Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

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

Mr. SANDERS. Let me begin by thanking my friend the Senator from Arkansas and my friend the Senator from Maine for their fine work on this very important issue in trying to protect the needs of our kids. I thank them very much. What I wish to talk about for a short period of time is the budget situation. I am a member of the Budget Committee. The Budget Committee, I believe, will be marking up the budget in committee tomorrow. I believe it will be on the floor sometime next week. This entire process of determining a budget is enormously important, because it reflects the priorities of the American people and it reflects our values. It is no different than any family budget. It has everything to do with where we choose to spend our resources and how we raise our resources. So it is an issue of enormous importance. As a member of the Budget Committee, I am going to be looking at this budget within a context of four major concerns. No. 1, as I go around my State of Vermont and, in fact, America and talk to a whole lot of people, I think the American people understand, even as Congress and the White House may not, that the middle class in this country today is in the midst of a collapse, and I use that word advisedly. Despite a huge increase in worker productivity, great strides forward in technology, there are tens of millions of American workers today who are working longer hours for lower wages. Poverty in America is increasing. I think of most concern is that moms and dads all over this country are worried that for the first time in the modern history of our country, their kids are going to have a lower standard of living than they do. That is the first sense of reality I look at as we prepare the budget. The second reality I look at is that while the middle class is shrinking and poverty is increasing, the people on top have not had it so good since the 1920s. I understand we are not supposed to talk about those things. Not too many people talk about the fact that we have the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major country on Earth. The rich are getting much richer, while everybody else virtually is seeing the decline in their standard of living. It is not something we are supposed to talk about. I talk about it. I think it should be talked about. I think it is an issue that must be addressed as we look at the budget, because we are going to have to ask a question about how we raise more revenue in order to address many of the unmet needs in our country. The third issue is just that. The reality is that there are enormous unmet needs in this country. When people say Government shouldn't be involved, I don't know to whom they are talking. Our infrastructure is collapsing. The civil engineers tell us that we have over $1 trillion in unmet needs in terms of our roads, our bridges, our tunnels, our wastewater systems. We need to fund those. It isn't going to get any better if we don't improve them, and we will create jobs as we do that. But it is not only our physical infrastructure. We have the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major Nation on Earth. This is a national disgrace. Eighteen percent of our kids are in poverty. We have other seriously unmet needs. So looking at the budget, we have to look at not only the general collapse of the middle class, the fact that the rich are getting richer and everybody else is getting poorer; we have to understand with regard to our children, our infrastructure, there are huge unmet needs. The fourth issue we have to deal with is that in the midst of all that, our national debt is soaring. It is now over $9 trillion. So I look at those four areas as issues that must be dealt with as we move into this new budget. Since President Bush has been in office, median household income for working-age Americans has declined by almost $2,500. That is part of the collapse of the middle class. The reality is we have lost some 3 million good-paying manufacturing jobs in Pennsylvania, in Ohio, and in the State of Vermont. We are losing good-paying jobs, in my view, because of a disastrous trade policy which simply encourages corporate America to throw American workers out on the street, move to China, and then bring their products back into this country. So we are losing good-paying jobs. Since President Bush has been in office, over 8.5 million Americans have lost their health insurance. We are now up to 47 million Americans without any health insurance. Meanwhile, health care premiums have increased by 78 percent. Under George W. Bush's watch, for the first time since the Great Depression, the personal savings rate has fallen below zero. This simply means that because of dire economic conditions, we are actually as a people spending more money than we are earning. There are millions of people right now who, when they go to the grocery store, don't buy their Wheaties and don't buy their rice and don't buy their milk with cash. They buy it with a credit card. By the way, they are often charged 25, 28 percent for that credit card. We are looking at a foreclosure crisis which is certainly the highest on record, turning the American dream of home ownership into an American nightmare for millions of our people. So that is No. 1: The middle class is collapsing. There is tremendous economic pressure. People go to the gas station to fill up their gas tank and pay $3.20 for a gallon of gas, while ExxonMobil makes $40 million last year. People can't afford home heating oil. The price of food is going up. Everywhere you turn there is enormous pressure on working families and on the middle class. That is a reality we must address as we look at this budget. But as I mentioned earlier, not everybody is in that boat. Let's be honest about it. The wealthiest people in this country have not had it so good since the 1920s. According to the latest figures from the IRS, the top 1 percent--1 percent--earned significantly more income in 2005 than the bottom 50 percent. That means the 300,000 Americans on the top earn more income than do the bottom 150 million Americans. It is the most unequal distribution of income and of wealth in our country of any major country on Earth. That is a reality that must be addressed as we look at the budget. According to Forbes Magazine, the collective net worth of the wealthiest 400 Americans--400--increased by $290 billion last year, to $1.54 trillion. Incredibly, the top 1 percent now owns more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. That is an issue we have to deal with. In terms of our national debt, our national debt is now at $9.2 trillion. I think the history books will be pretty clear in that among many other negative characteristics, President Bush will go down in history as being the most financially and fiscally irresponsible President in the history of this country. The national debt is soaring, and clearly, one of the reasons for that is we spend $12 billion every single month on the war in Iraq which, according to some people, is going to go on forever, I guess--$12 billion a month. And who is paying for it? Our kids and our grandchildren are paying for it, because it is easier to pass the cost of that war on to them than tell the American people today there is a cost of war, and you have to make some choices. Twelve billion dollars a month. There are people here in the Senate, and the President of the United States, who think we should repeal the estate tax. One trillion dollars worth of benefits go to the wealthiest three-tenths of 1 percent. And how do they propose to make up the difference? They don't. Just pass it on to the kids and our grandchildren and let the millionaires and billionaires of this country have a huge tax break. No problem at all, just: That is what we will do. I wish to talk about something else that also is not talked about very much, and that is the terrible situation of unmet social needs that exists in this country, and the President's budget. At a time when we have a major health care crisis, the President wants to make major cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. As a member of the Budget Committee, I am going to do everything I can to make sure we do not make the health care crisis in this country even worse. We have, as any mother or father knows--it is true in Vermont and it is true virtually all over this country--a horrendous crisis in terms of affordable childcare. The President has said in his budget that he wants to reduce the number of children receiving childcare assistance by 200,000. We have a major crisis, and the President's response is let's make it even worse. Embarrassingly, in this great country, many of our citizens are going hungry. I know in Vermont, our emergency food shelters are running out of food. This is true all over the country. We need to address that issue. The President's response is to deny food stamps to 300,000 families and children, and so forth and so on. It is a crisis among low-income working people. The President's response is to cut those programs so we can give tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this country. It seems to me that at a time when our country has so many serious problems, at a time when the American people know in their souls that we are moving in the wrong direction in so many areas, with fundamental problems in this country, we have to have the courage to have a serious debate about moving this country in a new direction. There was an article in the papers recently--last week--and it brought forth a fact that many of us had known, but it is important to repeat: In the United States of America, we have the largest number of people behind bars of any country on Earth. People say, well, China is much larger than America and is an authoritarian, Communist country, so surely they have more people--I am not talking per capita, I am talking collectively, in total--behind bars than we do. Wrong. Is there a correlation between the fact that we have more people in jail than any other country and the fact that we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country on Earth? I think there is a direct correlation. I think you either pay now or you pay later. Either you give kids the opportunity for decent childcare, nutrition, and education, and keep an eye on them so that in fourth grade they don't mentally drop out, and in the tenth grade they don't really drop out of school and get involved in destructive activity--you either do it--and it costs money--or you ignore that reality. When these kids go to jail and commit crimes, we spend $50,000 a year keeping them behind bars. That is our choice. If people want to ignore the crisis and the reality we have, which is the highest rate of childhood poverty, that we are underfunding Head Start, and so on, you can ignore it, but you are going to pay the price at the other end by locking up many people in jail. I also want to mention to my colleagues that I will be bringing amendments to the floor during the budget process. They are simple. What they say is that at a time when the wealthiest people in this country have never had it so good, when the President has given these same people huge tax breaks, the time is now that we rescind the tax breaks that go to millionaires and billionaires and use some of that money to reduce our national debt, and use others of those sums to start protecting the middle-class working families and the kids in this country. A budget is about priorities, about choices. I intend to provide some choices to the Members of the Senate. I hope they will support me and those amendments in moving this country in a fundamentally different direction. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to help protect consumers from high electricity prices that have followed deregulation of electricity markets. I am honored to have many of my colleagues joining me in offering this legislation--Senator Snowe, Senator Kerry, Senator Collins, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Leahy. Market pricing of electricity promised to bring lower costs to consumers. Unfortunately, consumers in organized market regions--those that have a Regional Transmission Organization or Independent System Operator, RTOs or ISOs as they are called--are experiencing just the opposite: substantial, across-the-board problems with spiraling costs, unaccountable governance, and a chronic lack of oversight. Increasingly, RTOs/ISOs are adopting questionable, unproven, and expensive market mechanisms, and there seems to be little interest at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, or the RTOs/ISOs to question any of the economic theories behind these mechanisms. I note that on February 21, 2008, FERC finally took a step toward acknowledging that the markets are not working by issuing a proposed rule that would address some concerns. I believe, however, that the legislation I am introducing today will focus FERC on consumer issues, which were not adequately addressed in the proposed rule. The goal of lowering costs to consumers has been lost in the race to create competitive electricity markets. In fact, something as simple as keeping costs to consumers as low as reasonably possible is not even part of the mandate, or mission statement, of any of the Nation's ISOs or RTOs! In New England, we have seen what can happen--there have been several instances in which ISO-New England has implemented expensive market mechanisms, over the objection of significant segments of electric stakeholders, without either conducting a cost-benefit analysis or comparing the costs of the proposed initiative with alternative means of achieving the desired results. Showing the strong interest in this issue in the New England region, the legislation is supported by the Northeast Public Power Association, the Vermont Public Power Supply Authority, the Burlington Electric Department, Kennebunk Light & Power District, the Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company, Connecticut Municipal Electric Energy Cooperative, the Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel, and the Pascoag Utility District. The Ohio Consumers' Counsel, the Maryland Office of People's Counsel, Electricity Consumers Resource Council, and the Utility Consumers' Action Network support the legislation as well. The legislation I am introducing today would refocus FERC on the consumer cost impacts of RTO/ISO actions. Consistent with existing law, the bill makes explicit that, when FERC considers the lawfulness of RTO/ISO rates, it must assess whether those rates will ensure that consumer costs are as low as reasonably possible consistent with the provision of reliable service. Also, in recognition of the uniquely important roles played by RTOs and ISOs, this bill requires FERC to make both goals--cost minimization and reliability--a part of each RTO or ISO's mission. These changes clarify and amplify existing law as applied to these important organizations, but do not alter, diminish, or imply an absence of similar requirements with respect to other public utilities regulated by FERC. I believe these simple, commonsense issues, when posed by FERC to an RTO/ISO that is seeking approval for a rate, charge, or rule, will instill a much stronger sense of cost accountability. The bottom line, as I see it, is that this simple bill will likely yield substantial benefits for consumers and for many regional economies. I urge my colleagues to join me in pushing for adoption of the Consumer Protection and Cost Accountability Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to help protect consumers from high electricity prices that have followed deregulation of electricity markets. I am honored to have many of my colleagues joining me in offering this legislation--Senator Snowe, Senator Kerry, Senator Collins, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Leahy. Market pricing of electricity promised to bring lower costs to consumers. Unfortunately, consumers in organized market regions--those that have a Regional Transmission Organization or Independent System Operator, RTOs or ISOs as they are called--are experiencing just the opposite: substantial, across-the-board problems with spiraling costs, unaccountable governance, and a chronic lack of oversight. Increasingly, RTOs/ISOs are adopting questionable, unproven, and expensive market mechanisms, and there seems to be little interest at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, or the RTOs/ISOs to question any of the economic theories behind these mechanisms. I note that on February 21, 2008, FERC finally took a step toward acknowledging that the markets are not working by issuing a proposed rule that would address some concerns. I believe, however, that the legislation I am introducing today will focus FERC on consumer issues, which were not adequately addressed in the proposed rule. The goal of lowering costs to consumers has been lost in the race to create competitive electricity markets. In fact, something as simple as keeping costs to consumers as low as reasonably possible is not even part of the mandate, or mission statement, of any of the Nation's ISOs or RTOs! In New England, we have seen what can happen--there have been several instances in which ISO-New England has implemented expensive market mechanisms, over the objection of significant segments of electric stakeholders, without either conducting a cost-benefit analysis or comparing the costs of the proposed initiative with alternative means of achieving the desired results. Showing the strong interest in this issue in the New England region, the legislation is supported by the Northeast Public Power Association, the Vermont Public Power Supply Authority, the Burlington Electric Department, Kennebunk Light & Power District, the Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company, Connecticut Municipal Electric Energy Cooperative, the Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel, and the Pascoag Utility District. The Ohio Consumers' Counsel, the Maryland Office of People's Counsel, Electricity Consumers Resource Council, and the Utility Consumers' Action Network support the legislation as well. The legislation I am introducing today would refocus FERC on the consumer cost impacts of RTO/ISO actions. Consistent with existing law, the bill makes explicit that, when FERC considers the lawfulness of RTO/ISO rates, it must assess whether those rates will ensure that consumer costs are as low as reasonably possible consistent with the provision of reliable service. Also, in recognition of the uniquely important roles played by RTOs and ISOs, this bill requires FERC to make both goals--cost minimization and reliability--a part of each RTO or ISO's mission. These changes clarify and amplify existing law as applied to these important organizations, but do not alter, diminish, or imply an absence of similar requirements with respect to other public utilities regulated by FERC. I believe these simple, commonsense issues, when posed by FERC to an RTO/ISO that is seeking approval for a rate, charge, or rule, will instill a much stronger sense of cost accountability. The bottom line, as I see it, is that this simple bill will likely yield substantial benefits for consumers and for many regional economies. I urge my colleagues to join me in pushing for adoption of the Consumer Protection and Cost Accountability Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, given the objection, I withdraw my amendment.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I thank my friend from North Dakota. Amendment No. 3900 Withdrawn Madam President, I ask for the regular order with respect to the Sanders amendment No. 3900.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I rise in strong support of the Indian health care package being put together by Senator Dorgan. As Senator Reid indicated, these are a group of people who have been the most neglected in our country, and it is imperative we move rapidly to address longstanding concerns. I have an amendment pending to provide $800 million in emergency funding for the LIHEAP program. The reason I am offering this amendment is simple and obvious. At a time when home heating fuel is skyrocketing, millions of senior citizens on fixed incomes, millions of low-income families with kids, and persons with disabilities are desperately trying to keep their homes warm this winter. Without this additional source of immediate funding, there is a major risk that old people and lower income people all over America will go cold. In the richest country on the face of the Earth, we have a moral responsibility not to allow that. Over the past week, as everybody knows, in many parts of America, temperatures have been going well below zero. In my State of Vermont, in Lincoln, VT, was 21 below zero. In Nome, AK, the high temperature was 15 below; Grand Forks, ND, 12 below zero; Eureka, SD, 3 below zero. On and on all across the country, temperatures are getting cold. The cost of home heating oil is outrageously high. LIHEAP funding is being depleted. People are unable to afford to keep their homes warm. That, in a nutshell, is what we are discussing. The amendment I am offering has been endorsed by many organizations and many Members of the Senate. Some of the endorsees include the National Governors Association, the AARP, the National Conference of State Legislatures, many others. Let me briefly excerpt from a letter I received from the National Governors Association in support of the amendment: Additional funding distributed equitably under this amendment will support critically needed heating and cooling assistance to millions of our most vulnerable, including the elderly, disabled, and families that often have to choose between paying their heating or cooling bills and food, medicine and other essential needs. That is from the National Governors Association. The AARP also has come out in support of the amendment, indicating that some of the most significant victims of what happens when it becomes cold are senior citizens who suffer from hypothermia. They are very much in support of this amendment, and we thank them for their support. This bipartisan amendment is also cosponsored by many of my colleagues, including: Senators Clinton, Obama, Snowe, Collins, Leahy, Sununu, Kennedy, Gordon Smith, Coleman, Kerry, Stabenow, Schumer, Lautenberg, Lincoln, Klobuchar, Murray, Cantwell, Menendez, Durbin, and Whitehouse. I thank them. Yesterday, Senator Gregg offered a second-degree amendment to my amendment. In my view, his amendment is a poison pill which, if passed, would either kill or slow down all our efforts to increase emergency funding for LIHEAP. The Gregg amendment would pay for the $800 million increase in LIHEAP by cutting overall discretionary nondefense spending by about .2 of 1 percent. I am opposed to the Gregg amendment for a number of reasons. First, it is an extremely irresponsible way to do budgeting. There are some agencies that need to be cut a lot more than .2 of 1 percent. And there are, in fact, programs and agencies that need significantly more funding. An across-the-board cut, regardless of the needs of a program or agency, is irresponsible. Secondly, Senator Gregg excludes from his cuts the department that receives over half the discretionary funding, and that is the Department of Defense. If Senator Gregg thinks all of the $500 billion- plus that goes to the Department of Defense is well spent and well accounted for, he is mistaken. You cannot exclude the largest recipient of discretionary funding from examination. In the real world, what would be the impact of the Gregg amendment if it were to pass? I know that .2 of 1 percent may not seem like a lot of money at first blush, but let's take a look at what this cut would mean. It would mean a $54 million cut for veterans medical care, and overall veterans funding would be reduced by $86 million. I don't think any Member of the Senate supports that. While we are trying to fight and come up with an understanding of various cancers, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, the National Institutes of Health would be cut by over $58 million by the Gregg amendment. The Gregg amendment would cut special education by $22 million. People are paying higher and higher property taxes because this Congress, for many years, has not kept the promise it made by adequately funding special education. The Gregg amendment would cut funding for special ed by some $22 million. Head Start would be cut by $14 million. We are grossly underfunding Head Start right now. We have a major early education crisis from one end of America to the other. This would only make that problem worse. The Gregg amendment would cut community health centers by over $4 million at a time when 47 million Americans have no health insurance, creating a process by which even fewer Americans can access primary health care. Homeland security would receive a cut of $70 million. Education would be cut by over $100 million. I certainly share Senator Gregg's concerns about the national debt. I look forward to working with him and other members of the Budget Committee to discuss how we should reduce our $9.2 trillion national debt, which increased by $3 trillion under President Bush. It is a real issue, one we have to get a handle on. But maybe we will discuss in the Budget Committee the absurdity of trying to eliminate the estate tax which would add $1 trillion to our national debt over 20 years by giving tax breaks exclusively to the wealthiest .3 of 1 percent. We are debating whether we should help senior citizens who are going cold this winter. But there are many, including the President, who say: No problem, a trillion dollars in tax relief for the wealthiest .3 of 1 percent. We should be discussing why we are providing other tax breaks to some of the wealthiest people in this country. Perhaps we can discuss the appropriateness of spending $12 billion a month on the war in Iraq, with most of that sum being budgeted as emergency spending. It is not an emergency. We know what is going on. Yet we are not prepared to pay for the war. We are leaving that cost to our kids and grandchildren. That is emergency spending. We can pass that $12 billion a month. Yet there are those who balk at spending $800 million on a real emergency, and that is keeping senior citizens and families all over America warm this winter. Providing a mere $800 million for LIHEAP would primarily benefit senior citizens, families with children, and people with disabilities earning between $10 and $15,000 a year. At a time when gasoline and home heating oil prices in the State of Vermont and throughout the country are well above $3 a gallon, we should not be forcing seniors and others to make a choice about whether they are going to buy the medicine or food they need--hunger is increasing--or keep warm this winter. There is no great secret that the American people are increasingly disenchanted with what is going on in Washington, whether in the White House or in Congress. They wonder what planet we are living on. They are struggling, millions, every single day to keep their heads above water to pay for the food they need, to fill up their gas tanks in order to go to work, to keep warm in the winter. They wonder why we are not responding to their needs. We have people here talking about more tax breaks for billionaires, when workers are losing their jobs. Passing the Sanders amendment certainly is not going to solve all those problems. But maybe at a time when people are going cold and others know that people are going cold, maybe--maybe--it will make the American people understand some of us are aware of the reality of American life as it exists in cities and towns all across this country, that maybe we know what is going on, and we are prepared to respond in a proper way. Madam President, having said that, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now resume the Gregg amendment No. 4022 and that it be modified to be a first-degree amendments and that the Senate then debate concurrently amendments No. 3900 and No. 4022, as modified, with 40 minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to each amendment, with the time equally divided and controlled between Senator Sanders and Senator Gregg or their designees; that each amendment be subject to a 60-affirmative vote threshold, and that if the amendment does not achieve that threshold, it be withdrawn; that if either amendment achieves 60 affirmative votes, then the amendment be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that the vote in relation to the Gregg amendment No. 4022, as modified, occur first in the sequence and that there be 2 minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to each vote; provided further that no intervening amendment be in order to either amendment; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Gregg amendment, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Sanders amendment.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I yield to my friend from New Hampshire.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I wonder why it would be that when we face a dire crisis all across this country, we cannot move forward vigorously in providing relief to seniors and low-income people who need this help. I would love to have a response to that, Madam President.

Mr. SANDERS. Reclaiming my time, Madam President, I think, again, we want to move and pass, I hope, the Indian health bill. But I think if we are honest--obviously, if people want to bring up 30 amendments, that would kill the Indian health bill, but if that is not the desire, if there are very few amendments and leadership can agree on a time limit on them, we can move forward on some serious amendments, have votes, and pass--at least vote on--the Indian health bill. Again, I ask my friend from Arizona if that is something he would entertain. It does mean that not everybody can offer every amendment they want. There would have to be a limitation and a time limitation.

Mr. SANDERS. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS. Yes, I yield.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, reclaiming my time, it is absolutely not my intention, as I indicated to Senator Dorgan, to slow this down. This is important legislation we want to pass. I would limit my time to 20 minutes, to 10 minutes. I think most people here know what the issue is. I would like an up-or-down vote, and let's move on to Indian health.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I am kind of new to the Senate, but I would ask my friend from Alaska or my friend from New Hampshire: Why? Why the objection? If we are sympathetic to LIHEAP----

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, reclaiming my time, to the best of my knowledge, I heard the objection coming from the Republican side, not the Democratic side.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Reclaiming my time, Madam President, I would ask my friend from Arizona--and I understand that. We want to move to the Indian health bill. There is a real solution to that in the real world if we are serious; that is, limiting the amount of time and reaching a unanimous consent agreement about a few amendments that might be offered so we can vote on them and move on to Indian health. Would the Senator from Arizona be prepared to do that?

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I wish to call up amendment No. 3900, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Pryor) The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, this tripartisan amendment is being cosponsored by Senators Clinton, Obama, Snowe, Collins, Leahy, Sununu, Kennedy, Gordon Smith, Coleman, Kerry, Stabenow, Schumer, Lautenberg, Lincoln, Klobuchar, Murray, Cantwell, Menendez, and Durbin. This amendment is simple and straightforward. At a time when home heating prices are going through the roof--and I think every Member who goes back to his or her State understands that the cost of home heating oil is soaring--people understand that in areas around this country, including the State of Vermont, the weather has been well below zero. What this amendment would do is provide real relief to millions of senior citizens on fixed incomes, low-income families with children, and people with disabilities. Specifically, this amendment would provide $800 million in emergency funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program--otherwise known as LIHEAP--a program that has won bipartisan support year after year here in Congress because people know it works. Its goal is simply stated: to keep Americans from going cold in the wintertime. It has done this for years, and we have to appropriate more money to make sure we do that again this year. Specifically, $400 million of the $800 million would be distributed under the regular LIHEAP formula, while the other $400 million would be used under the emergency LIHEAP program. This amendment has strong support not only from many Members of the Senate and Members of the House, but it has strong support from the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislators, the AARP, the National Energy Assistance Directors Association, and many other groups. Let me very briefly quote from a letter I received from the National Governors Association in support of this amendment. Additional funding distributed equitably under this amendment will support critically needed heating and cooling assistance to millions of our most vulnerable, including the elderly, disabled and families who often have to choose between paying their heating or cooling bills and food, medicine and other essential needs. According to the National Governors Association, this amendment will provide much needed energy assistance to at least 1 million American families--1 million. Others already receiving LIHEAP will receive more help due to the skyrocketing costs of home heating fuel. Let me very briefly quote from a letter I recently received from the AARP. This is what the AARP says: People should not have to choose between heating and eating. Older Americans who are more susceptible to hypothermia and heat stroke know the importance of heating and cooling their homes. They pay their utility bills and skimp on other necessities to get by. However, no one in America should be forced to skip their medications or cut back on essential nutritional needs in order to keep their heat on. That is from the AARP. I ask unanimous consent to have these letters printed in the Record.

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

Mr. SANDERS. I commend subcommittee chairman Senator Harkin, subcommittee ranking member Senator Specter, Appropriations chairman Senator Byrd, and ranking member Senator Cochran for providing a total of about $2.6 billion in funding for LIHEAP in the Omnibus appropriations bill. Their job was a difficult one. There was not enough money available to do all that needed to be done, but they did their best for LIHEAP and for our critical needs. Unfortunately, this $2.6 billion in funding for LIHEAP, while an 18- percent increase from last year, is still 23 percent below what was provided for LIHEAP just 2 years ago. That 23 percent reduction is not even adjusting for inflation. We are talking here about nominal dollars. Two years ago, the price of heating oil was less than $2.50 a gallon; today, it is over $3.30 a gallon. In central Vermont, we have seen prices as high as $3.73 a gallon this winter for heating oil. According to the National Energy Assistance Directors Association, due to insufficient funding, the average LIHEAP grant only pays for 18 percent of the total cost of heating a home with heating oil this winter, 21 percent of residential propane costs, 41 percent of natural gas costs, and 43 percent of electricity costs. What this means, in plain English, is that low-income families with children, senior citizens on fixed incomes, and people with disabilities will have to make up the remaining cost out of their own pockets. The problem is that millions of those people simply do not have the money to make up the difference. In addition, only 16 percent of eligible LIHEAP recipients currently receive assistance with their home heating bills, and 84 percent of eligible low-income families with children, seniors on fixed incomes, and people with disabilities do not receive any LIHEAP assistance whatsoever due to a lack of funding. In my State of Vermont, it has been reported that outrageously high home heating costs are pushing families into homelessness. In fact, it is not uncommon for families with two working parents to receive help from homeless shelters in the State of Vermont because they cannot find anyplace else to live in winter. But this is a national energy emergency certainly well beyond Vermont and well beyond the Northeast. On January 17, 1 day after the President released $450 million in emergency LIHEAP funding, the National Energy Assistance Directors Association testified in front of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee field hearing chaired by Senator Kennedy. Here is what the national energy directors reported on just a few of the States: In Arkansas, the number of families receiving LIHEAP assistance is expected to be reduced by up to 20 percent from last year unless we get more funding. The State of Arizona estimates they will have to cut the number of families receiving LIHEAP assistance by 10,000 as compared to last year. In Delaware, the number of families receiving LIHEAP assistance will be reduced by up to 20 percent. In Iowa, regular LIHEAP grants have been cut by 7 percent from last year. In Maine, the average LIHEAP grant will only pay for about 2 to 3 weeks of home heating costs in most homes in that State. The State of Kentucky could run out of LIHEAP funds in the near future. In Massachusetts, the spike in energy costs means that the purchasing cost for LIHEAP has declined by 39 percent since 2006. The State of Minnesota could run out of LIHEAP funding as well. On and on it goes. In New York State, in Ohio, in Rhode Island, in Texas, in Washington, in State after State the simple arithmetic works out that if the cost of heating fuel is soaring, in order to provide the same benefits to the same number of people, we need to significantly increase our funding for LIHEAP, and we are not doing that. That is what this amendment is about. There is a lot of discussion on this floor about emergencies. This is an emergency. There is a lot of discussion on this floor about moral values. This is a moral issue. In the United States of America, the wealthiest Nation in the history of the world, millions of senior citizens and low-income parents with kids should not be forced to worry about whether their homes will be warm this winter. People should not have to make the choice between keeping warm or paying for other basic necessities of life. This is an emergency situation. This is a moral situation. I wish to thank all of the cosponsors who have come on board this legislation. I ask my colleagues to strongly support this amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me concur with Senator Reid. The American people want us to begin to get work done for them. It is high time we did that. I also congratulate the Senator from North Dakota and share his concerns about many of the points he made, not the least of which, if we are going to spend hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars on this war in Iraq, that bill should not be left to our children and our grandchildren. We should at least have the decency to pay for that ourselves. Mr. President, I wish to say a few words this afternoon about the budget President Bush brought before us yesterday and tell you I was extremely dismayed by what was in that budget and what was not in that budget. Frankly, in my view, this budget is unconscionable, and it reflects priorities that are hard to imagine and are way out of step with what ordinary Americans feel and believe. While providing hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks for the wealthiest people in our country--the wealthiest three-tenths of 1 percent--over the next decade, the President, at the same time, has proposed major cuts in health care, in low-income heating assistance, in weatherization, in nutrition, in housing programs, and in other basic needs of low- and moderate-income Americans. That is a set of values which I think reflect badly on the White House and does not reflect the values of the American people. In my view, this is a Robin Hood-in-reverse budget. This is a budget which takes from the poor to give to the rich. This is a budget which cuts programming for those most in need and gives billions of dollars in tax breaks for those least in need. This proposed budget simply tells us--again, if we didn't need this reminder--just how out of touch this administration is with the needs of working Americans. Let me be very clear. I am a member of the Budget Committee, and I intend to do everything I can to make sure that President Bush's budget is rejected and that we bring forth in the Senate a new budget that reflects the priorities of the vast majority of the people in our country and not just the wealthy few. Most Americans understand that our health care system is disintegrating. Everybody knows that. Since President Bush has been in office, 8.5 million Americans have lost their health insurance, 47 million Americans are now uninsured, and the cost of health care is soaring. How does President Bush respond to the growing crisis in health care? Well, it is an unusual response: He slashes funding for Medicare. He slashes funds for Medicaid. He cuts rural health care programs. In other words, he is making a bad situation even worse. As I have said, Mr. President, we are living in a period where our health care system is disintegrating. More and more people lack health insurance. The costs are soaring, premiums are going up, copayments are going up, and deductibles are going up. The President's response to this crisis is to savagely cut Medicare, Medicaid, rural health care programs, and other health care programs. What logic is there in making a bad situation even worse? But it is not just health care. I understand that it would be asking too much for this President to take on the insurance companies and take on the drug companies and move us toward a national health care program, which every other major country on Earth has. We are the only country in the industrialized world that doesn't guarantee health care to all people. I understand the President is not going to do that, but at the very least, he should not be adding more people to the rolls of the uninsured. At the very least, at a time when we have some 17,000 Americans who are dying every year because they lack health insurance, he need not make a terrible situation even worse. In the State of Vermont and throughout many parts of our country, we have experienced extremely cold weather this winter. There are parts of America where we have seen 20-below-zero weather. At the same time, the price of home heating oil is soaring. In fact, it has more than doubled since President Bush has been in office. The result is that the LIHEAP program, Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which keeps millions of seniors and lower income households warm in the winter, is stretched to the breaking point. The simple truth is that when home heating costs soar, either States will cut back per person or they will deny large numbers of people any heating oil at all. That is the reality the States face. I understand President Bush has no problem with the fact that his friends at ExxonMobil have just announced the largest profits in the history of the world for the third consecutive year--over $40 billion in profits in 2007. I know he has no problem with that. I know he has no great problem with the fact that home heating oil prices are now at over $3.30 a gallon. I know he is not worried about the fact that a few years ago, the former CEO of ExxonMobil, Mr. Raymond, received a $400 million retirement package from that company. From President Bush's perspective and ideology, I suppose those are good things. Despite the President's lack of concern about rising fuel costs, it really is beyond comprehension that he would slash the LIHEAP program by $570 million in his budget--a 22-percent reduction from last year. Imagine that. The cost of home heating oil is soaring, LIHEAP is under great strain and it cannot do what it did last year for lack of funding, and President Bush's response is: Let's cut another half- billion dollars from LIHEAP. What are people supposed to do next year under Bush's budget when the weather gets cold? What do old people who are living on Social Security and cannot afford the outrageously high prices for home heating oil do? Do they freeze to death? Do they move in with their kids? How many blankets do they have to throw on themselves? How do you treat old people when it gets cold? You don't slash LIHEAP by $570 million. That is pretty cruel. At a time when millions of low-income seniors are struggling to survive on inadequate Social Security benefits, this President, in his budget, wants to cut back on nutrition programs for low-income seniors, in addition to cutting back on senior housing. There is a program which, in Vermont, works very well--the Commodity Supplemental Food Program. It provides a free package of groceries every month to low-income seniors. People all over the country utilize this program. They need this program. The President may not know this, but hunger is on the upsurge in America. In this great country, more and more fellow citizens are going hungry. What we are seeing is emergency food shelves not having enough food to feed desperate people all over America. And the President's response to this crisis is to cut back or eliminate the Commodity Supplemental Food Program. What is the moral justification for doing that? I don't know. I am a member of the Veterans' Committee, and I am proud that last year, against opposition from the White House, we substantially increased funding for the VA and are providing billions more so that veterans can gain access to quality care in VA hospitals and clinics. Despite all of his rhetoric about how much he loves and respects the troops, this President, in his budget, has proposed a very large increase in health care fees for veterans who access VA facilities. The increases would range from $250 to $750. What is the goal there? It is very clear. The goal is to drive veterans--low-income veterans--out of the VA system so the VA can save money. Thank you very much, Mr. President. A week ago, the President, in his State of the Union Address, was telling us how much he loved and respected the veterans. Now he is raising fees for VA health care with the explicit goal of driving veterans out of the VA health care system. That is wrong but, frankly, it is consistent with what President Bush did some years ago when he completely eliminated access to the VA for so-called category 8 veterans, who were too wealthy. These were veterans who didn't have service-connected disabilities, were not wounded, but had incomes of over $27,000 a year. They were too wealthy to access VA health care. Well, I say to President Bush, at a time when tens of thousands of our soldiers have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, please do not balance your budget on the backs of our veterans. Since George W. Bush has been in office, we have seen recordbreaking deficits, and our national debt is now $9.2 trillion--$3 trillion more than when he came into office. All of us in Congress want to move this country toward a balanced budget and to make sure our kids and grandchildren are not left with this enormous debt Bush has accumulated. But there are right ways to move us toward a balanced budget and there are wrong ways to do it and George W. Bush's budget moves us exactly in the wrong direction. As many Americans know, since President Bush has been in office, the middle class has been decimated, poverty has increased, and the gap between the very wealthiest people in our society and everyone else has grown wider. In fact--and we do not talk about this terribly much, although we should be talking about it--the United States today has by far the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major country on Earth. In fact, our distribution of wealth and income is increasingly looking like Mexico, it is looking like Brazil, it is looking like those poor developing countries and certainly not looking like Europe, Scandinavia, Canada or other industrialized nations. Mr. President, as you are more than aware, there are a lot of facts and figures that are thrown out on the floor of the Senate, but let me mention one statistic that I hope all Americans will pay attention to and to which I hope my colleagues in the Senate will pay attention. And that is, according to the latest available statistics, the wealthiest 300,000 Americans--men, women, and children--300,000 take in more income than the bottom 150 million. In other words, the upper one-tenth of 1 percent, 300,000, people earn more income than do the bottom 50 percent. One-tenth of 1 percent, 50 percent, more income for the top one-tenth of 1 percent. In my view, that is not what America is supposed to be about, but that is the direction in which we are moving. That gap between the people on top, a handful of people, and everybody else is getting wider and wider. For those people who live in the bottom 90 percent of the population, the overwhelming majority of our people, their average income was $33,000 way back in 1973 before globalization, before computers, before a huge increase in worker productivity. Thirty-five years have come and gone, and today, inflation accounted for dollars, that average income has declined from $33,000 to $29,000. That is a $75-a-week pay cut. That is called the collapse of the middle class: people working longer hours, they are making lower wages. That is the reality facing tens of millions of our fellow citizens. That explains to my mind why in yesterday's Washington Post a front page story was headlined: ``U.S. Concern Over Economy is Highest in Years.'' It doesn't take a genius to figure that out. People go to the gas pump and pay $3.15 for a gallon of gas. They go to work and the boss says: Sorry, you no longer have health insurance. Oh, I can't afford to pay my mortgage; I am losing my house. Oh, too bad, 3 million Americans lost their pensions last year. In area after area, in almost every aspect of middle-class life, people are getting hit. Then when they go to the grocery store and have to use their credit card to buy their groceries because they don't have the cash available, they find they are paying 28 percent in interest rates so Wall Street can become wealthier. That is what is going on, and that is why the American people are outraged about what is going on in terms of the middle class. I have to tell you I find it literally beyond belief that with poverty in America increasing, with the middle class shrinking and with the wealthiest people in our country having it better than at any time since the late 1920s--incomes are soaring for millionaires and billionaires, a huge growth in the number of millionaires and billionaires--in the middle of all that, what President Bush is saying is he wants to repeal the estate tax which would provide $1 trillion in tax relief to whom? To the top three-tenths of 1 percent; $1 trillion going to the top three-tenths of 1 percent. That is what this budget, this Robin-Hood-in-reverse budget is all about. If you are old and you are having a difficult time heating your home, President Bush is going to cut the program that keeps you warm. If you are low income or a working person in need of health care, President Bush wants to cut the programs that help you. If you are a veteran who has put your life on the line defending this country, the President wants to make it harder for you to access VA health care by substantially increasing your fees. If you are a low-income person in a home which lacks insulation and you are spending all kinds of money trying to keep your house warm, the President wants to completely cut back and eliminate the weatherization program. That is the bad news. But if you are a billionaire, if you are one of the wealthiest families in America, in this very same budget, the President wants to give you huge tax breaks. Cutbacks for those in need; tax breaks for billionaires. Let me give one example. If the estate tax is completely repealed, as President Bush wants that to take place, one family, the Walton family, which owns Wal-Mart, which is worth about $82 billion, that one family will receive over $30 billion in tax relief. We hear on this Senate floor a lot about morality, right? We hear a lot about values. I want to know what kind of moral values there are when there are some people, including the President, who would give one family, an enormously wealthy family, a multibillion-dollar family, $30 billion in tax breaks and then cut back on the needs of millions and millions of low-income and working families? What kind of moral values does that speak to? We have a lot of work in front of us. We have to completely rewrite President Bush's budget. We need to work hard so the people of our country once again begin to have faith in their Government, that they know those of us who are elected are prepared to stand with them rather than the millionaires and the billionaires and their lobbyists who have so much power over this institution. We need, for a start, to reject the President's budget, rewrite that budget so it works for ordinary people. We need to pass a stimulus package which represents the needs of our seniors, our veterans, the middle class, working people. We need to do that now, and we need to build on that. Not only do we need to reject the President's disastrous budget, but more importantly, we need to reclaim the faith of the American people. Mr. President, I look forward to working with you to do that.