Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

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

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, what I am saying is we have to look at this legislation within the context of everything else that is happening in this session. The gentleman, I hope, who is an honorable man, would recognize that probably never before in the modern history of this country has there been such an assault on the rights of working people and the needs of working people as is taking place in this Congress.

Mr. SANDERS. I missed the point my friend is making.

Mr. SANDERS. The gentleman is aware that time after time when workers form unions, companies refuse to negotiate a first contract. The gentleman should be aware that workers all over this country are being fired as they try to organize unions. The gentleman should be aware in an unprecedented way, when workers now go out on strike, they are being replaced by permanent replacement workers. The gentleman knows all of that. And the gentleman knows right now that workers in unions are under assault, that companies are hiring consultants to break unions, to decertify unions, and this TEAM Act takes place within that context.

Mr. SANDERS. I am with the majority of Americans.

Mr. SANDERS. I am an independent.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the problem is, this stuff does not come out of the blue. The gentleman's party has supported a 30-percent cut in the funding of the NLRB, which would make that organization overwhelmed, without staff, and powerless to protect workers. Now the gentleman walks in and says ``oh, this TEAM Act is innocuous.''.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, my friend from Wisconsin makes the point about it being illegal to try to impede the creation of a union. But that gentleman's party has supported, as I understand it, a 30-percent cut in the funding of the National Labor Relations Board, the one Board in this country that exists to try to protect workers. So it is very clear where our friends on the other side are coming from.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Defense appropriations bill, especially given the priorities currently being established in Congress. Now that the cold war is over, why do we continue to spend $100 billion a year to defend Europe and Asia against a nonexistent enemy, while at the same time this Congress proposes major cutbacks in Medicare and Medicaid? Why are we continuing to fund the absurd star wars program, but make disastrous cuts in student loans and education, the future of America? Why are we expanding the B-2 program at over $1 billion a plane, when the Pentagon has not even asked for any more planes, but we are cutting back on school nutrition programs and child care? Why are we not cutting the CIA and the other intelligence programs now that the Soviet Union does not exist, but instead are cutting back on Head Start?

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, now is not really the time to get into a debate over some of the issues that the gentleman from California and the chairman raised, but I would just say the following: We are one Government, and all of the money that we expend comes from the taxpayers, the American people. The facts are very clear that the United States has, for example, the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrial world. Nobody disputes that. It is a national shame. In my view, the gentleman may disagree. The facts are also clear that as a result of policy being made by the majority party, more and more children in this country will suffer and childhood poverty will increase. The United States today, in the United States today, millions of working-class families cannot afford to send their kids to college. To my mind, there is no question but as a result of recent decisions made by the majority, it will be significantly harder for middle-class families to send their kids to college. In my State of Vermont and in California and all over this country, millions of elderly people cannot afford the high cost of pharmaceutical drugs, and millions of senior citizens today cannot afford the high cost of health care, despite Medicare. There is no dispute that as a result of cuts in Medicare, it will be harder and harder for the elderly people to pay for their health care needs, which are going up. We are one people. If we expend more unnecessarily on intelligence budgets, with the end of the cold war and the decline of the Soviet Union, there is simply less money available to be used on other domestic needs.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Just tell the American people why it is OK to slash Medicare, education, and Head Start at a time, for example, in terms of education, we know we need more help for education, when at the same time half of the intelligence budget as I understand it went to fight the Soviet Union, and the Soviet Union no longer exists. Why can we not make a modest $1.6 billion reduction in intelligence funding?

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

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk which is cosponsored by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens]. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple and should be supported, although I doubt that it will, by all deficit hawks and those of us who are concerned about a cost-effective government. It cuts funding for the national foreign intelligence program by 10 percent. That is a 10- percent cut in funding for the CIA, and it is a 10-percent cut to the intelligence activities and the Drug Enforcement Administration, the FBI, the National Reconnaissance Office, the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and other intelligence agencies. Mr. Chairman, again, let me reiterate that this does not cut the funding for the entire agency. It merely cuts the funding for their intelligence gathering activities. I would also like to point out that this amendment does not cut intelligence funding for war-time operations. Both tactical and joint military intelligence are not cut. This amendment does not compromise our military strength. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not affect the CIA retirement and disability fund. Recent articles in the Washington Post and other publications estimate that the entire intelligence budget is approximately $29 billion. According to information from a variety of publications and from public documents, about $16 billion of that budget goes to the national foreign intelligence program. That means that this amendment, if adopted, would save the taxpayers of America about $1.6 billion, and even in Washington that is a lot of money. Mr. Chairman, how do we explain to the American people that Congress is considering major cuts in Medicare, which will have a disastrous impact on the lives of many elderly people; major cuts in Medicaid, which will hurt senior citizens and low-income people; major cuts in student loans, in education; major cutbacks in nutrition programs, in housing and in the environment and a variety of other programs which will impact on tens of millions of people in the middle class, the working class, the elderly, low-income people. How do we say that we can go forward in those areas but, despite the end of the cold war, despite the fact that the Soviet Union no longer exists, that we cannot make at least a 10-percent cut in the intelligence budget and save the taxpayers $1.6 billion?

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, No. 9.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I would just make the point that in the State of Vermont, in the last 3 years we have had four instances, four instances where contracts were made with companies in Vermont but the products were produced abroad. So the gentleman is beginning to touch upon an issue of enormous consequence. I had an amendment which I am going to withdraw, but I would hope that we can work together to demand, wherever possible, and I think it is a lot more possible than people think, that if we are going to spend American taxpayers' money for defense equipment, for God's sakes, let us have this work done in America and put American workers to work to do that.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I speak in support of the gentleman's amendment. I think he is raising a very important issue, but obviously, as you know, the issue goes well beyond propellers. During the last 2 fiscal years, the U.S. Defense Department has spent at least $13 billion in American taxpayer money to buy goods and services from foreign suppliers. My strong hope would be that the gentleman and I and other people who are concerned about this issue can work together to put an end to these practices.

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

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

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, the Pentagon is spending $31 million in taxpayer dollars for corporate bonuses for the top executives of just one major defense contractor, the Lockheed-Martin Corp. With so much concern about the Federal deficit and Government waste, I would hope that every Member of the Congress supports the amendment that I am offering which would prohibit this practice. Mr. Chairman, as you know, earlier this year Pentagon officials agreed to use $31 million in taxpayer money to pay a third of the $92 million in bonuses that top corporate executives of the Martin- Marrietta Corp. and the Lockheed Corp. granted themselves for staging the largest merger of defense contractors in American history, and that was the creation of the Lockheed-Martin Corp. with $11.6 billion in annual military sales and $23 billion in total annual sales. Just 2 months after this development took place, the same corporate executives announced plans to fire 19,000 American workers and to close 12 factories and laboratories across the Nation. Mr. Chairman, this seems to me to be an example of corporate welfare at its worst and I would hope that the Members would support my amendment, which would prohibit this golden parachute, as well as any which take place.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I object. We are talking about $244 billion. I think we need more debate than 5 hours.

Mr. SANDERS. I think it is something that should be discussed perhaps in a little while when people get together. I do not have an objection to a time limit. But I cannot agree to a certain time limit now.