Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter), one of the real fighters for civil liberties in this Congress.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes and 40 seconds. Mr. Speaker, along with the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall), I am again offering the freedom to read amendment. This tripartisan amendment, which has the support of progressives, conservatives and people of all political stripes, would prevent the Justice Department and the FBI from using section 215 of the PATRIOT Act to access library circulation records, library patron lists, book sale records or book customer lists. This amendment is being supported throughout our country by librarians, book sellers and all Americans who want Congress to be vigorous in protecting the American people from terrorism, but want to make sure that we do that without undermining the basic constitutional rights which have made us the free country that we are. Mr. Speaker, this amendment is similar to the amendment I offered last year, which lost by a 210-210 vote after the voting rolls had been kept open for an extra 20 minutes. There is one difference in this amendment compared to last year's that I do want to emphasize: I have heard from some Members who have expressed concerns about the possible need for the FBI to access library Internet records. Some Members believe that by exempting library Internet records from section 215, we could be creating an opportunity for terrorists. The amendment today addresses that concern and does not apply to library Internet records. Under this amendment, the FBI could still use a section 215 order to obtain these records. This amendment only applies to the records that contain information on which books people are checking out of the library or buying from a bookstore. Mr. Speaker, setting aside all of the legalese, let me tell you what this amendment does. Let me also tell you why the American Library Association, the American Booksellers Association and many other organizations are supporting it. Let me also at this time remind Members that seven States, Vermont, Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine and Montana, as well as 379 municipalities across the country, have gone on record by passing resolutions expressing their concerns about the PATRIOT Act. Mr. Speaker, the American people want to know that when they borrow a book from a library or buy a book from the bookstore that the government will not have access to the titles of the books they are reading. They want to read what they want to read without government looking over their shoulder and without Uncle Sam becoming Big Brother and spying on them. Under section 215 as currently written, the FBI can walk into a secret FISA court, tell a judge that he is doing an investigation on terrorism, and that judge has to grant the FBI the right to go to a library or a bookstore and obtain their reading records. The FBI need not show probable cause nor even reasonable grounds to believe that the person whose records it seeks is engaged in criminal activities. The simple truth is that the FBI could spy on a person because they do not like the books she reads or because she wrote a letter to the editor critical of government policy. Further, those served with section 215 orders are prohibited from disclosing the fact to anyone else. Those who are the subjects of the surveillance are never notified that their privacy has been compromised. Mr. Speaker, that is not supposed to be what America is about and not what a free society is about. If the government can make the case that getting records from a library or bookstore can help us fight terrorism, I want them to get those records. In fact, they have always had the ability to get those records and will be able to get those records in the future through normal law enforcement processes. But whether it is through the grand jury subpoena process or the process of getting a search warrant, there are well-established judicial safeguards to protect Americans' basic civil liberties from government overreaching. Under those long-established judicial safeguards, the FBI must demonstrate that its need for information is legitimate. They cannot get it just because they want it, and that is what this amendment is all about.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SANDERS. Taking back my time, and I thank the gentleman. He says that it is unfair. But we have had this trade agreement, we have been in the WTO for 10 years. We have had a Democratic President. We have had a Republican President. If it is unfair, why is the President of the United States not going to the WTO tomorrow? Why did Bill Clinton not go? I do not want to be partisan here. Why did neither of them go? And they are not going to go. The issue here is that these trade agreements have been forced on Congress, not forced, Congress willfully did it, because of the power of big money. It is no secret. Some of us who were here for NAFTA, some of us here for the China agreement, we know the millions and millions of dollars in campaign contributions and huge lobbying effort on the part of the large corporations. Because the truth of the matter is that while unfettered free trade is a disaster for the middle class and working families of this country, it really does benefit the heads of large corporations. They are, in fact, doing very well. We see General Electric, General Motors moving to China. That is not a good thing for Americans. Let me conclude simply by saying, Mr. Speaker, let us send the President of the United States a message. Let us say that our current trade policies are failing. Let us stand up for working families around the country. Let us pass this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. To begin with, at a time when there is so much animosity and partisanship in this body, I am very pleased that what we have brought forth together is a true tripartisan effort. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) for cosponsoring this amendment and, as I think most people know, that covers a very, very broad spectrum of political thought. Mr. Speaker, some have argued against this resolution by saying it would be a disaster if it were passed, that we would be withdrawing from the international economy, but the reality is that what we are trying to do here is not to withdraw from international trade. Trade is a good thing. What we are saying is let us send a message to the President of the United States to wake up and to fully recognize that our current trade policies are an unmitigated failure and that we have got to renegotiate them. We cannot continue on the policy of the race to the bottom. That has got to change. Some of my friends say what we are talking about is international rules, and of course we are talking about international rules. The problem is that the rules within this WTO are rigged against the middle class of America. If the United States Congress said, wait a second, we are going to pass a law because we think it is unfair that slave labor in China is producing a product that is exported to the United States, or that child labor around the world is competing against American workers, we will be ruled incorrect by the WTO. A complaint will be waged against us saying, gee, why are you protesting slave labor or child labor? You are violating international free trade. Another issue that has not been touched on today, a moral issue, which is very important, when I was mayor of the City of Burlington in the 1980s, we passed, as did cities throughout the country, as did the United States Congress, legislation which said to the apartheid regime which had then imprisoned Nelson Mandela, we are going to impose trade restrictions against an apartheid regime. Mr. Speaker, if that occurred today, if the City of Burlington, Vermont, the State of Vermont, the United States Congress, said we want to bring down economically some type of fascistic government running the country, that country would go to the WTO and the WTO would say, gee, you are in violation of free trade agreements. It does not matter the morality of the issue. The only thing that matters is unfettered free trade. Mr. Speaker, what my friends on the other side of this debate have really failed to discuss is the impact of the unfettered trade policies that we have been developing over the last 30 years. You have not heard them say really one word about that. Yes, they have talked about economic growth that is taking place in America, but they forgot to tell you who was benefiting from that economic growth. They have forgotten to tell you that for the average American worker his or her wages have gone down significantly in the last 30 years. Yes, the wealthiest people in this country are making out like bandits. Yes, there has been a doubling in the gap between the rich and the poor. That is true. Yes, CEOs of large corporations make 400 times what their workers make. Is that the free trade agreement that we are fighting for? The reality is, and they know it, Republicans know it, Democrats, conservatives, progressives, when going back to their district. In my State in the last couple of months, I had to talk to workers whose jobs are gone because those companies could not compete against imports coming in from China where workers are paid 30 cents an hour. I would yield a moment to my friends on the other side if they want to tell the American people that they think it is fair that our working people should have to compete against desperate people working for pennies an hour who go to jail when they stand up for their rights. I would yield to the gentleman from Florida, the gentleman from Maryland, or anyone else who wants to tell me now that that is fair. I do not hear anybody saying that it is fair.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains for either side?

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) who has been leading this Congress in opposition to the disastrous CAFTA agreement.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire again as to how much time remains?

Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My good friend mentioned what has happened since China has joined the WTO. I think he has neglected to mention that our trade deficit with China has soared, that millions of jobs have left the United States to go to China. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by mentioning that this is a tripartisan resolution, and I want to thank our cosponsors: the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo). I thank them very much for their support. Mr. Speaker, I do not have any great illusions that this resolution will win today. When the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) offered it 5 years ago, it only received 56 votes. I hope, however, that as many Members as possible will vote for it today for one simple reason. It is time to send the Bush administration a message and a wake-up call that our current trade policies have failed and need to be completely rethought so that they represent the needs of the middle class and working families of our country and not just the CEOs of large corporations. Mr. Speaker, international trade is a good thing, if implemented properly, but the evidence is overwhelming that our current trade policies, including NAFTA, including permanent normal trade relations with China, and the current roles of the WTO are not working for average Americans, they are not working for the environment, and they are not working for human rights. If we do not fundamentally change those policies, we can only expect more of the same. The WTO was signed in 1995, and our current support of unfettered free trade has gone on for some 30 years. And what has been the result of those policies for the middle class of this country? Let us discuss it. In a period in which technology has exploded, in a period in which worker productivity has significantly increased, we would think that the middle class would be better off. But the economic reality today is that what every American knows is that the middle class of this country is collapsing. Poverty is increasing, and the gap between the rich and the poor is wider today than at any time since the 1920s. Are our disastrous trade policies the only reason for this? No. But they are an extremely important part of that equation, and that is for sure. Mr. Speaker, in 1995 when the WTO was established, our trade deficit was $96 billion. Today our trade deficit is a record-breaking $617 billion and is on pace to become $700 billion next year. Our trade deficit with China alone is $162 billion. Mr. Speaker, while some of my colleagues are going to extol all of the wonderful virtues of unfettered free trade, perhaps they can explain why in the last 4 years alone we have lost 2.8 million good- paying manufacturing jobs, one out of six in this country. One out of six in the last 4 years. In my own small State of Vermont, we have lost 20 percent of our manufacturing jobs in the last 5 years. Many people know that General Motors has just announced they are going to lay off another 25,000 American workers. GM is producing cars in China, and there is some reason to fear that in 10 or 20 years, Detroit and automobile production in this country will be diminished as car manufacturing moves to China. When my friends come up here and they tell us how great free trade is for our economy, I want them to explain why real inflation accounted for wages in the United States today is 7 percent lower than they were in 1973 for the bottom 90 percent of workers. And why is it that million of workers today in Vermont and throughout this country are forced to work two or three jobs just to keep their heads above water if free trade and globalization are all so great? When my friends talk about the so-called robust economy that has been created, perhaps they can explain to us why 4 million more Americans now live in poverty than just 4 years ago, 4 million more Americans in poverty; and why incredibly there are 24,000 fewer private sector jobs now than when George Bush first took office. If our trade policies are so successful, how could we have experienced an unprecedented net loss of private sector jobs over the last 5 years? The only new net jobs that have been created by the Bush administration have been government jobs, 917,000 of them. Maybe the Republican Party is becoming the party of big government and creating government jobs, but certainly it has not been private sector jobs that free trade is supposed to create. Today the gap between the rich and the poor is growing wider. The richest 1 percent of our population now own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent, and unfettered free trade has only made that worse. The gap between the rich and the poor more than doubled from 1979 to 2000. According to the Institute for International Economics, 39 percent of the increase in income equality is due to unfettered free trade. Further and most ominously, if our present trade and economic policies continue, the likelihood is that the next generation will be the first in the modern history of the United States to have a lower standard of living than we do. According to a recent report from the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor statistics, over the next decade, seven out of the 10 fastest-growing occupations will be low-paying, low-skilled jobs that do not require a college education. Is that what free trade is giving to our kids, jobs at Wal-Mart, jobs at McDonald's, while the General Motors jobs, the General Electric jobs are going to China? Mr. Speaker, it is not only blue collar jobs that we are on the cusp of losing. Millions of white collar information technology jobs are also on the line to go to China and India. Andy Grove, the founder of Intel, predicts that the United States will lose the bulk of its information technology to jobs to China and India within the next decade. Mr. Speaker, the bottom line of this debate, and I want my friends to answer this, is that American workers should not be asked to compete against desperate people in China who make 30 cents an hour and who go to jail when they stand up for their political rights. That is not what we should be engaged in. The race to the bottom has been a disaster for the middle class. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I have no illusions that the resolution that we bring up tomorrow is going to win. Five years ago, when the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) brought it up, I think we received 56 votes. I think we will probably do better tomorrow, but I do not think we are going to win. But I do think that this resolution that is coming up tomorrow, which I strongly support, is enormously important, because it is high time for the United States Congress to take a tough look at our trade policies, our membership in the WTO. I believe that any objective assessment will tell every Member of this body and the American people that our trade policies have failed the American worker, the American middle class in a disastrous way, and that it is high time to rethink our trade policies so that they begin to work for the middle class of this country and not just the CEOs of our major corporations. Mr. Speaker, the middle class of the United States of America is collapsing. Poverty is increasing. Our trade deficit is soaring. I find it amazing to hear the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) give his portrayal of what is going on in America and the world. He is very much at odds with what the American people perceive. The average American worker is asking why, with an explosion of technology, with a huge increase in worker productivity, why is the average American worker working longer hours for lower wages? Why is it that real wages in the United States today are 7 percent lower than they were in 1973 for the bottom 90 percent of American workers? Why is it that with all of this globalization and all of this free trade there are few middle-class families in America where women no longer have the option of staying home with their kids, but they have got to go into the workforce, where people in America are working two jobs, and three jobs just to pay the bills. The reality of what is going on in America today is that globalization is not working for ordinary people. In the last 4 years alone in the United States, we have lost 2.8 million good-paying manufacturing jobs. Just yesterday, we learned that General Motors is now going to cut back on another 25,000 good-paying jobs for American workers. Study after study shows that the new jobs that are being created are paying low wages, with minimal benefits, and the jobs that we are losing were good-paying jobs that had good benefits. Now, the bottom line of this discussion is that, yes, international trade is a good thing. But it is a good thing when it benefits ordinary Americans. It is not a good thing when it simply makes the CEOs of large corporations even wealthier so that they can earn as much as 500 times what the average American worker in their company makes. That is not a good thing. When we talk about unfettered free trade, let us remember that every single year our trade deficit is going up and up and up. And the singular question that we have got to address is, does our trade policy work when American workers are being forced to compete against desperate people in countries like China who earn 30 cents an hour? My friends, that is what this debate is about. Large corporations like General Electric, General Motors, all of those companies who are throwing American workers out on the street, they think this agreement is greet, because they are moving to China lock, stock and barrel, hiring desperate people for pennies an hour, people who go to jail when they stand up for their political rights when they try to form a union. And the result of that is an extremely unfair competitive situation against the needs of the American worker. My friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), talked about the need to pass the Central American Free Trade Agreement, CAFTA. Well, I think he is going to be disappointed, because I think that the results are so clear in terms of what NAFTA has done for American workers, what Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China have done for American workers, that not only are the American people catching on that CAFTA will be a continuation of a failed policy, I think the American people are demanding that it is time for Congress to represent workers and not just the big money interests. I am not going to suggest that trade alone is the only reason for the decline of the middle class. But I will suggest that it is a very significant reason. The middle class in America will not survive unless we create good-paying jobs here. And what study after study suggests is that the new jobs that are going to be available to our kids are not going to be the high-tech information technology jobs, because they are off to India, they are off to China. The new jobs are going to be in Wal-Mart industry, in the service industry, where people are earning low wages with low benefits. Mr. Speaker, let me simply conclude by saying this: all of the objective evidence in terms of job loss, in terms of the loss of good- paying jobs, in terms of the growing gap between the rich and the poor in America which is now wider than in any other industrialized country on Earth, wider in the United States than it has been the 1920s, all of that suggests that the economy is not working for the middle class. My Republican friends talk about a robust economy. President George Bush has not created one new job in the private sector since he has been in office; he has lost jobs. All of the new jobs have been created in the government. And it is obligatory upon us to analyze why our economy is failing the middle class, why poverty is increasing, why the gap between the rich and the poor is growing wider, why the new jobs that are being created are primarily low wage with poor benefits. Trade is not the only cause of this problem, but it is a significant cause. We need a trade policy that reflects the interests of the middle class and working people of this country and not the CEOs who are busy sending our jobs to China. Let me quote the CEO of General Electric, Jeffrey Immelt, several years ago. He said, that when I look to the future of General Electric, I see China, China, China. Well, I think maybe Mr. Immelt should look to the United States for the future of GE, and GM and other corporations should do the same. We cannot continue to hemorrhage decent-paying jobs going to countries that do not have democracy, where people are forced to work for pennies an hour. We and the other industrialized world must do everything we can to uplift the poor of the world. But we do not have to sacrifice the middle class of this country as part of that process.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.