Executive Session
Floor Speech
EXECUTIVE SESSION -- (Senate - September 04, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, let me begin by thanking the majority leader, Senator Reid, and Budget Chairman Kent Conrad for their strong statements in opposition to the Nussle nomination. I think that is the right position, and I appreciate them speaking out on it.
As a member of the Budget Committee, I placed a hold on the nomination of former Congressman Jim Nussle to become OMB Director and I voted against his confirmation at the committee level.
The reason I did that is not because I have any personal animus toward Mr. Nussle. I have known Jim Nussle for over 16 years. We served in the House together, and I like him. So this is not personal. The reason I strongly oppose Mr. Nussle becoming the Director of the Office of Management and Budget has, in fact, little to do with Mr. Nussle and everything to do with the failed economic policies of the Bush administration.
The problem is, the President and his advisers have become increasingly isolated and out of touch with the economic realities facing ordinary Americans. The simple truth is that the middle class continues to shrink, poverty has increased over the last 6 years, the gap between the rich and everyone else is growing wider, and millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages. Meanwhile, in the midst of all of this, President Bush continues to tell the American people day after day how great and how wonderful the economy is doing. This is an insult to American workers and is something that should end, and end now.
This President needs an OMB Director who can provide a sense of reality with regard to the economic conditions facing ordinary Americans and not continue to perpetrate a false mythology. That is what this debate is all about.
Year after year, President Bush, members of his administration, and his advisers, in almost an Orwellian sense, have sounded like a broken record on the economy. They have told the American people over and over again that the economy--I am now going to use quotes that come directly from the President and his administration--is ``strong and getting stronger.'' The economy is ``thriving.'' The economy is ``robust.'' The economy is ``vibrant.'' The economy is ``solid.'' The economy is ``booming.'' The economy is ``powerful.'' The economy is ``fantastic.'' The economy is ``amazing.'' The economy is ``just marvelous.''
Those are quotes that come from the President, his administration, and his advisers. That is what the President and his administration are telling the American people.
Now, let's look at reality. How can President Bush and his advisers claim that this economy is robust when nearly 5 million Americans have slipped into poverty since the year 2000, including over 1 million children? We hear a lot about family values in Washington, and I hope when people talk about family values, they are talking about our kids, the weakest and most vulnerable people in our society.
How can a significant increase in poverty since Bush has been President among our children occur at the same time as he describes this economy as ``robust''? This is absurd. This is insulting.
How can the President and his advisers claim the economy is vibrant when the median income for working-age families has declined by about $2,400 since President Bush has been in office? The reality is, from 2001 through 2005, the bottom 90 percent of households experienced a 4.2-percent decline in their market-based incomes, representing a loss of over $1,200 per household on average. How does that sound like a vibrant economy?
Madam President, how can the President of the United States and his advisers claim that ``the economy is strong and getting stronger,'' when the personal savings rate has been below zero for eight consecutive quarters--something that has not occurred since the Great Depression? What this means is, with increased energy costs, increased health care costs, increased education costs, and other increased expenses, the average American is now spending more money than he or she is earning. More money is going out than is coming in. In other words, people are going deeper and deeper into debt. This doesn't sound to me like an economy that is ``strong and getting stronger.''
How can the President and his advisers claim that the economy is ``healthy''--that is another word they have used--when 8.6 million Americans have lost their health insurance since the year 2000, and a record-breaking 47 million Americans are uninsured, with millions more underinsured? That doesn't sound too healthy to me. All over this country we find workers who are losing their health insurance. We find people who are paying more and more for, in many instances, inferior coverage, and you have a President out there saying this economy is ``healthy.'' Well, I am sure many of those people who just lost their health insurance this last year would be quite surprised to find that this economy is ``healthy.''
How can this President and his advisers claim that the economy is ``thriving,'' when, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 35 million Americans in our country struggled to put food on the table last year, and the number of the hungriest Americans keeps going up? How do you have an economy that is thriving when more and more people are hungry and when millions of our fellow citizens have a difficult time putting food on the table? This is not a thriving economy. Hunger in America is a national disgrace.
Madam President, how can the President of the United States and his advisers claim that our economy is ``booming''--that is another word they have used--when college students today are graduating deeper and deeper in debt, with the average student now owing $20,000 upon graduation. Even more disturbing, some 400,000 qualified high school students don't go to college in the first place because they cannot afford it and because they do not want to come out of school tens and tens of thousands of dollars in debt. Does this sound like a booming economy to you? Well, tell that to the young people in this country who can no longer afford to go to college. Tell them about how the economy is ``booming.''
How can the President of the United States and his advisers claim that our economy is ``fantastic'' when home foreclosures are now the highest on record, turning the American dream of home ownership into an American nightmare for millions of families?
How can the President and his economic advisers claim that the economy is ``powerful'' when the number of working families paying more than half of their limited incomes on housing has decreased by 72 percent since 1997? So you have people working hard, 50, 60 hours a week and, because of the high cost of housing and their limited incomes, they are spending more than 50 percent of what they earn on housing.
How can the President of the United States and his economic advisers claim that our economy is ``the envy of the world'' when the U.S. has the highest rate of childhood poverty, the highest infant mortality rate among major countries, the highest overall poverty rate, the largest gap between the rich and the poor, and we remain the only country in the industrialized world that does not guarantee health care to all people through a national health care program? How is that economy the ``envy of the world''?
How can the President and his advisers claim that the economy is ``amazing'' when we have lost over 3 million good-paying manufacturing jobs since the year 2000, mainly due to our record-breaking $765 billion trade deficit? Well, tell workers in the State of Vermont and all over this country about how amazing the economy is when their plants are shut down, when their jobs go to China, and when, if they are lucky enough to find a new job, in most cases that job will pay substantially less than the job they used to have. Tell the white-collar information technology workers whose jobs are going to India how ``fantastic'' the economy is, when their new jobs pay less than the jobs they used to have.
How can this President and his economic advisers claim the economy is ``vibrant'' when the number of college graduates earning poverty-level wages has more than doubled over the past 15 years?
My goal this afternoon is not to engage in a major debate on the economy or what proposals we need to improve the economic life of working people. That is an enormously important debate and one that I hope we have sooner than later, but it is not really today's debate. My goal today, and the reason I put a hold on the Nussle nomination, is simply to make the point that the Bush administration is completely out of touch with the economic reality facing tens of millions of American families, and that we need an OMB Director and an economic adviser who will make this President understand what the ordinary American family is going through.
Let me give you an example of why we desperately need an OMB Director who can do this. While the President of the United States and his advisers tell us how ``robust'' and how ``vibrant'' and how ``strong'' the American economy is, well, the people of our country, the people who live in that economy, the people who work in that economy have a different perception of reality than the gentleman in the Oval Office.
In a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, published last month, more than two-thirds of the American people said they believe the U.S. economy is either in recession now or will be in recession next year. That is what the American people are saying, the people who are living the economy. They are saying that despite the daily assertions of President Bush and his advisers. Further, 72 percent of Americans surveyed in a mid-August Gallup poll said the economy was ``getting worse.'' That is the most pessimistic outlook on the economy since Gallup began asking that question in the early 1990s.
Madam President, we have a real disconnect. We have a situation in which the American people are experiencing a certain reality, telling us about a certain reality, and a President who is living in a very different world.
The President keeps telling us how great the economy is doing, but the American people who work every day, who pay their bills every month, who are trying to provide health care for their families and a college education for their kids are not buying it. In other words, the people who are living in this economy have a very different perspective on reality than does this President and his advisers, and that creates a very dangerous situation which must be corrected by an OMB Director who lives in the real world and who can give this President some real-world advice.
What people understand in their guts and what they fear the most is that if economic trends continue along the same path they have been going for the last many years, we will see for the first time in the modern history of this country that our kids, the next generation, will have a lower standard of living than we do.
What the American dream has always been and what my family, which never had much money, experienced and what millions of American families have experienced is that if you work hard and you save your money, your children will have a better economic life, more opportunities than you do. That is what every parent's dream is: That their kids will do better than they did.
But I am afraid this American dream is rapidly disappearing. I am afraid that with so many American families, the American dream has become an American nightmare. To cite one source--and there are many others--a recent joint study by the Pew Charitable Trust and the Brookings Institution found that men in their early thirties earned on average 12 percent less in 2004 than their fathers did in 1974 after adjusting for inflation. In other words, for millions of families, despite a huge increase in worker productivity, we are moving in exactly the wrong direction. Workers are producing more but, in many cases, they are worse off than their parents.
President Bush desperately needs an OMB Director who is not afraid to tell the President the truth about these harsh economic realities and not be an echo, not repeat the mythology that this President and his advisers are bringing forth. President Bush needs a Budget Director who will make him face the facts and not his fantasies. Perhaps most importantly, President Bush needs a Budget Director who is willing to compromise with those of us in Congress who are fighting for the needs of working families and are not here to represent the wealthiest people in this country and the largest corporations.
Unfortunately, there is nothing in former Congressman Jim Nussle's background to suggest he is that person. Quite the contrary. I must say, I am amused to hear some of my colleagues say: Well, we were at a hearing with Mr. Nussle and we asked him a question and he said he is open to doing this and doing that. That is wonderful at a confirmation hearing. I worked with Mr. Nussle for 16 years in the House. He was chairman of the House Budget Committee for 6 years. His record is clear. Pay attention to the record rather than what someone might or might not say in a confirmation hearing.
Let me suggest where I think the confusion in this whole discussion lies, where the disconnect lies. That is that when President Bush tells us the economy is doing great, that it is robust, that it is vibrant--all of his adjectives--the truth is he is right in one sense. He is right in one sense. The economy is not doing well for the vast majority of our people who are in the middle class. The economy is certainly not doing well for working families who, in many cases, work longer hours for low wages. The economy is not doing well for our lower income citizens. Poverty has increased significantly since President Bush has been in the White House. But the economy, we must admit, is doing well and, in fact, doing very well for the wealthiest people in this country, and that is true.
So I think the confusion lies in that when the President says the economy is doing great, what he means is that the economy is doing great for his wealthy friends and for the CEOs of the largest corporations in America. I admit he is right in that regard.
If you look at the world from the perspective of CEOs of large corporations who now make over 350 times what their workers make, if you look at the economy from the perspective of hedge fund managers, some of whom make hundreds of millions of dollars a year, if you look at the economy from the perspective of people who have more money than they know what to do with, who are literally building yachts that are longer than a football field, I can understand how one could come to the conclusion that the economy is doing very well because from their point of view, from their reality, the economy is doing very well.
Today the simple truth is the upper 1 percent of families in America have not had it so good since the 1920s. So I concede, President Bush, you are right. For all your friends who are in the top 1 percent, the economy is doing very well. But some of us--maybe not all of us but some of us--are here not to represent the richest 1 percent;
we are kind of worried about the bottom 90 percent, the bottom 50 percent, the ordinary people who go to work every single day and are struggling hard to keep their heads above water and to provide the necessities of life for their kids.
In 2005, the last available figures I have, while average incomes for the bottom 90 percent--that is where most of the folks are--the bottom 90 percent of Americans declined by $172, the wealthiest 1/100th of 1 percent reported an average income of $25.7 million, a 1-year increase of $4.4 million. Let me repeat that because I think this deals with the confusion of why the President thinks the economy is doing so good.
The income of the bottom 90 percent of Americans declined by $172 while the income of the wealthiest 1/100th of 1 percent increased by $4.4 million.
In 2005, the top 1 percent of Americans received the largest share of national income since 1928. Today, rather incredibly--and I was interested in hearing a colleague of mine talking about, oh, my goodness, the wealthy are paying so much in taxes. Well, there is a reason, because today, incredibly, the top 300,000 Americans--300,000--now earn nearly as much as the bottom 150 million Americans combined; 300,000 earning almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans combined.
This constitutes by far the most unequaled distribution of income in any major country on Earth, and that gap continues to grow wider and wider. This is an issue this Congress must address. It is not acceptable. People keep talking in a general sense about the economy while ignoring the people in the economy. We have to focus on this growing income in wealth disparity in this country.
While millions of Americans--it is true in my State of Vermont and it is true all over this country--are working two and three jobs trying to cobble together an income and perhaps some health insurance, the collective net worth of the wealthiest 400 Americans increased by $120 billion last year to $1.25 trillion, according to Forbes magazine.
Let me repeat that statement because it is an astounding fact. The collective net worth of the wealthiest 400 Americans--400 is not a lot of people--increased by $120 billion last year to $1.25 trillion. Remember, at the same time as the personal savings rate is below zero and millions of Americans are going deeper and deeper into debt, the collective net worth of the wealthiest 400 Americans increased by $120 billion.
That is what this economy is doing. The top 1 percent now owns more wealth than the bottom 90 percent, and the reality is the rich are getting richer, the middle class is shrinking, and the gap between the very wealthiest people in our society and everyone else is growing wider and wider. We are becoming very different countries--people on top live in a certain world, and the vast majority of people are living in another world entirely.
What does all of this have to do with the next Director of the Office of Management and Budget, which is what we are here this afternoon to discuss? In my opinion, it has a whole lot to do with who should become the next Director of the OMB.
A Federal budget--and our budget is now almost $3 trillion--is more than a long list of numbers. The Federal budget, as any family budget, is a statement of our Nation's values and our priorities. It is not any different, except the numbers are astronomical, that every family has to deal with: How do they spend their money? Where do they spend their money? What are their priorities? It is the same debate we have in the Senate. The Federal budget is a statement about what our country is about, what we stand for, and who we are as a people.
We would all, I believe, find it irresponsible and counterproductive if a family whom we knew, whom we observed, went out and bought a great big car and they bought a great big boat and went on fancy vacations to Las Vegas, all the while neglecting their kids at home. The kids were ill clothed, ill fed, ill taken care of. We would say that family is irresponsible.
We need to use those same values when we look at the budget of the United States of America. Preparing the Federal budget encompasses the same set of values. It is about spending taxpayers' dollars where we should be spending them and not spending them where we should not be spending them. It is about taking a hard look at the needs of all our people, especially those who are most in need, and prioritizing that budget in an intelligent, fair, and rational way. That is what an OMB Director is supposed to do. That is what his or her job description is.
In February, the President told us about his values and his priorities when he submitted his fiscal year 2008 budget to Congress. Fortunately, thanks to the excellent work of Chairman Conrad, the Senate rejected the President's budget and passed a budget resolution that was much more responsive to the needs of ordinary Americans, and I thank Chairman Conrad for doing that. I had the opportunity of working with him as a member of the Budget Committee.
But as we in the Senate all know, even though the budget resolution conference report passed the House and the Senate in May, that is a first step. It is the annual appropriations bills that actually provide the funding which keeps our Federal Government running. Unlike the budget resolution, which cannot be vetoed, the President has the opportunity to veto each and every appropriations bill that comes across his desk, and with very few exceptions, this is exactly what the President has threatened to do unless Congress accepts his overall spending requests.
In other words, the President has said to Congress: It is my way or the highway. We will do it my way or I will veto what you are proposing to do. This is the wrong way to negotiate with Congress on the appropriations process. The President needs someone to advise him that a budget should address the needs of all the American people and not just the wealthiest people in our country. The President needs an adviser to tell him that it is more important to pay attention to working families all over this country, many of whom are falling further and further behind--to pay attention to those families rather than a handful of billionaires. Frankly, based on his record in Congress, I am afraid Mr. Nussle will not do that. He is the wrong man for this position at this particular moment in American history.
Now, let me say a few words about the President's budget that he is so adamant that Congress adopt. Let's look at the values and the priorities this President is proposing. The President has proposed in his budget, despite the growing health care crisis in this country, that he wishes to cut Medicare and Medicaid by $280 billion over the next decade, lowering the quality of health care for approximately 43 million senior citizens and people with disabilities who depend on Medicare, and more than 50 million Americans who rely on Medicaid. That is his priority--cut Medicare, cut Medicaid.
Even worse--and to me this is a deeply moral issue in a nation that already has the disgrace of having the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world; over 18 percent of our kids are in poverty--at a time when 8.7 million children have no health insurance, the President has refused to adequately fund the Children's Health Insurance Program in his budget. Now, here is where the President needs some good advice. But I have listened and I haven't heard that advice coming from Mr. Nussle. He has had the opportunity. He was nominated a while back.
Last month, as we all know, the Senate voted by a 68-to-31 margin to expand the SCHIP program to provide an additional 3 million children in our country with health insurance. Eighteen Republican Senators thought this was a good idea, and virtually everybody on our side of the aisle voted for it. Although I believe the Senate should have done much more--I believe all of our children should be covered--this is clearly a step in the right direction. The House passed an even more generous bill to expand SCHIP, with the support of some Republicans. But instead of working with the Senate and the House, the President issued veto threats on both of these bills.
What will Mr. Nussle's advice be on this issue? Will he tell the President that it is an international disgrace that we are the only major country on Earth that doesn't provide health care to all of our people and that we have to address that immediately? Will he tell the President to rescind his veto threat? I doubt it. I doubt it very much. Based on his track record of chairmanship of the House Budget Committee for 6 years, I don't think that is going to happen.
While the President does not believe we have enough money to increase health insurance coverage for children, it has been reported that the President will be asking for another $50 billion for the misguided war in Iraq. Fifty billion dollars in additional funding for the Iraq war, but we don't have $5 billion to $10 billion a year to provide health insurance to millions of uninsured kids. It is time the President had a budget director who is willing to say: Excuse me, Mr. President, but that is wrong. That is not what this country is about. It is time to get our priorities straight. I am afraid Mr. Nussle will not be the OMB Director who does that.
What else does the President's budget have to say about the priorities of this country? What about our kids? What about childcare? Every psychologist understands, and many books and papers have been written on it, that the most formative years of a person's life are from 0 to 3. That is when their intellectual capabilities develop; that is when their emotional capabilities develop. Now, what are we doing for our kids in general and what are we doing with regard to childcare? At a time when working families in Vermont and all across this country are searching desperately for quality, affordable childcare, the Bush budget reduces the number of children receiving childcare assistance by 300,000 kids. Mr. Bush tells us he believes no child should be left behind. By this proposal, however, he is not only leaving 300,000 children behind, but, because of inadequate funding for childcare, he is denying millions of children the opportunities they need so they can succeed in school.
Amazingly, childcare fees today are higher than college tuition at a 4-year public university in 42 States in this country. In other words, we have a major childcare crisis in America. The President needs an OMB Director to tell him and explain to him that you don't cut childcare when working families all over this country are desperately searching out affordable childcare. Will Mr. Nussle be doing that? I doubt that.
Madam President, what I wish to do at this time is reserve the remainder of my time. There are some other issues I want to raise regarding the nomination of Mr. Nussle, but I think the key point I want to make is that what this debate is about is do we need another OMB Director who continues to support and push policies which benefit the wealthiest people in this country at the expense of the vast majority of working families or do we need an OMB Director who will speak truth to power and who, in fact, explains to the American people the reality facing the economic lives of working families in this country.
There are some other points I want to make, Madam President, but I am going to reserve the remainder of my time at this point.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, we have heard over the last few moments from some of our Republican friends, again, the assertion of how strong this economy is doing and how we have to continue going along this same path with an OMB Director who is supportive of these policies. Let me reiterate, I do not believe the economy is stronger when, over the last 6 years, 5 million more Americans have become poor, slipped into poverty, including a million children. I do not believe this economy is strong when median income for working age families has declined by about $2,400 since the year 2000. I do not believe this economy is strong when the personal savings rate has been below zero for eight consecutive quarters. I do not believe this economy is strong when 8.6 million Americans have lost their health insurance since President Bush has been in office. I do not believe this economy is strong when 35 million Americans struggled to put food on the table last year and hunger in America is growing. I do not believe this economy is strong when home foreclosures are now the highest on record, turning the American dream of home ownership into a nightmare.
We need a new direction in economic policy, policies which protect the interests of ordinary Americans and not just the wealthy and the powerful. We need an OMB Director to tell this President the reality of economic life for tens of millions of our families rather than continue a mythology which essentially represents the interests of the people on top who, in fact, are doing very well. Maybe government should represent all rather than just the wealthy and the powerful.
When I talked before about the budget priorities of President Bush, we should continue that discussion and talk about how he treats our veterans. The war in Iraq, something which I strongly opposed, has given us now over 27,000 soldiers who have been wounded, many of them seriously. Studies tell us that many of the soldiers returning home from Iraq are coming home with post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD. How did the President's budget, a budget which we turned around, how did his initial budget treat the veterans? His budget proposed cutting the VA by $3.4 billion over 5 years after adjusting for inflation. That does not say thank you to our veterans and their families and all they have gone through.
We have a President who in his budget has said we don't have enough money to address the needs of the middle class, working families, senior citizens, children, and veterans. We don't have enough money to do that, to pay attention to the people who are hurting. But amazingly enough, President Bush has told us we do have enough money to provide $739 billion in tax breaks over the next decade to households with incomes exceeding $1 million per year. Under President Bush's proposal, the average tax break for this group of millionaires would total $162,000 by the year 2012. So if you are a millionaire or a billionaire, the good news is, we have enough money for you. But if you are a veteran coming home from Iraq with PTSD, if you are a mother trying to find quality childcare for your kids, if you are a worker trying to find health insurance, sorry. This country does not have enough money for you.
Let me be very blunt. In my view, it is wrong to be giving huge tax breaks to the very wealthiest people, the people who need them the least, while cutting back on the needs of the middle class and working families. I should say that Mr. Nussle's record as chairman of the Budget Committee tells us clearly he supports these tax breaks for the very rich while, at the same time, he has been prepared over the years to cut programs for those who need them the most. That is wrong. That is why I will be voting against Mr. Nussle's confirmation.
Included in President Bush's budget is the complete repeal of the estate tax which would take effect at the end of 2010. The complete repeal of the estate tax, we should be clear, because sometimes people have not been quite so clear about it, would benefit the wealthiest three-tenths of 1 percent of our population, the top three-tenths of 1 percent, and 99.7 percent of the American people would not benefit, their families would not benefit by one nickel from the repeal of the estate tax. Obviously, if you are in the top three-tenths of 1 percent, you are already a millionaire or a billionaire, and you are already in a family which is doing very well and has been doing well in recent years. In other words, 99.7 percent of Americans would not receive one nickel. The wealthiest people, who are doing very well, would get all the benefits.
According to the President's budget, this repeal of the estate tax will reduce receipts for the Treasury by more than $91 billion over the next 5 years and more than $442 billion over the next decade. But the long-term damage to our fiscal solvency is even worse. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, repealing the estate tax would cost over $1 trillion from 2012 to 2021, all of which benefit goes to the wealthiest three-tenths of 1 percent. In other words, if the President's plan to permanently repeal the estate tax succeeds, the children and family members of the most privileged families in America will reap a massive tax break. Paris Hilton, you are in luck, if the President gets his way. You are going to do very well. But for other Americans, the deficit will go up, and the argument will be raised that we don't have enough money to take care of our kids, our seniors, and our veterans.
What has Mr. Nussle's position been as chairman of the Budget Committee on repeal of the estate tax? He is there alongside the President. So we have every reason to believe he will be recommending to the President that we continue this extremely unfair and disastrous policy.
When we talk about repealing the estate tax, which the President wants to do, which Mr. Nussle wants to do, which many of our Republican friends want to do, I think we should see who benefits in a more specific sense. Yes, it is the wealthiest three-tenths of 1 percent who will get all of the benefits, the people who need it the least. Let's look at one particular family who does have the best. Let's put this thing into perspective. The reality is the big winner, the people who need this money the most--not the kids, not our seniors, not low-income people, not our veterans, no, they get at the end of the line--the people who receive a significant amount of the benefits from repeal of the estate tax is the Walton family that owns Wal-Mart. In fact, today--and these things change; they go up and down--the estimated net worth of the Sam Walton family is about $83.2 billion. From where I come, that is pretty good, $83.2 billion. You are a family that is doing fine. You will probably be able to pay the rent next month. If the estate tax is repealed for this one family, they will receive a benefit of $32.7 billion, one family, $32.7 billion.
We do not have enough money, says the President, to increase health insurance for our children. Oh, he is going to repeal that $32 billion to take care of 3 million more kids? We cannot afford that, but we can afford to give $32 billion in tax breaks to a family worth $83 billion.
Those priorities are wrong. In my view, they are immoral. We need an OMB Director who begins to explain to the American people this is not what America is about, who begins to explain to the American people we need a budget that reflects the needs and deals with the needs of millions of families, where people are working longer hours for lower wages, that deals with the problems of our senior citizens, deals with the problems of our crumbling infrastructure, deals with the problems of kids who cannot afford to go to college, deals with all of the problems our people face every single day. That is the kind of budget we need. That is the kind of OMB Director we need. What we do not need are policies which give obscene benefits to the very wealthiest people in this country.
Let me simply say at this point that in fact what this debate is about is whether we are going to have an OMB Director who can advise the President about the reality facing our working families or will we continue the same failed policies?
Having said that, Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, the Senator from New Hampshire talks about program after program. Yes, we want to take care of our veterans, we want to provide health insurance to our children, and we do not want to give tax breaks to billionaires.
Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to my friend from California.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me conclude by applauding Majority Leader Harry Reid, Chairman Kent Conrad, and Senators Schumer, Dorgan, and Boxer for publicly expressing their opposition to the Nussle nomination.
The bottom line is today the economy is doing very well if you are in the top 1 percent, if you are a millionaire or a billionaire. But if you are in the middle class, if you are a working person, the likelihood is you work longer hours for lower wages.
We need a change in economic policy. We need an OMB Director who can advise the President about the reality of the vast majority of the people, and not just the very wealthiest people in our country.
I yield the floor.
Source