front of a television set for 8 hours a day? And what an unfortunate circumstance that is for our little kids, especially at a time when most women work and are entitled to good quality childcare. This amendment would provide funding to help do that. This amendment would also provide a $3.5 billion increase to the Food Stamp Program. Hunger in America--I know you know, Mr. President, because you and I are working on an issue to address this--is increasing. Food pantries are running out of food. That should not be taking place in this country. So what we do is add $3.5 billion more to the Food Stamp Program. In my State of Vermont, it gets pretty cold. That is true in many other States. Meanwhile, the price of home heating oil is soaring. You have many people who are having a difficult time paying their heating bills. This amendment would increase the very successful Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, often called LIHEAP, by $4 billion. The bottom line is nobody in America should go cold in the winter. Furthermore, this amendment would provide $3 billion for school construction. There are kids who are going to schools that are outmoded. They are decrepit. They are not energy efficient. We can create a lot of good jobs. We can improve the quality of education by building modern schools and upgrading the schools that currently exist. We put $3 billion into that. Finally, at a time of record-breaking deficits, this amendment would reduce the deficit by $3 billion. I am happy to inform my colleagues that this amendment has been endorsed by over 50 groups, including the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, the National Education Association, Children's Defense Fund, the American Federation of Teachers, Easter Seals, the YWCA, the National Head Start Association, the SEIU, and the National Organization for Women. Let me quote from a letter I received from all of these groups: The economic downturn is creating crisis for parents who work hard but struggle to afford nutritious meals as food prices escalate; to pay for energy for their homes and fuel for their cars; to pay for child care so that they can work; and to assure that their young children receive the building blocks of a solid education to prepare them for the future. Programs that assist in meeting these needs have been cut significantly in recent years, while tax breaks for millionaires have soared. Your amendment addresses these needs. . . .We are urging the Senate to adopt your fiscally responsible amendment to address the pressing needs of working families while restoring greater progressivity to the tax system. The choice is clear. We can provide $32.5 billion in tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires who don't need it or we can begin to meet the unmet needs of our children. That is what this amendment is about. I look forward to the support of my colleagues, not just in passing this amendment but in beginning the process of moving this great country in a very different direction. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, will my colleague yield?

Mr. SANDERS. Let me say, very clearly, to set the record straight, as an Independent, we need more revenue. We have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world. We have people who are hungry. We have mothers who can't afford childcare. Yes, sir, we need more revenue. We should ask the wealthiest people in this country to help us come up with the revenue.

Mr. SANDERS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona has just left the floor, unfortunately. But I did want to make two points. He has referred to something called the death tax, which is what we call the estate tax, which was developed by President Teddy Roosevelt way back when. What he forgot to mention is that this estate tax--and as I understand it, the Senator from Arizona, if he had all of his wish fulfilled would repeal the estate tax completely--benefits only the wealthiest three-tenths of 1 percent of the population. So for all of the concerns about the onerous impact of the estate tax, it benefits three-tenths of 1 percent. Mr. President, 99.7 percent of the families will not benefit at all from the repeal of the estate tax. The second point is, if the estate tax were completely repealed, the estimate is over a 20-year period it would add about $1 trillion to our debt--$1 trillion--which, like the war in Iraq, is simply not paid for. So when people talk about fiscal responsibility, I find it a little bit hard to understand how they could dump another $1 trillion into our national debt, which benefits only the top three-tenths of 1 percent of the population, which means it will be the middle class and working families who are obliged to have to pay that off over many years. Sometimes when our friends on the Republican side talk about fiscal responsibility, I am not quite sure where they are coming from. I thank the Presiding Officer, by the way, for sitting in for me, and as soon as I finish, I will take the chair. However, I wish to say a budget--and the budget we are debating right now on the floor of the Senate--is not just numbers. A budget is about the values of our country and the priorities of our country. Within that context, it is important to understand what, in fact, is going on in America right now. The simple reality is, the middle class is collapsing. Everybody who gets into their car in the morning and pays $3.20 for a gallon of gas, then goes to work and finds that they are paying a lot more for their health insurance than they used to, understands they don't have a pension when at one time they were promised a pension, understands that over 8 million Americans since Bush has been President have lost their health insurance. The middle class is in collapse. Wages are going down for tens of millions of Americans. During the Bush administration, private sector job growth has averaged less than 50,000 per month compared with over 220,000 under the Clinton administration. Since President Bush has been in office, from 2001, nearly 5 million more Americans have slipped into poverty. Median household income for working-age families is down by $2,500. Eight and a half million Americans lost their health insurance. Three million lost their pensions. The annual trade deficit has more than doubled, and over 3 million good-paying manufacturing jobs have been lost. The price of gas at the pump and home heating oil has more than doubled, while ExxonMobile made $40 billion in profits last year--more than any company in the history of the world. The personal savings rate recently dipped below zero--something that hasn't happened since the Great Depression. Home foreclosures, of course, are now the highest on record, turning the American dream of home ownership into an American nightmare for millions. The reason I raise these issues is, it is important to put the debate over the budget in a general context. This is not some abstraction. This is not some academic exercise. We are talking about the priorities of the American people within the context of what is really happening to the middle-class and working families. I found it interesting that my good friend from Arizona talked about the European Union and tried to compare the United States in terms of tax policy to other countries. Well, let me also compare the United States to some other countries. Today, the United States has the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country on Earth. We have the highest infant mortality rate of any major country on Earth. We have the highest overall poverty rate of any major country on Earth. We have the largest gap between the rich and the poor, the most people behind bars, and we are the only country in the industrialized world not to have a national health care program. Now, I wonder if my friends who get up and talk about the European Union might on occasion mention the kind of health care systems that exist in every single one of those countries, which guarantees health care to all of their people. Try to describe the types of parental leave programs that exist when families have a baby. Americans could not understand the extent to which those countries are ahead of us in terms of family values. So while the middle class in this country declines, while poverty increases, while we have the highest infant mortality rate of any other country, while 17,000 Americans die because they don't have any health insurance, there is another reality in American society today, a reality that we should also be talking about, and that is the wealthiest people in this country have never had it so good since the 1920s. According to Forbes magazine, the collective net worth of the wealthiest 400 Americans increased by $290 billion last year. Four hundred families, $290 billion increase last year, to $1.54 trillion. In addition, the top 1 percent now owns more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. Sometimes my Republican friends talk about averages and so forth. That is not the reality. If you look at the American economy as one would look at a football game or a baseball game, the important question to ask is, who is winning and who is losing? Well, let me be very clear. The middle class is losing. Working families are losing. The people on top have never had it so good since the 1920s. They are winning, and they are winning big time. To ignore that reality is to ignore what is happening in American society. The question then becomes, given that reality, where do we go from here? What we do know is the President has given us his answer. The President has brought forth a budget. He has told us that in his budget, we don't have enough money to meet the health care needs of this country. So at a time when our health care system is disintegrating, the President has decided we cannot adequately fund the Children's Health Insurance Program and that we should cut Medicare and Medicaid by more than $600 billion over the next decade. Think about it. The health care system is disintegrating, more and more people uninsured, more and more people having higher deductibles and copayments. The President's response: Let's make a terrible situation even worse. The President has said in his budget that we need to reduce the number of children receiving childcare by 200,000 kids. Any mother, any parent understands that our current childcare situation in America today is an absolute disaster. We say to single moms, go out and work, but we forget to ask what are those moms supposed to do with their 2- year-olds or their 3-year-olds? Should we leave them home alone in the apartment or should we provide quality childcare for them? Well, in Vermont and all over this country, it is increasingly difficult for families to secure quality, affordable childcare, and the President's brilliant response is, let's cut the number of children receiving childcare assistance by 200,000. My friend from Arizona said: Are there some people who want to spend more money? And I said: Yes, I do. I do not want the children in this country to have the dubious distinction of having the highest rate of poverty of any major country on Earth, and I would hope that every Member of the Senate would be deeply humiliated and embarrassed about that reality taking place within this country. There is a housing crisis all over America--in Vermont and all over America--and I am not just talking about foreclosures. I am talking about the needs of working families to find safe and affordable housing. The President's response in the middle of this crisis is, let's provide 100,000 fewer section 8 housing vouchers to low-income families. The President, in his budget, has said there is not enough money for special education. We made a promise to school districts all over America decades ago. We said: If you mainstream kids--which I think is a great idea--we will pick up the very high cost of special education. That was the promise. Today, in Vermont and all over America, more and more kids are coming in with special ed needs. School districts are paying outrageously high property taxes to accommodate those kids. I think it is time to keep the promise we made to school districts and adequately fund special education. Yes, I think we should do that. I think we should adequately fund Head Start so all of the families in America who want their kids to get a decent start so they are not behind when they enter the first grade have that opportunity. But somehow, in the midst of not funding the needs of our kids, as well as not funding housing, not funding LIHEAP, not funding virtually every need of low- and middle-income families, the President does have some money available. If you are rich, the President has money available for you. The President believes we have enough money to provide $812 billion in tax cuts for households earning more than $1 million per year over the next decade--not for our children, not for the homeless, not for the hungry, but for people who are earning over $1 million a year. That is an absurd and obscene sense of priorities. Fortunately, while the budget resolution we will be debating this week is not perfect, it is a vast improvement over the President's budget. I thank the Presiding Officer, Senator Conrad, for his hard work in giving us that budget. Instead of cutting back on the educational needs of this country, this budget resolution provides $5.4 billion more than the President's request for education, including the largest increase for elementary and secondary education programs since 2002. Instead of cutting back on the needs of our veterans--which has long been the history of the Bush administration--this budget resolution provides a $3.2 billion increase over the President's budget for our veterans. Instead of ignoring the urgent need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels, this budget resolution provides $8.45 billion to invest in clean energy, creating millions of good-paying, green-collar jobs and energy efficiency. Instead of cutting back on our Nation's enormous infrastructure needs--can you imagine the engineers, civil engineers, telling us we have over $1 trillion in unmet infrastructure needs, and this White House is refusing to even acknowledge the severity of the problem and is asking the cities and towns that are hard pressed to come up with the money? This budget resolution provides almost $9 billion more than the President for our roads, bridges, highways, sewers, and clean water improvement. It is not enough, but it is a step forward. I think over the long term, we can do even better than that. We have made progress in this budget, and we can do better. One area to which I will be paying particular attention is our children. It is not acceptable to me, as I said earlier, that we have the highest rate of childhood poverty among our children. Where are all of those people who keep talking about family values? How do they continue to ignore the reality that, by far, we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country? Nearly one out of every five children in this country lives in poverty. That is not a family value; that is a national disgrace. What happens to these kids when they become adults? Many of them will do well, but many of them will not. My colleagues may have recently seen an article in many of the papers talking about the fact that the United States has more people behind bars, at great expense--great expense for States and for the Federal Government--than any other country; more than China in total numbers. I happen to believe there is a correlation between the fact that we have the highest rate of childhood poverty and kids who drop off the wagon when they are young-- they drop out of society, they do drugs, they do destructive activity, they end up in jail, and we spend $50,000 to keep them in jail--rather than providing the childcare and educational opportunities they need. In my opinion, there are three major trends in American society that we should be addressing in this budget process. First, the fact that the United States has the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major country, and the gap between the very rich and everyone else is growing wider. Second, as I mentioned earlier, we have the highest rate of childhood poverty. Third--and I know the Presiding Officer has made this point over and over again--we have a $9.2 trillion national debt, which is soaring to $10 trillion; that under the Bush administration we have seen a $3 trillion increase in the national debt. This is a debt that is unsustainable economically, and it is a debt that is immoral because we are simply piling it up and leaving it to our kids and our grandchildren. I think those are some of the trends in American society that we should be dealing with in this budget. This week, I will be offering an amendment which is being cosponsored by Senators Durbin, Mikulski and Boxer, which is a very simple amendment. It doesn't go as far as I personally would like it to go, but it is a step forward perhaps in changing the nature of the debate that we have on the floor of the Senate. It puts the needs of our kids, working families, persons with disabilities, and senior citizens on fixed incomes ahead of the wealthy few. That is what it does. Specifically, this amendment would restore the top income tax bracket to 39.6 percent for households earning more than $1 million per year. That is the only group of people impacted, households earning more than $1 million a year. That is three-tenths of 1 percent of our population. We use that revenue to address the urgent unmet needs of our kids, dealing with job creation and deficit reduction. According to the Joint Tax Committee, restoring the top income tax bracket for people making more than $1 million to what it was in 2000, before the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy, would increase revenue by $32.5 billion over the next 3 years, including $10.8 billion in fiscal year 2009 alone. We have a choice in the Senate. We can give $32.5 billion to the top three-tenths of 1 percent, or people making at least $1 million a year, including billionaires, or else we can do something else with this money. Let me suggest we should do something else. Let me suggest that at a time when all of the Presidential candidates are talking about change, change, change, when the American people want to move our country in a new direction, maybe the Senate can begin that journey of taking this Nation in a new way that is more equitable, more fair, and begins to address longstanding social needs. Here is the option: $32.5 billion more in tax relief for millionaires and billionaires--and I suspect that many of our friends on the Republican side think that is a great idea--or there is another option. It is $10 billion over a 3-year period to go into the program of special ed. This will not only allow school districts the opportunity to better educate kids with special ed needs, it will also lower property taxes and local taxes. Most importantly, it will keep the promise that was made to school districts all over this country. The Federal Government made a promise that it would fund 40 percent of the cost of special ed. Unfortunately, today we are about at 17 percent. If you want to raise our credibility, let's keep the promise we made to school districts all over America and take care of some of our most vulnerable kids. So $10 billion goes to that. Then this amendment would also increase Head Start by $5 billion over the next 3 years. Every study indicates that Head Start works. It gives kids, who otherwise don't have the intellectual and emotional environment, the chance to do well when they get to school. It is a good investment. It is better to invest $5 billion in Head Start than it would be in jails. This amendment would provide a $4 billion increase for the Child Care Development Block Grant Program so that working families all over this country will have a fair shot at trying to find affordable childcare. This amendment puts a $3.5 billion increase into the Food Stamp Program. In my view, hunger in America is not something we should be about. This will take us a small step toward addressing hunger. This amendment would put $4 billion into the LIHEAP program because nobody in America should go cold in the winter or die of heat exposure when the temperature gets to 120 and they don't have an air conditioner. This amendment would also provide $3 billion for school construction, and it would create good-paying jobs in the process and make sure our kids have good schools in which to learn. Also, this amendment would reduce the deficit by $3 billion. So that is what we do. We reduce the deficit, protect our children, and protect the most vulnerable people. That is one option. Or we give another $32 billion in tax relief to people who don't need it. I think the choice is pretty clear. I hope this amendment will receive widespread support. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, if one watches the Presidential campaign, one finds that virtually all of those who have run for President and those who remain in the campaign are talking about change, change, and change. While I think each of them may differ with the other as to exactly what they mean by change, what they are picking up is the very serious unhappiness of the American people in terms of the direction this country is going. What people perceive and what the candidates are picking up on is that the middle class is shrinking. We have tens of millions of people who wake up in the morning, they go to the gas station, they are paying $3.20 for a gallon of gas. Home heating oil is soaring. In many cases, the wages of workers are going down. People are losing their health insurance. They are losing their pensions. They are seeing their jobs go to China and other low-wage countries. The people in our country do not feel good about the state of our economy. They want changes. They want to move this country in a different direction. Fundamentally, I believe, what they want is a new set of national priorities. As my colleagues may know, this afternoon the Senate Budget Committee voted on and passed a new budget. This budget, appropriately enough, rejects President Bush's incredibly bad budget, which continues the process of providing huge tax breaks to people who don't need it and then cutting back on the needs of the middle class and working families in terms of massive cuts in Medicare, in Medicaid, eliminating completely the weatherization program, and cutting back significantly on LIHEAP at a time when the need for heating assistance is greater now than ever before. Altogether, it is a budget which puts money where we should not be putting money and cuts back on those programs which people desperately need. Next week, as I understand it, the budget will be coming to the Senate floor. We will be debating the budget that was passed by the Budget Committee this afternoon. While I happen to believe the budget we passed was a good budget--certainly a major, major, major improvement over what President Bush gave us we can make significant improvements upon what we passed this afternoon. So I will be offering several amendments. The major one will essentially be asking the Senate to change the national priorities of this country and to begin responding to the millions of working families who know that something is wrong in America. They know that while poverty increases, while the middle class shrinks, the people on top have never had it so good. They know that ordinary people understand there is something strange when the wealthiest Nation in the history of the world cannot provide quality health care to all of its people; that our infrastructure is deteriorating before our very eyes; that we have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world; that all over our country food shelves are being descended upon--not by unemployed people alone, not by disabled people, not by poor people but by people who are working 40 or 50 hours a week and can't afford with their wages to provide the nutrition their families need. People understand there is something deeply, deeply wrong in this country, and that we have to move in a new direction. My amendment is very simple. It is going to give the Members of the Senate a very stark choice about whether we want change, about whether we want to move this country in a new direction. This is what it does. It couldn't be simpler. It says that at a time when the wealthiest people in this country have never had it so good since the 1920s in terms of a huge increase in their income, in terms of the fact that we now have by far the most unequal distribution of income and wealth of any major country, where the top 1 percent now earn more income than the bottom 50 percent, what we are saying is that it is time we rescind President Bush's tax breaks that go to people who make at least $1 million. That is the top three-tenths of 1 percent; 99.7 percent of the people would not be impacted by this amendment. It says: Let us rescind those tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, and when we do that, we will raise about $51 billion. Now, what can we do with that $51 billion, and what does this amendment include? First, it says that since President Bush has been in office, we have had record-breaking deficits. We now have a $9 trillion national debt. We are fighting a war we are not paying for, but that our kids and our grandchildren will be paying for. So in this amendment, of the $51 billion we raise by rescinding tax breaks for millionaires, we are going to put $10 billion into deficit reduction. That leaves $41 billion. This is what this amendment would do. It would provide $15 billion for special education. The Presiding Officer may remember that some years ago the Congress--the Government of the United States--made a commitment to school districts all over America and said: If you mainstream kids with disabilities, if you put them into public schools, if you treat them as every other kid, we will provide 40 percent of the cost of that special education. That is what the Government said. Unfortunately, the Government did not keep its word. So what we see in Vermont--and I suspect in Colorado and all over the country--is the school districts are paying enormous sums of money out of local taxes, often regressive property taxes, to fund special education. All over America, what we are seeing is more and more kids, for whatever reason--and that is a long discussion we need to have--are having problems, are being seen as having special ed needs. It is an expensive proposition. We are saying, let's begin to keep our word to school districts all over America. Let's relieve the pressure of local property taxes. Let's put $15 billion into special education. In addition, what this amendment would do is provide a $7 billion increase for Head Start. One of the great scandals in our Nation today is that we have the highest rate of childhood poverty--far higher than any other industrialized country; that working parents are finding it almost impossible to acquire quality, affordable child care; that Head Start openings are much greater than can be accommodated all over the country. We are saying Head Start is a program that works. It provides an opportunity for early childhood education for low-income kids. Let's expand that program to make sure working families can take advantage of that program and let's put $7 billion into expanding Head Start. We also, for the same reasons, put $2.2 billion into the child care and the development block grant program that will ensure every eligible family receives access to child care. I know in my State--and, again, I suspect in most States in this country--people are being weighed down by very high local taxes, including regressive property taxes. What this amendment does is provide $5 billion for school construction, modernization and repairs, to fix our crumbling schools. What this does is not only help local property taxes and not only help our school kids get modern buildings in which to learn, it also creates a lot of jobs as we rebuild one of the long neglected areas of our infrastructure, and that is our crumbling schools. This amendment would also provide an additional $3 billion for LIHEAP, the Low-Income Heating Assistance Program. I just, this afternoon, spoke to the directors of various community action programs in the State of Vermont. In my State--and my State may be a little bit different than some because it gets pretty cold there. We have had 20 below zero weather in the last couple weeks. There is a real level of stress regarding the availability of LIHEAP because the cost of home heating fuels is soaring. There is just not that availability. There is not enough money in the LIHEAP fund. We would put $3 billion more into LIHEAP, which helps, by the way, not only low-income families and senior citizens in the wintertime in cold-weather States, but it helps other families in States where the weather gets to be 110 degrees. As I mentioned earlier, in this great country, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, we must be embarrassed that we have large numbers of people who literally go hungry, who don't have enough food. That number is growing. I know Senator Harkin, among others, has called for a significant increase in the Food Stamp Program. That is exactly what we should be doing. This amendment would provide $5 billion for food stamps to make sure millions of families with kids have enough food to sustain them. Lastly, this amendment would provide $3.8 billion to allow the special supplemental nutrition program for Women, Infants, and Children, the WIC Program, to provide nutritious food to over 4 million families. Kids whose mothers have good nutrition and good prenatal experience, obviously, will do better in life. We want to make sure the WIC Program has the resources they need. So, ultimately, what this amendment is about is pretty simple: We say that in a time when millions of Americans, low- and moderate-income people, are in need, it is the obligation and the right of the U.S. Government to reach out and address those serious problems facing the middle-class and working families of our Nation. And at a time when the wealthiest people in this country have never had it so good and at the same time have been given huge tax breaks by the Bush administration, we say it is appropriate to rescind those tax breaks in order to help millions of people in need. That is what this amendment is about. It calls for a fundamental change in national priorities, and it moves this country in a very different and, I think, more moral direction. I look forward to the support of my colleagues for this amendment that we will offer as part of the budget debate. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.