Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 175, just received from the House and at the desk.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, without intervening action or debate.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. SANDERS

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

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. Tuesday, July 31; that on Tuesday, following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that there then be a period of morning business for 60 minutes, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the Republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half; that at the close of morning business, all time postcloture be considered yielded back and the motion to proceed to H.R. 976 be agreed to and the Senate then proceed to the bill; that on Tuesday, the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. for the respective party conference work periods; that during the recess, adjournment, and morning business, all time count postcloture.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2011 and the bill be referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Thank you, Mr. President. What is the pending business?

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, what the H-2B program provides is that guest workers may come into this country on a temporary basis if no qualified U.S. worker is available for that position and that the wages paid to H-2B employees do not adversely impact U.S. wages and working conditions. Unfortunately, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Labor have proposed regulations that would eliminate the labor certification process and move toward a process which has virtually no enforcement mechanisms and which simply takes the employer's word as to whether they are obeying these regulations. In other words: Trust us, we are doing the right thing. This is absurd. This amendment would simply prohibit the Department of Homeland Security from using any of the funds in this act to implement these proposed regulations. This amendment is supported by Senator Feingold as well.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me begin by commending Chairman Byrd and Ranking Member Cochran for their outstanding leadership on this excellent piece of legislation. The fiscal year 2008 Homeland Security appropriations bill will make this country safer, and I thank Chairman Byrd and Senator Cochran for their hard work in crafting this bill. The amendment I am offering now is, in fact, a very simple amendment. As you know, there is strong concern all over this country about the increase in poverty and the decline of the middle class. It seems to me--at a time when we are hemorrhaging millions of good-paying jobs; at a time when Americans are losing, by the millions, their health insurance, when moms cannot afford affordable childcare, people are losing their pensions--we have to do everything we can to make sure the policies we implement do not hurt low- and moderate-income families and make a bad situation even worse. On the contrary, this Congress has to do everything we can to make sure we lift up wages--we lift up working conditions--and not push them down. Unfortunately, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Labor have proposed regulations that, if implemented, could have a significant negative impact in terms of lowering wages and working conditions for American workers. Specifically, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Labor have proposed regulations that would eliminate the labor certification process and replace it with a labor attestation process. State workforce agencies and the Department of Labor as a whole would no longer be involved in certifying that employers applying for H-2B visas are not displacing American workers or adversely affecting the wages or working conditions of U.S. workers. The proposed regulations, for the most part, would only require employers to attest--to attest--to the Department of Homeland Security that they are following the law. All they have to do is say: I am following the law. Trust us. In other words, the Federal Government would take employers at their word that they are complying with the law, with little, if any, oversight. Among other things, the proposed regulations fail to ensure H-2B visa work is temporary in nature. H-2B work is supposed to be temporary. The proposed regulations fail to ensure that no qualified American worker is available for H-2B positions. In other words, the employer is supposed to go out and make sure there are not American workers available for that position. The proposed regulations fail to require that H-2B employers do not adversely affect U.S. wages and working conditions, all of which are required by current law. In other words, the law says an employer cannot pay low wages which have the impact of lowering wages for all workers in that area. Now, let me very briefly read to my colleagues what the AFL-CIO has written about these regulations: The proposed regulations would significantly weaken the ability of the Department of Labor and the Department of Homeland Security to meet the statutory requirements of the H-2B program as established by Congress and would establish a new regulatory system that would be arbitrary and capricious. Current administrative procedures have so far failed to adequately protect H-2B workers, domestic workers, and the domestic labor market. The proposed regulations, rather than addressing and remedying these fundamental flaws in current procedures, would only further undermine the administration's ability to ensure the H-2B program operates in full compliance with the law and in a rational manner. The proposed regulations are not only unacceptable to the AFL-CIO and to worker and immigrant advocates as a matter of public policy--if enacted, they would also constitute an unjustified and unauthorized derogation from the administration's responsibilities under the law. In addition, according to a recent report by the Southern Poverty Law Center entitled ``Close to Slavery,'' H-2B workers are routinely cheated out of wages; forced to mortgage their futures to obtain low wage, temporary jobs; held virtually captive by employers or labor brokers who seize their documents; forced to live in squalid conditions; and denied medical benefits for on-the-job injuries. The amendment I am offering today would prohibit the Department of Homeland Security from using any of the funds in this act to implement these proposed regulations. Given the serious abuses of the H-2B program by many employers documented by the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the strong opposition of working people from all over this country, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment. We have a bad situation now. Let us not make it worse. Simply put, we must make sure that labor protections for American workers and for foreign workers who are temporarily working in our country--we must make sure these regulations are strengthened, not weakened. Over the long term, I will be introducing legislation to accomplish that goal. But in the interim, we must not take a major step backwards in terms of protecting both U.S. workers and guest workers from unscrupulous employers. That is what this amendment is all about, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment. With that, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I call up the Sanders-Feingold amendment No. 2498 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside so I can call up an amendment.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. I rise in support of the Senator's amendment. If we are a nation of equal justice under the law, then low-income people must have legal representation. Legal aid does a phenomenally good job. In Vermont, the wage scale for legal aid workers is embarrassingly low. Any young person who graduates law school with the kind of debt we are talking about would find it almost impossible to work at a legal aid salary. We should be supportive of legal aid. I strongly support the Senator's amendment, and I thank him for offering it.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. My question was similar to Senator Dorgan's. I was going to say that if there was a substantive debate, we are prepared to offer several second-degree amendments. I hope I don't have to do that because I agree with the Senator from Massachusetts that we are dealing with higher education now, a very important issue, and I think we should keep it clean and move forward. But if something else evolves, we are prepared to offer several second-degree amendments.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I think all of us understand that both for the sake of our country and for the millions of young people in our country, we need fundamental changes in the way we do higher education in America. If we are going to be effectively competitive in a global economy, we need the best educated, the best trained workforce in the world. We need to capitalize on the intellectual potential of all of our people. It is a loss to our Nation and to the individual if there are people in our country who do not get the education they need to do what they are potentially able to do as American citizens. I do not have to tell you or the people of our country that in America today, we have some very serious problems in terms of higher education. In my State of Vermont and all across this country, the cost of higher education is soaring, and what that means is that in order to send young people to college, family members to college, people are going deeply in debt, coming out of college, depending on their income, $20,000, $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 in debt, which has an immediate impact on the career choice that many young people are making. If one comes out of college $50,000 in debt, if one comes out of graduate school $100,000 in debt, what they are going to do is get a job which makes them a lot of money to pay off that debt rather than go into the profession that they might otherwise have wanted to go into. That is bad for the individual, and that is bad for our country. Let me be very clear in congratulating Senator Kennedy, Senator Enzi, and other people on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on which I sit. My assistant, Dr. Huck Gutman, worked very hard in crafting a significant improvement in what we have seen in recent years in terms of higher education, most notably very significant expansion and improvement in the Pell Grant Program. We are making progress in beginning to deal with the very serious problems of higher education and how Americans can afford higher education. But also let me be very clear, and I don't know how many other Members of the Senate will agree with me, while we are making real progress, we have a very long way to go. When I talk with young people in the State of Vermont about higher education, I ask them how many young people their age who are going to college in Germany or in Europe or even in Canada incur the kind of debts they have and will incur when they get out of school. Many young people in America are surprised to learn that in Germany, in other European countries, college education is virtually free. It is funded by the government. Frankly, I think that is a good idea. We should look at education in general, and higher education, as an investment in America with an understanding that if many young people are not able to get the education they need, our country loses in terms of its productivity; that it is a waste unimaginable, both for the individual and for our society. If, as currently is the case, for the first time in modern American history, hundreds of thousands of low-income young Americans are saying: No, I don't want to go to college, I don't want to come out $50,000 in debt, think of what we are losing as a nation, not to mention the economic lost opportunities for those individuals. Let me be very clear. Before we give hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to the wealthiest 1 percent, before we invest in weapons systems that are obsolete, it makes a lot more sense to me that we tell every family in America that a college education and graduate school are going to be there for them if they are prepared to work hard and if they have the ability, they will not be denied that opportunity because their family does not have a lot of money. Let me also say I have serious concerns that at a time when we desperately need more physicians to bolster our health care system, when we need more nurses, when we need more dentists, it is absurd that people in the medical profession and in other professions are coming out deeply in debt, which also impacts their career choices. We need, for example, primary health care physicians in Vermont. All over rural America, physicians are choosing other specialities because they can make more money. To my mind, what we have to say in America, if we are serious about health care, if we are serious about law enforcement, if we are serious about making sure that low-income people have the public defenders they need, that Legal Aid has the lawyers they need, we have to do everything we can to say that anybody in this country who has the ability, is prepared to work hard, should be able to get a higher education regardless of their income and not have to come out of school deeply in debt. As a nation, we should look at that as an investment in the same way we look at many other types of investments. This bill is a good step forward, but in my view, over the years as we fight to change national priorities, one of those priorities should be that every young person, the kids in the fourth and fifth grade know if they do their work seriously, they will be able to get a higher education; they will be able to make it to the middle class regardless of the economic situations of their families. The cost of college in the last 20 years has tripled, but Federal financial aid has not kept up. Yes, we have given tax breaks to billionaires, but, no, we have not increased Pell grants and other sources of financial aid. I am very happy the legislation we are debating today will make college more affordable by raising the maximum Pell grant to $5,100 next year and increasing to $5,400 by 2011. That is a significant change and a significant step forward in funding higher education. In Vermont, what we have seen is that between the 2000 and 2001 and 2005 and 2006 school years, the cost of attendance, including tuition, fees, and room and board, at 4-year public colleges in Vermont increased by 29 percent, from $12,836 to $16,571. Certainly, these Pell grants will mean a lot to the families in the State of Vermont. As I mentioned a moment ago, the situation is even worse for those people who go to graduate school. Just an example: Students who attend the very fine Vermont Law School in South Royalton, VT, graduate, if one can believe this, on average $100,000 in debt. If they pay this debt off over 30 years, it will mean they will be paying $900 a month toward their debt for 30 years. If anyone doesn't think that impacts career choices, it certainly does. This bill has a number of very important provisions. Most importantly, it increases Pell grants and it says we have to make it easier for families in our country to afford college. It also provides a very important provision regarding loan forgiveness. This is something I believe in very strongly. We have worked very hard on this provision with Senator Kennedy and others. What this is about is that in this legislation, there are loan forgiveness provisions for those people who go into public service. We all know if you want to make a whole lot of money, you go to some large company and make a lot of money. You may be one of the lucky ones making millions and millions of dollars a year. What happens if you want to go into law enforcement? What happens if you want to be a teacher who works with disabled kids? What happens if you want to be a Head Start teacher or do the extraordinarily important work of early childhood education, which is some of the most important work being done in America because it enormously influences what kind of an adult a young person will become. What happens if you want to do that? In my State of Vermont, you can work in childcare and make $9 an hour, often without benefits. If you are coming out of school $50,000 in debt, you are not going to gravitate toward a job in which you make $9 an hour or $10 an hour because after you pay off your student loan, you are not going to have a whole lot to live on because of the low salaries and low wages those jobs involve. What this legislation does, very appropriately--it is a good start; we have to go further--it says to the young people of this country that public service is an important calling. We want you to go out and work to be teachers, to be in law enforcement, to work in legal aid, to work as a public defender, to work in environmental protection, to work in a variety of areas that are extraordinarily important for our country and for our society. Many of those jobs do not pay a whole lot of money. That is the reality. But we want you to be involved in those jobs, to work in those jobs, and that means we are going to encourage you to do that by forgiving your debt if you do that. That is one way to help you get involved in those professions. Some of the professions that would be eligible for this loan forgiveness are a full-time job in public emergency management, government, public safety, public law enforcement, public health, public education, public early childhood education, public childcare, social work in a public child or family service agency, public services for individuals with disabilities, public services for the elderly, public interest legal services, including prosecution or public defense, public library sciences, public school library sciences, or other public-school-based services. That is extraordinarily important. What we have also done in this legislation is we have increased the eligibility level for people to get Pell grants. That is important because with the limited amount of money that was previously available, I suppose appropriately enough most of that money went to those families that were most in need, and that meant a large number of families in the middle class or lower middle class were not eligible for Pell grants. But we have expanded and raised the eligibility level so that many more families will be eligible. Mr. President, as I conclude, this legislation is a significant step forward. I congratulate Senator Kennedy for his leadership, Senator Enzi, and all of the people on our committee who have worked on this important issue. But let's not in passing this legislation rest on our laurels. This is a good start, but we have a long way to go. My hope is that in the coming years, we will pass legislation which will have the impact of saying to every young person in America: If you are in the sixth grade or seventh grade, and if your family does not have a lot of money, if you study hard, if you do well in school, you will be able to get all of the education you need so that you can make it to the middle class, so that you can exercise all of your intellectual potential, and you can get out of college or get out of graduate school without being deeply in debt. Education is not a ``cost.'' Education is an investment. If we are going to turn this country around and have the kind of health care system that provides health care to every man, woman, and child as a right, we need doctors to go into rural America. We need tens and tens of thousands more nurses. We need dentists. We need all kinds of people in health care, in law enforcement, in environmental protection working with our youngest children. We have to say to any American: We want you to do as well as you can to get all of the education you can. We are proud of what you are doing. We see that as an investment in moving this country forward. Again, I congratulate the leadership of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee which I am on. I think we have taken a good step forward. I certainly hope this legislation passes, and I hope we continue to make substantial progress in the years to come. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I yield myself 20 minutes off the bill.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, a number of Vermont families are traveling to Arlington National Cemetery this week. They are a special group and they are here for a very special reason. The group is called The Vermont Fallen. They represent the many families in our State who have lost a loved one during the war in Afghanistan or the war in Iraq. On Saturday, July 14, The Vermont Fallen will come together to support Marion and Peter Dooley for the internment of LT Mark Dooley's ashes at Arlington National Cemetery. A fellow Vermonter, Lieutenant Dooley was born July 15, 1978. He was a graduate of the 2001 class of Norwich University and served as a police officer in Wilmington, VT, as well as the Windham County Sheriff's Department. A first lieutenant in the Vermont National Guard, he served with the 3rd Battalion, 172d Mountain Infantry. He was killed west of Ramadi, Iraq, on September 19, 2005, when the scout platoon he was leading was ambushed. The Vermont Fallen serves a wonderful and unique purpose. They allow families from Vermont who have suffered unimaginable loss to come together and support each other in a way that only they themselves can do. Today, we honor the life and the loss of LT Mark H. Dooley. In doing so, we also honor the lives of all those brave Vermont soldiers who never came home.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, there is a widespread perception among the people of our country that things are getting worse, not better. Polls seem to indicate that people feel that life for the middle class in the last 10 years is not as good as it used to be. By very strong numbers, the people of our country believe the economy is getting worse, not better. We are the greatest country in the history of the world, but there is something wrong when, if current economic trends continue, the young people in our country will have a lower standard of living than their parents. We are moving in many respects in exactly the wrong direction, and it is our job as Members of the Senate to turn that around and to begin making government work for all people rather than just the wealthy and the powerful who have so much power over what goes on in this institution. I rise in strong support of the Employer Free Choice Act. I commend Senator Kennedy for his leadership on this issue. Year after year, millions of American workers have been working longer hours for lower wages. In Vermont, it is not uncommon for people to work two jobs and on occasion work three jobs in order to cobble together an income in order to cobble together some health insurance. Consider the facts: Since 2001, median household income has fallen by nearly $1,300; wages and salaries now make up their lowest share of the economy in nearly six decades; the number of Americans who lack health insurance has grown by 6.8 million since 2001, to over 46 million Americans without any health insurance today; the number of Fortune 1,000 companies that have frozen or terminated their pension plans has more than tripled since 2001. Indeed, the middle class itself has shrunk. Over 5 million more Americans have slipped into poverty since the year 2000. So what we are seeing is the average American worker working longer hours for lower wages. Today there are millions of Americans who work who scarcely have any vacation time whatsoever. People are losing their health insurance, they are losing their pensions, and they are sitting around looking at the reality that if we do not turn this around, their kids will be even worse off than they are--all at the same time technology is exploding and worker productivity is increasing. Meanwhile, while the middle class shrinks and poverty increases, corporate profits today make up their largest share of the economy since the 1960s. While the middle class is shrinking, millionaires and billionaires in this country have never had it so good since the late 1920s. Today, the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. The CEOs of our largest corporations now earn 400 times as much as the average worker. This is not just an economic issue, this is a moral issue. Is this what America is supposed to be about, the wealthiest 1 percent owning more wealth than the bottom 90 percent, and the gap between the rich and the poor growing wider every day, as the middle class continues to shrink. I do not believe that is what America is supposed to be. At the same time, workers are seeing a decline in real wages, are being forced to pay more for their health insurance, and are seeing their pensions slashed. The CEOs of large corporations are making out like bandits. Just one simple example: Several years ago, the former CEO of ExxonMobil, Lee Raymond, received a $400 million retirement package-- while we are paying over $3 for a gallon of gas, and ExxonMobil, last year, enjoyed the highest profits of any corporation in the history of the world. But it is not just CEOs such as Mr. Raymond. At a time when big banks are ripping off American consumers by charging outrageous interest rates and sky-high fees, Richard Fairbank, the CEO of Capital One Financial, received over $300 million in total compensation over the past 5 years. While consumers have been getting ripped off at the gas pump, Ray Irani, the CEO of Occidental Petroleum, raked in over $500 million in total compensation over the past 5 years. And on and on it goes, CEOs making out like bandits, workers paying $3 for a gallon of gas, losing their health insurance, losing their pensions, losing their homes. The middle class is shrinking, poverty is increasing, and millionaires and billionaires have never had it so good. It is our job to turn that around. There are a lot of reasons for the growing inequality in our economy, and economists may differ, but there is clearly agreement on some of the basic reasons the gap between the rich and the poor is growing wider and the middle class is shrinking. The failure, up until very recently, to raise the minimum wage is an obvious example. Millions and millions and millions of workers today-- before the new minimum wage goes into effect--are making $5.15 an hour. Yes, the U.S. Congress has provided hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks for the wealthiest 1 percent, but we could not raise the minimum wage until a few weeks ago. That is certainly one of the reasons poverty in America is increasing. Another reason is that unfettered free trade, which forces American workers to compete against desperate workers in China, Mexico, and Vietnam, is also responsible for an increase in poverty and a lower standard of living for millions of American workers. No, American workers should not be forced to compete against desperate workers in China who are making 30 cents an hour. That is not a level playing field. That is wrong, and that is another reason the middle class in this country is in decline. But perhaps the most significant reason for the decline in the middle class is the rights of workers to join together and bargain for better wages, better benefits, and better working conditions have been severely undermined over the years. Today, if an employee is engaged in a union organizing campaign, that employee has a one in five chance of getting fired. Today, half of all employers threaten to close or relocate their business if workers choose to form a union. Today, when workers become interested in forming unions, 92 percent of private sector employers force employees to attend closed-door meetings to hear antiunion propaganda; 80 percent require supervisors to attend training sessions on attacking unions; 78 percent require supervisors to deliver antiunion messages to workers they oversee; and 75 percent hire outside consultants to run antiunion campaigns. In 2005 alone, over 30,000 workers were discriminated against, losing wages or even their jobs, for exercising their constitutional right of freedom of association--a right guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States. Further, Human Rights Watch has said: Freedom of association is a right under severe, often buckling pressure when workers in the United States try to exercise it. The right to come together to form a union is a constitutional right. It is under severe, unprecedented attack today. Even when workers--who are faced with all of these enormous obstacles--win union elections, more than one-third of the victories do not result in a first contract for workers. Today, corporate executives are routinely negotiating obscenely high compensation packages for themselves, but then they deny their own employees their ability to come together to create better wages and working conditions and better lives for themselves. That is wrong. This Senate has to stand up for those workers. It is time to turn this around. It is time to stand up for the working people of this country. That is what the Employee Free Choice Act is all about. The House of Representatives did the right thing when it passed the Employee Free Choice Act by a vote of 241 to 185 earlier this year. Now it is time for the Senate to act. This legislation is very simple. The Employee Free Choice Act would simply allow workers to join unions when a majority sign valid authorization cards stating they want a union as their bargaining representative. As Senator Kennedy has correctly pointed out, card check recognition was the law of the land in the United States from 1941 to 1966. In other words, all this legislation does is give workers the same rights they had 41 years ago. More than half of the U.S. workforce--nearly 60 million workers--say they would join a union right now if they had the opportunity. Yet only 12 percent of the workforce has a union. This is much different from other industrialized countries around the world. In Canada, where card check is the law of the land, twice as many workers belong to unions than in the United States. In Britain, where card check recognition is the law of the land, 60 percent of workers belong to unions. What has strong union participation meant for workers in other countries? This is an important point to be made because it is terribly important we in the Senate see what is going on in the rest of the industrialized world, see and note the benefits workers around the world are receiving that our workers are not. Just a few examples. In Finland, where two-thirds of workers belong to unions--guess what--unlike college graduates in the United States who are graduating $20,000 in debt, Finland provides a free college education, including law and medical schools, to all qualified citizens. That is pretty good. They encourage young people to go to college and graduate school tuition free. While the cost of childcare in the United States is skyrocketing-- millions of American families cannot afford quality childcare--in Finland, day care is free to all citizens. Unlike the United States, where the 2-week vacation is becoming a thing of the past, in Finland, workers are guaranteed 30 days of paid vacation and 60 days of paid sick leave. In Norway, where the union participation rate is about 60 percent, women receive 42 weeks of maternal leave at full pay--full pay--while U.S. workers only receive 12 weeks of unpaid maternal leave. In Belgium, France, and Sweden over 90 percent of workers belong to unions. Workers in those countries all have much stronger pensions, health care, childcare, and vacation benefits than American workers. In addition to the card check provision, the Employee Free Choice Act would also stiffen penalties against employers who illegally fire or discriminate against workers for their union activity during an organizing or first contract drive. Perhaps most importantly, this legislation will make it easier for workers who win union elections to negotiate a first contract. We will end the situation where, when workers decide to form a union--they go to negotiate--the employer simply refuses to negotiate. In order to strengthen America's middle class, we have to restore workers' rights to bargain for better wages, benefits, and working conditions. After all, union workers in this country earn 30 percent more, on average, than nonunion workers who are performing the same jobs. Madam President, 80 percent of union workers have employer-provided health insurance; only 49 percent of nonunion workers do. Madam President, 68 percent of union workers have a guaranteed pension through a defined benefit plan; only 14 percent of nonunion workers do. Madam President, 62 percent of union workers have short-term disability benefits; only 35 percent of nonunion workers do. Union workers have, on average, 15 days of paid vacation; while nonunion workers, on average, have fewer than 11 days of paid vacation. Again, I thank Senator Kennedy for his leadership on this issue. We have to do everything we can from a moral perspective to reverse the decline of the middle class, to lower our poverty rates, to improve the standard of living of American workers, and passing the Employee Free Choice Act is an important step in that direction. Madam President, thank you very much. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana and the Senator from New Mexico for all of the work they have done. I think the argument we are hearing today is we should have trust in the oil companies and that ExxonMobil and their friends are staying up nights and days worrying about high gas prices in the best interests of the American people. If anyone believes that, I think we have some good bridges to sell you right now. The truth is the oil companies are ripping off the American people. This moment in American history is a time that our country needs to radically change the way it does energy, and the Finance Committee, in a bipartisan way, and the Energy Committee, in a bipartisan way, are making some very clear statements. What they are saying is that global warming is a huge problem for this Nation today, and if we do not get a handle on it, that problem will only intensify in years to come. What we must begin to do, and what this legislation is making clear, is that we have to break our dependency on fossil fuel, we have to move to energy efficiency, we have to move toward sustainable energy, and in that process not only can we substantially lower greenhouse gas emissions but we can also create millions of good-paying jobs for the American people. As the chairman of the Energy Committee made clear a moment ago, the oil companies, year after year, are making recordbreaking profits. I for one do not stay up nights worrying about ExxonMobil, when a few years ago they were able to provide a $400 million retirement package to their former CEO.

Mr. SANDERS. I thank the Senator for yielding me the time.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as we continue to work our way through the Energy bill, I ask my colleagues for their support in doing everything we possibly can to remove the ridiculous barriers people face when they try to install renewable electricity generation on their homes and businesses. As we all know, there are disagreements about some aspects of our energy policy, but it only seems to make sense to me that we should all rally around giving individuals an opportunity to make a meaningful contribution toward solving our energy challenges. This is exactly what the Clinton-Sanders net metering amendment does. It empowers citizens of our country to help provide for the energy our country needs. Unfortunately, today, many millions of people want the opportunity to do their part, but they are blocked by unneeded barriers. The language we have authored, which is supported by a wide range of groups, including the Solar Energy Industries Association, Alaska Wilderness League, U.S. PIRG, Greenpeace, Public Citizen, Friends of the Earth, Union of Concerned Scientists, the League of Conservation Voters, and the Center for American Progress Action Fund, would amend the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act to require utilities to offer net metering to their customers and to require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to establish interconnection standards for small electricity generators to connect to the grid. The amendment would accomplish many of our shared goals all at once. It would help people to lower their electric bills, it would help to stabilize the electricity grid by ensuring less reliance on central generating plants, it would help to address environmental concerns, and it would even be good for the utilities by cutting down on their load during hot summer days--a load that is usually met with increasingly expensive natural gas. I want to quickly talk about what net metering is before I go any further, and for the sake of my colleagues who would prefer to hear it directly from the Department of Energy's mouth as opposed to mine, I will quote directly from the DOE's Web site: Net metering programs serve as an important incentive in consumer investment in renewable energy generation. Net metering enables customers to use their own generation to offset their consumption over a billing period by allowing their electric meters to turn backwards when they generate electricity in excess of their demand. That is, again, from the DOE's Web site. The Department of Energy goes on to note: Net metering is a low-cost, easily administered method of encouraging customer investment in renewable energy technologies. It increases the value of the electricity produced by renewable generation and allows customers to bank their energy and use it in a different time than it is produced, giving customers more flexibility and allowing them to maximize the value of their production. Providers, i.e. utilities, may also benefit from net metering because when customers are producing electricity during peak periods, the system load factor is improved. Again, that is a quote from the Department of Energy. To summarize net metering, let me make the following points: Net metering allows an electricity customer to send electricity back to the grid when generating more than she or he is utilizing. So if you are producing more than you need, it goes back into the grid. Net metering promotes wider use of renewables, especially at the residential level because credit is given for energy produced. In other words, every homeowner in America can become a producer and earn credit for what they produce. Net metering advances energy security by helping to stabilize the grid. Net metering empowers Americans to help meet the Nation's energy needs. Perhaps an example would make it clearer. Imagine a sunny day and a homeowner's solar photovoltaic panels on the roof are generating more electricity than the homeowner needs to power all of her appliances. Where does the excess electricity go? It flows back through the electric meter, spinning it backwards, and out to the wires on the street and down the street to other homes where it is needed to help run the neighbors' air conditioners and other appliances. This provides more power to the grid just when the grid needs it--on sunny days. The Clinton-Sanders amendment would provide for a very conservative Federal minimum standard for net metering to encourage more electricity generation from renewables, such as solar panels and other distributed generation technologies. More specifically, the amendment specifies, among other things, that customers shall be credited for excess electricity generation from solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, anaerobic digesters, landfill gas, and fuel cells, up to 2 megawatts. Net metering must be offered to customers until the distributed generation capacity is at least 4 percent of a utility's peak load, and States may adopt more aggressive net metering provisions. As my colleagues know, many States have moved forward on net metering, and as I have mentioned, our amendment would in no way hamper a State's ability to move forward even more aggressively. Today, 41 States have some sort of net metering standards or programs, but a modest national net metering standard would create a level playing field, encourage greater competition, and accelerate the deployment of solar and other distributed generation technologies. Vermont passed a net metering law in 1998, and as of July 2006, over 200 Vermont solar projects, wind projects, and methane digesters were feeding electricity into the grid. New Mexico has an aggressive net metering standard in place, as does Colorado, New Jersey, and California. In closing, as we work to wrap things up this week, I hope we can send a clear message that every single household and business across this country should be given the opportunity to be part of solving our energy challenges. Adoption of the Clinton-Sanders net metering amendment will send such a signal. Mr. President, I ask that the Clinton amendment be set aside, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I had hoped to call up an amendment that Senator Clinton filed this afternoon on behalf of herself, myself, Senator Leahy, and Senator Cantwell, but I understand that laying aside the pending amendment may not be an option. As such, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized to speak about the amendment we filed.

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

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me thank Senator Bingaman for his leadership efforts in addressing one of the major crises facing our country. I thank Senator Domenici as well. As Senator Bingaman just indicated, I would go further than he is going in his proposal. I think he has made an important step forward, but I think given the gravity of the situation we face, it is imperative for the future not only of our country but for the future of our planet that we seize this moment and we be bold and we be aggressive because if we are not, what the scientific community is telling us is that the results could be catastrophic. When thousands of scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tell us with 100 percent certainty that global warming is real, and with 90 percent certainty that it is manmade, we should listen. When these scientists tell us that today, in terms of the melting of glaciers and permafrost, in terms of the increase in drought around the world, the increase of forest fires we are seeing in the United States, in terms of the loss of drinking water and farmland all over the world today, it would be absolutely irresponsible not only for us but for future generations if we did not stand up and say we are going to do everything we can to lower greenhouse gas emissions and reverse global warming. I have introduced legislation--which the Presiding Officer is one of the cosponsors of and was introduced with Senator Boxer--which, in fact, would lower greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent less than where they were in 1990. I think that is the type of aggressive effort that we need. If Senator Kerry offers his amendment to make sure 20 percent of the electricity we produce in this country comes from renewables, I will strongly support that legislation. Fifteen percent, as Senator Bingaman has proposed, is a good step forward, but it does not go far enough. The bad news is that as a nation, we are lagging far behind the rest of the world, or many countries in the world, in going forward in terms of energy efficiency and sustainable energy. The bad news is that today in America, in terms of transportation, we are driving vehicles which, if you can believe it, get worse mileage per gallon than was the case 20 years ago. Meanwhile, several weeks ago, I was in a car which was a retrofitted Toyota Prius which gets 150 miles per gallon. Yet, as a nation, on average we are driving vehicles which get worse mileage per gallon than we had 20 years ago. All over our country, we are lacking in public transportation. In Europe, in Japan, in China, their rail systems are far more sophisticated and advanced than we are. Our roadways, from Vermont to California, are clogged with cars, many of them getting poor mileage per gallon. Yet we are not investing and creating jobs in mass transportation. But it is not only transportation that we are lacking in, studies have indicated that if we make our own homes more energy efficient, we can save substantial amounts of energy. Some estimates are, if we do the right things, we could cut our energy expenditures by 40 percent--40 percent. Yet there are millions of homes in this country inhabited by lower income people who don't have the money to adequately insulate their homes, put in the kind of roofs they need, the kind of windows they need, and we are literally seeing energy go right out of the doors and the windows because we are not adequately funding weatherization. But it is not just lower income people. Many middle-class families are also in homes that are inadequately weatherized, inadequately insulated. One of the things I have long believed as I have studied this issue of global warming is that not only do we have the moral imperative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions significantly so that we can reverse global warming, but in that process we can seize this crisis, respond to this crisis, and create some very golden opportunities in terms of creating good-paying jobs. If you look at those areas in the world where they have moved most effectively in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, such as Germany, many countries in Europe, and our own State of California, the result has been, yes, there has been economic dislocation, but at the end of the day, they have created a lot more jobs than they have lost. I have worked with groups such as the Apollo Project, which is a group that brings together labor organizations as well as environmentalists, that say: How do we move toward lowering greenhouse gas emissions and creating good-paying jobs? The opportunities are sitting right in front of us. Detroit has lost billions and billions of dollars year after year by building cars that many Americans no longer want. Maybe if we move toward energy-efficient cars, people might start buying those cars, and instead of laying off workers, maybe we can create more jobs. Think of the jobs we can create as we build a rail system that we are proud of. As cities like Chicago and New York and other cities rebuild their antiquated subway systems, we can create jobs doing that. We can create jobs all over this country in terms of energy efficiency. As we move toward biofuels, I can tell my colleagues that in my State of Vermont, our small family farmers are struggling very hard to stay on the land. There is a lot of evidence out there that we can create significant income for family-based agriculture as we move to biofuels, not only in Vermont but all over this country. The good news is there is a lot of good, new technology out there. That means we have the opportunity right now to build the cars of the future. I was in an electric car last month which now has a range of 200 miles--200 miles in an electric car. That is far more than most people use in a day. There is potential there as well. If we look at what is going on in the world right now, the fastest growing source of new energy is wind. There is huge potential in terms of the growth of wind technology. One of the reasons I am supporting the strongest possible energy portfolio is that I want to see the wind technology exploding and growing all over this world. The more that is produced, the cheaper it will become. When I talk about wind, we are not just talking about large wind farms, as important as that is, as part of the energy mix. We are talking about small wind turbines which we believe in 5 or 6 years will be available for $10,000, $12,000, $14,000 that on average can provide half of the electric needs a rural house might need. Look at what is going on in California right now. I think we owe a lot to our largest State for leading us in a direction that the rest of our country might want to emulate. In California now what they are saying is that in 10 years they want, and have funded, the need for 1 million photovoltaic units on rooftops throughout California--1 million. In California, what they are saying is they can provide significant incentives to those people who want to install photovoltaics. There is huge potential in this country moving toward solar energy. One of the issues that concerns me and saddens me is that the technology for solar energy, which was originally developed in the United States, has now moved abroad. Think of all of the jobs we can create if we as a nation had the goal of saying, in 10 years we will have 10 million rooftops in America using solar energy. Think how many jobs we can create by people installing those units. Think of the jobs we can create as American factories start producing those photovoltaic units--not in China, not in Japan, not in Germany, but producing them right here in the United States of America. But to do that, we are going to need the policies such as net metering, which says if I own a photovoltaic unit and I produce more than I am consuming, it goes back into the grid and I get paid for that, as they are doing right now in Germany. It means if I am a middle-income person who cannot afford the $30,000 I need to install that photovoltaic unit, I am going to need some help, and it may be a lot more than the type of tax credits we are now providing. I think we could learn from California, which is encouraging people in a much more generous way than we are doing. It is quite similar for wind production as well; that is, the production tax credit should be significantly increased and the investor tax credit should be significantly increased as well. Some people might say: Well, Senator Sanders, this will cost a lot of money. They are right. It will cost a lot of money. But I would remind my colleagues that not too long ago on the floor of this Senate a significant number of Senators voted to repeal the estate tax completely--repeal the estate tax completely--which would cost our Government $1 trillion over a 20-year period. All of those tax breaks are going to the wealthiest three-tenths of 1 percent of the population, the very wealthiest people in America. Well, if some of my friends think we have the resources to provide $1 trillion in tax breaks to the wealthiest three-tenths of 1 percent, I would argue that we have the resources to incentivize the American people to purchase automobiles and other vehicles that get good mileage per gallon, incentivize and help people to put photovoltaic units on their rooftops, and incentivize and help people in rural America to purchase small wind turbines which could provide a substantial amount of electricity for their homes. So the good news is that today, unlike 20 or 30 years ago, what we can say in honesty is that the technologies now are available in terms of transportation and energy efficiency. Last month I talked to a major manufacturer of electric lights. What he told me is that in 4 or 5 years, there will be lights on the market, LED lights, which will last for 20 years when plugged in and consume about one-tenth of the electricity that is currently being consumed. Those are the kinds of breakthroughs we are making right now. What we have to do as a Senate right now is provide the incentives to the American people to go out and purchase the lightbulbs which today might cost, if it is even a compact fluorescent lightbulb, more than an incandescent lightbulb, but in the long run, you save money. But we have to help those who do not have the money to do that. An argument could be made that if the Federal Government helped every American purchase compact fluorescent lightbulbs and pay for those lightbulbs, we probably will save money in the long run without needing to build new powerplants, and certainly we would be making a major investment in lowering greenhouse gas emissions. I conclude by saying that we would be absolutely irresponsible if we did not stand up to the big oil companies, the big coal companies, and all of those people who want us to continue to go along the same old path. We would be irresponsible because we would not be bringing about the changes we need to protect our kids and our grandchildren and, in fact, the very well-being of our planet. I hope that as this debate continues for the rest of this week and into next week, that what we understand is that there is an absolute moral imperative that we act as boldly as we can to lower greenhouse gas emissions, that we act as boldly as we can to break our dependency on fossil fuels, that we be prepared to be a leader in the world in terms of moving toward energy efficiency, and that we embrace the new technologies that are out there in terms of solar energy, wind energy, geothermal, and other energies. The more we invest, the more we produce, the more breakthroughs we will see. There are extraordinary opportunities out there, and if we do the right things, if we get our act together, 30 years from today the kind of energy system that exists in this country will look very different than the one that exists now. Not only will we be able to lower greenhouse gas emissions and reverse global warming, we are going to clean up the planet, which I think will go a long way to prevent many types of diseases that currently exist. Now is the time for boldness, now is the time for the United States not to continue being a laggard behind other countries on this issue but becoming a leader around the world. It is not good enough to criticize China and India. What we need to do is become a leader and reach out and help those countries move forward in combating global warming. This is the opportunity, and I think history will not look kindly upon us if we do not take advantage of this moment. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I wish to offer an amendment to create a workforce for sustainable energy and energy efficiency. We are building on what was in the bill originally. We have boilerplate language.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up my amendment which is at the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.