Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. A few moments ago the gentleman from Michigan mentioned St. Albans, VT and the takeover there. I know a little bit about that because I was intimately involved in that entire struggle. The gentleman neglects to tell us how many workers, many of whom were employed by that company for decades, were laid off and lost their jobs. The gentleman neglects to tell us what the wages are of the new workers who came into that job as compared to the other workers. The gentleman neglects to say that to the degree we got a halfway decent severance package for those workers who were laid off, it is because we fought and the union fought over a period of a year and rallied community support for decency. What this whole discussion is about is a phenomenon taking place all over this country called the race to the bottom. How do we pay workers lower and lower wages to make them competitive with other low wage workers? How do American workers compete with Mexican workers and Chinese workers? The problem today is not that railroad workers have too strong worker protection. The problem is that other workers have too weak worker protection. Let us not lower the strong benefits that workers in the railroads have now, but let us increase the benefits that other workers have.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, while we await an understanding of the meeting taking place in the White House now between the President and the Republican leadership, let me review for my fellow Vermonters and for people throughout this country what I consider to be some of the most important problems facing this country, talk a little bit about some solutions that I think make sense to many millions of Americans, and then talk about how the Contract With America impacts all of that. [[Page H 12185]] The first point that I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is that some of the most important issues facing our country are, unfortunately, not talked about terribly often. They are not talked about by our Republican friends, they are not talked about by our Democratic friends, they are not talked about by the corporate media, and I think one of the reasons that we have a great deal of anxiety in this country is that people are hurting, they are in pain, they know that something is wrong, but they turn on the television, they read the papers, and they do not see that the realities of their life are being discussed, and I think that further alienates them from the political process, it confuses them, it gets them angry. Let us talk about a few of the realities that are not widely discussed on the floor of this House, or on the television, or the radio: No. 1, if you were to ask me what the most important reality facing America is, the reality is that for the vast majority of our people, some 80 percent of the American people, they are becoming poorer. People in America today, in large numbers, are working longer hours for lower wages. Since 1973, 80 percent of Americans have seen either a decline in their real wages or, at best, economic stagnation. So that is the first reality that I think we have to talk about. When we turn on the television, or we look in the newspapers, and they tell us that new jobs are being created, the gross national product is growing, the economy is booming; what we have to say is all of those statistics are not terribly relevant to what is going on in the lives of real working people. Mr. Speaker, real people today, working people today, are working longer hours, they are earning lower wages, and more and more of the jobs that are being created are part-time jobs, are temporary jobs, are jobs without good benefits. So that is the most important reality, and frankly, instead of discussing a whole lot of other issues that we spend huge amounts of time on in this Chamber, that should be the paramount issue: Why is it that for the vast majority of our people our standard of living is in decline? Why is it that for family farmers in the State of Vermont they are receiving 50 percent of the income they received 15 years ago and are being forced to leave the land? And that problem exists not only for family farmers all over America, but for working people all over this country. That is the first reality that I want to touch upon tonight, and that needs a whole lot of discussion on the floor of the House. The second issue is that while it is true that for 80 percent of our people they are experiencing a decline in their standard of living, there is another reality that is taking place which we hardly ever talk about, and that is we do not congratulate Michael Eisner, who is the president of the Walt Disney Corp, for the hundred million dollars he earned several years ago. We do not give enough congratulations to Bill Gates, the major stockholder of Microsoft who is now worth $9 billion. We do not talk too much about the fact that the major CEO's in this country now earn over $3 million a year on average. In essence what we are not talking about is that while 80 percent of our people are seeing a decline in their standard of living or, at best, economic stagnation, the people on the top today are doing better than perhaps at any time in the modern history of the United States. In the last 20 years, Mr. Speaker, the wealthiest 1 percent of American families saw their after-tax incomes more than double. The wealthiest 1 percent of American now owns a greater percentage of the Nation's wealth than at any time since the 1920's. So, yes, there are two realities that are taking place. On the one hand, the average American is seeing a decline in his or her standards of living. Women, who would prefer to stay home taking care of the kids, are now forced to go into the work force. The new jobs that are being created by our kids are often part-time jobs or minimum-wage jobs. That is the reality that impacts on the vast majority of the American people, but the other reality that we do not talk about too often, we are kind of quiet about it, is that for the rich and the powerful, hey what is the problem? Things have never been better. Today the wealthiest 1 percent of the population owns more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. We do not talk about that too much. We do not talk about concepts like social justice in America. We do not talk about the fact that there has been an enormous growth in millionaires and billionaires while at the same time this country, the United States, has the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world by far. Twenty- two percent of the kids live in poverty, yet we are having a huge growth in millionaires and billionaires. Where is the justice? Why are we not talking about that issue? Mr. Speaker, the other thing that we do not talk about too often is to put our situation in a broader context in terms of what is happening in the whole world. There is no question but that much of the industrialized world is suffering economic problems just as we are. But it should be pointed out that whereas in the early 1970's the working people of the United States had the highest standard of living in the world, they earned the highest wages, they had the best benefits; today, according to various studies, we rank 13th in the world behind many European countries and behind some of the Scandinavian countries. Recently, Mr. Speaker, you have read in the paper how BMW and other European companies are coming to the United States to start factories, often in the South but in other parts of America. Why are European companies coming to the United States? And the answer is an answer that many people my age would have not believed possible if we had discussed this issue 20 or 30 years ago. They are coming to America for cheap labor because in Europe, in Germany, in France and Scandinavia you cannot find workers who are going to work for $8 an hour or $10 an hour. Those workers make significantly more than American workers, and European companies are coming to America for the same reason that American companies go to Mexico or American companies go to China, in search of cheap labor. That is an issue that we should be discussing in this House of Representatives: how does it happen that American workers are now a source of cheap labor for European companies? Mr. Speaker, as bad as the situation is now for most middle-age workers, the situation is even more frightening for our young workers, and I think one of the reasons there is so much anxiety in this country is not only that middle-age people are nervous about what is going to happen to their lives, what is going to happen to their parents, they are worried about what is going to happen to their kids. Mr. Speaker, in the last 15 years the wages for entry-level jobs for young men who are high school graduates has declined by 30 percent. That means the young men who are getting out of high school now are earning 30 percent less than was the case 15 years ago for high school graduates. Fifteen years ago when somebody graduated high school, they most certainly were not wealthy, they did not get a great job, but often there were jobs in a town in a factory that paid a worker a living wage. Today many of those jobs are gone, and the jobs that are available for our young men and our young women are flipping hamburgers at McDonald's and working at other service-industry jobs. Thirty percent decline in wages for high school graduates were men, and 18- percent decline for young women. Mr. Speaker, the sad reality is that Americans at the lower end of the wage scale, our low-income workers, are now, if you can believe it, the lowest-paid workers in the entire industrialized world. Eighteen percent of American workers with full-time jobs, full-time jobs, are paid so little that their wages do not enable them to live above the poverty level. That is what is going on in America. That is what happens when you make $4.50 an hour or you make $5.50 an hour. But this economic decline does not only impact high school graduates, it is also impacting those people who have been able to go through college. Between 1987 and 1991, the real wages of college-educated workers declined by over 3 percent. That is college-educated workers. Over one- third of recent college graduates have been forced to [[Page H 12186]] take jobs not requiring a college degree, and that is twice as many as was the case 5 years ago. What a sad state of affairs when many people such as myself say, ``Well, education is the key. We have got to make sure our people go to college.'' That is all very true, but there is another truth even for those young people who do get a college degree. Many of them are unable to find jobs which are commensurate with their education. Mr. Speaker, when we read in the papers, and Mr. Bush used to tell us this, and President Clinton tells us this as well, that millions and millions of new jobs are being created, that is true. That is true. A lot of new jobs are being created, but the reality is that the majority of new jobs that are being created in America today pay less than $7 an hour. Many of these jobs offer no health benefits, no retirement benefits, no time off for vacations or sick leave. In fact, more and more of the new jobs that are being created are part-time jobs or temporary jobs. If you can believe it, in 1993 one-third of the U.S. work force was comprised of ``contingent labor.'' That means people who work for a few months and then lose their jobs, and that number is escalating rapidly. In the last 10 years the United States has lost 3 million white collar jobs. We have lost 1.8 million jobs in manufacturing in the past 5 years alone. If we are going to try to understand why our wages are going down, why so many people are living in economic anxiety, we must address the issue of so-called downsizing. Downsizing is a polite corporate term for throwing American workers out on the street, and this downsizing phenomenon is taking place at a frightening degree among some of the largest and most powerful corporations in America. Five companies alone, Ford, AT&T, General Electric, ITT, and Union Carbide laid off over 800,000 American workers in the last 15 years, just those five companies alone. Mr. Speaker, you know when we talk about family values, when we talk about the importance of adults being good parents, of adult parents having the time to spend quality moments with their kids, one of the things that we should realize is that, as a result of the economic downturn and decline in real wages, the average American worker today is now working 160 hours a year more than he or she worked in 1969. The number of Americans working at more than one job has almost doubled over the last 15 years. In my rural Sate of Vermont it is now uncommon to find workers working not just two jobs, but three jobs, in order to bring home the bacon and to pay the bills. I remember when I was in college, they used to give courses on what they called leisure time. They were worried then as technology developed and workers would be working fewer hours, what would the American worker do with all of his or her spare time? Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, they do not give those courses anymore. Nobody worries what the American worker is going to do with his or her spare time, because that worker does not have any spare time. Rather, they give courses now on how to deal with the terrible stress that families are under when wives do not see their husbands and husbands do not see their kids, because everybody is working at crazy hours, trying to keep their family above water. Mr. Speaker, not only are real wages going down. There is another crisis that, certainly, this Congress is not dealing with, and in fact is making a very bad situation worse. That is that one-third of all Americans do not have adequate medical insurance, and the number is growing. Two years ago in this House, we dealt with that goal. I disagreed with Clinton's plan, it was too complicated, too cumbersome, but at least he had a vision that said that every man, woman, and child in America should have health insurance. Now that that debate is over, the situation which was bad then is worse today. More Americans lack health care than was the case a few years ago. More Americans have inadequate health insurance, large deductibles, large copayments than was the case several years ago. Mr. Speaker, the ultimate reality of what is happening in this country today is that while the richest people are becoming much richer, while the middle class is shrinking and more of the middle class is falling into poverty, the other reality is that poverty has risen rapidly in recent years. Poverty in the United States declined significantly between 1965 and 1973, and we hear some of our Republican friends say, ``Well, the war on poverty was terrible, terrible.'' The war on poverty had an impact in reducing poverty in America, in moving us toward fewer poor people, when at a time the trend today is, unfortunately, in the wrong direction. Clearly, one of the statistics that we as a nation should be profoundly ashamed of, profoundly embarrassed about, is that 22 percent of our children live in poverty, and this great Nation has the dubious distinction of having by far the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world. I heard some of our Republican friends a moment ago talk to us about so-called welfare reform. I hope that they understand that the welfare reform proposal that they are advocating will increase the ranks of childhood poverty by another 1 million children in America. Yes, we do need welfare reform. Yes, we do, but we do not need so- called reform which will add another 1 million children to the ranks of the poor. Mr. Speaker, when we talk of social justice, we should also look at what goes on in the industrial sector of America today. We should ask why in 1980, the average CEO in America earned 42 times what the average factory worker earned. Some people may say, ``42 times? Does he heat 42 times more? Do his children have 42 times more than the workers' children?'' If you think that situation was bad, what we should appreciate is that today, the CEO's of the largest corporations earn 149 times what their workers earn. What justice is there in that? Corporate salaries zooming up, stock options for corporate executives going up, real wages for workers going down, CEO's earning almost 150 times what their workers today receive. Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot of discussion about taxation, and certainly taxation is an important issue. But what we do not hear a whole lot of discussion about is who is paying the taxes. Who is paying the taxes? In my humble opinion, the middle class and the working class. In fact, if you look at local taxes, State taxes, and Federal taxes, they are paying far too much in taxes. But on the other hand, when you look at upper-income people and when you look at large corporations, what we can say is those folks deserve to contribute more into our tax coffers, so we could deal with the Federal deficit, so we could take the tax burden off middle-income America. Mr. Speaker, in 1977 President Carter, and in 1981 and 1986 President Reagan, instituted ``tax reform.'' Of course, the Democrats controlled the Congress during that period, and supported that so-called tax reform. The result of those reforms was to significantly lower taxes on the wealthy and the large corporations and raise taxes on almost everyone else. Taxes on the very wealthy were cut by over 12 percent, while taxes on working- and middle-class Americans increased. One of those so-called reforms was a large increase in the regressive Social Security tax. According to a study conducted by the House Committee on Ways and Means, the top 1 percent of taxpayers saved an average of over $41,000 in 1992 over what their taxes would have been at 1977 rates. Mr. Speaker, we speak a whole lot about the Federal deficit, which is a very important issue, but what we should appreciate is that if 1977 individual Federal tax rates had still been in effect in 1992, the Nation's wealthiest 1 percent would have paid $83.7 billion more in taxes, or about one-third of the national deficit in 1995. That is an important fact that we should keep in mind. Mr. Speaker, at a time when the richest 1 percent of the population own about 50 percent of the stock, massive tax cuts to corporations have also helped to enrich the wealthy and to cut back on Federal revenues. In the 1960's, corporations contributed 23.4 percent of the Nation's taxes. Today, they contribute only 9 percent. During the early 1980's, some of the largest and [[Page H 12187]] most profitable corporations in America paid nothing in Federal taxes. By contrast, individual income tax increased from 22 percent of Federal receipts in the 1960's to 45 percent today. Mr. Speaker, I have talked a bit, just a bit, about some of the problems facing this country. I think it is fair and I also talk about some of the areas that I think we need to move forward on if we are going to solve some of these problems. Let me just touch on a few of them. No. 1, it is an absolute disgrace that in this country we continue to have a national minimum wage of $4.25 an hour. Mr. Speaker, the purchasing power of the minimum wage has declined by 26 percent over the last 20 years. That means our minimum wage workers today are far poorer, have far less purchasing power, than did the minimum wage workers 20 years ago. The minimum wage in America must be raised. It must be raised so that if people work 40 hours a week, they do not live in poverty. That is why I have introduced legislation which would raise the minimum wage to $5.50 an hour. Mr. Speaker, when we talk about why it is that American workers are seeing a decline in their standard of living, there is no question that we must address a very, very failed trade policy. It is not only that NAFTA has been a disaster, it is not only that most-favored-nation status with China is wrong, it is not only, in my view, that GATT is wrong. Our entire trade policy is failing. I find it amazing that every day on the floor of this House we hear endless discussion about our national Federal deficit, which in fact is a serious problem, but we hear virtually no discussion about the trade deficit. The trade deficit this year will be, as I understand it, at the highest level in American history, about $160 billion. Economists tell us that for every billion dollars of trade, we create 20,000 jobs. That means that the difference between a $160 billion trade deficit, a neutral trade deficit, is over 3 million jobs, many of them good-paying manufacturing jobs. Now, how long can we continue to go on seeing our industrial base get smaller and smaller; seeing more and more American companies moving to Mexico, moving to Malaysia, moving to China, where they can hire workers for 20 cents an hour? Clearly, we must address the crisis in the deindustrialization of America. The crisis in our current trade policy, the crisis in which corporate America is creating millions of jobs all over the world, it is just that they are not creating jobs in America. Clearly, we must develop a policy which says to these corporations, ``You have got to reinvest in America and not just in China or in Mexico.'' Mr. Speaker, it also seems to me that we have got to make our tax system a heck of a lot fairer than it is today. Today in America, we have the most unequal and unfair distribution of wealth in the entire industrialized world. We also have the most unfair and unequal distribution of income in the industrialized world. Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, during the 1970's and 1980's, this Congress, and various Presidents, gave huge tax breaks to the wealthiest people in American and to the largest corporations, while at the same time they raised the Social Security taxes. They raised taxes on the middle class, and as a result of Federal policy, local and State taxes were also raised all over America. Mr. Speaker, there are many people who are concerned about the complexity of our tax system, its burdensome nature, all of the loopholes that exist. I share that concern. It seems to me that we must move forward toward a simpler tax system without loopholes, but a tax system which is progressive. That means the more money a person makes, the higher percentage of their income they pay in taxes. That means if middle income and working people are seeing a decline in their real wages, that has to be taken into account when we formulate our tax system, and the tax burden that those people are currently experiencing must be relaxed. Mr. Speaker, I think that one of the surprises that the American people are soon going to see, and this Congress will soon see, is a revitalized labor movement. I fully support that, and was very delighted recently when John Sweeney, the former president of the Service Employees Industrial Union, the SEIU, became the president of the AFL-CIO. Rich Trumka, the former president of the United Mine Workers, became the secretary treasurer of the AFL-CIO. Mr. Speaker, I think what we are going to see is a revitalized labor movement that is going to be more actively involved on the political front and far more actively involved in organizing workers into unions. The reality is that workers who are in unions, who are able to negotiate collectively with their companies, earn of course significantly higher wages than do nonunion workers. Today, not every American worker wants to join a union, and those workers who do not want to join a union, they should not join a union. But there are millions of workers who do want to join a union, and we must provide legislation for those workers that gives them a fair opportunity to joint a union. In my State of Vermont, and all over this country, there are workers who are trying to join a union, who are trying to organize for unions, who are being fired by their bosses with impunity. Employers can do it. No problem. There are elections that are being held and that after the union wins, the companies are appealing, and the bottom line of all of this is that labor law today favors company and the bosses far more than the workers. Workers join unions, but they cannot negotiate the first contract. The employer refuses to sit down and the workers give up and the union dissipates. I think it is terribly important when we talk about ways that we can improve life for ordinary Americans that we institute major labor law reform which says nothing more than, if the workers in a given area want to join a union, they have the right to join that union without being fired, without being harassed, without having to go through a dozen different appeals, without having their organizers fired by their employers. Mr. Speaker, there are two other issues that I want to briefly touch on. In this Congress tonight for the last many months we have been talking a great deal about Medicare, and some of us are outraged that at a time when millions and millions of elderly people today, with Medicare under its present funding formula, today many, many elderly people are finding it very difficult to provide for their health care needs. Mr. Speaker, Medicare does not cover prescription drugs. And in my State of Vermont, and throughout this country, large numbers of seniors cannot afford their prescription drugs. Medicare does not provide long- term care in nursing homes. So, the Medicare Program today is not terribly good in terms of providing for our senior citizens. Clearly, it will become a lot worse if the Gingrich proposal goes into effect and Medicare premiums go up for the elderly and Medicare and Medicaid funding for hospitals is radically cut. The point is we are now forced in this Congress to fight and spend our energy fighting those cuts, but I think very shortly we should return back to the basic debate. That is not just stopping cuts in Medicare, but trying to determine why it is that this country is not doing what virtually every other industrialized nation on Earth has done, and that is to provide a national health care system which guarantees health care to all people. North of Vermont there is Canada, and every Canadian has a little card. With that card they go to any doctor they want; they go to any hospital they want; and they do not take out their wallets. Mr. Speaker, know what? The poor are treated quite as well as the rich. Does that system have problems? Sure it does. But what it has done is made sure that every person in Canada gets all of the health care they need without out-of-pocket expense. Throughout Europe and throughout Scandinavia there are different types of health care systems. Some work better than others, but clearly it is a terrible disgrace that in this country we have some 40 million Americans with no health insurance, and more than [[Page H 12188]] that who have inadequate health insurance. Clearly, we must again put on the table the fight for a national health care system; in my view a single-payer national health care system which guarantees health care to all people. Mr. Speaker, when I go back to Vermont, and I am sure it is true for other Members who go back to their districts, they hear from their constituents, and their constituents say, ``Government just is not working well. Why is government not working well?'' And they are wrong. Government is working very, very well for those people who have a whole lot of money. Mr. Speaker, if Americans are in the upper 1 percent, the upper 2 percent, are making $300,000, $500,000 a year, this Government is doing a great job for them. They have never had it better. Their tax rates have gone down. They have more power over their employees. Some of our Republican friends want to take away the restrictions which prevent them from polluting the environment. Government is working great for those people who are the upper-income people. But, Mr. Speaker, for the vast majority of people it is true, Government is not working well. We have to ask why. That takes us to the whole issue of campaign finance reform. Mr. Speaker, it is a very scary proposition that in the last national election that we had, November 1994, when Mr. Gingrich and the Republicans took power here and Republicans took power in the Senate, that all of 38.5 percent of the people came out to vote. That is pretty bad. It is even more scary to understand the role that money has in the political process. Frankly, I get a little bit tired of hearing about all the millionaires and billionaires who continue to run for office. If we continue to have millionaires running for office and getting elected, not only to Congress but to seats in various State houses and Governors' offices, maybe we should change the name of this institution from the House of Representatives to the House of Lords, and be clear that what this is is a hall for the privileged ladies and gentlemen of the upper class who have purchased their seats by taking out their wallets and spending millions and millions of dollars to get elected. That is not what democracy is about. We should not be buying seats in Congress or buying seats in the Senate or buying seats in Governors' offices all over America. Clearly, we need campaign finance reform. The elements of that reform to my mind most importantly must be a limitation on how much an individual can spend when he or she runs for office, let us have a level playing field. No. 2, we should be matching public funding with small contributions. If somebody is able to go out and get a significant number of checks for $25 or $50, we should match the public funding. If we do that, we will have a fairer playing field and the wealthy and the powerful will not be able to buy seats in the U.S. Congress and, therefore, have a Congress which supports their agenda. Far too often politics in this institution is about is payback time, payback time. You contribute a whole lot of money to the party of your choice and lo and behold, you get huge tax breaks for corporations, tax breaks for the wealthy, and other Government policy which favors those people who have money. The last point that I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is that I think perhaps the most frightening development which is taking place in our country today is that tens and tens of millions of Americans, mostly low income and working people, are giving up on the political process. They do not vote. They do not get involved locally. They do not pay attention to what is going on. And in many ways, this country is becoming less and less democratic as a result of that. If people out there, people throughout this country, think that politics is not important, that what happens in this institution is not important, pay attention to what is happening now. If you are a young person who works for a living and you are receiving an earned tax credit, understand that that earned income tax credit is going to be cut so that we can provide tax breaks for the wealthiest people in this country. Do you think that is important? It will be harder for you to raise your family. If you think that politics is not important, we should ask the elderly people who will be forced to pay $300 a year more in premiums for Medicare. We should ask those families throughout the country today who have disabled members in their family, who have children, who are going to see major cutbacks in Medicaid. That is what politics is about. If you think that politics is not important and you are a young person trying to go to college and you do not have a whole lot of money, understand that as a result of politics, understand that as a result of decisions being made right here in this House of Representatives, it may be impossible for large numbers of working class young people to afford to go to college because of major cutbacks in student loans and in student grants. If you are a veteran who has put your life on the line defending this country, understand that what politics is about is that veterans programs are going to be cut so that we can build more B-2 bombers that the Pentagon does not even want. Yes, you may not think so, but politics is relevant to every person's life in America. The politics of what is going on here today is that the wealthy people to a very large degree own this institution. If you want to know what goes on, all you have to do is follow the money. The money is coming in and decisions are being made which reward those people who have the money. The only way to stop it is if the vast majority of the American people, the people who are working long hours and are not getting a fair shake in terms of the wages they are receiving, people who do not have health insurance, people who cannot afford to send their kids to college, the decent people of this country, the backbone of this country, if those people begin to stand up and fight for their rights, we can turn this institution around. We can turn this country around. But if you do not, then what will happen is the wealthy, small numbers of people but people with tremendous resources will continue to dominate this institution. That is what the struggle is about. So I would hope that people who pay homage, Veterans Day just came, and we paid our respect and homage to the men and women who put their lives on the line, but what they did is fought to keep this country free and to keep this country a democracy. We are not honoring them, if we do not get involved in the political process, if we do not stand up and fight for policies which impact all the people of this country and not just the very wealthy. That is what politics is about.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, it is now crystal clear: When it comes to cutting corporate welfare the Republican majority in charge of the 104th Congress does not get it. They are determined to balance the Federal budget during the next 7 years on the backs of the most vulnerable Americans--our Nations' sick, elderly, and children. Corporate welfare programs in the Federal budget add as much as $125 billion to the Federal deficit every year. But Speaker Gingrich and the Republican budget that will probably be approved by the Republican majorities in the House and Senate cut virtually nothing from corporate welfare over the next 7 years. Instead, they prefer to slash Federal funding for programs for millions of Americans who are struggling to provide for themselves and their families and for some measure of economic security. Like many Americans, the members of the Progress Caucus ask this fundamental question: Why won't the Republican majority cut the immense corporate welfare benefits provided every year by the Federal Government to very profitable corporations and wealthy Americans as an essential component of any fair plan to balance the Federal budget during the next 7 years? This is very unfair. There is a better way. That is why today several members of the 49-member Progressive Caucus and myself introduced legislation to cut $800 billion in corporate welfare over the next 7 years. We call our legislation the Corporate Responsibility Act and it represents one of the foundations of the 11-part Progressive Caucus alternative to the Contract With America and the rest of the GOP agenda in the 104th Congress. We have identified dozens of tax breaks, subsidies and other Federal benefits for corporations and upper income taxpayers which should be considered for cutting or elimination. These cuts would save $570.8 billion over a 5-year period according to estimates by respected economists such as the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Tax Committee of the Congress. Some of these programs are outright subsidies, such as for Export- Import Bank loans. Others are indirect subsidies through charging less than market rates--or nothing at all--for goods and services sold to corporations--for example uranium enrichment, irrigation water, use of public land for grazing. Still others are indirect subsidies through Government purchases for unnecessary programs, such as the strategic petroleum reserve or the space station. Tax expenditures are special provisions of the Tax Code which reduce rates, increase deductions, provide advantageous depreciation, or otherwise reduce the taxes corporations and wealthy individuals pay. A number of reports have been issued on the subject of corporate welfare in recent months, and we have used data from all of them. However, every selection of programs that can be cut involves choices, and the principles that guided our selection should be made clear. In general, we have chosen to favor: Family farms over agribusiness; small businesses over multinational corporations; domestic investment and job creation as opposed to offshore production; consumer health and safety over short-term profitability; and sustainable economic development over environmental exploitation. We have emphasized supporting the needs of the average working people of America and cutting programs in which taxpayers' money is used to help companies and wealthy individuals who can, and should, be self- sufficient. A summary of this 80-page bill is available through my office. In it, the corporate welfare programs are grouped by the industries which benefit from them and are listed with estimates of their cost over a 5- year budget period based on the sources cited at the end of the summary. Projections were then estimated for an additional 2-year period to have some rough frame of reference for different approaches to balancing the Federal budget over the next 7 years.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, it is now crystal clear: when it comes to cutting corporate welfare the Republican majority in charge of the 104th Congress does not get it. They are determined to balance the Federal budget during the next 7 years on the backs of the most vulnerable Americans--our Nation's sick, elderly, and children. Corporate welfare programs in the Federal budget add as much as $125 billion to the Federal deficit every year. But Speaker Gingrich and the Republican budget that will be probably be approved by the Republican majorities in the House and Senate cut virtually nothing from corporate welfare over the next 7 years. Instead, they prefer to slash Federal funding for programs for millions of Americans who are struggling to provide for themselves and their families and for some measure of economic security. Like many Americans, the members of the Progressive Caucus ask this fundamental question: Why won't the Republican majority cut the immense corporate welfare benefits provided every year by the Federal Government to very profitable corporations and wealthy Americans as an essential component of any fair plan to balance the Federal budget during the next 7 years? This is very unfair. There is a better way. That is why today several members of the 49-member Progressive Caucus and myself introduced legislation to cut $800 billion in corporate welfare over the next 7 years. We call our legislation the Corporate Responsibility Act and it represents one of the foundations of the 11-part Progressive Caucus Alternative to the Contract With America and the rest of the GOP agenda in the 104th Congress. We have identified dozens of tax breaks, subsidies, and other Federal benefits for corporations and upper-income taxpayers which should be considered for cutting or elimination. These cuts would save $570.8 billion over a 5-year period according to estimates by respected economists such as the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Tax Committee of the Congress. Some of these programs are outright subsidies, such as for Export- Import Bank loans. Others are indirect subsidies through charging less than market rates or nothing at all for goods and services sold to coporations--e.g., uranium enrichment, irrigation water, use of public land for grazing. Still others are indirect subsidies through government Purchases for unnecessary programs, such as the strategic petroleum reserve or the space station. Tax expenditures are special provisions of the Tax Code which reduce rates, increased deductions, provide advantageous depreciation, or otherwise reduce the taxes corporations and wealthy individuals pay. A number of reports have been issued on the subject of corporate welfare in recent months, and we have used data from all of them. However, every selection of programs that can be cut involves choices, and the principles that guided our selection should be made clear. In general, we have chosen to favor: Family farms over agribusiness; small businesses over multinational corporations; domestic investment and job creation as opposed to offshore production; consumer health and safety over short-term profitability; and sustainable economic development over environmental exploitation. We have emphasized supporting the needs of the average working people of America and cutting programs in which taxpayers' money is used to help companies and wealthy individuals who can, and should, be self- sufficient. A summary of this 80-page bill is available through my office. In it, the corporate welfare programs re grouped by the industries which benefit from them and are listed with estimates of their cost over a 5- year budget period based on the sources cited at the end of the summary. Projections were then estimated for an additional 2-year period to have some rough frame of reference for different approaches to balancing the Federal budget over the next 7 years.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, in one word, in one word, this Republican reconciliation bill can be described as a fraud. Nothing more, nothing less, a fraud. What kind of sense does it make to ask senior citizens to pay $312 a year more for a weekend Medicare Program while the Republicans give a $14,000-a-year tax break to people making $300,000 a year? Why should we ask low-income workers to pay more in taxes, while we cut and do away with taxes for some of the largest and most profitable corporations in America? Why do we throw 20,000 Vermonters off of Medicaid, low-income, disabled people, children, senior citizens off of Medicaid, while we retain and not cut $800 billion in corporate welfare for the privileged and the wealthy? Mr. Chairman, this Republican proposal is a fraud and it must be returned to sender. Let us defeat it today.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, let me introduce a concept into this discussion that does not often get heard, and that is the concept of justice. Our Republican friends are right when they talk about the serious problem of the national debt and the interest on the national debt. They are dead wrong in terms of their reconciliation package. Mr. Chairman, what sense does it make and how are we moving toward a balanced budget when we give huge tax breaks to the wealthiest people in America? How does that help us move toward a balanced budget? How does it help us move toward a balanced budget when we repeal the alternative minimum corporate tax so that the largest corporations in America will end up paying nothing in taxes? Explain to the American people how that moves us toward a balanced budget. This morning, Mr. Chairman, the Progressive Caucus held a press conference and we documented that if this Congress had the guts to stand up to the large corporations and the wealthiest people in this country and eliminated the $125 billion a year in corporate welfare that we currently provide, we could move toward a balanced budget in 7 years, but we would not have to slash Medicare, we would not have to slash Medicaid, student loans, fuel assistance, or children's nutrition programs. There is a way to move us toward a balanced budget which is fair, Mr. Chairman, which does not come down heavy on the poorest and most vulnerable people in this country. Let us have the guts to stand up to the big money interests and move toward a balanced budget in that way.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, there is no excuse for a $270-billion cut in Medicare when the Republican leadership is simultaneously providing huge tax breaks for the rich, is building more B-2 bombers, and is maintaining $125 billion in corporate welfare. In my State, these cuts will result in over 80,000 elderly and disabled Vermonters paying higher premiums for a weakened Medicare system. As a result of the Republican plan, Medicare part B premiums will rise by $312 in the year 2002. Mr. Speaker, not only will seniors be paying more for a weakened system, but throughout our country and in rural States like Vermont our rural hospitals will be endangered. Fifty-five percent of the revenue that comes into our hospitals come from Medicare and Medicaid, and many of them will not be able to sustain these cuts.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I am outraged that we are not given the option to support both fairness in our criminal justice system and a strong stance against crime and illegal drugs. The issue here is extremely important. There is no excuse for a young man in the ghetto to be arrested for crack cocaine possession and get 5 years in prison when the more affluent powder cocaine user risks only 1 year in jail. The simple fact is that the poor and the black minority are treated unfairly under current sentencing guidelines. Don't get me wrong. This Congressman thinks that drugs are a scourge on America and I strongly believe we must fight cocaine use in any form. We should be addressing the fairness issue by raising the punishment for powder cocaine, not lowering the sentence for crack offenses. I am deeply disturbed that this was not given as an option today. I come from an almost all white State and I know that the people of Vermont want tough law enforcement and tough penalties against drug dealers. But they do not believe that a white cocaine user should be treated far more leniently than a black cocaine user. And that is what the issue is here today. The criminal justice system must be fair and unbiased or it is simply not just.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. At that time we were not talking about making savage cuts in Medicare or making savage cuts in Medicaid. At that time what the gentleman was doing and many other Members of this House, and what I was trying to do, is bring forth a program that would not be cutting programs for the seniors or the low-income people, but in fact, in a cost-effective way, would be guaranteeing health care to every man, woman, and child in this country without out of pocket expense. In fact, it would be providing health care to all of our people without spending any more than we are currently spending. We have come a long way in 2 years. Unfortunately, we have moved rapidly in the wrong direction. Today, instead of talking about how we are going to cover everybody, what we are talking about is how we are going to throw huge numbers of people off of health insurance altogether. What I wanted to focus on for a few moments is the impact of the cuts in Medicare and Medicaid on small, rural States like the State of Vermont. As [[Page H 10128]] the gentleman indicated, in terms of the Medicare cuts, we are talking about a $270 billion cut over a 7-year period. In terms of Medicaid, we are talking about a $180 billion cut over 7 years. I want to make a point here that is not made often enough, I think, that the cuts in Medicare and the cuts in Medicaid are only part of an overall attack by the Republican leadership on senior citizens in general. Medicare, yes; Medicaid, yes, cuts. The LIHEAP program, the fuel assistance program that is very important in the cold weather States like Vermont, is being proposed for elimination by the Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], and the other leaders in the House. What that means is that many elderly people throughout this country are going to find it very difficult to pay the fuel bills when the weather gets to be 20 below zero in the State of Vermont. I would also mention that senior citizen housing, which is very important in the State of Vermont, and I am sure important in Washington State as well, is targeted for no more new construction. In Vermont senior citizen housing is terribly important. I used to be the mayor of Burlington, VT. We had long waiting lists of elderly people who wanted to get into the reasonably inexpensively comfortable senior citizens housing. No more senior citizen housing. Furthermore, we are talking about the elimination of the RSVP program and other senior citizen programs, so we should look at the cuts in Medicare and Medicaid within a broader scope, and that is part of a savage attack on the needs of elderly people. The gentleman is correct when he talks about the fact that the real reason behind these terrible cuts in Medicare and also in Medicaid have far more to do with tax breaks for the wealthy than they do with protecting the Medicare system. The Republican leadership is proposing a $245 billion tax break over a 7-year period, and much of those tax breaks are going to the wealthiest people in America. In addition to the individual tax breaks, we should reemphasize the point, reiterate the point, that the Republicans are proposing to repeal the minimum corporate tax, so on one hand we are going to be telling elderly people that they must pay more for health care when they cannot afford it. On the other hand, we are telling the largest corporations in America who make billions of dollars in profits, whose profits now are at an all-time high, that they are not going to have to pay any taxes at all. Furthermore, we are talking about increases in military spending, more money for B-2 bombers, more money for star wars. Furthermore, we are talking about the maintenance of a system which provides $125 billion a year in corporate welfare. Now, why, in God's name, are we cutting back on Medicare, cutting back on Medicaid, but not making significant cuts in corporate welfare, which is tax breaks for the wealthy and subsidies for large corporations. In my State of Vermont, as a result of the Republican Medicare cuts, some 80,000 senior citizens and disabled Vermonters will be paying higher premiums for a weakened Medicare system. In Vermont, these cuts represent a $356 million loss of revenue. As a result of the Republican proposal, Medicare part B premiums will rise from the current cost of $46.10 a month to $87 per month in the year 2002. Under current law, the part B premiums would have increased to $61 a month. In other words, the Republican proposal will cost Vermont senior citizens and disabled people, by the year 2002, $312 a year more in part B premiums. What I would point out is that there may be some people who are not senior citizens who think, well, Medicare is providing great coverage right now. Is that not great? As I know the gentleman from Washington knows, that is not the case. In my State of Vermont, I talk to many seniors who have Medicare who today cannot afford the high cost of prescriptions. They cannot afford to pay their fuel bills. They are hurting, despite Medicare, as the gentleman, I think, knows. Elderly people are paying a larger percentage of their fixed incomes out of their own pockets for health care today than before Medicare because of the escalating cost of Medicare in America. So with Medicare today untouched, many of the elderly are having a hard time affording their health care needs. With these cuts, there will be an absolute disaster. I also want to say a word on the issue of Medicaid. Medicaid, of course, applies to many senior citizens who use Medicaid for long-term care in nursing homes, but it also applies to the low-income disabled, and it applies to low-income children, and I would hope that the American people would take a deep breath and take a look at the values of a society which say, yes, more money for star wars, more money for B-2 bombers, more money for corporate welfare, more money for tax breaks for the rich, but we are going to go after the weakest and most vulnerable people in our society, low-income elderly people, low-income disabled people, and low-income children. What a set of values. It does not make a whole lot of sense to me. I would also point out that in the State of Vermont and all over the country, when these cuts come to Medicaid and these cuts come to Medicare, many, many middle-class families today that are struggling with declining incomes are suddenly going to wake up and find out that they are going to have to pay more out of their limited incomes to take care of their parents who are in senior citizen nursing homes or wherever, because Medicaid will not be covering those needs. I would also point out that in rural States these Medicaid cuts are going to be very devastating, and the Medicare cuts as well, for our hospitals. We do not have huge hospitals. Many of the hospitals in the State of Vermont are small, rural hospitals which today are barely hanging in, and when we appreciate the fact that in the State of Vermont, a rural State, 55 percent on average, 55 percent of the revenue that comes into the hospitals comes from Medicare or Medicaid, there is no debate that in rural America and in rural Vermont, many of the hospitals, we have hospitals, Central Vermont Hospital, 60 percent of the revenue comes from Medicare and Medicaid, Grace College, 66 percent, North Country Hospital, 64 percent, Northeastern, 59 percent, Northwestern, 59 percent, Springfield Hospital, 61 percent, Mt. Ascutney, 68 percent of their revenues coming in from Medicare and Medicaid. How do these hospitals continue if there are savage cuts in those programs? The last point I want to make, and the gentleman from Washington has already make this point, is we are talking about drastic cuts in programs which are going to affect tens of millions of Americans all over this country. The calls coming into my office now are primarily calls which say, ``Bernie, do not cut Medicare. Do not Medicaid. We just can't survive if those programs are cut.'' I am sure that is true of most of the Members of this House. One would think, one might think that when we are talking about drastic cuts in programs which affect the lives of tens and tens of millions of American people, there would be very long, serious debates in committee and on the floor of this House, that these debates would go on day after day, we would hear discussion from the most knowledgeable people in America as well as from the senior citizens and the low-income people who are going to be impacted. But as the gentleman has already points out, that debate is very, very limited, and we know the reason why. I think the Republican leadership understands that the more the American people learn about their proposals, and the polls all indicate this, the less support there is for that. So they are trying to push these things through and in, I think, a very unfair and undemocratic way. I thank the gentleman from Washington very much for the opportunity, to say a few words.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I applaud him on his work. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman that several years ago we were in discussion about another issue.

Mr. SANDERS. I would remind the gentleman a couple of years ago we did a poll in the State of Vermont. We asked Vermonters if, given a choice between raising taxes on upper-income people or cutting Medicare, what would they prefer. Overwhelmingly, people said if the choice is cutting Medicare or raising taxes on upper-income folks, we should raise taxes on upper-income folks. What would be the poll results if we said should we lower taxes on the richest people in America and cut Medicare? I do not know of 5 percent of the population who thinks that is a good idea. That is why they want to move this thing through the House so very fast.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to protest as strongly as I can the disastrous cuts the Republicans are proposing for Medicare and Medicaid. In my small State of Vermont, 67,000 senior citizens and disabled Vermonters will have to pay higher premiums and higher deductibles for a weakened Medicare system. Most of those 67,000 Vermonters today are having a hard time paying for their prescription drugs and other health care needs. Cuts in Medicare will be absolutely disastrous for them. To add insult to injury, the Republican Medicaid cuts will be terrible for low-income seniors, for the children, who are the most vulnerable people in our society. In Vermont, at least 20,000 Vermonters, low-income kids, low-income elderly, and low-income disabled, stand at risk of losing their entire Medicaid coverage. That is wrong.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, as the only Independent in the Congress, what I want to do is take a few minutes to discuss some of the major issues facing this country, issues which often do not get the time and exposure that I think that they need. The very first issue that I would like to touch upon deals with how the American people get the information that they need in order to formulate intelligent decisions in our democracy. I am increasingly concerned about the rapid concentration of ownership within the media in America today. It should be a real concern to all Americans that all of our major television networks are owned by very, very powerful and wealthy corporations who very clearly have a conflict of interest in terms of what they present on the air. Rupert Murdoch, a multi- billionaire right-wing individual, owns the Fox Television Network. ABC has recently been purchased by Walt Disney whose chief executive officer earns several hundred millions of dollars a year and is one of the wealthier people in America. CBS will now be owned by the Westinghouse Corp. NBC is owned by General Electric. I think what we have got to ask ourselves, are corporations like these going to provide objective information to the American people? I think the answer is very clearly no, and I think the situation in terms of corporate ownership of the media is going from bad to worse. Fewer and fewer large corporations are controlling not only the television, controlling the radio industry, book publishing, newspapers, et cetera. Mr. Speaker, I would raise a particular concern that recently, just in the last week or so, we learned that the Jim Hightower radio show has been taken off the air by ABC. To my mind, the Hightower show was one of the more provocative and interesting radio talk shows in America. It was a progressive show. I think it was a very good antidote to the Rush Limbaugh and the G. Gordon Liddy types, and I am concerned about its disappearance from the air. Mr. Speaker, the second issue that I want to talk about which also does not get a whole lot of discussion is the reality that is facing middle-class America and the working people of this country. To my mind, the most important economic issue facing this country is that the standard of living of the vast majority of our people has declined since 1973. I get very tired of reading newspapers that tell us about how good the economy is, how the economy is booming, how we are creating new jobs, how the gross national product is going up. All of those figures are fine, but they are irrelevant in terms of what is happening to the average American worker. The fact of the matter is that since 1973, 80 percent, repeat, 80 percent of American working people have seen either a decline in their real inflation-accounted-for-wages or, at best, economic stagnation. The middle class is shrinking. Poverty has increased significantly over the last 15 years. On the other hand, what has happened is the very wealthiest the people in this country have seen a tremendous increase in their incomes. I wonder how many Americans know that right now, today, the United States of America has by far, by far, the most unequal distribution of wealth in the industrialized world. No, it is not Great Britain with their queens and their dukes and their barons and their strong class- based society which has the most unequal distribution of wealth. It is the United States of America. With the rich growing richer, the middle class shrinking, and the poverty increasing, we now have a situation where the richest 1 percent own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent, which is 1 percent or more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. No matter how you slice it, ``That ain't fair.'' It is not what America is supposed to be. Very clearly, Newt Gingrich's Contract With America, which will give huge tax breaks to the richest people in this country, which will, in effect, do away with taxes for the largest corporations while cutting back on all the needs of working people, low-income people and the middle class, will only make that situation even worse. Let me very briefly, Mr. Speaker, touch upon some of the areas that I think we have got to move in if we are going to revitalize American democracy, if we are going to increase voter turnout, if we are going to make the American people feel--well, Mr. Speaker, it looks like I am not going to get to those issues. We will try again next time.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] and the ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], for their strong support of my amendment in the defense appropriations bill which would end Pentagon financial support for golden handshakes for top management when large defense contractors merge. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] accepted that amendment. It was passed on a voice vote, and I am very appreciative to them for that support. I am also grateful that the Senate conferees accepted this amendment and it remains in the bill that we are voting upon today. There is honest disagreement within this body as to how much money should be appropriated for the defense purposes this coming year. That is an important debate. There should not be, however, and I do not believe that there is, any disagreement that all of the money that we appropriate for defense should go for defense, go to providing the weapons and equipment our fighting men and women need; that is where all of us want defense money to go. As my colleagues know, the purpose of my amendment was to make sure that, if and when large defense contractors merge, no U.S. taxpayer money was to go to the CEO or top executives who negotiated those mergers, no golden handshakes from the U.S. taxpayer. As everyone knows, huge mergers are taking place every day. Whether they are good or bad is subject for another discussion. But what is relevant today is that no taxpayer dollars should be provided to millionaire executives in the defense industry as incentives to develop those mergers. My amendment was prompted by an outrage that many of my colleagues are familiar with. In February of this year Martin Marietta Corporation merged with Lockheed. That merger triggered a previously established plan which provides $92 million in bonuses, $92 million in bonuses to the CEO, the board of directors, and the top-level managers of those two companies, $92 million. What is particularly outrageous is that as part of that plan and part of the bonuses that same plan called for the closing of 12 factories and laboratories and the laying off of 19,000 American workers. In other words, while 19,000 workers were tossed out on the street, the top executives were paid $92 million. They were paying $92 million to themselves. This is an outrage, but what is an even greater outrage is that of that $92 million, $31 million came from the Pentagon from the U.S. taxpayers, and that, fellow colleagues, we must not allow to happen. Within the secret agreement negotiated between the Pentagon and the two companies we found out exactly where the money has gone, and some of that information had already been published. To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, the President of Lockheed Martin, Norm Augustine, will receive over $8 million in bonuses; Lamar Alexander, a member of the board of Martin Marietta, will receive $236,000; Melvin Laird, former Secretary of Defense, would receive $1.6 million; retired general and former member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, John Vessey, would receive $372,000. Now the problem is, as the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] indicated, in the conference process the Pentagon walked in with a piece of paper, and they said, well, the language might not be clear enough to stop these bonuses going to the Lockheed Martin executives despite the clear intent that was passed in this body. The purpose of the language that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will present is to lock it up, absolutely clearly, that the intent of the amendment was to stop the bonuses going to those executives, an outrageous example of corporate welfare. Mr. Speaker, I ask for support of Mr. Obey's motion to recommit.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentleman is absolutely right, that the same language remains, and I thank him and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] for supporting that language. But here is the problem that we have: As the gentleman knows better than I do, during the conference committee the Pentagon comes trotting down and says ``Well, maybe that language won't work in stopping this outrageous series of bonuses to these executives.'' What we are trying to do now is bring in firm language that will work.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SANDERS

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say a brief word to set the record straight. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] a few moments ago was critical of the statement of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] talking about trickle-down tax breaks. I think we should set the record straight, not to deter from the debate. Mr. Chairman, half of the tax breaks in the Republican proposal will go to people earning $100,000 a year or more. A quarter of the tax breaks go to people making $200,000 a year or more. The upper income 1 percent get more tax breaks than do the bottom 60 percent. Recently, the Republicans have proposed a $23 billion cutback on the earned income tax credit, which hits the working poor and at the same time, several months ago, proposed to eliminate the corporate minimum tax, so that the largest corporations in America will pay nothing in taxes. Mr. Chairman, it sounds to me like the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] was right and this is a trickle-down tax break.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is aware that this TEAM Act takes place within the context of a savage assault on labor unions throughout this country.

Mr. SANDERS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, obviously, all of that is not working. Twenty years ago, as the gentleman knows, this country led the world in terms of the wages and benefits our workers received. With all of that genius, with all of that so-called worker-management cooperation, does the gentleman know what place our workers are now in the industrialized world? We are in 13th place. We are falling behind much of Europe and Scandinavia. I would argue that if there is any reason that workers have enjoyed decent benefits, decent working conditions, and decent workers in this country, it is because they have had unions. The evidence is pretty clear that this team effort will make it harder for workers to join unions.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, my friend, the gentleman from Illinois, just used the expression, he said ``the genius of what is happening.'' I think that is what he said. I am a little confused. My understanding is that what is happening in the economy today is that the real wages of American workers are plummeting. Real wages have gone down by 16 percent since 1973. My understanding of what is going on in the economy today is that the new jobs that are being created are low-wage jobs, part-time jobs, temporary jobs, often without benefits. My understanding of what is going on in the economy today is that while corporate profits are soaring, and the incomes of the chief executive officers are now 150 times what the workers are making, more and more companies are taking our jobs to Mexico and to China. I would like to ask my friend, the gentleman from Illinois, tell me, what is the genius of all of that?

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, a few moments ago my friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Houghton], talked about the need of people to work together, and he is right. If this country is going to succeed, we all need to work together. But that is not what is happening in America today. The fault for that is not the working people, it is not the unions, but it is to a very large degree corporate America. It is not working together when companies replace striking workers with permanent replacement workers. And that is happening. That is not working together. It is not working together when CEO's of large corporations pay themselves now 15 times more than what the workers are earning and give themselves huge bonuses at the same time as they cut back on wages and health benefits for their workers. Corporate profits are soaring. Wages, incomes are in decline. That is not working together. It is not working together when corporate America says to its workers: Thank you for 30 years of your effort but we are taking the company to Mexico or China because we can get workers there for 20 cents an hour or 50 cents an hour. That is not working together. That is greed. It is not working together when companies get in new automation and then throw their workers out on the street, as large corporations are doing by the millions all over America, rather than developing a plan to rehire and retrain their workers. It is not working together when corporate America fights those of us who are trying to raise the minimum wage from the starvation level of $4.25 an hour. The only effective way that workers have to protect their interests is to join a union. This law would help weaken unions. It is bad. Let us defeat it.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Houghton] talked about the benefits of people working together, and we are all in agreement on that. But the gentleman cannot deny that over the last 20 years, corporate America has been hitting the working people of this country over the head.