Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow, Tuesday, February 5; and that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that there then be a period for the transaction of morning business for up to 60 minutes, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each and the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the Republicans in control of the first half and the majority in control of the final half; that following morning business, the Senate resume the motion to proceed to H.R. 5140, the economic stimulus; that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus luncheons; and that all time during any adjournment, recess or morning business count postcloture.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, it is the leader's intention to seek unanimous consent to resume consideration of the FISA legislation tomorrow and have votes on several of the remaining amendments to the bill. Therefore, Senators should be aware that rollcall votes will occur throughout the day.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, even though I supported the New England Patriots, I will not object. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements related to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 441, submitted earlier today by Senator Schumer.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. I ask unanimous consent that the Rules Committee be discharged from further consideration of S.J. Res. 25 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. SANDERS. I ask unanimous consent that the joint resolution be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements be printed in the Record. The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 25) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed, as follows: S.J. Res. 25 Resolved by the Senate and House, of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, in accordance with section 5581 of the Revised Statutes (20 U.S.C. 43), the vacancy on the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, in the class other than Members of Congress, occurring because of the expiration of the term of Walter E. Massey of Georgia, is filled by the appointment of John W. McCarter of Illinois, for a term of 6 years, effective on the date of the enactment of this resolution.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements be printed in the Record. The bill (S. 550) was ordered to a third reading, was read the third time, and passed, as follows:

Mr. SANDERS. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 556, S. 550.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 442, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to this measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANDERS

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

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, during the last several weeks and months, in fact, there has been increased discussion and comments about the state of our economy. As you know, last month our Nation actually shed some 17,000 jobs and many economists tell us we are now in a recession and that is certainly true for some parts of this country. The House, the Senate, and the White House are wrestling with an economic stimulus package, and President Bush has presented his new budget. This week, the Director of the OMB and the Secretary of the Treasury will come before the Senate Budget Committee to discuss their views on the economy. Let me begin by stating how dismayed I was by the budget President Bush has provided us today. Frankly, this budget is unconscionable and reflects priorities that are almost impossible to comprehend. While providing hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks for the wealthiest three-tenths of 1 percent of our population over the next decade, this President has proposed major cuts in health care, LIHEAP, weatherization, nutrition, housing programs, and other basic needs for moderate- and low-income people. This is a Robin Hood in reverse budget. This is a budget that takes from the poor and working families, those most in need, and gives to millionaires and billionaires, those least in need. This proposed budget tells us how out of touch this President and his administration are with the needs of the American people. Let me be very clear; as a Member of the Senate Budget Committee, I will do everything I can to make sure Bush's budget is rejected and that we bring forth a new budget that reflects the priorities of all our people and not just the wealthiest and most powerful. Most Americans understand, for example, our health care system is disintegrating. Since George W. Bush has been President, 8.6 million Americans have lost their health insurance, and we now live in a country in which 47 million of our neighbors have no health insurance. We live at a time when health costs are soaring, when people are paying larger and larger deductibles and copayments. That is the reality of American health care today. How does President Bush respond to this crisis in health care? His response is to slash funding for Medicare, slash funding for Medicaid, slash funding for rural health care programs, making a terrible situation even worse. I understand it will be asking too much for this President to stand up to the insurance companies, to stand up to the drug companies and move us toward a national health care program which guarantees health care for all our people, something, by the way, which every other major country on Earth now has. I understand that is something George W. Bush is not going to do. I understand that. But at the very least, at a time when some 17,000 Americans a year die because they lack health insurance, he should not be making a terrible situation even worse. He need not deny health care to even more Americans. In the State of Vermont and through many parts of our country, Minnesota included, we have experienced extremely cold weather this winter. At the same time, as every American knows, the price of home heating oil has more than doubled, skyrocketed since President Bush has been in office. The result is the LIHEAP program, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which keeps millions of seniors and low- income households warm in the winter, is stretched to the breaking point. That is the reality. Cold winter, price of home heating oil soaring, the program is stretched. In State after State, because of soaring fuel prices, either fewer people are able to access LIHEAP or the amount of help they are getting has been significantly reduced. That is simply the arithmetic of the situation: lower payments, fewer people. Those are the choices States have with reduced LIHEAP budgets. I know President Bush has no problem, no problem whatsoever, with the fact that his good pals at ExxonMobil have announced the largest profits in the history of the world for the third consecutive year, over $40 billion in profits in the year 2007. I am quite sure the President has no problem with that, and I understand that. He has no problem, apparently, with the fact that home heating oil prices are now at $3.30 a gallon. I am sure he has no problems with the fact that a few years ago, the former CEO of ExxonMobil, a gentleman named Lee Raymond, received a $400 million retirement package from that company. It is not a problem for the President of the United States. He is close to those people. As he once famously said: That is his base. But despite the President's lack of concern about rising fuel costs, it is beyond comprehension that he would slash the LIHEAP program by $570 million, a 22-percent reduction from last year. The price of home heating oil is soaring, more and more people are losing their LIHEAP benefits, and the President's response in the midst of this crisis is to slash the program. That is pretty cruel. What is a low-income senior living on Social Security supposed to do when the weather gets below zero and she cannot heat her home? That is the story today, and you propose to make it even worse next year. 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 low-income housing and senior citizen housing. Hunger in the United States of America is increasing. Emergency food shelves are simply running out of groceries. There is no moral justification for the President of the United States to be cutting back on nutrition programs for low-income elderly Americans by proposing to completely eliminate the Commodity Supplemental Food Program which is providing assistance to well over 4,000 low-income senior citizens in the State of Vermont and hundreds of thousands nationally. With hunger going up, the President cuts back on an important nutritional program for low-income seniors. 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 veterans can gain access to quality VA hospitals and clinics. That is what we accomplished. That was the right thing to do. And yet despite all of his rhetoric about how much he loves the troops and how much he respects the troops--last week, I might add, in his State of the Union Address, President Bush said: We must keep faith with all who have risked life and limb so that we might live in freedom and peace. That was the President's statement 1 week ago at the State of the Union Address. But today, after all that flowery rhetoric, the President has proposed in his budget a very sharp increase in health care fees from $250 to $750 for veterans who access VA health care facilities. And there is no question, no doubt about it but that these increased fees, if put into effect, would result in driving many veterans out of VA health care which, in fact, is precisely the goal of that proposal. He wants to take veterans out of VA health care, which is consistent with what the President did several years ago when he threw large numbers of so-called category 8 veterans, those without service-connected disabilities, out of VA health care. The words tell us how much he loves our soldiers, but actions tell us he is prepared to raise fees for veterans health care, with the result of removing many veterans from the VA system. I say to President Bush that at a time when tens of thousands of our soldiers have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, please don't balance your budget on the backs of men and women who have put their lives on the line defending this country. 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 President Bush assumed office. All of us in Congress want to move this country toward a balanced budget to make sure our kids and our grandchildren are not left with an enormous debt. But there are right ways to move toward a balanced budget and there are wrong ways to try to do that and, unfortunately, President Bush's budget moves us exactly in the wrong direction. As many Americans know, since President Bush has been in the White House, 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, the United States now has by far the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major country on Earth. Sadly, the gap between the upper-income people, the wealthiest people in our country, and the middle class is increasingly making our country look like a poor developing country. We have the same economic structure, in terms of distribution of wealth and income, that countries such as Brazil and Mexico have, rather than looking like other major industrialized countries in Europe, Scandinavia or in Canada. I am aware a lot of facts and figures are thrown about on the floor of the Senate, but let me mention one fact I hope all Americans pay attention to, and that is that according to the latest statistics available, the wealthiest 300,000 Americans--that is men, women, and children--take in more income than the bottom 150 million Americans. In other words, the upper one-tenth of 1 percent, 300,000 people, take in more money than do the bottom 50 percent. One-tenth of 1 percent. Fifty percent. And that is what is going on in the American economy today. Tragically, that gap between the superrich and everybody else is growing wider and wider every single year. For those people who live in the bottom 90 percent of the population, the vast majority of our citizens, their average income was $33,000 way back in 1973. Today, despite all of the free trade agreements and globalization, despite all of the huge increases in technology, despite the significant growth in worker productivity, in inflation-accounted-for dollars, that $33,000 per year has declined to $29,000 a year, which is about a $75-a-week pay cut. That is what is going on in the economy today, and has been going on over the last three decades: people on top, doing phenomenally well; people at the bottom, the situation is getting worse; people in the middle are getting squeezed, working longer hours for lower wages. And perhaps those trends tell us why in today's Washington Post a front- page story was headlined ``U.S. Concern Over Economy Is Highest In Year.'' That was the headline on the front page of the Washington Post today. The first line of that story tells us that ``The public views the national economy now more negatively than at any point in nearly 15 years.'' What is going on is that the American people are getting sick and tired--they are getting sick and tired--of paying $3.15 for a gallon of gas when ExxonMobil enjoys the highest profits in the history of the world. They are tired of paying outrageously high home heating costs. They are tired of losing their health insurance. They are tired of losing their pensions. They are tired of not being able to find affordable childcare for their kids. They are tired of seeing their kids come out of college $20,000 or $30,000 in debt and not able to find decent-paying jobs. And not only are they tired, they are worried. They are worried that for the first time in the modern history of this great country--despite the fact that so many people are working so hard, they are worried that their kids will have a lower standard of living than they do. They are worried that the American dream, which is what this country has always been about--the dream which says that if parents work hard, their kids will do better than they do--they are worried that dream is being lost. That is why there is so much deep concern about the economy. It is not just health care, it is not just the loss of pensions, it is not only outrageously high prices when you fill up your car, and it is not only home heating oil; it is the fact that when you go shopping, what you are doing is buying products made in China and Mexico that used to be made in the United States. Many American people understand that we are never going to have a great economy if we are not producing the products we need and the people throughout the world need. The American people understand that there is something profoundly wrong when 20, 25 years ago the largest employer in the United States was General Motors--manufacturer of cars--that paid workers good wages, good benefits, and there was a strong union, and today the largest employer in the United States is Wal-Mart, with low wages, minimal benefits, and vehemently antiunion. The American people are getting the point that people such as President Bush work tirelessly on behalf of the wealthy and the powerful. But who is standing up for the people who make our country go every day--for the cops and the firemen and the farmers and the people who work in factories and the nurses and the doctors? Who is standing up for those people? Maybe the time is now for us to begin standing up for those people. In the midst of all of this, the President has brought forth a budget that punishes working people, punishes poor people, but says to the wealthiest people in this country, the people who have now had it so good since the late 1920s, and says to them: Hey, I--the President--am going to help you. In his budget the President wants to repeal the estate tax, which would provide $1 trillion in tax relief to the wealthiest three-tenths of 1 percent. Let me say that again. Over a 20- year period, $1 trillion in tax relief to the wealthiest three-tenths of 1 percent of our population. That is what this budget, this Robin-Hood-in-reverse budget, is all about. If you are old and trying to survive on Social Security, and if you are going to go cold this winter and next winter, the President wants to cut back on the heating assistance you receive. If you are a low-income American, or perhaps an American without any health insurance right now, the President wants to cut back on Medicaid and Medicare. If you are an American who lives in a home that lacks insulation, and if you are putting money into your heating bill and that heat is going out your poorly insulated home, it is going out the window, going out the roof, you have a President who wants to completely eliminate the low-income weather assistance program. 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. But if you are a billionaire, the President is all there for you. If you are one of the wealthiest families in America, in this budget the President has brought forth today, you are going to get huge tax breaks. Let me cite one example of how preposterous this scenario is. One of the wealthiest families in America is the Walton family. The Walton family, as I think most people know, owns Wal-Mart. This one family is worth, it is estimated, a combined $82 billion. There are a number of sons and daughters, but combined they are worth about $82 billion--one family. Incredible as it may sound, under the President's proposal of completely eliminating the estate tax, that one family would receive over $30 billion in tax breaks. So here we are. If you are old and can't afford to heat your home, we are going to cut the program that keeps you warm. If you are sick and you have no health insurance, we are going to cut the program that gives you access to a doctor. If you are living in a home where you are losing all kinds of heat through poor insulation, we are not going to help you. If you are a veteran who has served your country, we are going to raise fees for you to get into a VA hospital or a clinic. But if you are one of the wealthiest families in America, we are going to give you $30 billion in tax breaks. I say this without glee, but President Bush will probably go down in history as one of the least popular Presidents this country has ever had. And you don't need to know anything more to understand why that is so. A President who would give hundreds of billions in tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires and then cut back on the needs of working families, senior citizens, and veterans is not a President who is representing the vast majority of our people. I will do everything that I can as a member of the Budget Committee to not only make sure President Bush's budget is not implemented, but I will work with my colleagues to fashion a budget that begins to address the real needs of the American people. There is great disenchantment in this country about what is going on here in Washington, but I also note there is great hope out there. There is a belief that if we come together as a people, if we remember where we came from, if we are prepared to uphold the values that have made us a great country, if we are willing to stand up to the powerful special interests who have so much influence over what goes on in this institution--if we can do those things--not only can we once again create a great middle class, not only can we once again protect the most vulnerable people in our society, but perhaps, more importantly, we can once again give the American people a faith in their Government that they presently lack. That is something we must do. Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. SANDERS

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

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the resolution of the Senate of January 24, 1901, the traditional reading of Washington's Farewell Address take place on Monday, February 25, 2008, at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Republican leader.

Mr. SANDERS

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me congratulate the Senator from Arkansas on her fine and important work on the Finance Committee. Let me also congratulate Majority Leader Reid for his leadership, and Senator Baucus, Senator Grassley, and the other members for taking the ball a significantly strong step forward as we deal with the economic problems facing our country. I think it is clear to the vast majority of the American people, if not to the President of the United States, that our country has some very serious economic problems. The middle class is shrinking. Tens of millions of Americans are working longer hours for low wages. Poverty is increasing. And there is a level of economic desperation among the lowest income people in our country that many of us have not seen for a very long time. As we speak, senior citizens in the State of Vermont are finding it extremely difficult to pay for their home heating fuel bills, which are soaring, as they are seeing record-breaking levels of the cost for home heating oil. Emergency food banks in the State of Vermont and throughout this country are literally running out of food because many low-income working people are simply, today, not being able to earn enough money to purchase the food they need for their families. Homeless shelters are running out of beds. We have some major economic problems, and the time is long overdue for this Congress to begin to address them. As we discuss an economic stimulus package, there are Members of the Senate--and there are many Americans--who have appropriately raised questions about the amount of money we intend to spend in an economic stimulus package. There are people who point out, quite correctly, that in this country today we continue to have record-breaking deficits, and we have a huge national debt. All of that is a very legitimate concern I share. That is why we should not heed the advice of the President who, in his State of the Union Address, urged us to extend hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to the wealthiest 1 percent of our population. No, I do not think the wealthiest people in this country need more tax breaks. I think we have to start focusing our attention on the needs of the middle class, on working families, on those Americans most in need. At this point, let me give thanks to our friends in the House who passed an economic stimulus package which has started the ball rolling. Now, with the legislation we are debating in the Senate, it is our job to improve upon what the House did, and I hope we will be doing exactly that. While the House bill has a number of important attributes, the stimulus package passed yesterday in the Senate Finance Committee is, in fact, a much better and a far more significant piece of legislation. The Senate bill, among other things, understands low-income senior citizens across this country are facing very serious economic problems. Like low- and middle-income working people, they need help. Senior citizens, every week I go back to Vermont, tell me they cannot survive on their Social Security checks, and that the cost-of-living COLAs are too small. They cannot find the money they need to heat their homes. They are having a hard time purchasing the food they need. That is why I very strongly support the provision in that legislation passed by the Senate Finance Committee which will enable over 20 million senior citizens to get a one-time $500 tax rebate. This is money that will be part of an economic stimulus because these are some of the people most in need who will certainly spend that money quite quickly, helping to create jobs in the process. So I urge all of my colleagues, in a nonpartisan way, to stand with the hard-pressed, low-income senior citizens of our country and support the provision in the Senate Finance Committee bill which says we are going to provide a tax rebate to senior citizens. They cannot and must not be excluded from the economic stimulus package. Further, the Senate bill does another very important thing in reaching out to our disabled American veterans, many of whom are also struggling economically. By definition, these are people who have been disabled defending the United States of America. They must not be forgotten as we discuss an economic stimulus package. At the very least, what the Senate Finance Committee did will provide a rebate for some 250,000 of those veterans, and perhaps even more. That is the right thing to do from a moral perspective. Those people deserve that help. In fact, helping them will also provide an economic stimulus. The Senate Finance bill also extends unemployment benefits by 13 weeks in all States and 26 weeks in States experiencing high rates of unemployment. That is a good and proper thing to do as well. As unemployment rises--and especially in those areas where there are consistently high levels of unemployment--many people are going to run out of unemployment benefits. Their unemployment benefits will expire. Those benefits need to be extended, and that is what the Senate bill does, and the House bill does not. So in my view, the legislation coming out of the Senate Finance Committee is a more significant piece of legislation than that passed in the House in helping those people who are most in need. It is also more important in terms of providing the economic stimulus our economy needs. But to be very frank with you, what came out of the Senate Finance Committee is an important step forward, an important improvement over what existed in the House, but we need on the floor of the Senate to do much more than what was done in the Senate Finance Committee. For example, the Senate Finance Committee bill does not provide any funding for food stamps. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, over 35 million Americans struggled to put food on the table last year, and the number of the hungriest Americans--those people who literally do not have enough food every day--that number goes up and up and up. Economists from different political persuasions, both the left and the right, have told us food stamp benefits would be one of the best ways to stimulate the economy. So, once again, you are dealing with the moral issue: As the United States of America, in the year 2008, we should not tolerate a situation where any American goes hungry, where food banks are running out of food. That is not what America should be about. Second of all, as we expand the Food Stamp Program, we create a very important economic stimulus by definition. If people do not have enough food to eat, they are going to spend that money. They are going to spend it on food, food which is, by and large, grown in the United States of America, and we are going to create jobs in that process. So my hope is, again, in a bipartisan or tripartisan manner, the Senate will add food stamps to the economic stimulus package. The Baucus substitute--the Senate Finance Committee bill--just like the House bill, does not provide any money for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, usually known as LIHEAP. This is a program which is extraordinarily important to cold-weather States such as Vermont, New England, all across the northern tier. But, in fact, it is important to every State in this country because in Arizona, in the summer, when it gets to 120 degrees, people there need help as well. Right now, in the State of Vermont, and all over this country, we have senior citizens and low-income people struggling--tearing out their hair--trying to figure out how they are going to pay to heat their homes when the cost of home heating oil is now well over $3 a gallon. The reality is that because we have not increased funding for LIHEAP to the degree that we should, either the amount of money each individual person is getting is going down or States are making the decision to provide LIHEAP funding to fewer of our people. Neither alternative is acceptable. This is a cold winter in various parts of this country. It has been below zero in the State of Vermont recently. No American should go cold. No American should be forced to make a choice between food and heating his or her home. We have to expand LIHEAP funding. People who receive that will be spending that money, and that is also an economic stimulus. So in my view, including food stamps, LIHEAP, and unemployment benefits in the economic stimulus package is not only the right thing to do in terms of stimulating the economy, it is the moral thing to do. It is what we as a nation should be doing. For too long I think the White House and the Congress have been identified with programs that help the wealthiest people in this country--the people, in fact, who do not need any help at all. The richest 1 percent is doing fine without any tax breaks from Congress. Now is the time to start paying attention to the middle class, the working families, the vast majority of our people who are struggling economically. Now is their time, and we have to listen to their needs and respond to them. In addition to addressing issues such as LIHEAP, food stamps, and unemployment compensation, there are other areas we should be moving forward on: rebuilding and repairing our schools, bridges, roads, culverts, sewer systems, rail, ports, and airports. Not only would we be addressing the tremendous problems we have in our crumbling infrastructure, but that is also a quick route to put people in the construction industry back to work. In the State of Vermont, it is estimated that we have over $1 billion in work that has to be done in our infrastructure. The estimate, according to the engineers, is that we have over $1 trillion of unmet infrastructure needs in America. We should be rebuilding our schools, making them more energy efficient, and in the process we put our working people in the construction industry back to work. We should address that issue as well. Coming from a cold weather State, I am very conscious of the issue of weatherization. It makes zero sense that in Vermont and all across this country we have millions of lower income people who are living in homes which are poorly insulated, which do not have storm windows, their roofs leak energy, so these people are spending money for heating fuel that is literally going out the window and through the roof. Weatherization projects are already in existence in all of the States. Putting money into weatherization puts people to work. It saves on the fuel costs for many seniors, lower income people, and it also, not unimportantly, helps us reduce greenhouse gas emissions. So funding weatherization is a win-win-win. We should do that as well. I also believe we should be increasing renewable energy investments in wind and solar. That is, as I understand it, in the Finance Committee bill, which is very important. We are losing out to the rest of the world in creating the kinds of industries we need through solar, energy, and wind. In the process, we would create many good-paying jobs. The idea that we have not yet passed an extended tax credit for wind and solar makes zero sense. We have to move in that area as well. I personally also wish to see included in a stimulus package increased funding for community health centers, because when people lose their jobs, they are losing their health care. Federally qualified health centers have been a wonderful tool to bring people into primary health care access, regardless of their incomes. Back in 2001, I was an early backer of tax rebates--one of those who actually came up with that concept. I support tax rebates for the middle class, for low-income families with children, and for persons with disabilities. I also believe that senior citizens should be receiving help in this bill as well through a bonus in their Social Security checks. So I think we are making some progress. I think the Senate bill is far better than the House bill. I think we have the responsibility on the floor of the Senate to improve upon what was done in the Finance Committee. I hope that in a nonpartisan way, this Senate will reach out to the American people and let them know we are aware of the pain they are experiencing; we know what is happening in the low-income community; we know what is happening to our veterans; we know what is happening to our senior citizens; and we finally are going to start focusing on their needs, rather than the needs of the wealthiest 1 percent who have occupied so much of the attention of the Senate for so many years. We have an opportunity to do something very important for the American people. I hope we do it, and I hope we do it as quickly as we possibly can. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS

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

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I think it is clear to the vast majority of the American people, if not to the President of the United States, that the middle class in our country is shrinking; tens of millions of people are working longer hours for low wages; workers today are getting into their cars and are paying outrageously high prices for a gallon of gas; that senior citizens in the State of Vermont can't afford the skyrocketing costs of home heating fuel; and that at this particular moment in our history, with poverty increasing and the middle class shrinking and our economy in serious trouble, it is absolutely imperative that we pass an economic stimulus package. The bottom line is not just passing a package but passing a good package. I think there are some positive aspects of the bill that came from the House. I think from what we are hearing, the Senate Finance Committee is going to make that bill even stronger. But the main point I want to make this afternoon is that when we pass an economic stimulus bill, we have to get it right. It has to be fair. It has to have the impact of rejuvenating our economy and helping those people in need. Later this afternoon, as the Presiding Officer knows, the Senate Finance Committee will be voting on what I believe is, for the most part, an improved version of the economic stimulus bill that came from the House. I think it is right that the Finance Committee bill includes an extension in unemployment insurance for 13 weeks in all States and an additional 26 weeks in States with high unemployment. That is obviously the right thing to do, because people who lose their jobs, people whose unemployment compensation expires, are people in desperate need. Those are the people we need to help. From an economic stimulus point of view, those people will take that money, spend it, and help stimulate our economy. I am also pleased that the Finance Committee extended the rebates to 20 million senior citizens who don't earn income, and that was certainly a major lack in the bill that passed the House. There are millions and millions and millions of senior citizens in this country hanging on, on low fixed incomes, getting their Social Security check every month, but having a very difficult time making ends meet, especially with health care costs rising, heating fuel costs rising, prescription drug costs rising. Those people need help. It is absolutely imperative that if we pass an economic stimulus package, it must include our senior citizens as well. I applaud the chairman of the Finance Committee for including that provision in the bill. Furthermore, I am strongly in agreement with the proposed package coming out of the Senate Finance Committee that low-income Americans who pay Social Security and Medicare taxes should also receive the same rebate as somebody who is earning $50,000, $60,000, or $80,000 a year. In point of fact, those people are most in need, and I disagree with the House provision that would provide them with a $300 rebate as opposed to middle-income or upper middle income people who get a $600 rebate. We should not provide a two-tier rebate approach. Everybody should get the same amount. Certainly lower income people have more need of the money than upper income people. So I think that provision in the Finance Committee proposal makes a lot of sense. Having said those positive things about the Finance Committee package, there is one area where I strongly disagree. Under the House package, the rebates were capped at incomes of $75,000 per year for individuals and $150,000 a year for couples. As I understand it, the Finance Committee would eliminate those caps and they would say to the wealthiest people in our society, to the millionaires and to the billionaires, to Bill Gates, to Warren Buffett, that you will be eligible for a tax rebate. At a time when this country has a record- breaking national debt, at a time when the people on top have never done so well, and the richest 1 percent are doing very well based on anyone's analysis; at a time when the richest 1 percent have already received collectively hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks from President Bush, the idea that under a so-called economic stimulus package we would be providing $500 to Bill Gates is not only absurd, it is laughable. I hesitate to think what the American people will conclude if we go forward in that approach, and if we do away with the cap at $150,000, which the House appropriately placed in there. It has been estimated that eliminating the income caps for the rebate checks, giving that money to Bill Gates and other billionaires would cost about $5 billion. Five billion dollars would, in fact, be enough money to significantly increase food stamps for tens of millions of the neediest Americans in our country. I don't think it is rocket science to suggest that it is more important to make sure that kids in this country get adequate nutrition, that older people be able to get some help in food stamps, than giving a $500 check to millionaires and billionaires, not to mention that all of the economists agree that if you are talking about an economic stimulus, the fastest way you get that money out into our society is by giving it to people who are most in need who will then spend it, not to the wealthiest people in this country. I hope very much that every Member of the Senate will conclude that giving a tax rebate of $500 a person in a so-called economic stimulus package to the wealthiest people in this society makes zero sense. In my view, despite the improvements or most of the improvements we are seeing in the Senate Finance Committee, I think that, frankly, there is a lot more that must be done in the economic stimulus package, and it should be done for two reasons. No. 1, for 7 years, we have had a President who has turned a blind eye to the middle class and working families and lower income people in this country; at a time, in fact, when poverty is increasing, his contribution to the process was to propose major cutbacks in one program after another. I think it is time now that Congress pay attention to the needs of the middle class, lower income people, and start addressing their needs rather than just upper income people who have received so much over the last 7 years. Specifically, we must provide help to those most in need, particularly senior citizens on fixed incomes, low-income families with children, and persons with disabilities. We must strengthen the middle class in this economic stimulus package, and we must put Americans back to work at good-paying jobs by paying attention to our infrastructure, which has so long been neglected with the results being that we have bridges and roads and culverts and school buildings that are in desperate need of repair. If we fail to pass an economic stimulus package that does not accomplish all three of these goals, we will have missed out on an important opportunity to strengthen our economy and to help those people most in need. Here are just a few steps that I believe we should be taking. First, I believe we should increase the stimulus package by at least $25 billion. I also believe we should reduce the business tax breaks by at least $25 billion. Mark Zandi from Moody's has estimated that the business tax breaks contemplated by Congress would yield very little stimulus to the economy, much less than increasing food stamps or unemployment benefits. In other words, if the goal is to stimulate the economy, the tax breaks being proposed for the business community in many ways would have much less of an impact than many other proposals, such as increasing food stamps or unemployment benefits. If we did those two things--increase the stimulus package by $25 billion and reduce the business tax breaks by $25 billion--that would leave us with an additional $50 billion. What can we do, what should we do with this $50 billion? We could complete the picture. We can put Americans back to work at decent-paying jobs, we can help those who are most in need, and we could strengthen the middle class. How do we do that? Specifically, I believe we should provide $5 billion for an expansion of the Food Stamp Program. In America today, poverty is increasing. We are seeing levels of desperation in the State of Vermont and all over this country that we have not seen in many years. Food shelves in the State of Vermont and throughout this country are running out of food. I understand that in the agriculture bill, there are proposals to increase food stamps, but we do not know when that farm bill is going to be passed. We have to act now. Let's support our neighbors who are having a hard time feeding their families. Let's substantially increase food stamps and do it in this economic stimulus package. What else should we be doing? I can tell my colleagues, coming from one of the coldest States in America, at a time when home heating fuel prices are soaring, it is absolutely imperative that we significantly increase funding for the LIHEAP program. Many of the people on LIHEAP are senior citizens, and the rest are low-income people. With fuel prices soaring, with poverty increasing, more and more people are having a difficult time keeping their homes warm. We must significantly increase LIHEAP funding. The economists tell us that is also an important mechanism if we are going to stimulate the economy. Including food stamps, LIHEAP, and unemployment benefits in the economic stimulus package is not only the right thing to do in terms of stimulating the economy, it is the moral thing to do. We cannot, we must not turn a blind eye to those people who are most in need. That is what has gone on year after year under Republican rule. It is time we turned that around and told those Americans most in need that we hear them, we know what is going on, and this Congress, this Government will respond to those needs, and now is the time to do that. In my State and all over America, our infrastructure is crumbling. There are estimates that we need over $1 trillion to rebuild our bridges, our schools, our culverts, and in the process of doing that-- this is work which has to be done, and the longer we wait, the more it costs. I speak as a former mayor. When you delay your infrastructure repairs, all it means is it is going to cost you more next year. We can put many workers back to work doing this very important task of rebuilding our infrastructure, making sure the schools our kids are going to are updated, and making sure they are energy efficient. If we make our schools and public buildings energy efficient, in the long run we are going to save money. But as an immediate economic stimulus, putting money into the infrastructure can create many jobs, and these are good-paying jobs. I am talking about schools, bridges, roads, sewers, wastewater plants, rails, ports, airports, health delivery systems, and other infrastructural needs. Last year, about 200,000 construction workers lost their jobs, and this is a good way of bringing at least some of them back into the workforce. I will also give two more examples of investments we should be making that can have a very significant impact upon the lives of the American people. When a worker loses his or her job, in all likelihood that worker is also losing his or her health care. We have seen, since Bush has been President, over 7 million Americans lose their health insurance, and as unemployment goes up, surely that number will only increase. If we just provided, for example, $148 million for the expansion of community health centers, that would be enough money to create 227 new CHCs all over this country. It would provide jobs for health care workers, but even more importantly, when somebody loses their health insurance, they would have the opportunity to access primary health care, dental care, low-cost prescription drugs, and mental health counseling. This is a good investment at any time. It is an especially good investment now. It puts people to work and will provide health care access for millions of Americans. For those who question the appropriateness of including community health centers in an economic stimulus package, I simply remind them that this is precisely what we did under President Ronald Reagan's stimulus package in the 1980s. It worked then, and I believe it will work now. Another important investment we should be making is to provide at least $500 million for the low-income Weatherization Assistance Program. Weatherization is a program that is going on all over the country. We do not need a new bureaucracy to funnel that money into the projects; it is there already. In Vermont and in many other parts of America, the needs for weatherization far outstrip the funds that are available. Many of the community action agencies have long waiting lists. Funding weatherization makes eminent sense for a number of reasons. No. 1, the programs are in place. We can put people to work right away. That is an economic stimulus. No. 2, it is absolutely absurd that millions of low-income people continue to live in homes which are very poorly weatherized, where insulation is lacking and they have inadequate roofs, windows, and doors. They are putting money into their heating system, and that money is simply leaking out of their homes, causing, by the way, an increased problem with greenhouse gas emissions. So weatherization makes sense in terms of creating jobs, it makes sense in saving people money on their fuel bills, and it makes a lot of sense for those of us who want to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions. Back in 2001, when both you and I, Mr. President, were Members of the House, I was an early backer of tax rebates. I strongly support tax rebates for middle-class and for low-income families with children and for persons with disabilities. I also believe senior citizens who do not pay income taxes should be receiving this assistance as well through a bonus in their Social Security checks. But giving someone $500 or $1,000 alone will not fix the economic problems the middle- class and working families of our country are facing. Putting Americans to work at decent-paying jobs and helping those most in need is also extremely important. We must pass an economic stimulus package. We must do it as quickly as we can. But we must do it in a way that really has an impact on our economy and an impact on the lives of those people who are most in need. In the coming hours and days, I intend to be actively involved in that process. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANDERS

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

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the period for morning business be extended until 12:30 p.m., with the time equally divided.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, last night I listened intently to President Bush's State of the Union speech, and, frankly, I had a hard time understanding what country the President was talking about and what reality he was talking about. Certainly, if the State of the Union refers to what is happening to the shrinking middle class of this country and how we as a people are doing, the President had almost nothing to say that rang true. In fact, last night's speech just reminds many of us how far removed from the reality of ordinary life this President is and how little he and his administration know about what is going on in the lives of millions and millions of people in cities and towns across this country. In my view, the President's speech was lacking not just for what he said but, perhaps more importantly, for what he didn't say. Somehow, President Bush forgot to mention some of the results of his failed economic policies and how they have impacted the lives of ordinary people. So let me take a moment, therefore, to review the record the President refused to talk about last night. Since George W. Bush took office in 2001, nearly 5 million Americans have slipped out of the middle class and into poverty. These are mostly low-income working people whose wages have not kept up with inflation. These are people all across the country who are trying to make it on $6 or $7 an hour without any health insurance, desperately trying to keep their families above water. These are, by the way, parents and kids in Pennsylvania and in Vermont who are now flocking to emergency food banks because they simply don't have the income to buy the food they need in the United States of America in 2008. It might have been a sign of decency on the part of the President to at least recognize that reality which is impacting so many of our people, and the reality that hunger in America is actually going up. Since George W. Bush has been in office, median household income for working-age Americans has declined by almost $2,500. That is a lot of money. Also, overall median household income has gone down by nearly $1,000. This is the shrinking middle class, and maybe as people are working longer hours for lower wages, maybe as people are working 50 or 60 hours a week trying to bring in enough money for their families to pay the bills, maybe the President might have said a few words to them that he understands the reality they are experiencing. Maybe he might have said to the young people of our country that he is concerned if we don't turn around our economy, for the first time in the modern history of this country their generation will have a lower standard of living than their parents; maybe just a few words to those young people so they know he knows what is going on in their lives. But I didn't hear that. I didn't hear that at all. Mr. President, since George W. Bush has been in office, 8.6 million Americans have lost their health insurance, and we are now up to 47 million Americans without any health insurance whatsoever. Meanwhile, health insurance premiums have increased during Bush's tenure by 78 percent--a huge increase in the cost of health care. Last night, while the President gave us his usual rhetoric about all of the virtues of free market health care, he somehow forgot to tell us why we spend almost twice as much per capita on health care as any other nation, and why we are the only major country on Earth without a national health care program guaranteeing health care to all people. The President didn't even tell us why he vetoed legislation that would expand health insurance to millions more children; just the usual rhetoric about free market health care, which is failing us every single day. During his remarks last night, somehow President Bush neglected to mention that 3 million workers, since he has been in office, have lost their pensions--the promises that were made to them for their retirement years--and about half of American workers in the private sector have no pension coverage whatsoever. I didn't hear much from the President about that. What I did hear is the President's rhetoric about ``Social Security reform,'' which are code words for the privatization of Social Security. At a time when seniors are facing more and more insecurity than they have seen for a very long time, privatizing Social Security is the last thing this country needs. Last night, President Bush once again pushed for more unfettered free trade agreements, despite the fact that since he has been in office the annual trade deficit has more than doubled, and over 3 million manufacturing jobs--good-paying jobs--in this country have been lost. It astounds me that, despite the horrendous record of these unfettered trade agreements--NAFTA, CAFTA, and permanent normal trade relations-- we have a President who says: Look, we have failed year after year, we have lost millions of good-paying jobs, our trade deficit is soaring, and do you know what the answer is? We need more of this failed trade policy. In my own small State of Vermont, never one of the great manufacturing States in this country, we have lost, since the President has been President, 10,000 manufacturing jobs--25 percent of the total or one out of four manufacturing jobs. And President Bush says we need more outsourcing; we need corporations to throw more American workers out on the street so they can run to China and pay people 50 cents an hour there, and then bring the products back into this country. Last night, President Bush did say a word about gas prices going up. But he did forget to tell us that since he has been President the price of gas at the pump, and home heating oil, has more than doubled. For whatever reason, he also forgot to tell us that, year after year, while Americans are paying outrageous prices for oil and gas, the oil companies are enjoying record-breaking profits. I didn't hear him mention anything about that, not one word. A couple of years ago, for example, ExxonMobil--which has enjoyed huge profits while Americans are paying $3.15 for a gallon of gas at the pump--gave a $398 million retirement package for its former CEO, Mr. Lee Raymond. And our people are paying $3.15 for a gallon of gas. The President forgot to talk about that. Also, I found it interesting that President Bush neglected to discuss that for the first time since the Great Depression the personal savings rate in this country is below zero. This means that because of the dire economic conditions facing so many of our people, we as a people are actually spending more money than we are earning. In fact, today, millions of Americans are buying their groceries with credit cards. They don't have the cash to buy the food they need. They are going into debt to buy groceries. And our friends in the credit card industry are then charging them 25 or 30 percent interest rates for the groceries they are buying on credit. For some reason, last night in his State of the Union Address, the President also neglected to mention that home foreclosures are the highest on record, turning the American dream of homeownership into an American nightmare for millions of our fellow citizens. The reason I am raising these issues is because if we as a Senate, as a government, do not talk about and discuss the reality of life in this country for the vast majority of the people, if we do not understand what is going on in the cities and towns across our Nation, then it will be virtually impossible for us to formulate the public policies we need to transform our economy so that it begins to work well for all of the people and not just the wealthiest people on top. Also, we do not do this enough. It is important to take a look at what is going on in our country compared to what is going on in many other industrialized nations. Very often, I hear people on the Senate floor say we are the wealthiest and the greatest Nation in the world. We are all of these things. Let's look at some of the facts as they apply to the lives of ordinary people. What country in the industrialized world has, by far, the highest rate of childhood poverty, where one out of five children are living in poverty? Is it France, Germany, or the U.K.? No. It is the United States of America. One out of five children in this country live in poverty. And shock of all shocks, we end up having the highest rate of incarceration--putting people behind bars--of any other country on Earth. If you think there is not a correlation between those two factors, I would strongly disagree with you. Unfortunately, the U.S. today has the highest infant mortality rate of any major country on Earth, the highest overall poverty rate, the largest gap between the rich and the poor, and we are the only major country in the world not to provide health care to all of their its people as a right of citizenship.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.