Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would be happy to work with my friend on that approach. Mr. Speaker, the issue here is whether working families in this country, many of whom are working longer hours for low wages, should be providing hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars each year to large multinational corporations who are laying off hundreds of thousands of American workers. That is the issue. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade, I rise to express my strong concerns regarding the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. Mr. Speaker, many supporters of the Export-Import Bank argue that the Bank is necessary because it creates jobs and it helps out small business. Obviously, when you spend hundreds of millions of dollars, you are going to create jobs. You could drop money out of an airplane and you would create jobs. The question is, given the amount of money that we spend, given the risk to American taxpayers, is the Export-Import Bank doing a good enough job in creating work for the American people? And I would submit very strongly that that is not the case. And if the Export-Import Bank is not thoroughly reformed in terms of its goals and the way it functions, it should not continue to exist. The problem that I have with the Export-Import Bank is that we continue to primarily fund many of the largest corporations in America, who openly acknowledge and are very proud of the fact that they are laying off hundreds of thousands of American workers and taking our jobs to China, to Mexico, and to other desperate developing countries where people are being paid pennies an hour to do human labor. Essentially what the Export-Import Bank says is, ``Thank you, large corporation, for laying off thousands of American workers; and as your reward for doing that, hey, come on in line and we're going to give you a loan or a loan guarantee or some other kind of subsidy.'' I am sure that that policy and that approach makes sense to somebody, especially the well-paid CEOs of the large multinational corporations and their lobbyists and friends who contribute huge sums of money into the political process, but I do not think it makes sense to the average American worker or the average American taxpayer. How could we have a so-called job-creating program when the major recipients of Export- Import loans and guarantees are the major job cutters in the United States of America? Some of my opponents will say, well, they are creating jobs. I acknowledge that. But the fact of the matter is, given the huge amount of money that is being spent, given the leverage that the Export-Import Bank has, they are doing a poor job. And in my view, you do not reward companies that publicly acknowledge to the world that they are going to China to hire people at 30 cents an hour and then you say to those people, ``No problem. Come on in line and you're going to get taxpayer dollars.'' Mr. Speaker, last summer I worked with the subcommittee chairman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), a good friend of mine, who is doing a very good job on this issue. Together, we introduced a bill, H.R. 2517, that would have addressed this problem in a very serious way. H.R. 2517 would have prevented companies from receiving Export-Import Bank assistance if they lay off a greater percentage of workers in the United States than they lay off in foreign countries. For example, if a company lays off 20 percent of its American workforce but only lays off 10 percent of its foreign workforce, that company would be denied future Export-Import Bank assistance unless it restored those American jobs. I know that people think that is a radical idea. Imagine telling American companies who want taxpayer money that they cannot just willy-nilly lay off American workers. Imagine them having to come forward and say that they want to grow jobs in their company. The other aspect of the legislation that the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and I worked on together was to put more emphasis on small business help for the Export-Import Bank. The fact of the matter is, it is not Boeing, it is not General Electric, it is not the large multinationals that are creating jobs in this country; it is small business. I say that if small businesses want help in creating jobs in the United States, let us support them. And if Boeing and General Electric want to take jobs to China, that is fine, but do not come to the taxpayers of this country and ask for support. I should mention, Mr. Speaker, that that legislation had the support of eight major labor unions and one prominent business group, including the United Steelworkers, the International Association of Machinists, UNITE, Boilermakers, Pace, the United Electrical Workers, the Independent Steelworkers Union, the Teamsters and the U.S. Business and Industry Council. I would like to ask my good friend, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the chairman of the subcommittee, if he will support me in allowing me to bring this amendment to the floor of the House so that the Members have a chance to vote on that.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, after all is said and done, one of the major economic crises facing this country is the decline of manufacturing; the fact that we have roughly a $400 billion trade deficit; the fact that it is harder and harder for the American people to find products made in the United States of America when they go shopping, whether it is textiles, and that industry has suffered a huge loss and the loss of God only knows how many jobs, shoes, sneakers, which used to be big in New England where I am from, televisions, toys, bicycles, phones, U.S. flags, increasingly made in China by American companies who threw American workers out on the street and went abroad to exploit people who make 20 to 30 cents an hour who cannot form unions and who have very little civil liberties. This is a huge issue that must be dealt with if we are going to protect decent-paying jobs in America and if they are going to protect wages so that people can earn family-based incomes. I continue to believe and will always believe that it makes no sense for the taxpayers of this country to reward those multinational corporations who throw American workers out on the street and run abroad. I do not think it is too much to ask them to invest in this country and create jobs here. As far as I understand it, in terms of the forms associated with the Export-Import Bank, there is not even a line there that asks these companies to pledge to create new jobs in the United States of America, because they could not sign that pledge in good honesty, in a straightforward way, because they do not believe in creating new jobs in America. They believe in going abroad in many instances and paying people sub-standard wages. So I think we have to use every opportunity we can, whether it is the Export-Import Bank, whether it is OPIC, to start addressing this issue, and force these very large companies who have been throwing American workers out on the street to reinvest in this country and put our people to work. American workers who lose their jobs from companies who go to China should not be asked with their tax dollars to help these very same companies throw other American workers out on the street. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. I have suggested to you, and you do not deny it, that in the last election more people voted for Gore and Nader than voted for the President and Mr. Buchanan, suggesting that we are somewhat of a centrist country. You say that the reason is the market.

Mr. SANDERS. I thank my friend for allowing me to participate.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I think my friend said it very, very well. This is a great Nation, and we have enormous things to be proud of. But I remain very, very concerned that fewer and fewer people own more and more of our economy, own more and more of our media, while, at the same time, the average person that the gentleman and I represent are working, in many cases, longer hours for lower wages just to keep their heads above water. But the point of my remarks tonight was not just to talk about the economy and ownership in the economy, but was to talk about the media; and my deep concern is that the American people are not hearing all points of view; that corporate ownership of the media is preventing a large segment of ideas which represent the thinking of many, many Americans from getting out there, and I think that is not good for our democracy.

Mr. SANDERS. The bottom line here is that one has got to be very naive not to understand that companies like General Electric that spend millions of dollars on lobbyists here to take jobs to China, that send money to lower their taxes, that send money to build nuclear power plants, to increase military spending and so forth are not going to, within the confines of what they own, present that point of view and discourage discussion on a whole lot of other issues. If you are a member of a trade union in America, you make 30 percent more than workers who are not in a trade union. Frankly, I have never seen that discussion on television or radio in my life, an enormously important issue like that. The growing gap between the rich and the poor is discussed far, far too little. I am not going to deny that there are different points of view that are heard. But I think the bottom line is, no question, that corporate ownership of this country is growing in terms of the media and that we are hearing fewer and fewer points of view that represent working people, middle-income people and minority people.

Mr. SANDERS. If I could finish, please.

Mr. SANDERS. You would be hard-pressed to name national progressive radio talk show hosts. We could name one of the Limbaughs of the world ad nauseam on the right. But the bottom line is, as the gentleman from Illinois just indicated, when you have a multinational company like General Electric, what is General Electric's shtick? What do they do?

Mr. SANDERS. There are a diversity of viewpoints. There is no argument about that. But I would say any objective look at what goes out there, say, in terms of talk radio, is that the tilt is not only right but extreme right.

Mr. SANDERS. You are a progressive?

Mr. SANDERS. I appreciate my friend from California being here. This is a good discussion. The issue that I wanted to pose is, yes, I can get on national shows and I occasionally do, but we have a problem. Let us talk about the radio for a second. I would characterize the United States as being kind of a centrist country, not right wing, not left wing, kind of centrist. In the last election, as you know, Gore and Nader got more votes than did Mr. Bush and Mr. Buchanan, by a few million votes. Kind of a centrist country. If you turned on talk radio today, would my friend agree with me that what you would hear is one extreme right winger after another right winger after another right winger? So that even a moderate or progressive voice, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and I are probably progressives, we know that our people are not going to have a radio station with Rush Limbaugh and his friends out there, Gordon Liddy and all these other folks out there. But is it somehow interesting, I would think it is somehow interesting, that a country which is basically centrist, that one talk radio show after another is dominated by not right wingers but extreme right wingers.

Mr. SANDERS. Taking my time back, my friend is right. I can probably get 15 seconds into the debate before a moderator jumps in. Let me ask my friend a question. I am glad that he is here.

Mr. SANDERS. Let me reclaim the time from my friend. I have appeared on national TV programs, I am going to be on one tonight, as a matter of fact, but the issue of why the United States is the only country in the world without a national health care system has never been the topic of discussion on any program that I have been on and I doubt any program that my friend has been on.

Mr. SANDERS. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, what are some of the most important issues facing the vast majority of the people? The President of the United States seems to think that the most important issue is that we give huge tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this country. In fact, as a result of recent legislation passed here, some $500 billion over a 10- year period are going to be given in tax breaks to the wealthiest 1 percent, people with a minimum income of $375,000 a year. Maybe there are some districts in this country where that is the most important issue, but it is not the case in Vermont, I doubt it is the case in Chicago, and I doubt that it is the case in most districts in this country. I will tell you what some of the issues are that the American people are concerned about. They are concerned about health care and wondering why 44 million Americans do not have health care and why we are the only major country without a national health care program while we spend twice as much as any other country per capita on health care. They are wondering about why pensions are being cut for working people all over this country, health care benefits are being cut for workers all over this country, while the CEOs of major corporations now earn 500 times what their workers earn. There are some people who may think, hey, that is a good idea. No problem. No problem that the United States has the most unfair distribution of wealth and income in the industrialized world, where the wealthiest 1 percent own more wealth than the bottom 95 percent. No problem. But I just met with paralyzed veterans in this country who were in my office saying, why can we not put more money into the Veterans' Administration so we take care of the men and women who put their lives on the line to defend this country? Some people think that taking care of veterans, putting money into education, putting money into child care, paying off our national debt, might be more important than giving huge tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I congratulate the gentleman for touching on an issue of enormous consequence that does not get the attention that it deserves, that is, we have in this country the largest per capita rate of incarcerated people; and I think the evidence as the gentleman has just indicated is very clear that we do not do a good job of reintegrating those people into society. The result is an enormous amount of pain, human destruction, and a great deal of expense to the American taxpayer. Mr. Speaker, what I want to touch on, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) might be interested in this issue, is another issue that does not get a great deal of attention, and that is the increasing concentration of media ownership in the United States today. In my view we cannot be a vibrant democracy unless the people get information, unless the people know what the most important issues are that are facing them. I fear very much that in recent years what we have seen is fewer and fewer large, multinational corporations own and control the media of this country. We are seeing huge corporations like General Electric, like Disney, like Rupert Murdoch's News Incorporated control major television networks. We have seen fewer and fewer large companies control radio outlets so that increasingly it is difficult for people in various communities to get local news because their local radio stations have been bought up by large national organizations. We see in terms of newspapers and in magazines fewer and fewer large corporations controlling those as well. I think people are not aware of the degree of corporate ownership of the media in this country and the fact that recent court rulings will make that situation even worse and allow fewer and fewer large companies to own more and more of the media. Some of the largest media conglomerates in this country are AT&T, AOL Time Warner, the Liberty Media Corporation, Viacom, Walt Disney Corporation, the News Corporation, General Electric, Vivendi, Bertelsmann and Sony. And if you add together what these 10 corporations own, one would be absolutely amazed to the degree that they own television, radio, newspapers, magazines, book publishing, movie companies and so forth. A concern that I have is that, given this corporate control over the media, the American people get relatively little discussion about some of the most important issues facing this country. For example, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that most Americans know that the United States of America today is the only industrialized nation on earth that does not have a national health care system guaranteeing health care to all people and yet we spend twice as much per capita on health care than any other nation. Some people may think national health care is a good idea. Some people may think it is a bad idea. But I wonder how much discussion there has been on corporately controlled media or on the radio stations pointing out that every other industrialized nation has a national health care system and we do not. That is an issue that should be discussed.

Mr. SANDERS. If you are a progressive, then I would hate to see who is conservative, with all due respect.

Mr. SANDERS. That is exactly what you said. These stations are there. They are listened to by the people. But I am suggesting that it is not the market. The people in this country want a variety of viewpoints. Talk radio is predominantly extreme right wing. It is extreme right wing because the stations are owned by conservative multinational corporations.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. The current campaign finance system is a disaster, and it is an embarrassment to American democracy. Shays-Meehan is not going to solve all the problems. It is not going to do away with all of the influence that corporate America and the big money interests have over the political process and the enormous degree to which they can control the agenda that Congress debates. But, Mr. Chairman, if anyone wants to know why Congress in its wisdom passes a tax law that provides hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to the richest 1 percent, but is somehow unable to raise the minimum wage, look at campaign finance and the huge amounts of money that corporate America spends and the $25,000-a-plate dinners that they hold. If anyone wants to know why prescription drug costs in this country are by far the highest in the world, and why Congress year after year is unable to pass prescription drug reform to protect the elderly and the sick, understand the tens of millions of dollars that the pharmaceutical industry pours into the United States Congress and into the White House. If anyone wants to understand why we are the only country in the world without a national health care system and why the cost of health care is twice as much per person in this country than in any other Nation, look at what the insurance industry spends trying to get their way against the will of the American people. Mr. Chairman, the time is now to end big money influence. Let us pass this bill.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for yielding me the time. The question we are debating today could not be simpler. In a time of a $6 trillion national debt and a growing deficit, a recession and a war, do we provide hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to the wealthiest 1 percent of the population, people with a minimum income of $375,000 a year, and in the process raid the Social Security Trust Fund and endanger that system? Further, do we cut back on Medicare and other important needs in order to make the richest people in this country even richer? Mr. Speaker, the answer is pretty obvious. According to an L.A. Times poll published yesterday, 81 percent of the American people think that the President's tax breaks should not go through if it means taking money out of Social Security; 81 percent of the American people believe that. I believe that, and I hope the United States Congress has the guts to stand up to the wealthy campaign contributors and believe it also.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I also want to congratulate the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and wish her the very best, but the issue that I want to focus on is a very important piece of legislation which is going to surface tomorrow, and that is the issue of how Congress responds to the huge tax breaks that the President and the Republican leadership have given to the wealthiest 1 percent of the population. Mr. Speaker, this country has a $6 trillion national debt, and, for the first time now in several years, we are running a deficit. Mr. Speaker, despite all of the great speeches here about lockboxes and our great love for Social Security, everybody understands that Congress is now dipping into and raiding the Social Security fund. Further, Mr. Speaker, most people in this country understand that we have many enormous social needs. In my State of Vermont, every week when I go out and speak to senior citizens, they demand of me that Congress do something about the outrageously high cost of prescription drugs and the fact that we do not have a strong prescription drug benefit under Medicare. Mr. Speaker, what the issue tomorrow is going to be about is do we give huge tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this country? Forty percent of the President's tax breaks go to the wealthiest 1 percent, people who have a minimum income of $370,000 a year and average over $1 million a year in income. So the choice that Congress faces is, do you give huge tax breaks in the future to those people, or do you provide a strong prescription drug benefit under Medicare? Mr. Speaker, not only is the President and the Republican leadership not going to provide a strong prescription drug benefit under Medicare, in fact in many ways they are going to cut back on Medicare. At a time when we need to strengthen Social Security, at a time that we need to raise the COLA, the President and the Republican leadership are dipping into the Social Security Trust Fund. Mr. Speaker, let us get our priorities right. I speak to veterans virtually every week in the State of Vermont. We have many town meetings. What they tell me is when they apply for a benefit it takes 6, 7, 8, 10 months for them to get that benefit processed, and the reason is that in many instances the Veterans Administration is understaffed and is unable to process those claims. Is it more important to give tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires, or is it more important to make sure that our veterans get the benefits to which they are entitled? Mr. Speaker, just this last week, a couple of days ago, there was a front page story in the New York Times which talked about how middle class parents are finding it harder and harder to pay for the college costs of their kids. The average American young person graduating from a 4-year college ends up $20,000 in debt excluding the debt incurred, and the growing debt incurred, by their parents. Is it more important to protect the middle class and make sure that the young people of this country can go to the college that they want and do that by significantly expanding Pell grants and other financial aid programs, or is it more important to give tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires, to people who provide huge campaign contributions to Members of this Congress and the White House? Mr. Speaker, all over this country we are facing a disaster in terms of child care. Working families are unable to find affordable quality child care. We have people who are paying too much and getting too little, and the children are suffering. Yet the Federal commitment to child care is minimal. Is it more important that we take care of the youngest children in this society and protect working families who want quality child care for their kids, or is it more important that we give huge tax breaks to the wealthy and the powerful? Mr. Speaker, in my State and all over this country there is a terrible housing crisis. The bottom line is let us repeal the tax breaks for the richest 1 percent, let us lower the deficit, and let us take care of the middle class of this country.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I was watching C- Span and I heard all these fine words about David Bonior. I thought, ``My God, something has happened. He's dead. What a shame.'' I came down here, he looks very good and the only thing that is happening to him is, he is going to be governor of the great State of Michigan and certainly while it is our loss, it is Michigan's gain. In this institution, given all of the political and economic and financial pressures that are on all the Members, it is very difficult to hold out a moral compass, to be very sure that the values that you are fighting for are what you believe. It is doubly difficult to do that year after year. The first year you could do it and the second year, but after many years, it becomes harder and harder to do. I think on virtually every issue affecting the lives of working people, whether it is helping people join unions and fight for their dignity there, whether it is developing a sane trade policy which protects the needs of American workers or raising the minimum wage or affordable housing or all the things that millions and millions of working families need, year after year, right up here, at this podium, Dave Bonior has been leading the fight. We are very proud of him, not just because he is a good politician; because of the strong sense of morality and values that motivate him. David, you have been an inspiration to all of us. My wife says that you are her second favorite Congressman. I am not sure who the first one is, to tell you the truth, but we are going to miss you very much and the people of Michigan are very lucky to have you.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce today that over 1,700 local, State, and national organizations from throughout this country have endorsed H.R. 2394, legislation that I introduced last June, to create a National Affordable Housing Trust Fund. And I especially want to thank for their organizing efforts the National Low- Income Housing Coalition for all of their help in bringing these organizations together around this terribly important issue. It is almost unprecedented to have such an outpouring of support from such a broad array of groups representing working people through their unions, business leaders, different religious affiliations, bankers, environmentalists, and, of course, affordable-housing advocates. This is perhaps one of the most significant grass roots campaigns to support legislation at one time and has helped us generate our already 126 bipartisan cosponsors. I am here today on the floor of the House to thank all of the groups that have endorsed this legislation and to ask my colleagues to cosponsor this important and much-needed bill. We have come a long way in a short time; but obviously, we need to go further. A complete list of all of the groups that have endorsed this legislation can be found at the National Housing Trust Fund Campaign's Web site at www.nhtf.org. That is www.nhtf.org, for a complete list of all of the organizations that have endorsed the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund legislation. Mr. Speaker, experts from across the country have acknowledged that the issue of affordable housing has rapidly become a major national problem. That is true in my State of Vermont, and it is true all across this country. It is an issue in which millions of low-income seniors, the elderly, disabled, and families with children are increasingly unable to afford decent housing. According to HUD, about 5.4 million Americans today are paying more than half of their limited incomes, more than half of their limited incomes, on housing, or are living in severely substandard housing. Since 1990, the number of families who have ``worst case housing needs'' has increased by 12 percent. That is 600,000 more Americans who cannot afford a decent and safe place to live. For these families living paycheck to paycheck, one unforeseen circumstance, a sick child, a needed car repair or a large utility bill can send them into homelessness. This crisis must be addressed. Every American must be entitled to decent, affordable housing. The question is where do we begin? According to the accounting firm of Deloitte & Touche, profits generated by the Federal Housing Administration are expected to exceed $26 billion over the next 7 years. H.R. 2394 would use the surplus to increase affordable housing by creating an affordable housing trust fund. According to housing experts, if the FHA surplus was used to build affordable housing, we could more than triple affordable housing construction next year and provide accommodations to more than 200,000 families. Mr. Speaker, not only would a national affordable housing trust fund help solve the affordable housing crisis in the United States, it would also generate 1.8 million decent paying new jobs and nearly $50 billion in wages according to a recent study. As today's economy continues to sputter with layoffs up over 600 percent from last year, and as millions of Americans are paying 40 to 50 percent of their limited incomes on housing, the creation of a national affordable housing trust fund is needed more than it has ever been needed. Mr. Speaker, the bottom line here is that we can put Americans to work building the affordable housing that millions of our fellow Americans need, and we can accomplish two important goals at the same time. Number one, combatting the recession by putting people to work; and second of all, providing decent housing to the families that need it. This is a very important piece of legislation, and I am very proud that 1,700 different organizations, religious organizations, grassroots organizations, are supporting it. I ask my colleagues to support it as well.