Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so I can send an amendment to the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me begin by saying this amendment is being cosponsored by Senators Snowe, Collins, Obama, Cantwell, Sununu, Menendez, Stabenow, Clinton, Leahy, and Kerry. This amendment, which would increase LIHEAP funding by $800 million, also has the support of the National Energy Assistance Directors Association, the National Fuel Funds Network, the American Gas Association, the National Association of State Energy Officials, and many other groups. This amendment is as simple and straightforward as it can be, and what it is about is that at a time when, as everybody knows, home heating prices are going through the roof, it is getting colder every day--it will be below zero in Vermont this week--this amendment would provide real relief to millions of senior citizens on fixed incomes, low-income families with children, and persons with disabilities. Specifically, this amendment would provide $800 million emergency funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, otherwise known as LIHEAP. Four hundred million dollars of this funding would be distributed under the regular LIHEAP formula and the other $400 million would be used under the contingency LIHEAP program. Last month, I introduced the Keeping Americans Warm Act to provide $1 billion in emergency LIHEAP funding. I am pleased that this bill has garnered 26 cosponsors--19 Democrats, 6 Republicans, and 1 Independent. In addition, as you know, on December 3, 38 Senators cosigned a letter spearheaded by Senator Jack Reed and Susan Collins to the Labor- HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Specter urging the appropriations committee to provide a total of $3.4 billion in LIHEAP funding. As you know, there is a lot of discussion right now in seeing that there be a substantial increase in LIHEAP funding in the economic stimulus bill that is being talked about, which I certainly support. I would also like to take this opportunity to commend Subcommittee Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Specter, Appropriations Chairman Byrd, and Ranking Member Cochran for providing a total of $2.6 billion in funding for LIHEAP in the Omnibus appropriations bill. I understand how difficult it was to reach a deal on this bill. I appreciate everything Senator Byrd and others have done for LIHEAP to make sure people in our country do not go cold. 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. And that 23-percent reduction is not even adjusted for inflation. I am talking about nominal dollars. Two years ago, as I think every American fully understands, the price of heating oil was less than $2.50 a gallon. Today, it is over $3.36 a gallon. In central Vermont, we have seen prices as high as $3.73 a gallon for heating oil. This winter, consumers are projected to pay over $1,800 to heat their homes with heating oil--$1,800 just to stay warm this winter. This winter, it is projected that consumers will be paying over $1,600 to heat their homes with propane. Two years ago, they only paid $1,281. The skyrocketing prices are already stretching the household budgets of millions of families with children, senior citizens on fixed incomes, and persons with disabilities beyond the breaking point. I cannot tell you--I am sure the situation is not radically different in Pennsylvania--how many people are telling me that when they see these heating bills, they cannot believe it. They just do not know how they are going to stay warm this winter. Unfortunately, the spike in energy costs is completely eviscerating the purchasing power of this extremely important program in State after State. If Congress does not act soon to confront this problem head-on-- and this is a problem which is existing now and will get worse in late January and in February--I fear for the public health and safety of many of our most vulnerable citizens. The point is, we have to act. We have to act. I support any and all efforts to expand LIHEAP but, frankly, it will do less good if it is passed in March or in April than it will if it is passed in January and February. We need to get the money out to people now so they do not go cold. 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 this winter. What this means is that low-income families with kids, senior citizens on fixed incomes, and others will have to make up the remaining cost out of their own pockets. As you know, in this country we are looking at some very rocky economic times. More and more people are unemployed. Poverty is going up. Where are those people going to get these large sums of money to stay warm this winter? In addition, only 15 percent of eligible LIHEAP recipients currently receive assistance with home heating bills. Eighty-five percent of eligible low-income families with children, senior citizens on fixed incomes, and persons with disabilities do not receive any LIHEAP assistance whatsoever due to a lack of funding. There are many people all over this country who are eligible for this program who are unable to get the help they need. In my own State of Vermont, it has been reported that outrageously high home heating costs, oil 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 afford anyplace else to live during the winter. This is a national energy emergency which is affecting States all over the country, certainly not just Vermont. 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 chaired by Senator Kennedy. I very much appreciate his holding that hearing in Boston focusing national attention on this crisis. Here is what the national energy directors reported. This is what they say: In Arkansas, the number of families receiving LIHEAP assistance is expected to be reduced by up to 20 percent from last year if they are not able to get more funding. Arkansas, 20 percent reduction. In Arizona, estimates are that they will have to cut the number of families receiving LIHEAP assistance by 10,000 families as compared to last year. In Delaware, the number of families receiving LIHEAP assistance will be reduced by up to 20 percent. In most instances, your average LIHEAP grant only pays for about 20 percent of the total cost of heating a home in Delaware. During the winter in Iowa, the regular LIHEAP grant has been cut by 7 percent from last year. The average LIHEAP grant in Iowa is $300. Two years ago, the average grant was $450. The State of Kentucky can run out of LIHEAP funding as early as next February. 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, and I can tell you that it stays cold for a lot longer than 2 or 3 weeks in Maine, in New England. In Massachusetts, the spike in energy costs means that the purchasing costs for LIHEAP has declined by 39 percent since 2006. The State of Minnesota can run out of LIHEAP funding as early as February. In New York, many households have already exhausted their entire LIHEAP funding. While Ohio has seen a 10-percent increase in the number of people applying for LIHEAP assistance, that State will have to cut back its regular LIHEAP grant by between 15 to 20 percent. Rhode Island, Texas, the State of Washington--on and on it goes. The bottom line is, home heating fuel costs are soaring, and LIHEAP does not have enough money to take care of the needs of people in State after State after State. In the richest country on the face of the Earth, no family, no child, no senior citizen should be forced to go cold this winter. I am afraid that unless we act, and act very quickly, that is exactly what will be happening. We hear a lot of talking about energy funding around here. Not every piece of legislation, in fact, is an emergency. This is an emergency. As we speak tonight, people all over this country do not have enough money to stay warm. That situation will only get worse. We have to act, and we have to act now. Let me again thank the many cosponsors of this legislation. It is certainly bipartisan. There are cold people in Republican States, Democratic States, Independent States. We have to act together, and we have to move as rapidly as we can. I am offering this amendment now on the Indian health bill. I will offer it at every opportunity I can. I look forward to working with the Members of the Senate to see that we do the right thing so that no American goes cold this winter.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, last night I indicated my strong concerns about the omnibus appropriations bill, a bill that I expected to include all domestic spending as well as funding for the war in Iraq. Notably, I discussed my grave misgivings about funding for the President's disastrous, ongoing and ill-conceived war. I also raised my unease with last-minute additions of loan guarantees for questionable energy sources, such as the building of new nuclear power and for coal- related energy, especially coal to liquids. Last night, I voted against an amendment to provide the President with a blank check for his war. Until even later in the evening, I thought that the war funding would be attached to the domestic spending legislation set for vote that evening. However, it was clear by the time of the domestic spending vote that the Iraq war funds were kept separate. I remain very concerned with the nuclear and coal loan guarantees that were inserted, I decided that, on balance, the domestic spending bill that would fund, among other important priorities, community health centers and health care for many Americans in need, deserved my support. I regret the insertion of the ill-conceived loan guarantees and will work with my colleagues to address them.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2771, the legislative branch appropriations bill; that the only amendment in order be a substitute amendment at the desk which is cosponsored by Senators Leahy, Coleman, Klobuchar, Snowe, Obama, Dole, Baucus, Sununu, Cantwell, Collins, Casey, Lieberman, Landrieu, Kerry, Kennedy, and Clinton--this amendment provides for $800 million in additional LIHEAP funding--that there be a time limitation of 30 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form on the amendment; that upon the use of that time, the amendment be agreed to, the bill be read a third time, and the Senate, without any intervening action or debate, vote on passage of the bill, as amended.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, like many of my colleagues, I worked very hard to assure that, given the veto threats of President Bush, the Omnibus appropriations bill was as strong as it could be. In that regard, we have made some real progress. Unfortunately, however, this bill contains $40 billion for Iraq operations, with no strings attached the money to be used as the President wishes, with no accountability for when our involvement in Iraq will end. With expenditures of $12 billion a month, it is now estimated that the total cost of our Iraq involvement will end up being more than $1 trillion. I cannot support providing more money for continuing our ill- conceived and tragic presence in Iraq, money provided with no requirement for plans as to when the redeployment will begin, when it will be concluded, and what our future course in Iraq will be. Consequently, I will vote against the Omnibus appropriations bill. My vote against this bill also reflects genuine concern regarding last-minute additions of loan guarantees for questionable energy sources, which move us in exactly the wrong direction. More specifically, the report language accompanying the Omnibus appropriations bill provides $18.5 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear powerplants, $2.0 billion in loan guarantees for uranium enrichment, $6.0 billion in loan guarantees for coal, which I have reason to believe includes coal to liquids, and $2.0 billion in loan guarantees for coal gasification, which I also fear could be used for coal to liquids. It is, quite frankly, beyond belief that we would be passing legislation to support these questionable energy sources. In my view, we should be doing everything we can to transform our energy system so as to move away from unsafe and polluting sources to energy efficiency and sustainable and renewable technologies. Congress can, and must, do better.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me begin by thanking my good friend, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, for yielding. The reason I rise is to deal with a very important issue that impacts millions of our fellow Americans, and that is all over this country, with the price of home heating oil soaring, people are wondering about how they are going to stay warm this winter. My very fervent hope is that the Congress, both the Senate and the House, will address this issue before we adjourn for the Christmas holidays. I commend Majority Leader Reid, Minority Leader McConnell, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd, Chairman Harkin, and others for, in fact, adding a significant sum of money-- over $400 million--to the Omnibus appropriations bill. This is important, and I appreciate that. I think people all over this country appreciate that. Unfortunately, however, this total of $2.6 billion in funding for LIHEAP, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, that so many people, so many elderly people depend upon in order to stay warm in the wintertime, while it is an 18-percent increase from last year, it is still 23 percent below what was provided for LIHEAP just 2 years ago in nominal dollars. Meanwhile, as everybody knows, the cost of home heating fuels has soared. Compared to 2 years ago, heating oil prices are projected to be 50 percent higher this winter. The price of propane will be 38 percent higher, and electricity prices will be 14 percent higher. These high prices, coupled with the reduction in LIHEAP assistance compared to 2 years ago, mean States will be forced to either reduce the number of people who will be receiving LIHEAP or else to significantly cut back on the amount of money that people will be receiving. There is no question about what will happen if that occurs: People in the United States of America will be cold. It is possible that some may actually be freezing. Two years ago, thanks to the leadership of Senator Snowe and many other Senators, LIHEAP funding was increased by $1 billion above the appropriated level because it was then the belief that we faced a home heating emergency. Well, if we faced a home heating emergency at that point, let me tell my colleagues we face one today that is even more severe. In the State of Vermont and all over this country, we are having elderly people living on fixed incomes who are looking at the soaring prices of home heating fuels. They are scared to death. It seems to me that we have the moral responsibility as the Senate of the United States of America to do something for those people before we adjourn. I thank my colleague, Senator Leahy from Vermont, as well as Senators Coleman, Klobuchar, Snowe, Obama, Dole, Baucus, Sununu, Cantwell, Collins, Casey, Lieberman, Landrieu, Kerry, Kennedy, and Clinton for supporting an amendment that will essentially increase LIHEAP funding by $800 million, half of which will go into the normal LIHEAP formula, half will go into emergency funding to be used at the discretion of the President. While those Senators are already onboard, I know there are many other Senators--Republicans, Democrats, and Independents--who are also wanting a vote to show the people back home that we have not forgotten them and that we do not want any Americans to go cold this winter. Let me simply conclude by suggesting to you that the people of our country all over America are losing faith in the U.S. Government. That is no secret. Polling for the President, polling for Congress is at an almost all-time low. They think we are concerned about a whole lot of issues, but we are not concerned about them. It seems to me that before we go home to our well-heated homes, before we go home to our vacation time, that we not turn our backs on some of those who are most in need. I think we have to act boldly to restore faith in the U.S. Government, and I hope that before we leave, we can get a vote on this floor with bipartisan support, and that we can move this process forward. Mr. President, with that, I thank my good friend, Senator Byrd, the outstanding leader of our Appropriations Committee, for yielding, and I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. I object.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, today I would like to make you aware of five individuals who were recently recognized at the Central Vermont Community Action Council's annual meeting. Sergio Colon moved to White River Junction with his two adopted sons after his community in Port Charlotte, FL, was devastated by Hurricane Charlie in 2004. A single father working hard to make ends meet, Sergio at one point was forced to move his family to a homeless shelter in Vermont. Yet, even while his family relied on social services to get by, he volunteered for multiple organizations just as he had always done in Florida. Sergio has since returned to college to work on his psychology degree and is currently looking for a job in human services so he can continue to help people who are struggling. Borgi von Trapp has been a leader in her community for many years. In 1993, Borgi, a mother of six children, founded Children First, an organization devoted to designing and implementing creative educational environments for children. A year later, she helped develop the Mad River Green Farmers' Market, a successful incubator for locally owned, innovative, healthy, and creative businesses. Since then it has grown to include more than 50 full time vendors and over 12,000 customers per season. Borgi is a model of community leadership and creative learning. Sherrie Pomainville was a single mother for 22 years, raising four children on a minimum-wage salary. She knew the value of education and worked to obtain it. With the help of the Reach Up Program, she was one of the first clients to successfully complete the postsecondary Education program and earn a bachelor's degree in social work. In 2002, Sherrie graduated cum laude and was on the National Association for Social Workers Board for 3 years. This has allowed her to make a better life for herself and her children, while at the same time giving back to the community that helped her. She currently works for various community organizations in southwestern Vermont. Jessica Kelley has been actively involved as a parent volunteer in Head Start and an important advocate for children and families in her community. She has served on the Head Start Policy Council for the past 2 years and last year was elected the parent representative of the Vermont Head Start Association. In this role, Jessica attends statewide meetings and participates in policy discussions and initiatives, such as parent leadership, Head Start reauthorization, and No Child Left Behind legislation. Lydia Chartier is a tireless community leader in the Northeast Kingdom of Vermont. Presently, she donates most of her time to Lincoln Center Child Care, where she uses her own vast experience to assist support staff and other volunteers. She also serves as an invaluable resource to the Lincoln Center's staff. In addition, Lydia volunteers at her church, her son's school, and on many other community projects. If there is a good community event happening, there can be little doubt that Lydia is aware of it and promoting it. But most of all, Lydia is dedicated to ending poverty and doing whatever it takes to help those in need. The quality of life in Vermont, and in our Nation, is strengthened by individuals like these five community leaders, men and women who work to improve our communities and who strive to give back to the places in which they live. I commend their great contributions and the contributions of many like them across the nation to our American society.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. In other words, what the scientists are telling us is the problem of global warming may be even more severe than they had previously told us. It seems to me what we should be doing in the Senate is become more aggressive, more bold in combating greenhouse gas emissions and not support amendments that slow down the growth of such sustainable energies as wind. That is what, unfortunately, the Alexander amendment would do. In contrast to the direction Senator Alexander wants us to go, let me quote from a BBC article that appeared the other day. This is what that article says: Wind ``could power all UK homes.'' All UK homes could be powered by offshore wind farms by 2020 as part of the fight against climate change, under plans unveiled.'' What they are doing in the UK, at the highest levels of Government, with support of the Tory Party--the conservative party--in the UK, is they are developing plans that would significantly increase the number of wind turbines. Some 7,000 wind turbines could be installed by the year 2020 to provide all the homes in the UK with electricity. They are going forward rapidly, boldly with wind, and we are talking about how we can cut back efforts toward sustainable energy. I fully appreciate that my good friend from Tennessee has concerns about wind energy. He may not want a wind turbine at his home or on his property, and that is his right. We support that right. But I would respectfully request he not make that decision for the rest of America. Wind energy is one of the fastest growing renewable technologies today and benefits families in my own State of Vermont and all across our country. I believe rural America and individual communities across this country deserve the opportunity to decide for themselves whether to pursue wind energy. Some may like it; some may not. That is a decision for them and not the Federal Government. I would hope some of our conservative friends who talk about all of the vices of a big Federal Government might want to heed that thought. The truth is, today millions of rural Americans, in fact, want to pursue sustainable energy. They should be allowed to do so, and they should be able to utilize the support provisions in this farm bill that provide incentives for them to produce electricity that is renewable, that is cost effective, and does not emit carbon. That is what they want to do. That is what we need. We should support that effort. Apparently, one of those people--and I applaud him for this--is the former Republican President of the United States of America, George H.W. Bush, who, in his summer home at Kennebunkport, ME, has recently installed a 33-foot tall windmill that can produce 400 kilowatts a month. I applaud former President Bush for pointing out to the country the importance of small wind turbines in providing electricity for homes. I hope all over this country people emulate what the former Republican President has done. There is enormous potential for wind technology in the United States. We have a huge renewable resource base in our country, and yet only about 3 percent of the Nation's electricity supply came from nonhydroelectric renewable energy sources in the year 2006. Other countries have already made significant strides toward using renewable energy. I point out that Denmark meets roughly 20 percent of its electricity needs with wind alone, while Spain is at 9 percent, and Germany and Portugal are at 7 percent. Despite having a much more robust wind resource than any of these countries, the United States meets less than 1 percent of its electrical needs with wind power today. We can do better. We must do better. The Federal Government, through tax credits and other incentives, including small wind turbines, must help move our country in that direction. Today, most wind turbines are currently located on mountain tops, mountain passes, and the Great Plains from North Dakota to Texas. That is not nearly good enough. Wind is the cheapest renewable energy, and it should be growing by leaps and bounds. We have to move forward in making that happen. As a nation, we can--in fact, we must--do a better job of exploiting the freely available renewable resources that exist across our country. Small-scale rural wind turbines should be aggressively promoted as one of the solutions. We can no longer afford to ignore the rapidly maturing renewable technologies that can help address the critical challenges of energy independence, global warming, and high energy prices. It should be heartening to know that new investments in renewable generating capacity in the United States has been accelerating in recent years. This is largely due to tax credits from States and the Federal Government. Wind power has been at the forefront of that growth. The year 2006 was the largest on record in the U.S. for wind power capacity additions, with over 2,400 megawatts of wind added to the grid. That is a good start, but we need to go a lot further than that. I recently talked with a manufacturer of small residential-scale wind turbines to find out about the potential of this technology. What he told me was that with support from the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory we are developing wind turbines all over this country where there is a reasonable amount of wind. Clearly, wind is not available all over the country. But everybody who is serious about this issue understands that the solution to global warming and the solution to sustainable energy, electricity generation, is going to require a mix of technologies. In some areas wind is strong, in some areas the Sun is strong, and so forth. But in areas such as the State of Vermont, I am told that an average home can produce 40, 50, 60 percent of its electricity from a small wind turbine, which is becoming less and less expensive. They are now on the market for some $12,000--$12,000--including installation. If we can provide the type of tax credits and other incentives for these wind turbines, we can have a payback period in a reasonable period of time which will lower the cost of electricity for millions of Americans, break our dependency on Middle East oil, and stop the emissions of carbon into the atmosphere, which is causing global warming. I have a lot of respect for my friend from Tennessee, and I know his concern is aesthetics, how these things look--that is one of his concerns--but let me say a word about aesthetics. I also am concerned about how things look. I am concerned when extreme weather disturbances such as Hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana and caused massive damage. That is an aesthetic concern I have. If we do not get a handle on global warming, we are going to see more and more extreme weather disturbances which can impact hundreds of millions if not billions of people. Drought is an aesthetic issue. Seeing lakes dry up, and the repercussions of that, of flooding, and the impact that global warming will have on the loss of clean drinking water, and the desperation people will experience as a result of that, is also an aesthetic issue. So I can understand that people have differences of opinion about how things look. I do not like the look of global warming, and I think we should reject soundly Senator Alexander's amendment. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me begin by concurring with much of what Senator Salazar has said. I have a lot of respect for Senator Alexander. I have worked with him on some issues, and I look forward to working with him on other issues. But, unfortunately, on this one he is dead wrong, and the amendments on wind energy he has brought forth should be soundly defeated in a tripartisan vote. Let me begin by quoting from an AP article that appeared on the front page of Vermont's largest newspaper, the Burlington Free Press, this morning and in papers throughout the country. Here is what the article says: ``Ominous Arctic melt worries experts.'' An already relentless melting of the Arctic greatly accelerated this summer, a warning sign that some scientists worry could mean global warming has passed an ominous tipping point. One even speculated that summer sea ice would be gone in five years. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. As I mentioned a moment ago, I come from a State, as do many others in the Senate, where the weather gets cold--sometimes 20 or 30 degrees below zero. I come from a State, as do many other Members, where many folks are finding it extremely difficult this year to pay for their home heating fuel costs because, as we all know, costs are soaring. It is not unusual when I walk the streets of Burlington, VT, or other towns in the State of Vermont, that people are appalled and frightened about the rapidly escalating costs of home heating oil, and they are in need of help. As you know, Mr. President, the LIHEAP program has been an enormously successful program in providing help to many Americans in paying their heating bills, especially the senior citizens. So what this amendment would do--and I will talk at greater length about it tomorrow--is provide $924 million in increased LIHEAP funding because we need that funding now. We need to see LIHEAP significantly increased beyond where it is right now if for no other reason than to simply keep pace with the outrageous increase in costs for home heating. Further, it is my view, and why I am offering this amendment, that it is wrong to be cutting into agriculture disaster assistance for farmers. There are disasters and there will be disasters. If we are serious about maintaining family-based agriculture in America, it is important those provisions be maintained. That is essentially what that amendment is about. I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment and call up an amendment that I send to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and that the Gregg amendment No. 3822 be the pending amendment.

Mr. SANDERS. What the Gregg amendment does is take $5.1 billion from agricultural disaster assistance for farmers, and it puts $924 million into LIHEAP. What my amendment does is put $924 million into LIHEAP but does not affect agriculture disaster assistance.

Mr. SANDERS. It is a second-degree, yes.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I come from a State where the weather gets 20, 30 below zero. I send to the desk a second-degree amendment to the Gregg amendment No. 3822 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS. I believe that is the case.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge the lifetime work of the artist George Tooker. Earlier this month, President Bush presented him with the National Medal of Arts, our Nation's highest and most prestigious award for artistic excellence. George Tooker, born in New York City, is a resident of Hartland, VT. After studying English literature at Harvard and then studying painting at the Art Students League of New York, he found a world of modern possibilities in the medieval and Renaissance medium of egg tempera, helping to begin a revitalization of that technique. The choice of egg tempera gave his paintings an archaic and otherworldly feel, creating wonderfully rich juxtapositions as Tooker often used contemporary subjects and circumstances as the theme of his work. For instance, many of his paintings convey images of modernity and alienation while using colors, surface finishes, and techniques that hearken back to the long tradition of art history. But they do more, of course; the reference to that long tradition of culture foregrounds the current manifestations of that culture, which George Tooker addresses as his subject. Although some have seen elements of fantasy in his paintings, George Tooker has been explicit; he seeks not an escape into a dream world but, rather, the creation of a new approach to realism. ``I am after painting reality impressed on the mind so hard that it returns as a dream, but I am not after painting dreams as such, or fantasy,'' he once said. His haunting works often highlight the increased social isolation that has accompanied the pressures of modernization on everyday life. He deals with society and its very real consequences; although many of his paintings retain a magical and stylized feel, at their heart are images that have the capacity to reveal and reflect many of the deepest feelings each viewer of Tooker's work encounters in his or her own life in the contemporary world. I commend Mr. George Tooker for his important contributions to American art and congratulate him on receiving the National Medal of Arts. We in Vermont are proud of his accomplishment.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I wish to say a few words as to why I am strongly opposed to the Peru Free Trade Agreement. Some of the points I made last night, but I think they need reiteration. The untold story of the economy in the United States is that the middle class is shrinking, poverty is increasing, and the gap between the rich and the poor is growing much wider. I am not going to stand here and tell you trade is the only reason the middle class is shrinking, but I am going to tell you it is a major reason, and it is an issue we have to deal with. Mr. President, since George W. Bush has been in office, 5 million Americans have slipped out of the middle class and into poverty, 8\1/2\ million Americans have lost their health insurance, median household income for working-age families has gone down by nearly $2,500, over 3 million good-paying manufacturing jobs have been lost, 3 million Americans have lost their pensions, wages and salaries are now at their lowest share of GDP since 1929, and we are in a situation now where the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans earn far more income than the bottom 50 percent. In the last number of years, technology has exploded and worker productivity has increased. Yet in the midst of all of that, the middle class is struggling desperately to keep their heads above water, and poverty is increasing. I think the question this Senate should be spending a lot of time on answering is why that is happening. Why is it that everything being equal, our kids will have, for the first time in the modern history of the United States, a lower standard of living than we do? Why is it that a two-income family today has less disposable income than a one- income family did 30 years ago? In the midst of all this globalization, all of the explosion of technology, all of the increase in worker productivity, there is more and more economic desperation in the United States, and the only people who are doing very well are the wealthiest 1 or 2 percent of the population. Now, I think there is a real problem when you have unfettered free- trade agreements which essentially allow corporate America to throw American workers out on the street, move to China, move to other low- wage countries, pay people their 50 cents an hour, $1 an hour, and then bring their products back into this country. One of the great crises we are facing is we are not building manufacturing plants in the United States and putting people to work at good wages with good benefits. Not only are we losing blue-collar jobs, we are losing white-collar information technology jobs. And millions of parents all over this country are wondering what kind of jobs are going to be available for their kids. The fact is, these free-trade agreements have not worked. I don't know how many times and what people need to understand that. Just take a look at NAFTA. I remember, because I was a Member of the House during that debate, that the supporters of unfettered free trade told us over and over that NAFTA would increase jobs in the United States. But according to the Economic Policy Institute, NAFTA has led to the elimination of over 1 million American jobs. Now, why would you want to follow a paradigm, a trade policy approach which has failed in the past? If it has failed time and time again, why would you keep doing the same thing? A manager of a baseball team who has losing records year after year gets fired. That is what happens. The team changes its approach. Right now, we have a huge trade deficit. It is a growing trade deficit. We are losing good-paying jobs. Pressure on wages is to push them down into a race to the bottom. That is a failed trade policy. Supporters of unfettered free trade told us that NAFTA would significantly reduce the flow of illegal immigration into this country because the standard of living in Mexico would increase. Well, guess what. They were wrong. It didn't happen. As a result of NAFTA, severe poverty in Mexico increased. It didn't go down, it increased, and 1.3 million small farmers in that country have been displaced, with real wages for the majority of Mexicans having gone down. All of this has led to a 60-percent annual increase in illegal immigration from Mexico during the first 6 years of NAFTA alone. What is happening in Mexico and in the United States and in many other countries today because of unfettered free trade is we are seeing a huge increase in the gap between the people on top and everybody else. I will give just one example. In Mexico today, a poor country, a gentleman named Carlos Slim has just surpassed Bill Gates as the wealthiest person in the world, worth over $60 billion, in a poor country. Incredibly, because of unfettered free trade and near liberal type of economic policy, Mr. Slim is worth more than the poorest 45 million Mexicans combined. One man has more wealth than the bottom 45 percent, which happens to be 45 million Mexicans. That is one of the manifestations of unfettered free trade. And the situation is the same with China. I remember the debate about China--we have a great market in China. If we open permanent normal trade relations with China, it will create all kinds of jobs. Nobody believes that is true. We have a huge trade deficit with China, a trade deficit that is growing. People today are doing Christmas shopping. When they go to the stores, the products they will find from A to Z are made in China, not made in the United States. I can tell you that in my small State of Vermont, we have lost 25 percent of our manufacturing jobs in the last 6 years--not just due to trade, but trade has played an important role. All over this country, people are wondering why corporate America is not reinvesting in Pennsylvania or Vermont or the rest of the country. Well, you know why. They are investing billions and billions of dollars in China, hiring people there at pennies an hour, and then they bring their products back into this country. And people are wondering: How do you become a great economy? How do you lead the world? How do you have good jobs for your kids if we are not producing the goods that our people purchase? You will remember, Mr. President, that 20, 25 years ago, the largest employer in the United States was General Motors. They produced automobiles. They paid people good wages, they had good benefits, and there was a strong union. Today, the largest employer in the United States is Wal-Mart, with low wages, minimal benefits, and vehemently antiunion. What I also don't understand, in terms of this trade debate, is who the Congress thinks it is representing. You go out in my State and all over this country, and people say: We do not like unfettered free trade. If you want to be a political opportunist, and you don't care about the issue, you should vote against the Peru trade agreement. That is what the people want you to do. In fact, according to a recent Wall Street Journal NBC news poll, 59 percent of Republicans--of Republicans-- believe unfettered free trade has been bad for the U.S. economy. And a majority of Democrats feel the same way. So I think maybe the Congress has got to start saying to the large corporation CEOs, who in fact do very well by unfettered free trade, that our job is not just to represent them but to represent the working families of this country. This agreement will simply continue a failed trade policy. And, Mr. President, you know, because you are a new Senator as well, that during the last campaign, many of us raised this issue about unfettered free trade. What we heard from constituents was that they wanted a change in trade policy. They wanted companies to start investing in America, not in China. They are worried about the future. So the bottom line is, we have a failed trade policy, and before we pass any more trade agreements, I think we need to take a hard look at what past trade agreements have done. I think we need a moratorium on them, and we need to develop new trade agreements. Trade is a good thing, but we need new trade agreements that represent the working families of this country so that we can see our wages and our incomes going up, not going down; our health care benefits going up, not going down; so that we are not engaged in a race to the bottom; so that we are helping poor countries improve their standard of living, while our standard of living is going up and not bringing everybody down. I hope Members of the Senate will give serious consideration to rethinking our trade policies and voting this Peru trade agreement down. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANDERS

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

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Keep Americans Warm Act, which provides an additional $1 billion in emergency home heating aid under the highly successful Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, otherwise known as LIHEAP. Most importantly, this $1 billion in emergency home heating assistance would be in addition to the overall fiscal year 2008 appropriations for LIHEAP. I am delighted this bill enjoys widespread bipartisan support from across the political spectrum. As a matter of fact, this legislation is being cosponsored by 23 of my colleagues--16 Democrats, 6 Republicans, and 1 Independent. I would like to recognize all of the cosponsors this morning: both Senators from Minnesota, Mr. Coleman and Ms. Klobuchar; Senator Obama; both Senators from Maine, Ms. Snowe and Ms. Collins; both Senators from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry and Mr. Kennedy; Senator Brown; Senator Lugar; the senior Senator from the great State of Vermont, Senator Leahy; Senator Smith; Senator Bingaman, the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee; Senator Sununu; both Senators from New York, Mr. Schumer and Mrs. Clinton; Senator Casey; Senator Mikulski; Senator Menendez; Senator Stabenow; Senator Lieberman; Senator Cantwell; Senator Biden; and Senator Boxer. Mr. President, the reason this legislation is being cosponsored by so many of my colleagues is simple: Skyrocketing home heating prices in New England, the Northeast, and the Mideast, are already stretching household budgets beyond the breaking point. In the wealthiest country on the face of the Earth, not one family should go cold this winter. That is not what America is supposed to be about. Not one senior citizen should have to choose between heating their homes or paying for their prescription drugs. I am afraid if we do not act, and act aggressively, that is what is going to happen all across this country. While the official start of winter is still about 3 weeks away, home heating prices in Vermont and in other parts of the country are already going through the roof. According to the Central Vermont Community Action Council, many Vermont families have been paying an incredible $3.47 a gallon for heating oil and as much as $3.71 a gallon for kerosene this year. Nationwide, heating oil prices are already up 90 cents from last year, or more than double from where they were 4 years ago. Further, the price of kerosene has also increased by 50 cents a gallon from last year. These rapidly rising energy prices right now are bad enough; but the overall projections of what people will pay for energy over the course of this winter is frightening. The National Energy Assistance Directors Association has projected that the typical household using heating oil will pay $2,157 to heat their homes this winter--a 47-percent increase from what they paid last year. Those using propane will pay $1,765 this winter, or 30 percent more than what they paid 2 years ago. Before we got back into session this week, the debate over LIHEAP was between an 11.6-percent increase from last year, as included in the fiscal year 2008 Labor-HHS conference report, and the President's budget proposal of a 21-percent cut--cut--from last year. While the level of funding for LIHEAP included in the Labor-HHS conference report is a good starting point, even if this level eventually becomes law, it would still be 31 percent below the $3.2 billion provided in fiscal year 2006. Making matters worse, the President vetoed the Labor-HHS conference report, insisting on a $379 million cut to LIHEAP, among other things. We hear a lot of talk in Washington about family values. Well, to my mind, a family value is that we do not let our fellow Americans go cold when the cost of home heating oil is exploding. I thank all my colleagues. This legislation has brought forth widespread bipartisan support from Senators all across this country. Let us be aggressive and pass this legislation so that in this great country nobody goes cold this winter. Thank you.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Keep Americans Warm Act, which provides an additional $1 billion in emergency home heating aid under the highly successful Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, otherwise known as LIHEAP. Most importantly, this $1 billion in emergency home heating assistance would be in addition to the overall fiscal year 2008 appropriations for LIHEAP. I am delighted this bill enjoys widespread bipartisan support from across the political spectrum. As a matter of fact, this legislation is being cosponsored by 23 of my colleagues--16 Democrats, 6 Republicans, and 1 Independent. I would like to recognize all of the cosponsors this morning: both Senators from Minnesota, Mr. Coleman and Ms. Klobuchar; Senator Obama; both Senators from Maine, Ms. Snowe and Ms. Collins; both Senators from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry and Mr. Kennedy; Senator Brown; Senator Lugar; the senior Senator from the great State of Vermont, Senator Leahy; Senator Smith; Senator Bingaman, the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee; Senator Sununu; both Senators from New York, Mr. Schumer and Mrs. Clinton; Senator Casey; Senator Mikulski; Senator Menendez; Senator Stabenow; Senator Lieberman; Senator Cantwell; Senator Biden; and Senator Boxer. Mr. President, the reason this legislation is being cosponsored by so many of my colleagues is simple: Skyrocketing home heating prices in New England, the Northeast, and the Mideast, are already stretching household budgets beyond the breaking point. In the wealthiest country on the face of the Earth, not one family should go cold this winter. That is not what America is supposed to be about. Not one senior citizen should have to choose between heating their homes or paying for their prescription drugs. I am afraid if we do not act, and act aggressively, that is what is going to happen all across this country. While the official start of winter is still about 3 weeks away, home heating prices in Vermont and in other parts of the country are already going through the roof. According to the Central Vermont Community Action Council, many Vermont families have been paying an incredible $3.47 a gallon for heating oil and as much as $3.71 a gallon for kerosene this year. Nationwide, heating oil prices are already up 90 cents from last year, or more than double from where they were 4 years ago. Further, the price of kerosene has also increased by 50 cents a gallon from last year. These rapidly rising energy prices right now are bad enough; but the overall projections of what people will pay for energy over the course of this winter is frightening. The National Energy Assistance Directors Association has projected that the typical household using heating oil will pay $2,157 to heat their homes this winter--a 47-percent increase from what they paid last year. Those using propane will pay $1,765 this winter, or 30 percent more than what they paid 2 years ago. Before we got back into session this week, the debate over LIHEAP was between an 11.6-percent increase from last year, as included in the fiscal year 2008 Labor-HHS conference report, and the President's budget proposal of a 21-percent cut--cut--from last year. While the level of funding for LIHEAP included in the Labor-HHS conference report is a good starting point, even if this level eventually becomes law, it would still be 31 percent below the $3.2 billion provided in fiscal year 2006. Making matters worse, the President vetoed the Labor-HHS conference report, insisting on a $379 million cut to LIHEAP, among other things. We hear a lot of talk in Washington about family values. Well, to my mind, a family value is that we do not let our fellow Americans go cold when the cost of home heating oil is exploding. I thank all my colleagues. This legislation has brought forth widespread bipartisan support from Senators all across this country. Let us be aggressive and pass this legislation so that in this great country nobody goes cold this winter. Thank you.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I rise this evening in strong opposition to the Peru Free Trade Agreement. It seems to me that most Americans understand that our current trade policies are failing. They see this every day when they go shopping and they buy products that are made in China--made all over the world--but that it is increasingly difficult to find a product manufactured in the United States of America. They understand our trade policies are failing when they note our trade deficit is huge and growing larger every single year. It seems to me that before we go forward again in pursuit of a failing trade agenda, we might want to sit back, take a moratorium, understand why our trade policies are failing, and then put together trade agreements that work for the working people and the middle class of this country, rather than just the CEOs of large multinational corporations. That is what I think we should be doing; not rushing helter skelter along the direction of failed trade policies. One of the major reasons that the middle class in the United States is shrinking, poverty is increasing, and the gap between the rich and the poor is growing wider is, in fact, due to our disastrous, unfettered free trade policies. In my opinion, the last thing we should be doing now is passing another job-destroying, NAFTA-style free trade agreement. Before we vote on this piece of legislation, I think it is terribly important that we as a Senate take a hard look at the current state of our economy. Now, if our economy is doing well for the middle class, if our trade policies are creating good-paying jobs, if our trade policies are moving toward eliminating poverty, if our trade policies are making us a more egalitarian society, let's go forward; but, in fact, if our trade policies are moving in exactly the wrong direction for the middle class, I think we should take a deep breath and not go forward in that direction. Let's take a look at in fact what is happening in our economy today since President Bush has been in office. Nearly 5 million Americans have slipped out of the middle class and into poverty. In fact, today, the United States has the highest rate of poverty of any major country on Earth. Madam President, 8.6 million Americans have lost their health insurance, and some 47 million Americans now have health insurance. Median household income for working-age families has gone down by nearly $2,500 since President Bush has been in office. Over 3 million good-paying manufacturing jobs have been lost. Three million American workers have lost their pensions. Wages and salaries are now at their lowest share of GDP since 1929. The United States has the largest gap between the rich and the poor of any major developed country on Earth. Incredibly, in 2005, the top 1 percent earned more income than the bottom 50 percent. According to Forbes Magazine, the collective net worth of the wealthiest 400 Americans increased by $120 billion last year to $1.25 trillion. Now, is our current trade policy responsible for all of these economic trends? The answer, obviously, is no. Our current trade policies are not the sole cause for the decline of the middle class and the increase in poverty. But has unfettered free trade significantly contributed to the shrinking of the middle class and the increase in income inequality? The answer is absolutely, it has. So the point I am making this evening is if you like the way the economy is going, with a shrinking middle class and an increase in poverty and a growing gap between the very rich and everybody else, I guess we should go forward on these trade policies. But if you don't like the direction of the economy of the United States--and the overwhelming majority of people in this country do not like where the economy is going--I think we need a new direction in our trade policies. According to the Institute for International Economics, 39 percent of the increase in income inequality in our country is due to our unfettered free trade policy. According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, unfettered free trade has caused the wages of American workers without a college degree to be slashed by over 12 percent. When we talk about economics, we often look at the problem from a general sense, but if we focus on what is happening, especially to those people who are high school graduates, what we are seeing is a severe decline in wages for that subset of the American population. Those people are struggling very hard to keep their heads above water economically. We now have a record-breaking $765 billion trade deficit, including a $232 billion trade deficit with China, and a $64 billion trade deficit with Mexico. Today, we now have the fewest manufacturing jobs than at any time since Dwight David Eisenhower was President of our country. If the United States is to remain a major industrial power, producing real products and creating good-paying jobs, we must develop a new set of trade policies which work for the middle class of this country and not just for the CEOs of large corporations. As the Presiding Officer well knows, coming from the great State of Michigan, it was not so many years ago that General Motors was the largest employer in the United States. By and large, those people who worked for General Motors had good wages, good benefits, and a strong union to represent them. Today, the largest employer in the United States is Wal-Mart--low wages, vehemently antiunion, and minimum benefits. That is the transformation of the American economy, and that is a metaphor for why the middle class in America today is shrinking. Unfortunately, the Peru Free Trade Agreement is another failed trade policy among many other failed trade policies. In fact, in large part, this Free Trade Agreement, the Peru agreement, was modeled after the North American Free Trade Agreement--NAFTA. So I guess the bottom line here is, if you like NAFTA, you will like the Peru Free Trade Agreement. Most people in this country do not like NAFTA. Has NAFTA been a success? Well, we have some information. We have some figures. Let's take a look. Supporters of unfettered free trade told us over and over again that NAFTA would increase jobs in the United States. I was a Member of the House of Representatives during that debate. I remember it like it was yesterday: NAFTA is going to create all kinds of new jobs. Unfortunately, according to the Economic Policy Institute, NAFTA has led to the elimination of over 1 million American jobs. Well, NAFTA cost us 1 million American jobs. Do we want to go down that road with other trade agreements that will also lead to the loss of jobs and the lowering of wages? I think not. Supporters of unfettered free trade told us during that debate that NAFTA would significantly reduce the flow of illegal immigration into this country because the standard of living in Mexico would increase. Well, that issue need not be discussed for too long because nobody believes that has happened. Sadly, as we all know, as a result of NAFTA, severe poverty in Mexico has increased; 1.3 million small farmers in Mexico have lost their farms. They have been displaced and real wages for the majority of Mexicans have gone down. All of this-- the loss of farms, the decline in wages, and the increase in extreme poverty in Mexico--is directly opposite of what they told us NAFTA would do, and it has led to a 60-percent annual increase in illegal immigration from Mexico during the first 6 years of NAFTA alone. So they told us NAFTA would create more jobs in America. Wrong. We lost jobs. They told us NAFTA would increase the standard of living of people in Mexico and stop illegal immigration. Wrong. Extreme poverty in Mexico has gone up; over a million people lost their farms, and illegal immigration to the U.S. has increased. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Yet people say we were wrong, wrong, wrong, and I guess we should continue to go down that same path. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. One of the interesting aspects of unfettered free trade in the United States, and all over the world, is that it results in very large increases in income inequality. That is true in the United States, and it is also true in Mexico, where the gap between the rich and poor in that country has skyrocketed. You would be interested to know that one man in Mexico--we all have to admit that at least one guy in Mexico has significantly benefited from NAFTA, and that is the telecommunications mogul, Carlos Slim. He has done very well by NAFTA. He recently surpassed Bill Gates as the wealthiest person in the world, and he--from Mexico--is worth over $60 billion. He is the richest guy in the world and is from a poor country. Amazingly, Mr. Slim is worth more than the bottom 45 percent of the people of Mexico. One man has more wealth than the bottom 45 percent of the people in Mexico. Frankly, that is obscene. That is obscene, but that is one of the manifestations of unfettered free trade. In that case, it is in a very extreme way. In fact, while NAFTA helped make Mr. Slim the wealthiest person in the world, about half of the Mexican population lives on less than $5 a day. How about that. One guy is worth $60 billion, and half of the population there lives on $5 a day. That is a manifestation of unfettered free trade. The Slim family fortune is equivalent to 8 percent of Mexico's gross domestic product. So, in Mexico, you have one man who is worth $60 billion, while extreme poverty in that country has increased and small farmers have been driven off the land. That has been the result of NAFTA in Mexico. I am afraid that, if we continue to move down that road, this will be the same in terms of the Peru Free Trade Agreement. In addition, before we vote on this unfettered free trade agreement, I think we need to closely examine our unfettered free trade policy with China because China is the 600-pound gorilla in the whole issue. Supporters of unfettered free trade told us that PNTR with China would lead to the creation of hundreds of thousands of American jobs. That is what they said. Well, unfortunately, they were wrong again. Instead, as a result of PNTR with China, nearly 2 million decent-paying American jobs have been displaced. As we speak, there are millions of men, women, and kids in this country who are going out Christmas shopping. This is the time of year people do that. When people go to stores--whether they are large department stores or small stores--and they buy stuff, they find that almost everything that they are buying--whether it is footwear, telephones, clothing, computers, you name the product--is manufactured in China. They are not manufactured in the United States of America. I recently held a series of town meetings, and I asked people in my State--and we are a small State. Unlike Michigan, we are not a major manufacturing center. Yet in the last 6 years, in Vermont, we have lost 25 percent of our manufacturing jobs. What kind of a country are we going to be if we are not producing the products people consume? Do you think we can be a great economy simply by flipping hamburgers? I don't think so. I will tell you, there are people who worry about the military future of our country, our national security, when we are not even producing the products that our military needs. Since PNTR with China, our trade deficit with that country has nearly tripled to $232 billion, and that is a huge and growing trade deficit. Today, over 80 percent of the toys sold in the United States are made in China. About 90 percent, for example, of the vitamin C--I take vitamin C--is made in China; 80 percent of all shoes we purchase in the United States are made in China; 90 percent of U.S. furniture production has moved to China; 85 percent of bicycles sold in the United States are made in China; half of all the apple juice imported to the United States comes from China; the United States imports more advanced technologies from China than any other country. We are not just talking about stuffed teddy bears or sneakers, we are now talking about highly advanced technology that is developing in China. I have a simple question: Why is it that, in Vermont, Michigan, and all over this country corporations are shutting down and moving abroad? Wouldn't it be a nice idea that if these guys wanted Americans to buy their products--which they do--how about manufacturing some of them in the United States of America? As I mentioned, I did a series of town meetings and I talked to the people in my State. I said: When was the last major manufacturing plant built in the State of Vermont? People can't quite remember, but it was a very fine plant built by a company called Husky. They are good jobs and it is a good plant. That was a long time ago. Nobody can remember any new plants being built in Vermont. By the way, I think that is true for most locations in America. Yet I was in China 5 years ago and I saw a lot of American companies building new plants in China--not in the United States of America. I think this is an issue we have to get a handle on. The irony is that a few years ago when I was in the House, in honor of 9/11, we had a ceremony to commemorate and memorialize the people murdered that day, and they distributed American flags to us. Those flags were made in China. Since September 11, 2001, over 100 million American flags sold in this country were made in China. We are not even making American flags in the United States of America. Before we pass yet another unfettered free trade agreement--this time with Peru--we have to fundamentally fix the broken trade policies we have with China and Mexico. That is not just Senator Bernie Sanders talking; this is the view of the overwhelming majority of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. Let me refer you to a recent Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll. In that poll--maybe 2 months ago--it indicated that 59 percent of Republicans and 54 percent of Democrats believed that unfettered free trade has been bad for the U.S. economy. Probably the only room full of people we could find in America who think that unfettered free trade is a good idea is this room right here. I think Republicans understand it is not working, Democrats and Independents understand it is not working, and maybe the Senate should start listening to the American people who are experiencing the tragedy of unfettered free trade. We have been told this particular trade agreement with Peru is different than the other trade agreements. We have been told this agreement has strong labor and environmental standards. If that is true, then why is it that not one major group representing the interests of labor, the environment, consumers, family farmers, religious organizations or Latino civil rights organizations supports this agreement? To the best of my knowledge, not one does. In fact, the Peru Free Trade Agreement is being opposed by the Teamsters, the International Association of Machinists, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, UNITE-HERE, the League of United Latin American Citizens, Oxfam, Public Citizen, and numerous religious organizations in our country. In Peru, this unfettered free trade agreement is opposed by both of Peru's labor federations, and a prominent archbishop, among others. Even more troubling is the fact that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which strongly supports this trade agreement and all trade agreements, has said they have been ``encouraged by assurances that the labor provisions cannot be read to require compliance with ILO conventions.'' In other words, the labor standards in this agreement may not be worth the paper they are written on--or at least that is the view of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. According to a recent report by Columbia law professor Mark Barenberg, the so-called labor standards included in this legislation are ``even worse than existing law'' and ``in no respect do the agreement's labor provisions mark a significant improvement.'' Perhaps most important is this fact: The minimum wage in Peru is about 91 cents an hour. So what we are saying to workers in this country is that there is your competition. You are going to be competing against people who make 91 cents an hour. I think that is wrong. I do not think that America should be forced to compete against people in Peru, or any other country on Earth, where people earn such little money. In industry after industry, corporate America is shipping our manufacturing plants, our good-paying jobs, overseas, where desperate people are forced to work for pennies an hour. That bottom line is what unfettered free trade is about. The largest corporations in this country have pushed unfettered free trade for years. They have succeeded and they have gotten what they want. They want to pay people in China 50 cents an hour; in Peru, a dollar an hour, rather than paying American workers a living wage here, respecting the environment here and free independent trade unions here. Our corporate friends have won this debate, and the result of that is that the middle class is shrinking, poverty is increasing, and the wealthiest people in this country have never had it so good. At a time when the poorest people in this country are seeing unprecedented desperation, when the gap between the people on top and everybody else is growing wider and wider and most of the new jobs projected for the future are low-wage jobs with minimal benefits, that is the future. The great economic struggle of our time is whether the middle class of our Nation can be saved. That is what it is about. What the American dream was about--and this was true in my household--is my parents started with very little and they worked hard, with the hope that their kids would do better than they did. That is the American dream, and it has taken place here for such a long time. Right now, if we don't begin to deal with our current economic policies, including disastrous trade policies, there is a strong likelihood that our children--the young generation of today--will, for the first time in the modern history of this country, have the dubious distinction of having a lower standard of living than their parents. That is a reality that we have to prevent. I don't want to see us participating in the race to the bottom. I don't want to see our kids being poorer than their parents. There are a number of factors for that happening. Anyone who does not think that unfettered free trade is one of the reasons for the decline of the middle class I think is dead wrong. The word has got to go out loudly and clearly to companies such as Wal-Mart, General Electric, General Motors, IBM, Microsoft, Boeing, and hundreds of other corporations that they cannot keep sending America's future to low-wage countries. Trade is a good thing, and let me reiterate that point. I believe trade is a good thing, but it must be based on principles that are fair to American workers. The U.S. Congress can no longer allow corporate America to sell out the middle class of our country and move our economy abroad. A number of years ago, I think speaking for virtually all of corporate America, Jeff Immelt, who is the CEO of General Electric, one of the largest corporations in America, said: When I am talking to GE managers, I talk China, China, China, China, China. You need to be there. I'm a nut on China. Outsourcing to China is going to grow to 5 billion. That is what corporate America is saying. That is what unfettered free trade is all about, and it is time we told Mr. Immelt and the other CEOs of large corporations that if they want to sell their products in this country, they are going to have to start producing their products in this country. It is not acceptable that Thomas Donohue, the CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, ``urges'' American companies to send jobs abroad. They actually think this is good. It is not acceptable that Bill Gates, who has many wonderful qualities, tells us that Communist, authoritarian China has created a ``brand new form of capitalism, and as a consumer it is the best thing that ever happened.'' With all due respect to Mr. Gates, I disagree. We must tell these corporate leaders to stop outsourcing our jobs overseas and stop outsourcing the future of our country. We must demand they start investing in the United States of America and create good- paying jobs here. We must rebuild our manufacturing base. Then we can talk about passing trade agreements that work for the middle class of this country while at the same time lifting standards throughout the world. I want a race that takes all people up, not a race to the bottom. And that, among many other reasons, is why we should reject the Peru free- trade agreement. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.