Floor Statements

Madam President, this country faces many problems. All over this country people are worried about decent-paying jobs, the high cost of college education, and a disintegrating health care system. They are worried about the growing gap between the very rich and everybody else. But on Saturday, I held three town meetings around the State of Vermont: one in Norwich in the morning, one in Radford in the afternoon, and one in a small town in northern Vermont in Danville in the evening.

To nobody's surprise, the issue that is paramount on people's minds today is the outrageously high price of gas and home heating oil. Vermont is a rural State, which means people very often have to travel long distances to work. When they pay $3.50 for a gallon of gas, it essentially means in most cases that any wage increase they might have gotten over the last year goes right into that gas pump. People are hurting. Wages, in fact, are often not going up. So the end result is that people are working longer hours for lower wages.

I have talked to many people who say: We used to go places. We used to travel. We can't afford to do that anymore. Also, obviously, in a State such as Vermont, where the weather gets very cold in the wintertime, the cost of home heating oil is a real burden. There are many people in my State and all over the country who are worried about how they are going to be able to heat their homes next winter.

We have a national crisis. It is a crisis that is not only impacting on gas prices at the pump or home heating oil prices. It impacts food and every other product we purchase because as oil prices go up, prices on so many of the products we buy are going to go up as well. This is a national crisis.

The time is long overdue for the White House and for Congress to begin to move forward in a comprehensive way. I would be less than honest if I told you I have a lot of confidence that the Bush-Cheney administration is going to do what is right. Just a month ago, President Bush, when asked about the high price of gas at the pump, was very surprised to learn, in fact, that it was going up.

Vice President Cheney, who was the former CEO of Halliburton, deeply involved in the oil industry when they first came into power, met with representatives of the oil industry. They are representing, unfortunately, the oil industry. They are not representing the consumers of this country or working families. So it is incumbent on the Congress now in a comprehensive way to start moving forward.

This is a complicated issue. I don't think anyone believes there is one single cause for the rapid increase in oil prices, nor does anybody believe there is one single solution. But we do know some of the causes and what we have to do to lower the price of oil. If we are going to protect middle-class Americans, working Americans, that is exactly what we have to do.

While oil prices are soaring, what we should acknowledge is that the profits of huge oil companies are also soaring to recordbreaking levels. We know hedge fund managers make billions speculating on oil futures, and we know OPEC continues to function as a price-fixing cartel in violation of the World Trade Organization.

The average price for a gallon of gas recently hit a recordbreaking $3.53 a gallon, which has more than doubled since George W. Bush has been President. The price of diesel fuel is now averaging over $4 a gallon, and the price of oil is hovering at close to $120 a barrel. These prices say it all. We have a national emergency on our hands. The time is now for this Congress, this Senate, to act boldly to protect consumers.

Recordbreaking oil and gas prices at the pump are posing a crisis not only to commuters going to work, especially in rural areas, but family farmers, consumers, small businesses, truckers, airlines, grocery stores, restaurants, hotels, tourists, and every sector of our economy.

High oil prices are one of the reasons we are moving toward a serious recession which will impact not just this country but the entire world.

The national oil emergency we are currently experiencing demands both a short-term and a long-term solution. Long term, we must reduce our dependency on fossil fuel, we must move to energy efficiency, we must move to sustainable energy--and the potential there is enormous. It is enormous. We can save huge amounts of energy when we have a transportation system that enables us to drive hybrid cars, to get cars that get 70, 80 miles per gallon, where we have a mass transportation system. There is enormous potential in terms of solar thermal plants, which produce huge amounts of electricity. There is enormous potential in terms of wind, other forms of solar. We have to focus and invest in those technologies.

But over the short term, today, we have to understand that while we move forward in transforming our energy system, we must respond to the pain

and the distress and the fear Americans are feeling today as gas prices soar.

While this is a complicated issue, there are a number of ways I believe Congress can act to lower the price of oil. Let me mention a few ideas I believe we should be pursuing.

First, we need to impose a windfall profits tax on the oil and gas industry. The American people do not understand--I do not understand-- why they are paying recordbreaking prices at the gas pump, while ExxonMobil has made more profits than any other company in the history of the world for the past 2 consecutive years. The price at the pump: $3.50 a gallon; ExxonMobil making more profits than any company in the history of the world.

Last year alone, ExxonMobil made $40 billion in profits, and rewarded its CEO, Rex Tillerson, with $21 million in total compensation. Now, you may think that is a lot of money. But a few years ago, they rewarded their former CEO, Lee Raymond, with a $400 million compensation package when he retired.

Outrageously high prices for oil and gas and CEOs at ExxonMobil with huge compensation packages. But ExxonMobil is clearly not alone. Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Shell, and BP have also been making out like bandits. In fact, the five largest oil companies in this country have made over $595 billion in profits since George W. Bush has been President.

Let me be very clear. I believe oil companies should be allowed to make a reasonable profit, but they should not be allowed to rip off the American people. Enacting a true windfall profits tax would not raise a dime in revenue but would lead to significantly lower gas prices at the pump--something we need to do today. The reason for that is quite simple. There would no longer be an incentive for the big oil companies to gouge consumers at the pump because they would not be able to keep any of their windfall profits.

Imposing a windfall profits tax will not be easy. Since 1998, the oil and gas industry has spent--this is quite amazing--over $600 million on lobbying. Since 1998, a 10-year period, they have spent over $600 million on lobbying. They own the law firms. They are former Republican leaders, former Democratic leaders, besieging Congress to do everything we can to protect the big oil companies rather than people who are getting ripped off at the gas pump.

Since 1990, these very same oil and gas companies have made over $213 million in campaign contributions. So the folks back home may get an understanding of why we are not as a body aggressively standing up to these people, that has to do with huge amounts of money in lobbying, huge amounts of money in campaign contributions.

But the time is now for the Congress to have the courage and for the President of the United States to say no to the oil and gas lobbyists and their outrageous campaign contributions and yes to consumers who simply cannot afford to pay these outrageously high prices for gas and oil.

While it is true oil companies and their executives are making out like bandits, it is also true that is not the only cause of the problem. What we are seeing today is that wealthy speculators and hedge fund managers have also been making obscene profits--billions and billions of dollars, in some cases going to individuals--by driving up the price of oil in unregulated energy markets with no Government oversight.

That is why Congress must act to rein in these greedy speculators who often have nothing to do with oil at all. They do not care what they are speculating on. They are just making money by driving up profits, and we must act by closing what has been referred to as the ``Enron loophole,'' the loophole that enabled Enron to do disastrous things in California some years ago and on the West Coast.

This loophole was created in 2000 as part of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. At the behest of Enron lobbyists, a provision in this bill was inserted in the dark of night and with no congressional oversight, no congressional hearings. Specifically, the Enron loophole exempts electronic energy trading from Federal commodities laws. Virtually overnight, the loophole freed over-the-counter energy trading from Federal oversight requirements, opening the door to excessive speculation and energy price manipulation.

Since the Enron loophole has been in effect, crude oil prices have jumped from $33.39 a barrel, in 2000, after adjusting for inflation, to over $117 a barrel today.

Last January, a veteran oil analyst at Oppenheimer has estimated there is as much as a $57 a barrel ``speculative premium'' on the price of oil. Others have estimated that speculators are driving up the price of oil by about 20 to 30 percent.

Closing the Enron loophole would subject electronic energy markets to proper regulatory oversight by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to prevent price manipulation and excessive speculation.

I would like to thank Senators Levin and Feinstein for introducing legislation to close this loophole. It should be passed and signed into law as soon as possible.

In addition, the Bush administration must stop the flow of oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and immediately release oil from this Federal stockpile to reduce gas prices.

At a time of record-high prices, it simply makes no sense to continue to take oil off the market and put it into the SPR. But do not take my word for it. Even the staff at the Strategic Petroleum Reserve recommended against buying more oil for SPR in the spring of 2002. Let me quote from what they had to say about this 6 years ago:

Commercial inventories are low, retail prices are high and

economic growth is slow. The Government should avoid

acquiring oil for the Reserve under these circumstances.

If that advice was relevant in the spring of 2002, it is even more relevant today. Yet that is exactly the policy the administration is following. Even though there are over 700 million barrels of oil in the Reserve, the administration has plans of putting an additional 13 million barrels of oil into our Nation's stockpile.

There is another issue out there that we must address, and that is beginning to understand that OPEC is a cartel whose function in life is to control oil production and artificially drive up the price. It is my view that OPEC is operating in violation of World Trade Organization rules.

The President of the United States should begin action to break up OPEC. Yesterday, I signed a letter, as I believe the Presiding Officer did, demanding that Saudi Arabia--one of the key OPEC nations; the largest oil-producing country in the world--increase their production.

Amazingly, Saudi Arabia is producing less oil today than they were several years ago. There are experts who believe they can be producing 1.8 million barrels a day more, which would have a significant impact on driving oil prices down. We have to remind Saudi Arabia that in 1991, when Saddam Hussein's army was going to overrun that country and take their oil, soldiers from the United States of America put their lives on the line--died--defending Kuwait, defending Saudi Arabia. That was their time of need. Today it is our time of need. It is the world economy's time of need.

Saudi Arabia wants to buy sophisticated aircraft from the United States of America. Well, I say to them, as many of my colleagues say: Friendship is a two-way street. Increase your production. Drive down the prices of oil.

Lastly, we must give the President the power to impose temporary price caps to stabilize oil prices when markets are being manipulated.

Today, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, has the authority to impose temporary price caps on electricity. When it used this authority to deal with the California energy crisis created by Enron, electricity prices fell dramatically. The President should have similar authority over gas prices.

These are a few of the ideas that are out there. Other people have good ideas. My view is we should bring these ideas together in a comprehensive way. If we do that, and if we stand together in a bipartisan way--if the President of the United States decides to represent the consumers of this country rather than just the oil companies--we can keep faith with the American people. We can lower prices. We can deal with the very severe national crisis this country is now facing.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, yesterday was Equal Pay Day. Equal Pay Day is the day that marks the extra months into the next year that a woman needs to work in order to receive pay equal to what a man would make for the equivalent job in only 12 months. Yes, Mr. President, as astonishing as it is, in the year 2008, it takes nearly 4 extra months for a woman to bring home the same amount of money as her male counterpart. According to the U.S. Census Bureau and Bureau of Labor Statistics, women earn, on average, only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men in comparable jobs. What a truly unthinkable, and frankly disgraceful, circumstance--one that we must do everything within our power to change.

And today we can take a small but very significant step to make sure that Americans have the legal opportunity to challenge pay discrimination by supporting the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Before I begin, let me thank Senator Kennedy for his efforts to ensure that we don't just stand by doing nothing, following an ill-advised Supreme Court ruling that takes us a step back in time by making it extraordinarily difficult for victims of pay discrimination to sue their employers.

This Congress must not stand by while the Court forces an unreasonable reading of the law. Through this decision, it tosses aside its own precedent and weakens protection provided by the Civil Rights Act to rule in favor of an employer that had underpaid a female employee for years. That is why I call on all of my colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, to stand together today to send a clear signal that pay discrimination is unacceptable and will not be tolerated by voting to move forward to debate the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

This legislation overturns the Court's decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire. The Court held employees who are subjected to pay discrimination must bring a complaint within 6 months of the discriminatory compensation decision, meaning the day the employer decides to pay her less, and that each paycheck that is lower because of such discrimination does not restart the clock. Under this decision it doesn't matter if the discrimination is still ongoing today or if the worker initially had no way of knowing that others were being paid more for the same work just because of age, race, gender or disability. Most inexplicably, the majority insisted it did not matter that Goodyear was still paying her far less than her male counterparts when she filed her complaint. Mr. President, if you asked anyone on the street, they would tell you that this decision simply defies common sense. In fact, it is so clearly contrary to Americans' sense of right and wrong that everyone should be outraged.

Lilly Ledbetter, a loyal employee for 19 years, discovered she was being paid significantly less than the men in her same job. At first, her salary was in line with that of her male colleagues, but over time she got smaller raises creating a significant pay gap. How was she to know that this discrimination was happening? Hardworking Americans do not have the time to sit around talking about their salaries. It is clearly not her fault she didn't discover this inequity sooner.

In closing, it is disturbing that the Court chose to gut a key part of the Civil Rights Act that has protected hardworking Americans from pay discrimination for the past 40 years. It is our duty to send a message to employers that this type of discrimination is unacceptable. Fortunately, Congress can amend the law to undo this damaging decision. And, it should do so without delay.

Madam President, I commend my friend from North Dakota. He is exactly right. The middle class in our country is in deep trouble. Some would argue the middle class is collapsing. And the people of our country are looking to Washington, to us, to get something done. What they are finding is a filibuster on a corrections bill and inaction in every single area that faces working people in our country.

A couple of weeks ago in Vermont we held several town meetings on the economy. I invited Vermonters to respond to our Web site about what the collapse of the middle class means to them personally. I think it is one thing for those of us to give a speech, to use huge numbers, to talk in an extravagant way; it is another thing to hear directly from people in terms of what is going on in their lives.

What I promised that I would do, and continue to do, is read some of these very poignant e-mails I received, mostly from Vermonters, some from other parts of the country, where people are simply saying: Look, this is what is going on in my life today. I thought I was in the middle class, but I no longer am.

So what I want to do is read a few of the e-mails that I received, to put what we are debating and discussing in a very personal tone, in the real words of real Americans. This is the collapse of the middle class as described by ordinary people.

We received an e-mail from an older couple in the State of Vermont. This is what they wrote. The woman writes:

My husband and I are retired and 65. We would like to have

worked longer, but because of injuries caused at work and the

closing of our factory to go to Canada, we chose to retire

early. Now with oil prices the way they are, we cannot afford

to heat our home unless my husband cuts and splits wood,

which is a real hardship as he has had his back fused and

should not be working most of the day to keep up with the

wood. Not only that, he has to get up two to three times each

night to keep the fire going.

We also have a 2003 car that we only get to drive to get

groceries or go to the doctor or to visit my mother in the

nursing home 3 miles away. It now costs us $80 a month to go

nowhere. We have 42,000 miles on a 5-year-old car. I have

Medicare but I cannot afford prescription coverage unless I

take my money out of an annuity, which is supposed to cover

the house payments when my husband's pension is gone. We also

only eat two meals a day to conserve.

This is a 65-year-old couple in the State of Vermont in the year 2008, and I suspect this story is being told all over America.

Here is another story about a woman who lives in our largest county, Chittenden County. She writes:

First of all, I am a single mother of a 16-year-old

daughter. I own a condominium. I have worked at the hospital

for 16 years and make a very good salary, in the high $40,000

range. I own a 2005 Honda Civic. I filled up my gas tank

yesterday, and it cost me almost $43. That was at $3.22 a

gallon. If prices stay at that level, it will cost me $160

per month to fill up my gas tank. A year ago, it would cost

me approximately $80 per month. I now have to decide what

errands I really need to run and what things I can do over

the phone or the Internet.

But the other issue is, if I use my cell phone too much

during the month, my bill will increase and that will cost me

more money. I feel as though I am between a rock and a hard

place no matter how hard I try to adjust my budget for the

month. I am watching my purchases in the grocery store and

department stores more closely because of increased prices.

I am not sure that can I afford to take a summer vacation

this year. I usually take a day off during my daughter's

spring vacation so we can go shopping in New Hampshire

somewhere. I have already cancelled those plans for this

year.

I am hoping that I can take a few days off this summer to

go to Maine. We will see how the gas prices are this summer,

but I hear it is going to get worse. Not much hope for

someone on a tight budget.

Here we have somebody who asks nothing more than to be able to take a few days off with her daughter to go shopping. Somebody who works very hard cannot even do that because the price of gas is soaring.

Here is another e-mail that comes from a woman living in a small town in Vermont. This is what she writes:

Yesterday I paid for our latest home heating fuel delivery,

$1,100. I also paid my $2,000 plus credit card balance much

of which bought gas and groceries for the month. My husband

and I are very nervous about what will happen to us when we

are old.

Although we have three jobs between us, and participate in

a 403(B) retirement plan, we have not saved enough for a

realistic post-work life if we survive to our life

expectancy. As we approach the traditional retirement age, we

are slowly paying off our daughter's college tuition loan and

trying to keep our heads above water. We have always lived

frugally. We buy used cars and store-brand groceries, recycle

everything, walk or carpool when possible, and plastic our

windows each fall. Even so, if and when our son decides to

attend college, we will be in deep debt at age 65. P.S.

Please do not use my name. I live in a small town and this is

so embarrassing.

Well, it is not embarrassing. That is the story being told from one end of this country to the other. People who thought that after working their entire lives, they would be able to retire with a little bit of security and a little bit of dignity are now wondering, in fact, if they will be able to survive at all.

After working your whole life and being frugal, you should not have to retire in debt dependent upon a credit card.

The e-mails we receive from people who are young, middle age and old, each in its own way is a work of poetry because it comes from people's hearts. It is poignant. It is true. This is what a younger person from Vermont writes:

I am 23 years old. I have about $33K of education debt +

$12K of credit card debt and only make about $26K a year +

benefits. I barely make enough to support myself and whenever

unexpected expenses come up I end up having to use credit to

cover them. I feel like I will never catch up and now

everything is getting even more expensive; it seems hopeless.

Meanwhile I listen to the news and how the rich are getting

richer and it is making me hate this country. I am not an

economics expert but I know that things could be done

differently to help people like me who work hard and get

little in return instead of rewarding those who have the

ability to use their money to make more money.

We heard Senator Dorgan talk about huge tax breaks that go to some of the wealthiest people, people who don't pay their taxes because they move to the Cayman Islands and set up phony front offices. This writer, who may not have a PhD. in economics, hit it right on the head. This young man and these old people are the people we should start worrying about, not the wealthiest people who are having it very good.

Let me talk briefly about a woman. This is another piece of reality. She writes:

As a couple with one child, earning about $55000/year, we

have been able to eat out a bit, buy groceries and health

insurance, contribute to our retirement funds and live a

relatively comfortable life financially. We've never

accumulated a lot of savings, but our bills were always paid

on time and we never had any interest on our credit card.

Over the last year, even though we've tightened our belts

(not eating out much, watching purchases at the grocery

store, not buying ``extras'' like a new TV, repairing the

washer instead of buying a new one . . . ), and we find

ourselves with over $7000 of credit card debt and trying to

figure out how to pay for braces for our son!

I work 50 hours per week to help earn extra money to catch

up, but that also takes a toll on the family life--not

spending those 10 hours at home with my husband and son makes

a big difference for all of us. My husband hasn't had a raise

in 3 years, and his employer is looking to cut out any extra

benefits they can to lower their expenses, which will

increase ours!

Here is a woman who has to work longer hours in order to try to catch up, and she can't spend time with her husband and son, which is what her life is about. How many millions of people are in the same boat?

What is not usually talked about on the floor of the Senate is the fact that here in the United States, our people work longer hours than do the people of any other industrialized country. Not talked about terribly often is that to make ends meet now, in the vast majority of middle-class life, you need both the husband and the wife working long hours. Despite those two incomes, people have less disposable income today than 30 years ago in a one-income family. But when you talk about the collapse of the middle class, one of the manifestations of much of it is that people have to claw and scratch and work so hard that their family lives deteriorate. In this case, a woman cannot even spend the time she would like with her son and husband.

Here are a few more e-mails. This comes from a veteran from the State of Vermont:

The real killer is the price of heating fuel.

Up here in northern Vermont we need heat in the winter.

With a Military Pension I make too much to get any

assistance. We got a 2.8% pension increase in January, and

the price of heating fuel has increased by about 50%. We have

to cut back on food in order to stay warm. Thank you.

Somebody trying to live on a military pension that goes up 2.8 percent, the price of home heating fuel soars, not making it.

This is another short e-mail we received:

The company I work for has just announced a ``raise

freeze'' which means not even a cost of living increase can

be expected this year . . . this will be tough for us, as we

were counting on at least a cost of living increase in a year

where the cost of living has surely increased, be it

groceries, fuel, wood, gasoline, etc!

Let me finish by reading an e-mail from another young Vermonter:

As a graduating law student I am particularly concerned

with the potential reduction of jobs available to me. I am

leaving school with a great amount of debt in student loans

and credit cards and entering the uncertain job market.

I currently pay a tremendous amount of money in rent. I

would like to work in poverty law but those jobs only pay

about 36,000 so it is unlikely going to happen.

Here is an example of a young man who goes to law school, wants to work in poverty law, but because his debts are so high and the interest rate on that debt is so high, he no longer has a choice of careers. This is happening to young people all over the country.

The middle class in America is collapsing. Poverty is increasing. The gap between the very wealthy and everybody else is growing wider. Today we have by far the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major country on Earth. We are the only major country on this planet without a national health care program. The cost of college education is very high, while the oil companies make huge profits. Our people cannot afford to fill up their gas tanks.

As Senator Dorgan said, the time is long overdue for this Congress to start focusing on the real issues facing ordinary Americans. The time is now for us to develop the courage to stand up to the big money interests, the 35,000 lobbyists who surround us every day, the big campaign contributors who want benefits for the wealthy and the powerful. We have an obligation to stand up for the middle class. I hope we can begin doing that as soon as possible.

I yield the floor.

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

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

Madam President, last Saturday, I held two town meetings in Vermont on the collapse of the middle class, and both of them were very well attended. Our guest speaker was Elizabeth Warren, who is a professor of law at Harvard Law School and one of the leading writers in this county on economic matters.

In preparation for that meeting, I sent out an e-mail on my Web site just asking people in Vermont to tell me their personal experiences regarding what is happening to the middle class. We have done that in the past and, frankly, I expected we would get a couple dozen responses. What happened was really astounding to me and speaks about what is going on in the economy in this country today. Over a period of a few days, we have now had some 500 responses, mostly from Vermont, but also I do a national radio show, and we made a similar request nationally, and we have had some from out of State. They are mostly from Vermont, some from out of State, but a total of some 500 responses.

What was absolutely astounding was the nature of these responses. They were so powerful, so overwhelming, that, in fact, they were sometimes difficult to read. Person after person wrote with amazing honesty and with an articulateness which comes from telling the truth. They were not giving a great speech, as we often do here in the Senate, talking about everything under the Sun. They were talking from their own hearts. They were talking about what it means to be trying to raise kids, trying to send your kids to college, trying to pay your fuel bills, fill up your gas tank when you get to work--amazing stories. We are going to post many of them on our Web site.

What I want to do this morning, because I think it is terribly important that the Senate hears from ordinary people to get a sense of what is really going on in America, the struggles people are having-- maybe it is a good idea we hear from the people rather than just campaign contributors, rather than just lobbyists. The language I heard that came to my Web site was extraordinary. So what I want to do this morning--I have the feeling I will be doing it more than once--is just have you listen to what people have to say, reading exactly the words they have written to me.

Let me begin by reading an e-mail that came from a small town in northern Vermont. I am going to do my best to disguise the identities of the writers. But this is from a small town near the Canadian border. This is what this writer says.:

My family has been squeezed for years now. My husband and I

have two children. My husband works full time and has a

degree. He works 60 miles away from home, and has tried to

find a new job closer but has been unable to do so. I tried

for 2 years to find a job, when I could not find a job I went

back to school. I am hoping that my degree will help our

family.

The price of gas and oil now consumes 30% of our disposable

income. We have cut back on groceries, and recently was only

able to get groceries because my parents were nice enough to

give us money. We are going to buy a woodstove because we are

afraid we will not be able to afford oil next year. We do not

qualify for LIHEAP. My husband got a raise last year that

disappeared on Jan. 1st when the cost of our health insurance

increased. We have to have reduced cost lunch for our

children, we cannot afford to put our children on his health

insurance plan, and luckily they are on Dr. Dynasaur--

Which is the SCHIP program in Vermont--

but now we have to pay a premium where we didn't last year.

We have stopped doing any fun things. We have not been able

to go out to eat in a long time, or to bring the kids to see

a movie. There are no treats. I am praying that after I

graduate I will be able to find a job to help my family out.

Of course when I go back to work both my husband and I will

have to start paying our student loans, and this payment will

amount to about $500 per month. But what other option do we

have? I couldn't find work. He can't find a better job closer

to home.

Both my husband and I have degrees, we did everything

right, we are not doing better than our parents when they

were our age.

If it wasn't for our parents we would be worse off. Our

parents have helped us with oil. My parents gave us $600 last

year to pay for our oil, my husband's parents helped us with

car repairs so we wouldn't go into debt. My parents have

given us grocery money and bought our kids school clothes. I

don't know what we would do without our parents.

This is demoralizing, my husband keeps asking when will we

be able to actually afford to support our own family? I'm not

sure what the answer is.

Thank you for listening.

That is a letter from a woman in northern Vermont.

This is a letter from a woman in north central Vermont whose job, it turns out, was outsourced. This is what she writes:

My husband and I are in our mid-fifties. At this time of

our lives we should be at our peak earning power, putting

money away for our retirement. Two years ago, we were, but

now we are making about $42,000 between us and struggling

through this Vermont winter.

I was an international IT manager, making a nice salary

then. I spent 14 years getting my AS, BS and then my Masters

degree from Champlain College.

Which is a college in Burlington, VT.

We were comfortable, and able to go on a nice vacation

every couple of years. Then the company I worked for for 18

years outsourced its entire IT operation to India. I received

a layoff package, but at my age it took me a while to find a

job for one third of my previous salary, and that job is not

even in my field--I am an accounting technician now.

My husband was laid off from a job as an electrician's

assistant and he is now working in a hardware store. He makes

$3 less per hour now.

Both of our moms are near 80 and live with us. We also help

to take care of our next-door neighbor, who is 83. We are

struggling to keep up with our bills. Fortunately when we

refinanced our home several years ago, we took a fixed

rate mortgage. Even so, our heating, gas and even grocery

costs are rising so quickly and our salaries are not.

When I was younger, I found it easier to regroup from a

loss like this, but then everyone wanted to hire me when I

was younger. I thought the government was ``of the people, by

the people and for the people,'' but it seems to me that it's

mostly ``of the people, by the lobbyists and for the rich.''

By the time we get to retirement, maybe when we're 70 at this

rate, Social Security and Medicare will be gone and we'll be

on our own. I feel as though our government has sold us out

and even if we elect a new President who cares for the

people, it will take too long to recover for us to reach a

comfortable place again.

Thank you for listening Senator Sanders.

This is a very brief e-mail that we received from a small town in central Vermont:

Between my retirement & SS [Social Security], I get a grand

total of $804 a month. My last oil delivery was over $600 for

the month of March.

That's my story--and I'm stuck with it.

Thank you, Senator, for trying to ``make it better.''

This is from the wife of a logger in northern Vermont. A lot of people in the State of Vermont earn their money in the woods. They go out and they cut trees.

This is the toughest time I have seen since I was a child.

My husband is a self employed logger and has an excavation

business. The way the economy is has really hit in both of

his employment very hard. The price of logs have dropped

drastically and no one is building.

He has extremely high blood pressure but some how we can't

receive any help. We do have catamount blue health insurance

that we pay $250.00 a month for but that does not cover some

of his medicine nor does it cover all hospital bills. We have

exhausted any savings we had but still have a small IRA but

cannot touch that with out being penalized. We have had to

refinance our home of 34 years and I have just started a job

but it requires me to travel 35 miles one way to work and

with the price of gas it is almost a hopeless case.

I'm sure there are other people in worse shape than us, but

I have to wonder why the government is not helping the

working person? The only thing I guess a working person has

is pride.

Is it worth it?????? I'm really beginning to wonder!

This is from a 57-year-old working widow, again from the central Vermont area. This is what she says:

I have no--

Underline ``no''--

disposable income. Like many Vermonters I drive a long way to

my job and consider myself lucky to have one and like most

jobs in Vermont it does not pay as well as the same job in

other areas of the country. My roundtrip mileage is 60 miles

per day. I invested in an America made hybrid in 2004 which

gets between 25 to 30 mpg [miles per gallon]. Also, the

organization I work for does not reimburse me at the federal

rate for the miles charged to them. I have to have more and

more money each week to pay for that week's gas and then wait

to be reimbursed. It really is a tough squeeze and some of my

co-workers are in tighter spots.

I was fortunate to have locked in fuel oil last Spring at

$2.46/gallon for 800 gallons. This is to supplement wood

burning. However, I fell on the ice in December and hurt my

shoulder which makes lifting wood difficult therefore I

turned the thermostat back to 60 and live that way. Now the

thermostat is back to 50 and the burner only comes on to heat

hot water. I stopped using hot water to wash my clothes over

a year ago and just use cold water. I don't notice a

difference.

I have not had a vacation except a long weekend in years.

At 57 and a widow and a woman, I can look forward to living

in poverty. I am thankful for the things I have and pray that

I can hold onto them. I have first hand experience that there

are many, many Vermonters that have much less and are falling

through the cracks. They do not have enough food to eat and

are ``too rich'' for fuel programs.

I have a friend who is legally blind and lives on less than

$800 per month. She lives in Senior housing so her rent is

subsidized but she still has to pay for utilities and food.

How does she buy food and clothing on this pathetic amount of

money?

How can we be the richest nation in the world and allow

this to happen?

I vote. I give to charities when I can albeit small amounts

but how can I move mountains? I pray for peace and justice

because I don't know what else to do and I am thankful for

what I have and for what I am able to do.

I appreciate your keeping important issues before the

public.

As I said, these are stories from Vermont. But we have received similar-type stories from all over America. Let me conclude with four stories from families in States other than Vermont.

This is from a young man in Tulsa, OK:

Thank you so much for allowing me to tell the story of how

our family is being squeezed by the current economic

conditions in our country. . . .

In December of 2000, I started work for my current company

at the ``bottom rung of the ladder.'' I was changing careers

yet again and the old saying ``you can't start at the top''

certainly applied. I have since worked my way up from a

starting position, part time at $7.65 an hour, through 3

promotions and into a management position in the mid $30k a

year salary range. That used to be an ok salary here in

Oklahoma. Not anymore.

The rising cost of fuel, food, utilities and other

necessities has turned my ``ok'' salary into a near poverty-

level experience for my family. In addition to the above

mentioned costs, I experienced a $102 per month increase in

my portion of the premium for my ``employer provided'' family

health coverage.

I don't get it. I work hard, every day. I show up on time

every day, give it everything I have and never back off and

somehow everything except my salary is going up at an

alarming rate. My parents taught me that no matter what, if

we worked hard enough and never gave up, we'd get somewhere.

It seems these days, that doesn't hold true anymore.

Please encourage your colleagues in D.C. to do something,

and hurry. I am doing all I can and it just isn't enough.

This one is from a young engineer in Gladstone, OR:

I am a 26-year-old college graduate with a master's degree

in mechanical engineering. I have been working for two years

as an engineer in the Portland, OR metropolitan area, and

though I consider my compensation for my job to be

appropriate for my level of education and expertise (about

$60,000 a year), I am still struggling to make ends meet in

this economy.

Despite the fact that my home mortgage payment has remained

stable, I am finding that the average price of energy and

commodities has increased such that I can no longer afford to

contribute to my 401(k) retirement plan, and I am living

month-to-

month with only about $200 in savings. I pay about $300 for

gasoline, $200 for heat, $100 for electricity, and about $400

for food every month. This is fully twice as much as I was

paying for the same expenses just 2 short years ago. Ouch!

My situation is ironic and a bit frustrating. Whereas I now

make over four times what I made as a graduate student, I

live with the same quality of life as I did in college. I

cannot afford vacations or extravagant purchases, and I am

burdened as so many people are these days with a persistent

worry about getting sick or injured and stuck with a medical

bill that I cannot afford.

I realize that I am nobody special in terms of how hard I

work or how much I pay for food and gas or how ``sad'' my

story is, and that is why I write to you. I am moved by the

stories of how these middle-class families are surviving, and

I can sympathize with them in terms of some of the financial

worry they are experiencing. It is hard for me, it must be

incredibly difficult for them.

Thank you for your time and thank you for your service as a

U.S. Senator, and thank you for providing a forum like this.

This is from a 30-year-old man from the Pacific Northwest who feels the American dream has failed him. This is what he writes:

I was raised in extreme poverty. My mom had a 9th grade

education and my father dropped out in 6th grade. My brother,

3 years my senior, dropped out of high school in 1996, the

year I graduated. I never knew a house; we grew up in one and

two bedroom apartments. I also never knew I was raised in

poverty until adulthood--when I tried to transcend this state

of economic marginalization.

I was the first of my family to graduate high school. Four

years later I entered junior college; transferred to a

private four-year institution and earned both an

undergraduate and graduate degree. I also earned $70,000 in

student loan debt. At that point, I had never earned more

than $7,000 in my life.

Three years after college, I purchased my first home. You

guessed it--my loan was predatory and was one of those ARMs.

This was the first home ever purchased in the Ryan family. As

you know, to truly gain a firm stance in the middle class,

one must own property.

I earned $50,000 in 1997, more money than I've ever known.

Yet I still have to charge my groceries or medications. My

ARM matured and my mortgage raised $300 over night. The first

home in my family is likely to go back to the bank and I'm

falling short of the finish line in the race out of poverty.

I'm now in credit card debt just to buy the essentials and

my student loan debt haunts me most days of my life. I feel

disillusioned by the ``American dream and the American middle

class.'' If you graduate, if you go to college, if you . . .

then you will rise above the poverty line. Let me tell you,

Mr. Sanders, I feel more impoverished today than I ever have.

Why? Because when I was poor, I didn't have nearly $100,000

of debt; essentially making me indentured to my country. That

isn't freedom.

Finally, an e-mail from a woman in California in a city near San Francisco. This is the last letter:

Both my husband and I have faced significant pay cuts the

last year. We feel grateful to still have jobs, however. Many

of our friends our age have no jobs and have been out of work

for many months with no prospects in sight.

We have 3 children and live in the high-cost San Francisco

Bay Area, where we were born. A combined income of $100,000

to $150,000 doesn't go very far at all here when a modest

townhouse costs almost $600,000 and everything else is

proportionately more expensive. (The difference in the cost

of living across the country is never taken into account by

politicians planning tax breaks and should be . . . )

Our oldest daughter completed 2 years in Ameri-Corps after

graduating from the University of Vermont where she got a

Bachelor's degree in environmental science and conservation

biology. Some of her student loans were forgiven by Ameri-

Corps, but not many. Now she works for an environmental

consulting firm in Boston but her wages are so low she can

barely support herself and we are still paying $350 per month

on her student loans that remain. We will owe $350 a month on

those loans for the next 30 years--she has close to $70,000

left to pay off.

My husband is almost 61 and I am 52. We have nothing saved

for retirement. One small IRA we have will be cashed out this

year to pay for a new roof on our townhouse. We can barely

meet our mortgage payments, property taxes and pay our bills.

We live month to month.

Over the past year we have cut out many of the extras we

used to consider necessities. My husband felt extremely

guilty running up a charge card to buy much needed clothes

for himself for work. He had not bought clothes for himself

in about 5 years.

Our home is now worth less than the loans we have on it.

There is no money to replace our old rug, (or even have it

professionally shampooed), no money to fix our broken clothes

dryer, no money to repair our bathroom sink, no money to take

even a modest vacation for a few days. The list goes on and

on.

We no longer have what we once considered a middle-class

standard of living. Now we are nearing retirement years

realizing we will have to work (if we have jobs) until we

die. How could we ever exist on Social Security alone in this

area? It would be impossible since we will not have our home

even close to paid off.

I have never felt so despondent about the state of our life

and our family's prospects for the future. We have slid down

the economic ladder one rung at a time. I used to believe if

we worked hard enough we would be rewarded for our work--but

no longer believe that. We are working harder than ever and

now make far less money. I see no improvement in our

financial well-being in the future whatsoever.

I am beyond anger. I have no more tears. I only have two

questions that no one seems to be able to answer.

Mr. President, I think it is appropriate to end on this note, and this is what she says:

I have only two questions that no one seems to be able to

answer. Is everyone in Washington so far removed from the

plight of our country's middle class that they cannot see

what we are going through? Or do they see and simply not

care?

I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wanted to say a few words in support of the Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act, an amendment to the housing bill offered by Senators Cantwell and Ensign. Before I begin, let me thank Senator Cantwell for her determined efforts to ensure that we don't stand by while our renewable energy industry and energy efficiency industry lose jobs due to expiring tax policy.

In these times of economic uncertainty, while we work to create new jobs in the green economy of the future, we must also make sure we do not lose existing jobs in the small green economy we already have, and Senator Cantwell, along with many of my colleagues, has made that a priority. I thank her for that.

The clean energy tax stimulus amendment which the Senate is expected to vote on later today and which is based on a stand-alone bill introduced last week, which I am strongly cosponsoring, extends financial incentives for renewable energy and energy efficiency that would otherwise expire this year, and that is something we must make absolutely sure does not happen.

More specifically, the amendment would extend for 1 year the current production tax credit--commonly called the PTC--which supports the generation of electricity from renewable energy such as wind, biomass, and geothermal. Additionally, the amendment would extend for 8 years the business investment tax credit which provides financial help for larger scale fuel cell and solar investments and the residential investment tax credit that helps homeowners by giving them the tax credit for up to 30 percent of the cost of a solar PV unit and up to $2,000 for the installation of solar hot water heaters.

Finally, in terms of energy efficiency, the amendment we will vote on today would extend for 1 year the current credits for energy efficiency improvements for heating and cooling systems, windows, and other qualified residential property, and it also extends the tax credit for building homes that are energy efficient. In addition, the amendment extends tax credits for the purchase of energy-efficient appliances.

As you know, wind energy is the fastest growing source of energy throughout to entire world. Unfortunately, in our country today, the wind industry is seeing a dropoff in investment which will quickly lead to the loss of thousands of jobs. This is totally absurd. The American people want to move to sustainable energy. They want to move to wind energy.

There are businesses out there prepared to build and install wind turbines. Yet we are not providing them the help they need to help us deal with global warming and also to create many good-paying jobs. Every month that passes without a production tax credit extension diminishes the industry's capacity to create jobs, spur economic growth, and produce electricity that helps us reduce global warming. In fact, the American Wind Energy Association projects that the rate of growth in American wind power will decrease by more than 70 percent between this year and next in the absence of an extension of the production tax credit. This is totally absurd. All over the world, countries are growing good jobs in terms of wind, and we are on the verge of losing jobs despite the fact that the American people want to move us toward sustainable energy. What we are doing contrasts sharply with the current trend of dramatic wind power growth that could otherwise be expected to continue. People want sustainable energy, people want wind power, and here we are sitting back, not providing the help the people in the wind industry desperately need.

If we do not extend the PTC, we will waste a tremendous opportunity to preserve existing jobs, create many thousands of new good-paying jobs this year alone, and build, in addition, another 5,000 megawatts of new wind energy, which will spur another $10 billion in economic activity.

Let me say a few words about the solar tax credit. The investment tax credit is responsible for an estimated 6,000 high-quality jobs that were created in the solar sector in 2007 alone, and another 9,000 to 12,000 are expected in 2008 if Congress sends the signal that this tax credit is here to stay. That is, of course, exactly what we must be doing.

Without an extension of the ITC, some have estimated that we would lose over $8 billion in investments that would have been made, leading to a net loss of almost 40,000 jobs in the solar photovoltaic sector alone in 2009.

The ITC has real implications also for utility-scale solar projects. I have talked to people in the solar thermal plant business, talked to some of the major utility companies. We have a potential in this country to produce an enormous amount of clean, relatively inexpensive electricity through solar thermal plants which are now beginning to move in the Mojave Desert, in

Nevada, in New Mexico, and Arizona. It turns out that based on the geography of the Southeast, there is enormous potential for dozens of solar thermal units that could produce a significant amount of electricity that our country needs. That electricity could be produced at a reasonable cost, in an effective way, emitting virtually no greenhouse gas emissions. It is sitting there waiting to happen, and our job has to be to help those people in the utilities that want to move forward. Without an extension of the ITC, these types of projects will be in jeopardy or, in fact, face a significant delay.

Additionally, we are seeing a new solar powerplant located 70 miles southwest of Phoenix, AZ, and scheduled to go into operation by 2011 which would not go on line without the benefits of the ITC. The 280- megawatt facility is expected to generate revenue of over $4 billion, bringing over $1 billion in economic benefits to the State of Arizona and enough electricity to power 70,000 homes. The solar thermal unit being planned by Pacific Gas and Electric would provide electricity of 553 megawatts for over 400,000 homes.

All of this is sitting there waiting to happen, and all over the world people are wondering, What is the U.S. Congress doing to stimulate this type of activity? Today is our day.

Let's take a quick look at the importance of extending the PTC and the ITC, but let's not forget that extending these credits has a ripple effect on other sectors of the economy. For example, the American Council on Renewable Energy estimates that for every job created in renewable manufacturing, there are an additional three high-quality jobs created to design, install, operate, and maintain the renewable energy infrastructure.

So I think it is pretty clear that we must act today to, at the very least, extend some of the current renewable energy and energy- efficiency tax credits. I myself hope we are going to go a lot further than this, but what we have to do is an absolute necessity.

Let me conclude once again by thanking Senator Cantwell for her leadership on this issue. This is enormously important. The rest of the world is moving in order to deal with global warming, in order to create good-paying jobs. We have to pass this legislation today, and we have to go beyond that in the future.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding its adoption the Landrieu amendment No. 4389, as further modified, be further modified with the changes at the desk.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the unanimous consent agreement, the Murray amendment No. 4478, as amended by the Mikulski amendment, be agreed to.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 9, 2008, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to receive testimony on the situation in Iraq and progress made by the Government of Iraq in meeting benchmarks and achieving reconciliation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 9, 2008, at 2:30 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 9, 2008, at 10 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to hold a hearing entitled, ``Legislative Hearing on S. 1870, the Clean Water Restoration Act of 2007.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 9, 2008, at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on sexual assault in combat environments.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 9, 2008, at 3:15 p.m. to hold a nomination hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the Committee on Veterans' Affairs to be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 9, 2008, to conduct an oversight hearing on Making the VA the Workplace of Choice for Health Care Providers. The committee will meet in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Airland of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 9, 2008, at 2 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on Air Force and Navy aviation programs in review of the Defense authorization request for fiscal year 2009 and the Future Years Defense Program.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance Subcommittee on Health Care be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 9, 2008, at 2:30 p.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Covering Uninsured Children: The Impact of the August 17 CHIP Directive.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, April 9, 2008, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Bill Hutzel, a fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the duration of debate on H.R. 3221.

Mr. President, I seek recognition to modify Sanders- Durbin amendment No. 4401, and I send the modification to the desk.

The original amendment I offered would cap all interest rates on consumer loans using a similar formula that Senator D'Amato used when he offered an amendment to cap interest rates on credit cards in 1991.

Mr. President, I call for the regular order with respect to the amendment.

Mr. President, that amendment passed on the floor by a vote of 74 to 19. The modification I have sent to the desk would only cap interest rates on mortgages insured by the Federal Housing Administration. If this amendment were in law today, interest rates for mortgages insured by the FHA could be no higher than 14 percent, which is 8 percentage points above what the IRS charges to income tax deadbeats.

The reason I am modifying this amendment is because if cloture is invoked on this legislation, capping interest rates on all consumer loans would not be germane. But capping interest rates on mortgages insured by the FHA would be germane to the underlying bill. In the future I will have more to say about this amendment. That is where we are.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I call up Sanders amendment No. 4485.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that the Sanders amendment at the desk, No. 4384, be called up, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Brown, Schumer, and Harkin be added as cosponsors of this amendment.

Mr. President, first, I wish to commend Senator Dodd and Senator Shelby for their work on this legislation. In particular, I wish to congratulate them on the provisions already in the bill to help our servicemembers and veterans. I also wish to thank Senator Akaka, the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and Senator Burr, the ranking member, and their staffs, for helping to clear this amendment.

The amendment I am offering today will provide another piece of needed help to disabled veterans trying to stay in their homes. This amendment increases funding for a VA grant program that assists disabled veterans needing to adapt their homes to accommodate their disabilities. As the Presiding Officer knows, many thousands of soldiers, coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan as amputees, who are blind and who have a number of disabilities, and this amendment attempts to address some of those problems by helping them adapt their homes so they can live in those homes with their disabilities.

This amendment is supported by some of our Nation's largest veterans organizations, including the VFW, the DAV, AMVETS, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Vietnam Veterans of America. It is also important to note the policy changes we are advocating are contained in the independent budget, the document authored every year by many of the same organizations. It is also a policy that has the unanimous support of the majority members of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, which endorsed this policy change in the 2007 and 2008 Views and Estimates letter to the Budget Committee; in other words, this policy in this amendment has broad support.

Veterans with certain severe service-connected disabilities are entitled to what are known as specially adapted housing grants of up to $50,000. Veterans with service-connected blindness only or with loss of use of both upper extremities may receive a grant of up to $10,000. The authors of the independent budget note increases in these amendments have been sporadic, despite the increases in real estate costs. In particular, veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are finding the current VA program does not cover the cost of adapting their homes to accommodate wheelchairs or loss of vision, to create physical therapy space or other needed changes.

This amendment increases the specialty adaptive housing grant to provide $10,000 in additional benefits for those veterans eligible for the $50,000 grant and $2,000 in additional benefits for those veterans eligible for the current $10,000 grant. So we are raising the cap on each program to $60,000 and $12,000, respectively. According to CBO, for fiscal year 2009, this amendment would cost about $6 million.

The Senate is now debating an important piece of legislation to try to bring relief to so many of the middle-income Americans who are struggling to keep their heads above water in today's economy and housing crisis. I think, given the context of this bill, certainly we can reach out to disabled veterans to adapt their homes so they can try to live as full lives as possible.

I wish to again commend Senator Dodd, Senator Shelby, and the Banking Committee for the proveteran, proservicemember provisions already in this legislation, and I ask that my colleagues support this small additional benefit. I ask for my colleagues' support on this amendment, and if it is appropriate, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

I thank the Senator for his kind remarks.

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

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

Mr. President, I congratulate Majority Leader Reid and Minority Leader McConnell, as well as Committee Chairman Dodd, and ranking committee member Shelby for their hard work in beginning the process of trying to bring relief to families who are struggling to hold on to their homes. I think they are taking a good step forward. I think we have to do a lot more to address this very serious crisis.

It is no secret to anyone that the middle class in this country is in great danger. It is shrinking. Some think it is on the verge of collapse. Workers today who are going to fill up their car's gas tank are paying $3.20 for a gallon of gas in the State of Vermont, and there is a fear that may go higher. People are paying higher and higher prices for food. Since President Bush has been President, some 8 million Americans have lost their health insurance, health care costs are soaring, and a college education is unaffordable. In the meantime, wages, the real median family income for the average American family is going down, and the gap between the very rich and everybody else is getting wider. So we have some very serious problems. Among other aspects of that crisis is that the personal savings rate today is below zero, which, up until 2005, hasn't happened since the Great Depression. So what is happening is that people are working longer and longer hours, their wages are going down, we are losing good-paying jobs, and they do not have enough money to survive on so they are borrowing more and more money. That is the reality.

There is a lot, to my mind, that we have to consider as a country to begin addressing the fact that poverty is going up, the middle class is declining, and the gap between the rich and everybody else is growing wider. There is a lot we have to do. But as we now focus on the mortgage crisis, we have to take a hard look at interest rates in this country. I intend to offer an amendment to the housing bill that I want to say a few words on now and I will speak to at greater length later.

My amendment will clearly not solve all of the problems facing the middle class, but it will do one very important thing: It will take one action that is long overdue, and that is it would stop big banks, credit card companies, payday lenders, mortgage bankers, and other lenders from ripping off American consumers by charging outrageous interest rates.

I do a national radio show every Friday afternoon where people call in. And you know what they say? They say: We are sick and tired of paying 20, 25, 30 percent interest rates when, in fact, we pay our debt on time every single month. That is what they are saying. People who are borrowing money to send their kids to college are paying outrageously high rates, and certainly we know, given the crisis we are debating today, that mortgage interest rates are off the charts.

With this amendment I will be offering, it would cap all interest rates at 8 percent above what the IRS charges income tax deadbeats. That is the formula we are using. Currently, the IRS charges a 6- percent interest rate to Americans who are late on paying their income tax returns. That is what we are doing today. The IRS adjusts these rates every quarter based on the Federal funds rate. If the Federal funds rate rises, the interest rate the IRS charges late filers goes up. If the Federal funds rate goes down, so does the interest rate the IRS charges late filers.

If the amendment I am offering were signed into law today, all interest rates in this country would be capped at 14 percent, including subprime mortgages, credit cards, auto loans, payday loans, and income tax refund anticipation loans. Why 14 percent? Why do we pick that number? It is an interesting point. I am glad you asked that question, Mr. President, and here is the answer. Because 14 percent happens to be the same level that former Senator Al D'Amato chose when he offered an amendment in 1991 to cap credit card interest rates. Al D'Amato, Senator from New York, offered that amendment.

Do you know what the vote was on that bipartisan amendment, offered by the Republican Senator from New York? That amendment passed the Senate by a vote of 74 to 19--74 to 19--a huge bipartisan vote. And among those Members who are today in the Senate, and who cosponsored that amendment, were Senators Specter, Lieberman, and Domenici, among others. Unfortunately, that amendment ended up not being signed into law.

Like my amendment, the D'Amato amendment was also pegged slightly above the interest rates for late income tax filers. I have the feeling that in my career in the Senate I will not often be quoting former Senator D'Amato, probably won't be doing that, but let me quote what Senator D'Amato said on the Senate floor in 1991. This is what he said.

Fourteen percent is certainly a reasonable rate of interest

for banks to charge customers for credit card debt. It allows

a comfortable profit margin, but keeps banks in line so that

interest rates rise and fall with the health of the economy.

He was then the chairman of the Banking Committee.

I say to my colleagues that if the Senate in 1991 thought that interest rates should be capped, trust me, we should at least do as much today, because the problem is in fact much more severe.

A recent report, published by Tamara Draut, the Director of the Economic Opportunity Program at Demos, found

that one-third of all credit card holders in this country are paying interest rates above 20 percent and as high as 41 percent--more than double what they paid in interest rates in 1990. In other words, if we had a problem then, the problem today is much more severe.

Between 1989 and 2006, Americans' overall credit card debt grew by 315 percent from $211 billion to $876 billion. One-third of low- and middle-income families reported going into credit card debt to pay for rent, utilities, and food in 2006.

Now, I don't know about Nebraska, but I will tell you that in the State of Vermont there are a lot of people who are buying their food with credit cards. They do not have the cash. They have to go in debt to buy food and pay for other basic necessities. All of this--high interest rates--has resulted in credit card companies earning $90.1 billion in interest in 2006 alone--credit card companies ripping off the American people and earning huge profits.

But credit card companies aren't the only ones charging outrageous interest rates, and that is why my amendment expands on the D'Amato amendment to cover all forms of loans. For example, the Center for Responsible Lending has found that some American consumers are paying interest rates for payday loans as high as 800 percent. And if you want to know why these outrageous levels of interest on credit cards and payday loans are relevant to the debate on foreclosure, let me quote from two articles on the subject. The first is a recent Reuters article entitled ``Pay Day Loans Exacerbate Housing Crisis.'' According to this article:

As hundreds of thousands of American homeowners fall behind

on their mortgage payments, more people are turning to short-

term loans with sky-high interest rates just to get by. While

figures are hard to come by, evidence from nonprofit credit

and mortgage counselors suggests that the number of people

using these so-called ``pay day loans'' is growing as the

U.S. housing crisis deepens, a negative sign for economic

recovery.

The second article is from a recent front-page story from USA Today. The title of the article says it all. ``Facing losses on bad loans, banks boost credit card rates.'' According to the article:

Even as the Federal Reserve has aggressively slashed short-

term interest rates, banks are raising rates on credit cards.

Federal Reserve lowering; banks increasing. This should not happen. When the Federal Reserve has slashed the Federal funds rate five times, from a high of 5.25 percent down to 2.25 percent, credit card interest rates should be going down, not up. Interest rates for payday loans should be going down, not up. Mortgage interest rates should be going down, not up.

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

Unfortunately, in many cases interest rates for consumers are going up at the worst possible time. One of the reasons for this is the virtual lack of regulation when it comes to interest rates. For example, credit card companies are able to raise interest rates at any time for any reason, and recently that is exactly what, for example, the Bank of America has done. According to a recent Business Week article:

Bank of America sent letters notifying some responsible

card holders that it would more than double their rates to as

high as 28 percent, without giving an explanation for the

increase. Fine print at the end of the letter advised calling

a 800 number for the reason, but consumers who called said

they were unable to get a clear answer. What is striking is

how arbitrary the Bank of America rate increases appear,

credit industry experts say.

This is unacceptable. Lenders should not be able to raise interest rates at any time for any reason.

There are Biblical references to what can be described as usury; that when people are down and in need of money, there is a strong moral objection to charging them sky-high interest rates.

In the ``Divine Comedy'' by Dante, there is reserved a special place for people who charge usurious interest rates, the inner ring of the Seventh Circle of Hell.

I don't wish this on the credit card companies or the mortgage lenders, but this is what I do say. In this country today, especially as interest rates go down from the Fed, it is an outrage that millions of our fellow Americans are paying 25 percent or 30 percent interest rates, and our amendment would begin to address this issue. The time is long overdue for us to move in that direction. I ask at the appropriate time for the support of my colleagues.

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

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

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

Mr. President, this amendment is extremely important because it addresses not only the foreclosure crisis we are seeing in this country, but it is also an issue that impacts millions and millions of Americans every single day of their lives well above and beyond the housing crisis.

What this amendment essentially says is the time is long overdue for this Congress to have the courage to stand up to the banks, credit card companies, and mortgage lenders who are charging outrageously high interest rates and ripping off the American people. I know when I go back to Vermont, I talk to people who say: Why is it I am paying 20, 25, 28 percent interest rates on my credit card? I can tell you, as a former member of the Financial Services Committee in the House, we heard horror story after horror story about payday lending.

We know mortgage brokers are, in some cases, bringing forth unscrupulously dishonest packages that drive interest rates up far beyond what should be charged in this country. This is an issue we must address, and now is the time to do that.

Specifically, this amendment would cap all interest rates at 8 percent above what the IRS charges income tax deadbeats. Currently, the IRS charges a 6-percent interest rate to Americans who are late on paying their income tax returns. The IRS adjusts these rates every quarter based on the Federal funds rate. If the Federal funds rate rises, the interest rate the IRS charges late filers goes up as well. If the Federal funds rate goes down, so does the interest rate the IRS charges late filers.

If the amendment I am offering were to become law today, all interest rates would be capped in this country at 14 percent, including subprime mortgages, credit cards, auto loans, payday loans, and income tax refund anticipation loans.

Why 14 percent? How did we come up with that magical number? Well, it is interesting. I will tell you why we came up with that number. In 1991, our former colleague, the Republican Senator from New York, the former chairman of the Banking Committee, as I recall, Al D'Amato, offered an amendment that would cap credit card interest rates at 14 percent. Senator D'Amato was not remembered as a radical extremist. He was the chairman of the committee. Here is what is interesting. That amendment to cap interest rates at 14 percent for credit cards won on the floor of the Senate by a vote of 74 to 19; it was not even close. It had strong bipartisan support.

If I might, obviously, 1991 was a while ago and many people who served are no longer here. But a number of people who served in 1991 are still here today. These are the people who voted in 1991 for the D'Amato amendment to cap credit card interest rates at 14 percent in alphabetical order: Senators Akaka, Baucus, Biden, Byrd, Cochran, Conrad, Dodd, Domenici, Grassley, Inouye, Kennedy, Kerry, Kohl, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, McCain, Mikulski, Reid, Rockefeller, Shelby, Specter, Stevens, and Warner. Those 25 Members, in 1991, voted to cap interest rates at 14 percent on credit cards.

In truth, this amendment goes beyond credit cards to other areas where people are today paying very high interest rates. Similar to my amendment, the D'Amato amendment of 1991 was also pegged slightly above the interest rates for late income tax filers. We are using the same formula D'Amato used.

Let me quote Senator D'Amato on the floor in 1991:

Fourteen percent is certainly a reasonable rate of interest

for banks to charge customers for credit card debt. It allows

a comfortable profit margin but keeps banks in line so that

interest rates rise and fall with the health of the economy.

Other people went to the floor and also spoke on this issue. Senator Lieberman spoke on it and Senator Domenici spoke on it as well.

What I say to my colleagues is, if this legislation, which passed with overwhelming support in 1991, made sense then, let me tell you, it makes a lot more sense today. A recent report published by Tamara Draut, the director of the Economic Opportunity Program at Demos, found that one-third of all credit card holders in this country are paying interest rates above 20 percent and as high as 41 percent--more than double what they paid in interest in 1990. So if we had over 70 Members of the Senate voting to cap interest rates at 14 percent in 1991, today the vote should be even higher because the crisis is far more severe.

Between 1989 and 2006, Americans' overall credit card debt grew by 315

percent, from $211 billion to $876 billion. All over this country, people who are not earning enough money to pay for basic needs are buying groceries and gasoline to fill up their car with credit cards. And then, in turn, what happens is they are paying 20, 25 percent interest rates, and we have the cycle of misery going around and around, where they are too poor to pay with cash, so they pay with credit, and credit card interest rates are soaring, and they go deeper into debt.

I know this is a hard vote. It is no secret to anybody in the Senate that the financial services industry is enormously powerful. But it is time for us to think about the folks back home who are going deeper into debt and to stand with them and put a cap on interest rates.

One-third of low- and middle-income families reported going into credit card debt to pay for rent, utilities, and food in 2006. That same year, Americans charged $51 billion worth of fast food on their credit card, a 29-fold increase since 2001.

All of this, and more, has allowed credit card companies to earn $90 billion in interest in 2006 alone. I will repeat that.

But credit card companies are not the only ones charging outrageous interest rates. That is why this amendment I am offering expands on the D'Amato amendment to cover all forms of loans.

For example, the Center for Responsible Lending has found some American consumers are paying interest rates for payday loans as high as 800 percent. I think all the Senators understand this. These types of outrageous interests should not be allowed to continue. When the Federal Reserve has slashed the Federal funds rate five times, from a high of 5.25 percent to 2.25 percent, credit card interest rates should be going down, not up. Interest rates for payday loans should be going down, not up. If the Fed is cutting interest rates, how in God's name-- and why--are people paying higher and higher interest rates on their credit cards, their mortgages, and in other areas?

One of the reasons for this scam, this rip-off, is the virtual lack of regulation in this country when it comes to interest rates. For example, credit card companies are able to raise interest rates at any time for any reason. I suspect I am not the only Member of the Senate who talked to a constituent who said: I pay my credit card bill on time every single month, and I used to be paying 9 percent, but now they raised it to 14 percent. What did I do wrong? Why are they raising my interest rates?

Every Member of the Senate has, himself or herself, received, along with everybody else in this country, all these fancy prospectives that come from the credit card companies, saying zero percent interest rate or 2 percent interest rate. But they forget to tell you in big bold print what is in the little print on page 4: They can raise interest rates any time for any reason. You don't even have to be late paying your phone bill or rent. They can raise it for any reason whatsoever.

One of the interesting facts, in terms of credit cards, is people would be stunned to know that the credit card companies send out, every single year--do you know how many of these things they send out? Four billion. We are a country of 300 million people. I thought I was getting all of them but apparently not. They seem to come to my house twice a day. Apparently, others are getting them as well. They send out 4 billion of these fancy brochures, urging you to buy into the credit card thing and it costs them a fortune. But, obviously, they can afford to do that because they are ripping off the American people, and they are charging 20, 25, and 30 percent, in some cases, in interest. This is unacceptable behavior. Lenders should not be able to raise interest rates at any time for any reason.

I am not going to go into a religious theme now. I am not going to do that. But I know the Presiding Officer is a religious person and probably more familiar with the Bible than I am. But he will know that the word ``usury'' is mentioned in the Bible on many occasions. I will not quote from them, but in Leviticus chapter 25, verses 35 to 37, the issue about usury rates is, in fact, addressed.

I will talk about Dante's ``Divine Comedy.'' In the ``Divine Comedy'' by Dante, he speaks about a special place for people who charge usurious interest rates, and that is the inner ring of the Seventh Circle of Hell.

I don't particularly wish that on the banking industry and all the lobbyists who come here every day. I don't wish that on them. But I do wish they would take a deep breath and understand that this is not just an economic issue, it is a moral issue. People who are struggling to pay their bills, who are going into debt, through no fault of their own, should not have to pay 25 or 30 percent interest rates.

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

With pleasure. I thank the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. President, I will conclude because the Senator from Illinois made the point better than I can make it. Every Member of the Senate knows this is a huge issue. In their heart, every Senator knows there is something immoral, that there is something outrageous about hard- working people paying 25, 30 percent, especially at a time when the Fed is lowering interest rates.

I say to my colleagues, it is no great secret. The financial services industry is very powerful. We all know that. They make huge campaign contributions. They have a lot of power here. But I hope that on this amendment, we have the courage to stand up to them.

In concluding, I remind my colleagues that in 1991, when Senator D'Amato offered a similar amendment, there was overwhelming bipartisan support. The American people want us to act on this issue. As the Senator from Illinois indicated, this is directly related to the housing crisis, and I think it is time we move forward and put a cap on interest rates.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I thank Senators Durbin, Kennedy, Clinton, Harkin, Schumer, Mikulski, Brown, Casey, and Menendez for cosponsoring this amendment. I also thank dozens of national organizations representing tens of millions of Americans for supporting it, including the AFL-CIO, the SCIU, the Children's Defense Fund, the YWCA, and many other organizations.

This amendment cannot be simpler. The wealthiest people in the country have not had it so good since the 1920s. Their incomes are soaring, while at the same time the middle class is shrinking, and we have by far the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country. The time is now to begin changing our national priorities and moving this country in a different direction.

This amendment restores the top income tax bracket for households earning more than $1 million a year, it raises $32.5 billion over 3 years, and invests that in our kids, including $10 billion for special education, because the time is long overdue that we kept our word regarding special education.

Twenty.

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

I thank the Senator very much.

Mr. President, I find it interesting that almost every candidate for President today is talking about change. It is not only the candidates for President. For candidates at every level across this country, the mantra out there is: change, change, change.

And the reason the candidates at all levels are talking about change is they understand something. They understand that from one end of our country to the other, by vast majority, the American people want to move America in a new direction. They want a new set of national priorities.

The American people are angry. They are frustrated with the status quo, with politics as usual, and they want action not talk. They want action from their elected officials.

The American people are tired of paying $3.20 for a gallon of gas, when ExxonMobil is enjoying recordbreaking profits. The American people are tired of paying more and more for health care, and over 8 million Americans have lost their health insurance since President Bush has been in office, while the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry continues to rip them off.

The American people are tired of seeing their good-paying jobs go to China or the other low-wage countries while they work 50 or 60 hours a week to pay the bills. When we talk about the economy today, let's not forget the American people now work the longest hours of any people in the industrialized world. People are working incredibly long hours, two or three jobs, to pay the bills.

Most importantly, the American people are deeply worried that the American dream is disappearing, that no matter how hard they work, no matter how many hours they spend on the job, that for the first time in the modern history of the United States, their kids will likely have a lower standard of living than they do.

From a values perspective, I believe the American people are tired of the culture of greed which has been so pervasive in recent years, a culture which says: Yes, I am rich and I am powerful and I have billions and I want billions more. I do not care about anybody else in our society; I have got it; I want more.

That is the culture of greed which is so pervasive in our society today. The amendment that will be offered today, that I am offering, is cosponsored by Senators Kennedy, Durbin, Clinton, Harkin, Schumer, Brown, and Mikulski. I am quite confident that if this amendment is adopted, it will not be solving all the problems facing our country.

But on the other hand, if this amendment is passed, it will begin to move America in a very different direction, with a very different set of moral and economic values. This amendment will tell the American people we understand that Washington must adopt a new set of national priorities, that we must be concerned not with the wealthy and the powerful who have so much influence over what goes on in Congress but that the time is long overdue for Congress to begin paying attention to the needs of the middle class and low-income people who have been ignored and left behind year after year after year.

I am very proud to tell you my amendment has been endorsed by over 50 groups representing tens of millions of Americans. These groups include the AFL-CIO, AFCSME, the National Education Association, the Children's Defense Fund, the American Federation of Teachers, the YWCA, and the National Organization of Women, among many other groups.

The budget President Bush recently sent to Congress was nothing less than a disaster. It gave much to those who did not need any help, while it took from those who need help, including those living in desperation.

As I mentioned to the people in my home State of Vermont, it was a Robin Hood proposal in reverse. It took from the poor and it gave to the rich. As a member of the Budget Committee, I am happy to say that under Chairman Conrad's leadership and hard work, the budget we passed out of committee was far superior to what the President proposed and is quite a reasonable document.

I think we can improve upon that document. We can improve upon that budget. That is why I am offering this amendment today with my colleagues who are cosponsoring it.

This amendment addresses three major trends in American society that we must deal with in the budget process.

First, the United States has the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major nation in the industrialized world; and the gap between the very rich and everyone else is growing wider.

Secondly, it is a national disgrace that here in the United States of America, this great Nation we are so proud of, that we have by far the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country on Earth.

And third, year after year, we have had recordbreaking deficits, and our national debt is now approaching $10 trillion, a grossly unfair burden to leave to our children and grandchildren and, in fact, a staggering sum of money which is economically unsustainable.

This amendment addresses all three of those issues.

The amendment I am offering today puts the needs of our children, working families, seniors on fixed incomes, persons with disabilities, and the middle class ahead of the needs of the wealthy.

It says to the wealthy: You do not need any more tax relief when the middle class is shrinking, when poverty is increasing, and when the top 1-percent level has never had it so good since the 1920s.

It says to my colleagues in the Senate, let's get our priorities right. Specifically, this amendment simply restores the top income tax bracket to 39.6 percent for households earning more than $1 million per year and uses that revenue to address the most urgent unmet needs of our children, for job creation, and for deficit reduction.

Mr. President, 99.7 percent of Americans would not be impacted by this amendment. The only families that would be impacted are those earning at least $1 million a year. That is the top three-tenths of 1 percent. What we are simply doing is asking that the upper tax rates go back to where they were during the Clinton administration when, I remind my colleagues, the economy was far stronger.

According to the Joint Tax Committee, restoring the top income tax bracket for people making more than $1 million to what it was in 2000 would increase revenue by $32.5 billion over the next 3 years, including $10.8 billion in fiscal year 2009 alone. Instead of giving $32.5 billion in tax breaks to the very wealthiest people, including people who have billions and billions of dollars, people who really don't need any more tax breaks, this amendment would invest money in the following areas over the next 3 years.

It would put $10 billion into special education, into the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Over 30 years ago, the Federal Government made a promise that it would fund 40 percent of the cost of special education. Unfortunately, the Federal Government--shock of all shocks--has not kept its promise. Today we only spend about 17 percent of the cost of special ed. What does this mean? I can tell you what it means in Vermont and I am sure it is the same all over the country. School districts are faced with growing costs regarding an influx of special ed kids. Property taxes are going up to accommodate those increased costs, and kids with special ed needs do not get the attention they deserve. This amendment begins to reverse that process, begins to tell school districts all over America that we are going to keep our promise. We will begin adequately funding special education.

Secondly, this amendment increases Head Start funding by $5 billion over the next 3 years. The simple truth is, Head Start works. Its goal is to make sure that when low-income kids get into kindergarten or the first grade, they are not already far behind everybody else so that by the time they are in the fourth or fifth grade, they have given up, they have dropped out intellectually. Head Start works. The problem is, there are many families who want to take advantage of Head Start, but communities don't have the resources to open the doors for those kids. After adjusting for inflation, Head Start has been cut by 11 percent compared to fiscal year 2002. Boy, is that moving in the wrong direction. Meanwhile, less than half of all eligible kids are enrolled in Head Start and only 3 percent of eligible children are enrolled in Early Head Start.

This amendment will not solve all of those problems, but $5 billion will help open the doors to large numbers of kids who desperately need Head Start education.

This amendment would also provide $4 billion for the Child Care Development Block Grant Program. I can tell you the issue of childcare is one of those issues that we have managed in Congress to sweep under the rug, from one end of this country to the other. Where you have mom and dad both working, where is that working family going to find the affordable, quality childcare they desperately need? We tell single moms, go out and work, but we forgot to tell them where they are going to find the childcare they need to take care of their kids. This amendment begins to do that with a $4 billion increase for the Child Care Development Block Grant Program.

This amendment would provide $3.5 billion more for the Food Stamp Program. I don't have to tell my colleagues that in the United States, shamefully, disgracefully, we are seeing more and more of our citizens go hungry. I know in Vermont, and I expect in communities all over the country, we are seeing working people, not unemployed people, working people going to food shelves to get the food they need to take care of their families. That is not the way it should be. This $3.5 billion increase for food stamps is a step forward.

This amendment would also increase funding for LIHEAP, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, by $4 billion. In Vermont and other States, it gets very cold in the winter. We have seniors living on fixed incomes who cannot pay the rapidly escalating cost of home heating oil. LIHEAP is a successful program. It is underfunded. Nobody should go cold, and we put $4 billion into LIHEAP.

We also provide more for school construction. Not only is it terribly important that our kids study in decent schools, schools that are not falling apart, schools which are energy efficient, but by putting money into school construction, we create a lot of good-paying jobs, and that is what that provision does.

Finally, last but certainly not least, this amendment would also reduce the deficit by $3 billion. In other words, at a time when we have seen recordbreaking deficits, we are now closing in on a $10 trillion national debt. This amendment takes a small step forward in lowering this year's deficit.

Let me quote from a letter I received in support of this amendment from over 50 groups across the country, including the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, the NEA, the Children's Defense Fund, the American Federation of Teachers, the WYCA, the National Head Start Organization, SEIU, and the National Organization for Women, among others:

The economic downturn is creating a crisis for parents who

work hard but struggle to afford nutritious meals as food

prices escalate; to pay for energy for their homes and fuel

for their cars; to pay for child care so that they can work;

and to assure that their young children receive the building

blocks of a solid education to prepare them for the future.

Programs that assist in meeting these needs have been cut

significantly in recent years, while tax breaks for

millionaires have soared. Your amendment addresses these

needs. . . .We are urging the Senate to adopt your fiscally

responsible amendment to address the pressing needs of

working families while restoring greater progressivity to the

tax system.

I thank these organizations that represent tens and tens of millions of working Americans.

The choice we face is simple. A lot of rhetoric goes on around here. It is pretty warm in this Chamber, and it is not only from the heat. It is from a lot of hot air from all of us. The time for talk is over and the time for action is now. This amendment will not solve all the

problems, but it does say to the American people that the time is long overdue for us to move in a new direction. It is a very simple choice we have to make. The richest people in this country have not had it so good since the 1920s. Frankly, they do not need any more tax breaks. They are doing just fine. But our children are not doing just fine. Senior citizens on fixed incomes are not doing just fine. What this amendment begins to do is to develop a new set of priorities for our Nation. It tells the people we understand that working people are in trouble, they need assistance, and that the time is now to ask the wealthiest people to rejoin the United States and to help us address some of our major social needs.

My understanding is that later this afternoon this amendment will be offered.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield?

I don't know if it is a New England characteristic that I share, but we make the same points over and over again. The Senator is the ranking member of the Budget Committee. He has heard my point. Let me make it again.

My friend from New Hampshire, from the other side of the Connecticut River, says we have a progressive system. My God, those rich people are paying a fortune. Well, wealthy people do pay a lot. Do you know why? The richest people in this country are earning far more than they used to, while the middle class is shrinking and poverty is increasing. For example, according to Forbes magazine, the collective net worth of the wealthiest 400 Americans increased by $290 billion last year--400 families, $290 billion. The wealthiest 1 percent earn more income than the bottom 50 percent. Yes, my friend from New Hampshire, I do know they pay more in taxes. The reason is, they get all of the money.

Every economist understands that in recent years what has been going on is the middle class is shrinking, real income is going down, and poverty is increasing. The rich are making out like bandits. Yes, they are paying more in taxes because they are making a huge amount more. That is not progressive taxation. What that is about is the fact that we have the most unfair distribution of wealth and income of any major nation on Earth.

I ask my friend, don't you agree with me? That is my question. Of course, you do.

Mr. President, let me begin by commending my friend from Oklahoma, who I think makes some very important points. There is no question that there is an enormous amount of waste and fraud and abuse in this Government. There is no question, in my mind, that Congress has not been vigilant enough in rooting out that waste and fraud to the tune of billions and billions of dollars.

I would simply say that while it is absolutely appropriate to condemn the Congress, it is also important to note that we have an administration in this city, in Washington, DC, and the function of an administration is to administer. That means that when there is waste and fraud, you have an administration that should also be on top of that situation. And I think of the many failings of the Bush administration, which, in my view, will go down in history as one of the worst in our country's history--clearly their overall incompetence will be one of those areas people will focus on.

The second point I would make--and I see my friend from Oklahoma has left--is that he is absolutely right that a $9.2 trillion national debt is unsustainable. But one of the areas I don't believe he mentioned in terms of driving up that national debt is the war in Iraq.

Now, we can have a great debate about the wisdom of that war. I voted against it when I was in the House. I think we should bring our troops home as soon as possible. But right now, we are not on the war, we are on the budget. And the question regarding the budget is, For all those people who support the war, why don't you pay for the war now rather than forcing our kids and grandchildren to pay to the tune of $150 billion a year? And some say the cost of this war eventually will run into the trillions of dollars. So all of those people who talk about fiscal irresponsibility refuse not to pay for the war.

I was reading a book about Dwight David Eisenhower, and in the book it points out that during the Korean war, Truman imposed a surtax on people's personal income tax and an excess-profits tax in order to pay for the war. I don't see the advocates of the war in Iraq coming forward and saying: We don't want to leave that burden of $150 billion a year to our kids and grandchildren, so we are going to come up and pay for it now. I didn't hear my friend from Oklahoma raise that issue.

I hear other people coming to the floor and they say: Well, we have this tremendous national debt, and they have pictures of the kids, and yet they propose to completely eliminate the estate tax, which over the course of 20 years will cause us a loss of $1 trillion. How is that going to be paid for? Oh, I guess we don't have to pay for it. I guess we can just pass that on to the kids. So I think that some of our friends who talk about fiscal responsibility might, in fact, want to pay for this war today, not pass it on to future generations. And when they are talking about giving huge tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this country, let them understand that is all they are doing, is driving up the national debt so that our kids and grandchildren will be forced to pay for that.

We are in the midst of a debate about the budget, and as you know a budget is a lot more than just numbers; it reflects the values and the priorities of our Nation. And when we look at what is going on in this country, as important as a $9.2 trillion national debt is, it is not the only issue of importance. What is also important is to understand today what is going on in terms of the needs and the lives of middle- class and working people.

One of the realities we do not talk about very much today is that poverty in America is increasing. In fact, since President Bush has been in office, almost 5 million more Americans have joined the ranks of the poor. That is part of the Bush economy. We now have almost 36.5 million Americans who are living in poverty. Many of these people are working, and they are working 40 or 50 hours a week, but they are making 8 bucks an hour, they are making 7 bucks an hour, and they are just not making enough money in order to lift themselves out of poverty. In fact, the United States of America today has the highest rate of poverty of any major nation on Earth, and that is an issue which we should address here in the Senate.

When we are talking about Americans living in poverty, we are not, of course, just talking about adults. Tragically, we are also talking about children. I know our President and many others talk about family values. Well, this is not a family value. Under President Bush's administration, since he has been in office, 1.2 million more children are now living in poverty, and we have almost 13 million kids in this country who live in poverty. That is not a family value. That is a national disgrace. As a matter of fact, the United States has the dubious distinction of having the highest childhood poverty rate in the industrialized world.

I hear some of my friends coming to the floor to compare this or that aspect of American society or our tax policy with Europe and other countries. Well, I think it is important that we look at this chart-- how we treat our children.

What this chart shows is that Finland, Norway, and Sweden all have childhood poverty rates of less than 5 percent. Switzerland, Belgium, Austria, France, Denmark, and Germany all have childhood poverty rates of less than 10 percent. The Netherlands has a childhood poverty rate of slightly more than 10 percent. But in the United States of America, the childhood poverty rate is 21.9 percent, or more than double that of France, Germany, Austria, or the Netherlands.

Now, why is that an important fact? It is important, obviously, that the children are vulnerable; that as adults, we are responsible for the children and we are failing those children. But it is also important to note that we have, as a nation, more people behind bars, incarcerated, than any other nation on Earth, including China. And if anyone thinks there is not a direct correlation between high poverty rates for kids and kids who mentally drop out of society, get involved in self- destructive activity at young ages, and then end up in jail, you would be kidding yourself. And the issue here is whether we address this crisis of 21 percent of our kids living in poverty, whether we provide for those kids or, 15 or 18 or 20 years later, whether we lock them up at $50,000 a pop.

There have been recent discussions about the economy, whether we are in a recession or entering a recession. But the truth is, despite President Bush's assertions, this economy has been a disaster for middle-income and working families from day one. Since President Bush took office in 2001, median household income for working-aged Americans has declined by almost $2,500. That is what we call the collapse of the middle class. Over 8\1/2\ million Americans have lost their health insurance. That is what we call the disintegration of the health care system in America. Three million workers have lost their pensions. And the idea of a defined pension program is increasingly becoming ancient history. More and more workers are wondering what is going to happen to them when they retire, and the idea that there will really be a defined pension program for them when they retire, that is not something most workers, especially younger workers, believe.

The annual trade deficit since President Bush has been in office has more than doubled, and over 3 million good-paying manufacturing jobs have been lost. The price of gas at the pump and home heating oil has more than doubled, while ExxonMobil made $40 billion in profits last year--more than any company in the history of the world. That is $3.20 for a gallon of gas, which working people in Vermont can't afford. Workers in Vermont often travel long-distance to and from work. And $40 billion in profit for ExxonMobil. Home foreclosures, of course, are now the highest on record. Meanwhile, while the middle class is shrinking and poverty is increasing, the wealthiest people in this country have not had it so good since the 1920s.

My friend from Oklahoma mentioned that there are issues we just don't talk about, and he has a point. But one of the issues we don't talk about in this body--for pretty obvious reasons, to my mind, because who pays for the campaigns around here--is the growing disparity, the outrageous disparity of income and wealth in this country.

What this chart shows is that the wealthiest 1 percent of the population now owns 34 percent of the Nation's wealth, while the bottom 90 percent owns only 29 percent of our wealth. That is here.

So what you see is the richest 1 percent owns more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. Is that what America is supposed to be about? Is that the kind of society we want? There is a lot of discussion that takes place on the floor of the Senate, in the House, about the economy. But at the end of the day, when you look at the economy, what is important, most important, is not economic growth, not GDP, what really is most important is what is happening to the average person.

You can have all of the growth you want, and you can see ordinary working people experiencing a decline in their real wages. You can see a lot of wealth being created, but it does not mean a whole lot to ordinary people if most of that income and wealth is going to the people on top.

The bottom line is that in the economy there are winners and losers. It is very clear that in the economy today, the middle class is losing. Lower income people are being decimated while the upper income people have never had it so good.

I know my friends in the Senate on both sides of the aisle--I speak as an Independent--hesitate to talk about that issue. But it is imperative that we do talk about it. Let me go to another chart.

This chart talks about the economy in terms of how different groups are doing. This chart shows that the wealthiest 1 percent saw its total income rise by $180,000 in 2005 or more than what the average middle- class family makes in 3 years. This is the rise in income, not what they make; this is just their increase.

So the wealthiest 1 percent are doing phenomenally well. That is on average. That is a pretty good year, on average, seeing an increase of $180,000 in the year 2005. This is according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Meanwhile, the average middle-class family received a $400 increase. That is that small little box down here, an increase in annual income in 2005.

CBO also found that the total share of aftertax income going to the top 1 percent hit the highest level on record, while the middle-class and working families received the smallest share of aftertax incomes on record.

So when people understand in their gut that what is happening is the middle class is shrinking and the rich are getting richer, well, that is what it is about. That is the fact. That is precisely what is happening in America.

In addition, according to Forbes magazine, the collective net worth of the wealthiest 400 Americans--400 Americans, that is not a lot of people--increased by $290 billion last year, increased by $290 billion to a total of $1.5 trillion. Not only have the wealthiest 400 families, the richest 400, seen an increase in their wealth, their combined income has more than doubled from 2002 to 2005.

At the same time, the average income tax paid by the wealthiest 400 Americans has fallen from 30 percent to 18 percent. That is not Bernie Sanders, that is according to the Wall Street Journal. The reason the average income tax for the wealthiest people who are making astronomical sums of money, why that has been cut in half, is mainly due to Bush's tax cuts, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The middle class is shrinking, poverty is increasing, and the wealthiest people have not had it so good since the 1920s. That is an overview of the state of our economy.

Now, why do I raise these issues? I raise these issues because if we truly do not understand what is going on around our country in the lives of ordinary people, people who cannot afford to fill up their gas tank, cannot afford a college education for their kids, cannot afford childcare, cannot afford to take care of their parents, if we do not understand that reality, it is pretty hard for this body to make good public policy.

The question then is, what do we do? What do we do? Well, President Bush gave us his answer in his budget. What President Bush, in his budget, said is, at a time when the richest people in America are becoming richer, what should we do? Well, let's give them even more tax breaks. That makes a lot of sense to the richest people in America and George W. Bush.

And what did he say to the poorest people in America? Well, poverty is increasing. There is a level of desperation going on in this country that we have not seen in many years. So at a time when poverty is increasing, what do we do? Well, according to George W. Bush, you cut back on the aid and programs that help low-income and middle-income people. That is precisely what Bush's budget was about; one of the more absurd documents that I have ever seen in my life.

Fortunately, that budget has been placed where it belongs; that is, in the garbage can. We are now debating a much different budget, a budget that is far better, the budget that we have before us. I am proud to be a member of

the Budget Committee, working with Chairman Conrad, on a far better budget than the President's budget.

But, in my view, we can make improvements on it. We can do better than the budget we are now debating. To that regard, I will be introducing an amendment, and I want to thank the Presiding Officer for being one of the cosponsors of that amendment.

Let me very briefly talk about that. It seems to me, as we look at some of the trends that we should be addressing in this budget, at least three come to mind. No. 1 is the middle class is declining, No. 2 is our children are suffering, and No. 3 is that we have, among other things, a major infra-structural crisis in this country.

It is my view that we need a budget which will address some of those issues. I am very proud I will soon be introducing an amendment which is being cosponsored by Senators Clinton, Durbin, Kennedy, Harkin, Schumer, Mikulski, and Brown.

This amendment is a pretty simple one. It puts the needs of our children, it puts the needs of our working families and people with disabilities and senior citizens ahead of the wealthy few.

At a time when our Presidential candidates in both parties are talking about change, change, and change, at a time when the American people overwhelming understand that it is imperative that we move this country in a different direction, this amendment can begin the process of change right here in the Senate, and, in fact, change our national priorities.

The choice the Senate will have in terms of this amendment is a pretty simple one: Do we continue to give tax breaks to the very wealthiest people in this country, people who have never had it so good, or do we invest in our children, our working families, and those people who are in need?

What this would do is restore the top income tax bracket to 39.6 percent for households earning more than $1 million per year. Those are the only people who would be affected. And we would use that revenue to begin to address some of the most urgent, unmet needs of our children. We would address the issue of job creation; we would address the issue of deficit reduction.

Now, 99.7 percent of Americans would not be impacted by this tax change, only the top three-tenths of 1 percent would see their income tax rates go back to where they were during the Clinton administration when few would deny that the economy was far stronger than it currently is.

According to the Joint Tax Committee, restoring the top income tax brackets for people making more than $1 million to what it was in 2000 would increase revenue by about $32.5 billion over the next 3 years, including $10.8 billion in 2009 alone.

So here is the choice. We can continue over a 3-year period to give $32.5 billion in tax breaks to the top three-tenths of 1 percent, people who economically are doing phenomenally well today, or we can invest it in the people in our country and use some of that for deficit reduction.

What could we do with $32.5 billion? Well, let me tell you. We could, as our amendment does, expend $10 billion for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; that is, special education.

Over 30 years ago, the Federal Government made a promise that it would fund 40 percent of the cost of special education. Unfortunately, today we only spend about 17 percent of the cost of special ed. I know in Vermont--I do not know about Ohio, but I can tell you that in Vermont, in school district after school district, property taxes are going up. And one of the reasons is the very high cost of special ed. You are seeing more and more kids coming into the system who have special ed needs.

Educating those kids is very expensive. The Federal Government has not kept its promise in adequately funding special ed. So it is the local property tax payers who have to pick up the cost. By putting $10 billion more into special ed, not only can we help people stabilize their property taxes, but we can pay more attention to the kids with special ed needs. And both of those goals, to my mind, are goals that we should strive for.

This amendment would also increase Head Start funding by $5 billion over the next 3 years. After adjusting for inflation, Head Start has been cut by over 11 percent compared to fiscal year 2002. Meanwhile, less than half of all eligible children are enrolled in Head Start, and only about 3 percent of eligible children are enrolled in Early Head Start. This amendment would begin to correct this situation.

What Head Start is about is what its title indicates. What we have known for a very long time is the most important intellectual and emotional years of a human being's life are their earliest years. If kids are not exposed to books and they are not exposed to ideas and they are not learning how to socialize and they do not have good emotional development, those kids are going to go off in a bad direction. And what Head Start was about, and what Head Start has been successful about, is giving kids the opportunity so that when they get into kindergarten and first grade, those kids will then be in a position in which they can learn effectively and can socialize well with their peers.

Head Start works. The problem right now is that it is inadequately funded, and millions of families simply cannot get into this very good program.

In addition to funding special education and Head Start, my amendment would also provide a $4 billion increase for the childcare development block grant. One of the issues that we very rarely discuss in the Senate but that every working family with young children knows is a major crisis in America is the lack of availability of childcare, affordable, quality childcare.

How many millions of kids are now being minded by untrained people and being stuck in front of a television set for 8 hours a day? And what an unfortunate circumstance that is for our little kids, especially at a time when most women work and are entitled to good quality childcare. This amendment would provide funding to help do that.

This amendment would also provide a $3.5 billion increase to the Food Stamp Program. Hunger in America--I know you know, Mr. President, because you and I are working on an issue to address this--is increasing. Food pantries are running out of food. That should not be taking place in this country. So what we do is add $3.5 billion more to the Food Stamp Program.

In my State of Vermont, it gets pretty cold. That is true in many other States. Meanwhile, the price of home heating oil is soaring. You have many people who are having a difficult time paying their heating bills. This amendment would increase the very successful Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, often called LIHEAP, by $4 billion.

The bottom line is nobody in America should go cold in the winter.

Furthermore, this amendment would provide $3 billion for school construction. There are kids who are going to schools that are outmoded. They are decrepit. They are not energy efficient. We can create a lot of good jobs. We can improve the quality of education by building modern schools and upgrading the schools that currently exist. We put $3 billion into that.

Finally, at a time of record-breaking deficits, this amendment would reduce the deficit by $3 billion.

I am happy to inform my colleagues that this amendment has been endorsed by over 50 groups, including the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, the National Education Association, Children's Defense Fund, the American Federation of Teachers, Easter Seals, the YWCA, the National Head Start Association, the SEIU, and the National Organization for Women.

Let me quote from a letter I received from all of these groups:

The economic downturn is creating crisis for parents who

work hard but struggle to afford nutritious meals as food

prices escalate; to pay for energy for their homes and fuel

for their cars; to pay for child care so that they can work;

and to assure that their young children receive the building

blocks of a solid education to prepare them for the future.

Programs that assist in meeting these needs have been cut

significantly in recent years, while tax breaks for

millionaires have soared. Your amendment addresses these

needs. . . .We are urging the Senate to adopt your fiscally

responsible amendment to address the pressing needs of

working families while restoring greater progressivity to the

tax system.

The choice is clear. We can provide $32.5 billion in tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires who don't need it or we can begin to meet the unmet needs of our children. That is what this

amendment is about. I look forward to the support of my colleagues, not just in passing this amendment but in beginning the process of moving this great country in a very different direction.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield?

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

Madam President, will my colleague yield?

Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona has just left the floor, unfortunately. But I did want to make two points. He has referred to something called the death tax, which is what we call the estate tax, which was developed by President Teddy Roosevelt way back when. What he forgot to mention is that this estate tax--and as I understand it, the Senator from Arizona, if he had all of his wish fulfilled would repeal the estate tax completely--benefits only the wealthiest three-tenths of 1 percent of the population.

So for all of the concerns about the onerous impact of the estate tax, it benefits three-tenths of 1 percent. Mr. President, 99.7 percent of the families will not benefit at all from the repeal of the estate tax.

The second point is, if the estate tax were completely repealed, the estimate is over a 20-year period it would add about $1 trillion to our debt--$1 trillion--which, like the war in Iraq, is simply not paid for.

So when people talk about fiscal responsibility, I find it a little bit hard to understand how they could dump another $1 trillion into our national debt, which benefits only the top three-tenths of 1 percent of the population, which means it will be the middle class and working families who are obliged to have to pay that off over many years. Sometimes when our friends on the Republican side talk about fiscal responsibility, I am not quite sure where they are coming from.

I thank the Presiding Officer, by the way, for sitting in for me, and as soon as I finish, I will take the chair.

However, I wish to say a budget--and the budget we are debating right now on the floor of the Senate--is not just numbers. A budget is about the values of our country and the priorities of our country. Within that context, it is important to understand what, in fact, is going on in America right now.

The simple reality is, the middle class is collapsing. Everybody who gets into their car in the morning and pays $3.20 for a gallon of gas, then goes to work and finds that they are paying a lot more for their health insurance than they used to, understands they don't have a pension when at one time they were promised a pension, understands that over 8 million Americans since Bush has been President have lost their health insurance.

The middle class is in collapse. Wages are going down for tens of millions of Americans.

During the Bush administration, private sector job growth has averaged less than 50,000 per month compared with over 220,000 under the Clinton administration. Since President Bush has been in office, from 2001, nearly 5 million more Americans have slipped into poverty. Median household income for working-age families is down by $2,500. Eight and a half million Americans lost their health insurance. Three million lost their pensions. The annual trade deficit has more than doubled, and over 3 million good-paying manufacturing jobs have been lost. The price of gas at the pump and home heating oil has more than doubled, while ExxonMobile made $40 billion in profits last year--more than any company in the history of the world. The personal savings rate recently dipped below zero--something that hasn't happened since the Great Depression. Home foreclosures, of course, are now the highest on record, turning the American dream of home ownership into an American nightmare for millions.

The reason I raise these issues is, it is important to put the debate over the budget in a general context. This is not some abstraction. This is not some academic exercise. We are talking about the priorities of the American people within the context of what is really happening to the middle-class and working families.

I found it interesting that my good friend from Arizona talked about the European Union and tried to compare the United States in terms of tax policy to other countries. Well, let me also compare the United States to some other countries.

Today, the United States has the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country on Earth. We have the highest infant mortality rate of any major country on Earth. We have the highest overall poverty rate of any major country on Earth. We have the largest gap between the rich and the poor, the most people behind bars, and we are the only country in the industrialized world not to have a national health care program.

Now, I wonder if my friends who get up and talk about the European Union might on occasion mention the kind of health care systems that exist in every single one of those countries, which guarantees health care to all of their people. Try to describe the types of parental leave programs that exist when families have a baby. Americans could not understand the extent to which those countries are ahead of us in terms of family values.

So while the middle class in this country declines, while poverty increases, while we have the highest infant mortality rate of any other country, while 17,000 Americans die because they don't have any health insurance, there is another reality in American society today, a reality that we should also be talking about, and that is the wealthiest people in this country have never had it so good since the 1920s.

According to Forbes magazine, the collective net worth of the wealthiest 400 Americans increased by $290 billion last year. Four hundred families, $290 billion increase last year, to $1.54 trillion. In addition, the top 1 percent now owns more wealth than the bottom 90 percent.

Sometimes my Republican friends talk about averages and so forth. That is not the reality. If you look at the American economy as one would look at a football game or a baseball game, the important question to ask is, who is winning and who is losing? Well, let me be very clear. The middle class is losing. Working families are losing. The people on top have never had it so good since the 1920s. They are winning, and they are winning big time. To ignore that reality is to ignore what is happening in American society.

The question then becomes, given that reality, where do we go from here? What we do know is the President has given us his answer. The President has brought forth a budget. He has told us that in his budget, we don't have enough money to meet the health care needs of this country. So at a time when our health care system is disintegrating, the President has decided we cannot adequately fund the Children's Health Insurance Program and that we should cut Medicare and Medicaid by more than $600 billion over the next decade. Think about it. The health care system is disintegrating, more and more people uninsured, more and more people having higher deductibles and copayments. The President's response: Let's make a terrible situation even worse.

The President has said in his budget that we need to reduce the number of children receiving childcare by 200,000 kids. Any mother, any parent understands that our current childcare situation in America today is an absolute disaster. We say to single moms, go out and work, but we forget to ask what are those moms supposed to do with their 2- year-olds or their 3-year-olds? Should we leave them home alone in the apartment or should we provide quality childcare for them?

Well, in Vermont and all over this country, it is increasingly difficult for families to secure quality, affordable childcare, and the President's brilliant response is, let's cut the number of children receiving childcare assistance by 200,000.

My friend from Arizona said: Are there some people who want to spend more money? And I said: Yes, I do. I do not want the children in this country to have the dubious distinction of having the highest rate of poverty of any major country on Earth, and I would hope that every Member of the Senate would be deeply humiliated and embarrassed about that reality taking place within this country.

There is a housing crisis all over America--in Vermont and all over America--and I am not just talking about foreclosures. I am talking about the needs of working families to find safe and affordable housing. The President's response in the middle of this crisis is, let's provide 100,000 fewer section 8 housing vouchers to low-income families.

The President, in his budget, has said there is not enough money for special education. We made a promise to school districts all over America decades ago. We said: If you mainstream kids--which I think is a great idea--we will pick up the very high cost of special education. That was the promise. Today, in Vermont and all over America, more and more kids are coming in with special ed needs. School districts are paying outrageously high property taxes to accommodate those kids. I think it is time to keep the promise we made to school districts and adequately fund special education. Yes, I think we should do that.

I think we should adequately fund Head Start so all of the families in America who want their kids to get a decent start so they are not behind when they enter the first grade have that opportunity. But somehow, in the midst of not funding the needs of our kids, as well as not funding housing, not funding LIHEAP, not funding virtually every need of low- and middle-income families, the President does have some money available. If you are rich, the President has money available for you. The President believes we have enough money to provide $812 billion in tax cuts for households earning more than $1 million per year over the next decade--not for our children, not for the homeless, not for the hungry, but for people who are earning over $1 million a year.

That is an absurd and obscene sense of priorities. Fortunately, while the budget resolution we will be debating this week is not perfect, it is a vast improvement over the President's budget. I thank the Presiding Officer, Senator Conrad, for his hard work in giving us that budget. Instead of cutting back on the educational needs of this country, this budget resolution provides $5.4 billion more than the President's request for education, including the largest increase for elementary and secondary education programs since 2002. Instead of cutting back on the needs of our veterans--which has long been the history of the Bush administration--this budget resolution provides a $3.2 billion increase over the President's budget for our veterans. Instead of ignoring the urgent need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels, this budget resolution provides $8.45 billion to invest in clean energy, creating millions of good-paying, green-collar jobs and energy efficiency.

Instead of cutting back on our Nation's enormous infrastructure needs--can you imagine the engineers, civil engineers, telling us we have over $1 trillion in unmet infrastructure needs, and this White House is refusing to even acknowledge the severity of the problem and is asking the cities and towns that are hard pressed to come up with the money?

This budget resolution provides almost $9 billion more than the President for our roads, bridges, highways, sewers, and clean water improvement. It is not enough, but it is a step forward. I think over the long term, we can do even better than that. We have made progress in this budget, and we can do better.

One area to which I will be paying particular attention is our children. It is not acceptable to me, as I said earlier, that we have the highest rate of childhood poverty among our children. Where are all of those people who keep talking about family values? How do they continue to ignore the reality that, by far, we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country? Nearly one out of every five children in this country lives in poverty. That is not a family value; that is a national disgrace.

What happens to these kids when they become adults? Many of them will do well, but many of them will not. My colleagues may have recently seen an article in many of the papers talking about the fact that the United States has more people behind bars, at great expense--great expense for States and for the Federal Government--than any other country; more than China in total numbers. I happen to believe there is a correlation between the fact that we have the highest rate of childhood poverty and kids who drop off the wagon when they are young-- they drop out of society, they do drugs, they do destructive activity, they end up in jail, and we spend $50,000 to keep them in jail--rather than providing the childcare and educational opportunities they need.

In my opinion, there are three major trends in American society that we should be addressing in this budget process. First, the fact that the United States has the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major country, and the gap between the very rich and everyone else is growing wider.

Second, as I mentioned earlier, we have the highest rate of childhood poverty. Third--and I know the Presiding Officer has made this point over and over again--we have a $9.2 trillion national debt, which is soaring to $10 trillion; that under the Bush administration we have seen a $3 trillion increase in the national debt. This is a debt that is unsustainable economically, and it is a debt that is immoral because we are simply piling it up and leaving it to our kids and our grandchildren.

I think those are some of the trends in American society that we should be dealing with in this budget. This week, I will be offering an amendment which is being cosponsored by Senators Durbin, Mikulski and Boxer, which is a very simple amendment. It doesn't go as far as I personally would like it to go, but it is a step forward perhaps in changing the nature of the debate that we have on the floor of the Senate. It puts the needs of our kids, working families, persons with disabilities, and senior citizens on fixed incomes ahead of the wealthy few. That is what it does.

Specifically, this amendment would restore the top income tax bracket to 39.6 percent for households earning more than $1 million per year.

That is the only group of people impacted, households earning more than $1 million a year. That is three-tenths of 1 percent of our population. We use that revenue to address the urgent unmet needs of our kids, dealing with job creation and deficit reduction.

According to the Joint Tax Committee, restoring the top income tax bracket for people making more than $1 million to what it was in 2000, before the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy, would increase revenue by $32.5 billion over the next 3 years, including $10.8 billion in fiscal year 2009 alone.

We have a choice in the Senate. We can give $32.5 billion to the top three-tenths of 1 percent, or people making at least $1 million a year, including billionaires, or else we can do something else with this money. Let me suggest we should do something else. Let me suggest that at a time when all of the Presidential candidates are talking about change, change, change, when the American people want to move our country in a new direction, maybe the Senate can begin that journey of taking this Nation in a new way that is more equitable, more fair, and begins to address longstanding social needs.

Here is the option: $32.5 billion more in tax relief for millionaires and billionaires--and I suspect that many of

our friends on the Republican side think that is a great idea--or there is another option. It is $10 billion over a 3-year period to go into the program of special ed. This will not only allow school districts the opportunity to better educate kids with special ed needs, it will also lower property taxes and local taxes. Most importantly, it will keep the promise that was made to school districts all over this country.

The Federal Government made a promise that it would fund 40 percent of the cost of special ed. Unfortunately, today we are about at 17 percent. If you want to raise our credibility, let's keep the promise we made to school districts all over America and take care of some of our most vulnerable kids. So $10 billion goes to that.

Then this amendment would also increase Head Start by $5 billion over the next 3 years. Every study indicates that Head Start works. It gives kids, who otherwise don't have the intellectual and emotional environment, the chance to do well when they get to school. It is a good investment. It is better to invest $5 billion in Head Start than it would be in jails.

This amendment would provide a $4 billion increase for the Child Care Development Block Grant Program so that working families all over this country will have a fair shot at trying to find affordable childcare.

This amendment puts a $3.5 billion increase into the Food Stamp Program. In my view, hunger in America is not something we should be about. This will take us a small step toward addressing hunger.

This amendment would put $4 billion into the LIHEAP program because nobody in America should go cold in the winter or die of heat exposure when the temperature gets to 120 and they don't have an air conditioner.

This amendment would also provide $3 billion for school construction, and it would create good-paying jobs in the process and make sure our kids have good schools in which to learn.

Also, this amendment would reduce the deficit by $3 billion. So that is what we do. We reduce the deficit, protect our children, and protect the most vulnerable people. That is one option. Or we give another $32 billion in tax relief to people who don't need it. I think the choice is pretty clear. I hope this amendment will receive widespread support.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if one watches the Presidential campaign, one finds that virtually all of those who have run for President and those who remain in the campaign are talking about change, change, and change. While I think each of them may differ with the other as to exactly what they mean by change, what they are picking up is the very serious unhappiness of the American people in terms of the direction this country is going.

What people perceive and what the candidates are picking up on is that the middle class is shrinking. We have tens of millions of people who wake up in the morning, they go to the gas station, they are paying $3.20 for a gallon of gas. Home heating oil is soaring. In many cases, the wages of workers are going down. People are losing their health insurance. They are losing their pensions. They are seeing their jobs go to China and other low-wage countries. The people in our country do not feel good about the state of our economy. They want changes. They want to move this country in a different direction. Fundamentally, I believe, what they want is a new set of national priorities.

As my colleagues may know, this afternoon the Senate Budget Committee voted on and passed a new budget. This budget, appropriately enough, rejects President Bush's incredibly bad budget, which continues the process of providing huge tax breaks to people who don't need it and then cutting back on the needs of the middle class and working families in terms of massive cuts in Medicare, in Medicaid, eliminating completely the weatherization program, and cutting back significantly on LIHEAP at a time when the need for heating assistance is greater now than ever before. Altogether, it is a budget which puts money where we should not be putting money and cuts back on those programs which people desperately need.

Next week, as I understand it, the budget will be coming to the Senate floor. We will be debating the budget that was passed by the Budget Committee this afternoon. While I happen to believe the budget we passed was a good budget--certainly a major, major, major improvement over what President Bush gave us we can make significant improvements upon what we passed this afternoon. So I will be offering several amendments. The major one will essentially be asking the Senate to change the national priorities of this country and to begin responding to the millions of working families who know that something is wrong in America. They know that while poverty increases, while the middle class shrinks, the people on top have never had it so good. They know that ordinary people understand there is something strange when the wealthiest Nation in the history of the world cannot provide quality health care to all of its people; that our infrastructure is deteriorating before our very eyes; that we have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world; that all over our country food shelves are being descended upon--not by unemployed people alone, not by disabled people, not by poor people but by people who are working 40 or 50 hours a week and can't afford with their wages to provide the nutrition their families need. People understand there is something deeply, deeply wrong in this country, and that we have to move in a new direction.

My amendment is very simple. It is going to give the Members of the Senate a very stark choice about whether we want change, about whether we want to move this country in a new direction. This is what it does. It couldn't be simpler. It says that at a time when the wealthiest people in this country have never had it so good since the 1920s in terms of a huge increase in their income, in terms of the fact that we now have by far the most unequal distribution of income and wealth of any major country, where the top 1 percent now earn more income than the bottom 50 percent, what we are saying is that it is time we rescind President Bush's tax breaks that go to people who make at least $1 million. That is the top three-tenths of 1 percent; 99.7 percent of the people would not be impacted by this amendment. It says: Let us rescind those tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, and when we do that, we will raise about $51 billion.

Now, what can we do with that $51 billion, and what does this amendment include? First, it says that since President Bush has been in office, we have had record-breaking deficits. We now have a $9 trillion national debt. We are fighting a war we are not paying for, but that our kids and our grandchildren will be paying for. So in this amendment, of the $51 billion we raise by rescinding tax breaks for millionaires, we are going to put $10 billion into deficit reduction. That leaves $41 billion.

This is what this amendment would do. It would provide $15 billion for special education. The Presiding Officer may remember that some years ago the Congress--the Government of the United States--made a commitment to school districts all over America and said: If you mainstream kids with disabilities, if you put them into public schools, if you treat them as every other kid, we will provide 40 percent of the cost of that special education. That is what the Government said. Unfortunately, the Government did not keep its word.

So what we see in Vermont--and I suspect in Colorado and all over the country--is the school districts are paying enormous sums of money out of local taxes, often regressive property taxes, to fund special education. All over America, what we are seeing is more and more kids, for whatever reason--and that is a long discussion we need to have--are having problems, are being seen as having special ed needs. It is an expensive proposition. We are saying, let's begin to keep our word to school districts all over America. Let's relieve the pressure of local property taxes. Let's put $15 billion into special education.

In addition, what this amendment would do is provide a $7 billion increase for Head Start. One of the great scandals in our Nation today is that we

have the highest rate of childhood poverty--far higher than any other industrialized country; that working parents are finding it almost impossible to acquire quality, affordable child care; that Head Start openings are much greater than can be accommodated all over the country. We are saying Head Start is a program that works. It provides an opportunity for early childhood education for low-income kids.

Let's expand that program to make sure working families can take advantage of that program and let's put $7 billion into expanding Head Start.

We also, for the same reasons, put $2.2 billion into the child care and the development block grant program that will ensure every eligible family receives access to child care.

I know in my State--and, again, I suspect in most States in this country--people are being weighed down by very high local taxes, including regressive property taxes.

What this amendment does is provide $5 billion for school construction, modernization and repairs, to fix our crumbling schools. What this does is not only help local property taxes and not only help our school kids get modern buildings in which to learn, it also creates a lot of jobs as we rebuild one of the long neglected areas of our infrastructure, and that is our crumbling schools.

This amendment would also provide an additional $3 billion for LIHEAP, the Low-Income Heating Assistance Program. I just, this afternoon, spoke to the directors of various community action programs in the State of Vermont. In my State--and my State may be a little bit different than some because it gets pretty cold there. We have had 20 below zero weather in the last couple weeks. There is a real level of stress regarding the availability of LIHEAP because the cost of home heating fuels is soaring. There is just not that availability. There is not enough money in the LIHEAP fund. We would put $3 billion more into LIHEAP, which helps, by the way, not only low-income families and senior citizens in the wintertime in cold-weather States, but it helps other families in States where the weather gets to be 110 degrees.

As I mentioned earlier, in this great country, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, we must be embarrassed that we have large numbers of people who literally go hungry, who don't have enough food. That number is growing. I know Senator Harkin, among others, has called for a significant increase in the Food Stamp Program. That is exactly what we should be doing. This amendment would provide $5 billion for food stamps to make sure millions of families with kids have enough food to sustain them.

Lastly, this amendment would provide $3.8 billion to allow the special supplemental nutrition program for Women, Infants, and Children, the WIC Program, to provide nutritious food to over 4 million families. Kids whose mothers have good nutrition and good prenatal experience, obviously, will do better in life. We want to make sure the WIC Program has the resources they need.

So, ultimately, what this amendment is about is pretty simple: We say that in a time when millions of Americans, low- and moderate-income people, are in need, it is the obligation and the right of the U.S. Government to reach out and address those serious problems facing the middle-class and working families of our Nation. And at a time when the wealthiest people in this country have never had it so good and at the same time have been given huge tax breaks by the Bush administration, we say it is appropriate to rescind those tax breaks in order to help millions of people in need. That is what this amendment is about. It calls for a fundamental change in national priorities, and it moves this country in a very different and, I think, more moral direction. I look forward to the support of my colleagues for this amendment that we will offer as part of the budget debate.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.