SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today, on the floor of the U.S. Senate, objected to the motion for unanimous consent on the Republican Burr-Wicker resolution aimed at harming rail workers in their fight for sick days and better working conditions.
Sanders' remarks, as prepared for delivery, are below and can be viewed here:
M. President: Reserving the right to object, and I will object. But before I do let me say a few words not only about the negotiations between railroad workers and management but also to briefly put this crisis into the broader context of what's now going on in this country.
Today we have more income and wealth inequality than at any time in the history of our country. People on top are doing phenomenally well while working people are struggling to keep their heads above water.
During the pandemic, while essential workers like those employed at the railroads put their lives on the line and sometimes died doing their jobs, the billionaire class saw a $2 trillion increase in their wealth. Workers died by the thousands while the very rich became much richer. Further, as healthcare costs soar, we have over 70 million people who are uninsured or underinsured. In addition, disgracefully, we remain the only major country on earth not to guarantee paid family and medical leave.
Now within that broad context let's take a look at why there is an impasse in the current negotiations.
M. President: As I understand it, Labor Secretary Marty Walsh is currently meeting with the rail unions and management. I wish them well and hope those meetings lead to an agreement that is fair and that is just.
But let's make no mistake about what's happening in the rail industry right now. And that is that the industry has seen huge profits in recent years and last year alone made a record-breaking $20 billion in profit. And let me also mention that the CEOs of many of these railroad companies are enjoying huge compensation packages.
For example, last year, the CEO of CSX made over $20 million in total compensation, while the CEOs of Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern made over $14 million each in total compensation. In other words, within the rail industry corporate profits are soaring and the CEOs are making incredibly large compensation packages.
I would also add that the parent company of BNSF, one of the largest freight rail companies in America, is Berkshire Hathaway owned by Warren Buffett.
Mr. Buffett is the fourth wealthiest man in America worth nearly $100 billion. During the pandemic, as rail workers risked their lives to keep the economy going, Mr. Buffett became $33 billion richer.
But M. President: In the midst of all of those profit increases for the industry, huge compensation packages for their CEOs and increased wealth for their very rich owners, what's going on for the workers?
The key issue in the current negotiations are not about salaries. They are about the working conditions in the industry which are absolutely unacceptable and almost beyond belief.
Right now, if you work in the freight rail industry - one of the most grueling and dangerous jobs in America - you are entitled to a grand total of zero sick days. Let me repeat that. You are entitled to a grand total of zero sick days.
What that means is that if you get sick, if your child gets sick, if your spouse gets sick and you need to take time off of work not only will you not get paid, you actually could get fired. And that is precisely what is happening today in the rail industry. How absurd is that?
M. President: Let me remind you that hundreds of Americans are still dying every day from COVID and tens of thousands are being hospitalized as a result of this deadly virus.
What the freight rail industry is saying to its workers is this: It doesn't matter if you have COVID. It doesn't matter if you are lying in a hospital bed because of a medical emergency. It doesn't matter if your wife has just given birth. It just doesn't matter. If you do not come into work, no matter what the reason, we have the right to fire you. Really? Do these conditions really exist in America in the year 2022?
M. President: I wonder if the CEO of the railroad or other top executives at the railroad get fired when they get sick or have a medical emergency in their families? I doubt that very much.
Further, I should add, that quite sensibly the federal government guarantees 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave to its workers. So if you are an employee at the Department of Transportation in the United States, sitting behind a desk, you are appropriately guaranteed 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave. But if you are engineer running a train with tons of freight behind you, you get zero sick leave. That may make sense to somebody, it doesn't make sense to me.
As a result of this reactionary policy of denying workers sick time, rail conductors, engineers and other rail employees are coming into work sick and exhausted - which is a danger not only to themselves but to their co-workers and everyone else who is around them.
M. President: As part of the contract negotiations, the rail workers are asking for 15 paid sick days. That is not a radical idea. We are the only major country on earth that does not guarantee paid sick days. In Germany, workers are entitled to 84 weeks of paid sick leave at 70 percent of their salary. In Norway, workers are entitled to one year of paid sick leave at 100 percent of their salary. In the UK, workers are entitled to up to 28 weeks of paid sick leave. The rail workers in the United States aren't asking for a year of paid sick leave. They're not asking for six months of paid sick leave. They are asking for 15 days. 15 days.
Now, the rail industry has said that they can't afford to do that. They say it would cost too much money to provide their workers any paid sick days.
Let's see. They made over $20 billion in profits last year. They provide their CEOs with huge compensation packages. And here's something else that everyone should know. Last year, the industry spent over $18 billion not to improve rail safety, not to address the supply chain crisis in America, but to buy back its own stock and hand out huge dividends to its wealthy stockholders. In fact, since 2010, the rail industry has spent over $183 billion on stock buybacks and dividends.
So here's where we are, M. President. It turns out that guaranteeing 15 paid sick days to rail workers would cost the industry a grand total of $688 million a year - less than 3.5 percent of its annual profits.
M. President: If four major rail carriers can afford to spend over $18 billion a year on stock buybacks and dividends, please do not tell me they cannot afford to guarantee 15 paid sick days to its workers and allow them to have a reasonable quality of life.
If the Burr-Wicker resolution passed, rail workers would be entitled to zero paid sick days and zero unpaid sick days. That is clearly unacceptable.
But M. President, the outrage over the lack of paid sick leave is not the only issue being negotiated.
The rail workers of this country are sick and tired of unreliable scheduling which is having an horrendous impact on their personal and family lives.
In America today, rail workers are on call for up to 14 consecutive days, 12 hours a day.
In fact, it is not uncommon for many rail workers to be on-call virtually 24 hours a day with a requirement to report to work within 90 minutes for shifts that can last nearly 80 hours.
My office has heard from rail workers who received calls from management at two in the morning requiring them to show up for work at 4AM. M. President: Again, that is not only unacceptable that is dangerous and it has led to a substantial increase in the rate of injuries in the freight rail industry.
If the Burr-Wicker resolution were to pass, these unfair and unsafe working conditions would be allowed to continue - threatening the safety not only of the workers but of passengers as well.
Finally, M. President, the Burr-Wicker resolution could allow the freight rail industry to substantially increase the cost workers would have to pay for healthcare.
M. President: Let's be clear. We are talking about an industry that not only made $20 billion in profits last year and spent over $18 billion on stock buybacks and dividends.
We are talking about an industry that has slashed its workforce by nearly 30 percent over the last six years - leaving its remaining workforce woefully understaffed and overworked.
We are talking about an industry that has seen its profit margins nearly triple over the past 20 years.
M. President: Today, what Congress should be doing is not passing the Burr-Wicker resolution and forcing railroad workers back to work under horrendous working conditions. What we should be doing is telling the CEOs in the rail industry:
Treat your workers with dignity and respect, not contempt.
Do not fire workers for "the crime" of going to a doctor when they get sick.
Make sure that your workers have 15 paid sick days and adequate time off to rest and spend time with their families.
At a time when you're making record breaking profits do not increase the cost of healthcare for your employees.
The CEOs in the freight rail industry need to understand that they cannot have it all.
The railroad industry must agree to a contract that is fair and that is just.
And if they are not prepared to do that, it is time for Congress to stand on the side of workers for a change.
Rail workers have a right to strike for reliable schedules.
Rail workers have a right to strike for paid sick days.
Rail workers have a right to strike for safe working conditions.
Rail workers have a right to strike for decent benefits.
The Burr-Wicker resolution would take these fundamental rights away from workers. We cannot allow that to happen.
Therefore, M. President, I object.
"This bill is an admission that a House Republican majority cannot govern," said Democratic Rep. Rosa DeLauro. "They would rather gamble on an intervening election than attempt to complete their work on time."
House Republicans plowed ahead Tuesday with a short-term government funding package that one leading Democratic lawmaker denounced as "a ploy to force the extreme Project 2025 manifesto agenda on the American people."
The GOP's stopgap continuing resolution, to which House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) attached a widely condemned voter suppression bill, would mostly fund the federal government at current levels for six months beyond the looming shutdown date of September 30, putting off the spending fight until after the 2024 elections.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said Monday that instead of negotiating a bipartisan solution to the impasse over government funding, House Republicans "squandered an entire year by taking us down a partisan path and forcing us to waste time considering extreme funding bills based on [Republican presidential nominee Donald] Trump's Project 2025 they could not pass and that have no chance of becoming law."
DeLauro warned that instead of approving bipartisan government funding legislation ahead of the November elections, much of the House Republican caucus wants to delay negotiations until early next year, believing such a strategy "provides them with more leverage to force their unpopular cuts to services that American families depend on to make ends meet."
"They want to slash domestic investments in healthcare, education, job training, and every other discretionary program, which will hurt the middle class and the economy," said DeLauro. "This bill is an admission that a House Republican majority cannot govern. They would rather gamble on an intervening election than attempt to complete their work on time."
"Extreme MAGA Republicans have decided to abandon their commitment to the American people in order to enact Trump's Project 2025 agenda."
The GOP's legislative package narrowly cleared a procedural hurdle on Tuesday and is set for a final vote on Wednesday, but the legislation is likely doomed to fail amid united opposition from congressional Democrats and the White House and fractures in the Republican caucus.
As The New York Timesreported Tuesday, "Democrats and many Republicans prefer a shorter-term spending bill that would last into early December, allowing time to resolve their fiscal differences but leaving it to Mr. Biden and the current Congress—rather than the next president and Congress—to set funding levels for 2025 and beyond."
A detailed analysis released last week by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that budget proposals released by House Republicans combined with the far-right policy changes outlined under the Project 2025 agenda—including steep cuts to critical social programs—would "create a harsher country with higher poverty and less opportunity."
In a letter to his caucus on Monday, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) wrote that "despite the existence of a previously agreed upon spending framework, extreme MAGA Republicans have decided to abandon their commitment to the American people in order to enact Trump's Project 2025 agenda."
"The partisan and extreme continuing resolution put forth by House Republicans is unserious and unacceptable," Jeffries continued. "In order to avert a GOP-driven government shutdown that will hurt everyday Americans, Congress must pass a short-term continuing resolution that will permit us to complete the appropriations process during this calendar year and is free of partisan policy changes inspired by Trump's Project 2025."
"The behavior of Donald Trump and the oil and gas industry has added to evidence of possible misconduct," said three U.S. lawmakers.
A trio of senior congressional Democrats on Tuesday admonished fossil fuel executives to comply with a request for "information regarding quid pro quo solicitations" from former U.S. President Donald Trump, who earlier this year promised to gut climate regulations if they donated $1 billion to his Republican presidential campaign.
In May, Trump reportedly told Big Oil executives at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida that he would sign executive orders and take other action to boost the fossil fuel industry if they raised nine figures for his campaign. Executives from ExxonMobil, Chevron, Occidental Petroleum, and other corporations reportedly attended the dinner.
A May analysis by the green group Friends of the Earth Action found that the fossil fuel industry would reap an estimated $110 billion windfall from tax breaks alone under Trump's proposed policies—an 11,000% return on Big Oil's billion-dollar investment.
Following the revelation of Trump's quid pro quo offer, House Oversight and Accountability Chair Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), Senate Budget Committee Chair Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) wrote to the head of the American Petroleum Institute—the leading Big Oil lobby—and the CEOs of eight companies seeking answers about whether they accepted what Raskin called "Trump's explicit corrupt bargain."
Nearly four months later, the lawmakers are still awaiting satisfactory answers.
"Not only was your response to our inquiries insufficient; tellingly, none of the responses we have received to date refute the accuracy of the reporting, renewing our concern that Donald Trump is actively seeking to sell out American energy policy to the highest bidder," the trio wrote on Tuesday.
"In the weeks since our initial letters, the behavior of Donald Trump and the oil and gas industry has added to evidence of possible misconduct," the lawmakers continued. "Campaign finance records show that following Trump's quid pro quo solicitation at least one company made a significant contribution in support of Trump's presidential run."
"Specifically, on April 29, 2024, Continental Resources Inc. contributed $1 million to Make America Great Again, Inc.—a super PAC dedicated to Trump's reelection," they added. "Continental's CEO, Harold Hamm, who is also an informal adviser to Trump, has reportedly given $1.6 million to aid Trump's reelection so far this year, and he has raised millions more from independent oil producers operating in Texas and Alaska."
According to a Washington Postarticle published last month, Hamm's top priorities are "opening up more federal lands to drilling, easing the Endangered Species Act, and curbing numerous regulations at the Environmental Protection Agency."
During his first White House term, Trump rolled back regulations protecting the climate, environment, and biodiversity, resulting in increased pollution and premature deaths and fueling catastrophic planetary heating.
In addition to sounding the alarm over Trump's climate-wrecking policies, campaigners have expressed concerns about the GOP nominee's selection of Sen. JD Vance of Ohio as his running mate. Like Trump, Vance is a climate denier. He also has strong ties to the fossil fuel industry, his top donor.
"Activists and their communities are essential in efforts to prevent and remedy harms caused by climate damaging industries," one campaigner said. "We cannot afford to, nor should we tolerate, losing any more lives."
Almost 200 people were killed in 2023 for attempting to protect their lands and communities from ecological devastation, Global Witness revealed Tuesday.
This raises the total number of environmental defenders killed between 2012—when Global Witness began publishing its annual reports—and 2023 to 2,106.
"As the climate crisis accelerates, those who use their voice to courageously defend our planet are met with violence, intimidation, and murder," Laura Furones, the report's lead author and senior adviser to the Land and Environmental Defenders Campaign at Global Witness, said in a statement. "Our data shows that the number of killings remains alarmingly high, a situation that is simply unacceptable."
At least 196 people were murdered in 2023, 79 of them in Colombia, which was both the deadliest country for defenders last year and the deadliest overall. In 2023, more defenders were killed in Colombia than have ever been killed in one country in a given year since Global Witness began its calculations.
While the government of left-wing President Gustavo Petro has promised to protect activists, organizers on the ground say the situation has only gotten worse for defenders in the past year. Colombia will host the 16th Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in October, and has promised to highlight the role of defenders in protecting nature. This presents a "historic opportunity" to stand up for the rights of environmental activists, Global Witness said.
Overall, Latin America is the deadliest region for defenders, making up 85% of killings in 2023. It was home to the four deadliest countries for defenders—Colombia, Brazil, Honduras, and Mexico—which together accounted for 70% of all killings. Honduras also saw the highest number of killings per capita, both in 2023 and over the past 11 years.
"It is the job of leaders to listen and make sure that defenders can speak out without risk."
The fifth deadliest country for defenders in 2023 was the Philippines, which saw 17 people killed. Overall, nearly 500 people have been murdered in Asia since 2012, with the Philippines remaining the deadliest country in the region during that time. Global Witness recorded four deaths in Africa in 2023, and 116 since 2012, but noted that this is likely a "gross underestimate" as killings on the continent are more difficult to document due to a lack of information.
Global Witness cannot always link a particular industry to the murders of the land defenders who oppose environmental harm. In Colombia, for example, it estimates that half of people killed in 2023 were killed by organized criminal elements. However, for the deaths it was able to connect, most people died after opposing mining operations at 25. This was followed by logging (5), fishing (5), agribusiness (4), roads and infrastructure (4), and hydropower (2).
The threat of even more mining-related violence looms as nations scramble for the critical minerals necessary for the transition away from fossil fuels and toward renewable forms of energy. This dovetails with another component of Global Witness' findings: the disproportionate violence borne by Indigenous communities for defending their homes. Of the defenders killed in 2023, nearly half were Indigenous peoples or Afrodescendants, and almost half of the minerals needed for the energy transition are located on or near Indigenous or peasant land.
Jenifer Lasimbang, an Indigenous Orang Asal woman from Malaysia and executive director of Indigenous Peoples of Asia Solidarity Fund, explained the situation her community faces:
In Malaysia, as in many other countries, we Indigenous Peoples have been subject to wave after wave of destruction. First came the logging and oil palm companies. As a result, nearly 80% of the land surface in Malaysian Borneo has been cleared or severely damaged.
Now, as the world moves away from a fossil-fuel based economy, we're seeing a rush for critical minerals, essential to succeed in the transition to a green economy.
With Malaysia the regional leader in aluminium, iron and manganese production, extracting rare minerals isn't new to us. But our experience so far has been that this comes at a huge environmental cost.
The Malaysian government is issuing an increasing number of prospecting and mining licenses. We know what this new "green rush" means for us. We know it's going to get worse while demand for resources remains high.
Lasimbang said that her community did not oppose development itself, but an "unsustainable and unequal global system" predicated on ever-increasing consumption, and that world leaders should learn from Indigenous communities like hers how to sustain a society without destroying the environment.
"There is only really one thing left to say: Trust us. Let us lead. We will take you with us," Lasimbang said.
While global awareness of the climate crisis and commitments to address it should have translated into greater protections for those on the frontlines of defending biodiversity, that has not been the case. Since the Paris agreement was signed in 2015, at least 1,500 defenders have been murdered, Global Witness said.
Even in wealthier countries like the U.K., E.U., and U.S. where killings are less frequent, governments have increasingly repressed environmental activists by criminalizing protest. In 2023, Global Witness observed that the "global surge in anti-protest legislation persisted."
For example, in 2023 the U.K. expanded its Public Order Act to allow police to prosecute certain protests that disrupted national infrastructure or caused "more than a minor" disturbance. In November of that year, police arrested at least 630 people for marching slowly on a public road to protest new fossil fuel projects.
In the U.S., more than 20 states have passed "critical infrastructure" laws that target protests against fossil fuel projects like pipelines. E.U. countries have passed similar laws as well.
Even in the developed world, the criminalization of protest can turn deadly: In January 2023, police in Georgia shot and killed 26-year-old defender Manuel Esteban Paez Terán, or Tortuguita, as they were camping out in a local forest to prevent it from being bulldozed to facilitate the construction of a "Cop City" training facility.
To protect defenders worldwide, Global Witness called on governments and businesses to document attacks and hold perpetrators to account.
"Governments cannot stand idly by; they must take decisive action to protect defenders and to address the underlying drivers of violence against them," Furones said. "Activists and their communities are essential in efforts to prevent and remedy harms caused by climate damaging industries. We cannot afford to, nor should we tolerate, losing any more lives."
Nonhle Mbuthuma of South Africa, who won the Goldman Environmental Prize in 2024, wrote in the report's forward that both defenders and governments had a role to play in creating a more just and sustainable world as it teeters on the brink of climate and ecological breakdown.
"Now it is my role, as a defender, to push elite power to take radical action that swings us away from fossil fuels and toward systems that benefit the whole of society," Mbuthuma wrote. "It is the job of leaders to listen and make sure that defenders can speak out without risk. This is the responsibility of all wealthy and resource-rich countries across the planet."