Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam Speaker, I want to just briefly this afternoon touch on two issues: One, maybe offer some explanation as to why the American people are so angry. We keep reading in the media about the angry white male, but I think it is not only the angry white male. A whole lot of people of all colors and ages are angry, and also on the floor of this House we hear a lot about class struggle. Class struggle. Let me say a word about that also if I might. Madam Speaker, I think that the average American is in fact angry, and I believe that that average American has every reason in the world to be angry. What concerns me is very often our anger is taken out against the wrong opponent. But let us focus on why we should be angry. Madam Speaker, in 1973, the United States reached a high point of its economic life with regard to the wages and benefits that middle-income and working people reached. Since that time, approximately 80 pecent of the American working people have seen either a decline in their standard of living or economic stagnation. That means after 20 years of hard work, those people have gone nowhere economically. Furthermore, what we are seeing is that the American worker, in order to compensate for the decline in his or her standard of living, is working longer hours. We are making lower wages. We are working longer hours. When you want to know why Americans are stressed out, why they are angry, why they are furious, we should understand that the average American today is working an extra 160 hours a year more in order to compensate for our falling standard of living. Now, if middle-income people and middle-aged people should be worried, they are working longer hours, they are making less money, what about the younger people? And that is where the economy in the United States today looks extremely frightening. The real wages of high school dropouts, that means people who did not graduate high school, plummeted 22 percent between 1973 and 1993. For high school graduates who are entering into the job market, there has also been a precipitous decline in those wages. So what is going on is that as the standard of living of American workers declined in general, for the young workers it is becoming even worse. But, Madam Speaker, we talk about increase in poverty in America, decline of the standard of living of American workers, the shrinking of the middle-class, the fact that 80 percent of our people are going nowhere economically except perhaps down. Is the economic crisis impacting all people? And the answer of course is no, it is not. One of the very scary and unfair and unjust aspects of the American economy right now is that in many ways we are becoming two nations. The New York Times a few months ago reported that the wealthiest 1 percent of our population now owns 40 percent of the wealth of America. The richest 1 percent owns more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. The gap between the rich and the poor is growing wider, and in fact it is today wider and we have a more unfair distribution of wealth than any other industrialized nation on Earth. For the richest people, these times are great times and we can understand why the columnists, who themselves make millions of dollars, or the owners of the TV stations are talking about a booming economy. It is booming, if you are making a whole lot of money. It is not booming if you are a middle-income or working-class person. What I am also concerned about is that the nature of the new jobs that are being created are not only low-wage jobs, they are often part- time jobs. What we are seeing now is a proliferation of part-time jobs because companies would rather pay two workers at 20 hours a week without benefits than one worker 40 hours a week with benefits. I wonder how many Americans know who the largest private employer is right now. People say, ``Well, maybe it is General Electric, maybe it is General Motors, IBM.'' Wrong. The largest private employer today is Manpower, Incorporated, which is a temporary agency. Very briefly, let me make some recommendations as to what we might want to do to address this very serious economic problem. No. 1, we have got to raise the minimum wage. Workers in America cannot continue to work for $4.25 an hour. That is why so many of our working people are living in poverty. No. 2, we need, in fact, a massive jobs training, jobs program, to rebuild this country. In my State of Vermont, all over America, there is an enormous amount of work to be done. Let us put people back to work at decent wages and rebuild this country.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker in 1935 in Plymouth, VT, the grave of an unknown soldier in the American Revolutionary War was discovered. It was found on land owned by a nature conservancy. That year the Daughters of the American Revolution placed a marker and a flag at the grave. Today, it is my honor to introduce legislation to authorize the President to award the Medal of Honor to the Unknown Vermonter who gave his life while serving in the Continental Army in the American War of Independence. This tribute is especially fitting now that the Vermont legislature has approved legislation designating this unknown soldier's gravesite as an official site to honor Vermont soldiers of all wars who never returned home and whose ultimate fate is unknown. I also ask that two recent articles from Vermont newspapers be reprinted in the Congressional Record to underscore the merit and significance of continuing to recognize the profound sacrifice made by all American veterans to secure and preserve our freedom. [From the Burlington Free Press, Apr. 8, 1995] Revolutionary War Soldier Honored Montpelier.--An unnamed soldier buried in Plymouth after the Revolutionary War has been selected Vermont's official unknown soldier following approval of a resolution this week by the Vermont Senate. The soldier, buried on land owned by a nature conservancy, is believed to have died as he was returning from the Revolutionary War. According to oral history, the soldier died at a stream a few hundred yards from the wooded knoll where he is buried. The grave was exhumed in 1935, and a body was found. That year the Daughters of the American Revolution placed a marker and a flag at the grave. The designation honors Vermont soldiers of all wars who did not return home, said Rep. John Murphy, D-Ludlow, who introduced the resolution in the House, where it was approved in February. A July 4 ceremony is planned at the gravesite near the historic Crown Point Military Road in Plymouth.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words tonight about the budget passed today and also the rescission package and to suggest that it is terribly important that the American people have an understanding of what is going on, because to a very significant degree, the budget proposal passed by the Republican leadership today is going to balance the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable people in our country and give tax breaks and subsidies to precisely those people who need it the least. Mr. Speaker, in my State of Vermont, we have thousands and thousands of senior citizens who tonight are finding it difficult to pay for their prescription drugs. Today they cannot afford the high cost of health care. It is grossly unfair to make those senior citizens and senior citizens all over this country pay more for Medicare because of the devastating cuts that are contained within the Republican budget passed today. Second of all, in Vermont and all over this country, middle-class parents are wondering how they are going to afford to send their kids to college, given the escalating cost of higher education. Everybody knows that in the competitive world economy, our young people need the best education that they can get. Within that context, it is absolutely insane to be cutting back on student loans and student grants. We need more help for middle-class and working-class families to help them send their kids to college, not less help. Mr. Speaker, as we have heard so often on the floor of this House, this is the 50th anniversary of World War II. And over and over again we hear people talking about the heroism, the bravery, the courage of the men and women in this country who defeated Hitler and saved human civilization in their terrible struggle against Nazism and Fascism 50 years ago. And we thank those veterans. In my State of Vermont, many of them, many of them have been wounded in various wars in body and in spirit. This country owes a great deal to those men and women. I wonder how many of them know that after all of the praise that is heaped upon them that in reality and real life, after all of the talk and all of the rhetoric, that the Republican budget makes tens of billions of dollars in cuts in veterans' programs. So thank you very much, those veterans who tonight are in the VA hospitals. Thank you for the work and the courage that you gave this country 50 years ago and our thank you is that we cut the benefits and the programs that were promised to you. A couple of weeks ago I received a letter from a veteran from Rutland, VT, and he said, let us talk about the Contract With America. And he talked about how his arm was wounded fighting against the Japanese during World War II. And he said, I know what the Contract With America is about, because he and millions of other Americans made a real Contract With America when they spilt their blood defending this country. And today it is no way to say thank you to those men and women by cutting programs. Mr. Speaker, I think almost everybody in this House, the Republicans, the Democrats and me, the only Independent in this Congress, understand that the deficit and the $4.7 trillion national debt is a very serious problem that must be dealt with. Almost everybody wants to move us toward ending our deficit, balancing the budget. The question is, how do you do it? do you cut back on Head Start? Do you cut back on WIC? do you cut back on environmental programs on library programs? Or do you finally have the courage to say, let us move forward in a fair way. Mr. Speaker, a recent economic study came out printed on the front page of the New York Times. The richest 1 percent of the population owns 40 percent of the wealth of America; richest 1 percent owns more than the bottom 90 percent. Yet this proposal, budget proposal of the Republicans does what? Half of the tax breaks, individual tax breaks go to people earning $100,000 a year. Rich get richer; poor get poorer. We give tax breaks to the rich. Mr. Speaker, we must move forward toward a balanced budget. But let us not do it on the backs of the weakest and the most vulnerable people. Let us ask those people who have the money, among many other things, to pay their fair share of taxes. Let us deal with the scandal of corporate welfare.

Mr. SANDERS

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], my friend, a question. I agree with everything that he said. The cuts here are devastating. LIHEAP means a great deal to people in the State of Vermont. Education cuts, Public Broadcasting cuts, and so forth and so on. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman from Wisconsin note that given the fact that this government and Congress provide $100 billion a year in corporate welfare, that is tax breaks and subsidies for the largest corporations and [[Page H 6635]] the wealthiest people, does the gentleman happen to note any cuts in corporate welfare as part of this rescission package?

Mr. SANDERS. Nor can I. Now that the Cold War has finally ended and many of us think that we do not need billions for star wars or B-2 bombers, has the gentleman from Wisconsin noted any cuts in military spending for B-2 bombers or star wars? Maybe the gentleman could educate us on that.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding me this time. Let us talk economics for a moment and what is really going on in America. Let us recognize that in America today the wealthiest 1 percent of the population owns more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. The gap between the rich and the poor is growing wider. The middle- class is shrinking. Workers are earning lower wages. That is the economic reality in America. But what does that have to do with the rescission package that we are looking at tonight? Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that if we are going to be honest, we would say let us move forward in a way that is fair that does not hurt those people who are seeing a decline in their standard of living, those people who are experiencing increased poverty. Interestingly enough, however, when we look at this rescission package, do we notice any cuts, any cuts in the $100 billion a year that the largest corporations in America and that the wealthiest people in America are receiving through corporate welfare? Amazingly, no, we do not. We see cuts in affordable housing. We see cuts in environmental protection; cuts in the summer job program for low-income kids; cuts in LIHEAP. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] talked about LIHEAP. In the State of Vermont, it gets mighty cold in the wintertime. We have elderly people trying to survive on $8,000 or $9,000 a year Social Security, but they are cutting that program some $300 million. Mr. Speaker, I do not know how low-income elderly people will survive with those types of cuts. But when it comes to corporate welfare, my goodness, we just cannot find a nickel. What about military spending?

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, let us eliminate OPIC for two reasons. The largest, most profitable corporations in America do not need taxpayer incentives, and we do not have to cover through insurance their risky investments. No. 2, what does it say to companies in America who are reinvesting here? That we are going to subsidize large corporations who take our jobs abroad. It is time to eliminate OPIC. I urge support for this amendment.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that we are missing a fundamental point here. To talk about opening up Japan for American products is something that we all agree on. That means products are being manufactured in the United States, employing American workers and sold in Japan. That is what we want. That is not what OPIC is about. OPIC is giving the largest, most profitable corporations in America help in setting up factories abroad.

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

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, the issue here is whether or not multibillion-dollar corporations, Mars Candy comes to mind, why Mars Candy? Because that family, the Mars family, is one of the very wealthiest families in America. Why do these people need subsidies and incentives to start factories and plants in other countries? Some of my friends here have said, this is a job creator. The way you create jobs is to build plants and factories in the United States, manufacture and sell them abroad. Some people say, well, it really does not matter, that we are encouraging companies to start factories abroad. I respectfully disagree. A company looks at the bottom line and it says, I have got $1 billion here. Do I build in Detroit, MI or in Burlington, VT? Or do I go to Russia? And then they say, is it not nice, I cannot get Government subsidies to build in Detroit or Burlington, VT but I can get help to go to Russia or to Latin America? Mr. Chairman, I have heard a whole lot about the beauties of the market system and the free enterprise system. If it is such a good system, then why do the largest corporations in this country need taxpayer subsidies in order for them to go out and make money? Right now one of the scandals facing this country, in my view, is that American corporations, while they are laying off hundreds of thousands of workers a year here, are investing $750 billion a year abroad. They do not need to help abroad. They are doing it just fine. Ask the workers in the UAW who have lot their jobs when companies, automobile companies, are set up in Mexico. Mr. Chairman, if these programs are so good, let the private sector undertake the insurance. Let the multinationals go to private banks to get below-market financing. This Congress has voted to cut back on Medicare, student loans, veterans programs. We should not be providing subsidies and incentives to the largest corporations in America.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, this country has a $4.7 trillion national debt, and this body has passed a budget which makes savage cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, student loans, veterans programs, and many other programs which mean a great deal to tens of millions of working Americans. Given that context, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me long overdue that the U.S. House of Representatives begins to stand up and take on the $100 billion a year in corporate welfare which goes to the largest corporations in America and to the wealthiest people, and this amendment begins that process. Mr. Chairman, this amendment offers a crystal clear test case to show all of our constituents that Congress has the guts to take a bite out of corporate welfare. It will be a recorded vote to stop the Federal Government acting through the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, OPIC, from committing billions more in U.S. taxpayer dollars to help Fortune 500 companies. What this amendment does very simply is, it says that OPIC, a Federal agency, can no longer commit and put at risk tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money for the largest corporations in America. OPIC is a small, obscure Federal agency which has its hands deep into the pockets of every American taxpayer. It receives at least $26 million every year in appropriated funds, but, more importantly, it has already placed at risk, at risk, $6.3 billion of taxpayer money, and it keeps on getting bigger. Why is OPIC such a juicy target for cutting corporate welfare? It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that it makes no sense at all that the Congress provide incentives for large American corporations to invest in politically unstable countries around the world. If huge Fortune 500 companies, like General Electric, duPont, Caterpillar, Westinghouse, and on and on it goes, want to make investments in unstable countries like Russia, they have every right in the world to do so. But they do not have the right to obligate American taxpayers to underwrite the insurance for the possible loss of their private investments. Currently, if these giant corporations make a lot of money, well, the good news is that the owners of those companies become a little bit richer. However, if there is political turmoil in an unstable country, and these large companies lose their assets as a result of expropriation, or political turmoil, or civil war, guess what? It is Uncle Sam and the American taxpayers who have to bail out these companies. Now, Mr. Chairman, OPIC does not make sense for two basic reasons. No. 1, we do not have to subsidize the largest corporations in America and stand a tremendous potential loss when we have a huge deficit. No. 2, from an economic point of view, why in God's name are we encouraging the largest corporations in America to invest abroad rather than reinvesting in America and creating jobs? What are the outrages of OPIC can be seen on the chart to my right. We are providing incentives for corporations like Ford to invest abroad when Ford has laid off in the last 15 years over 150,000 American workers. We are providing incentives to GE to invest abroad when GE has laid off over 180----

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I should think that in a free market society, there would be some insurance companies that would love to be charging a high premium. Reclaming my time, Mr. Chairman, over and over again what I am hearing from my Republican friends is, Get the Government out of this, get the Government out of that. The private sector does such a great job. I am hard pressed to believe that a large insurance company could not provide insurance for some of these companies to invest in Russia and make some money. If it is such a good deal, let the private sector do it, and not the taxpayers of America.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] makes a very important point, and I hope the Members are listening. We have heard some Members say, this adds $2 billion to the Treasury. It is used for deficit reduction, et cetera, et cetera. Wrong. It is an insurance fund. If my memory is correct, we have some $6.3 billion in liabilities out there. In point of fact, if we kill OPIC, then we would have $2 billion to use for deficit reduction. Right now, as the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] indicates, this is an insurance fund.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, if OPIC makes loans at market rates, why do not companies go to the private market and get those loans?

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me if we are going to provide subsidies and incentives to corporations who are laying off hundreds and hundreds, if not millions of workers, then at the very least, it would be appropriate to say stop laying off workers here in the United States. To simply give these people incentives to invest abroad and then turn a blind eye on their disastrous policies here in America is a real sell-out of American workers.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, amendment No. 44.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, we talk about job creation. Where is your information about how many jobs have been created? Second of all, the gentleman from Wisconsin previously talked about exports. Nobody in this House believes more than I do that we have got to rebuild our manufacturing base, create decent-paying jobs and exports. That is not what we are talking about here. In fact, what we are talking about here is helping the largest corporations in America who have thrown hundreds of thousands of American workers out on the street, set up factories abroad. The jobs that are going to be created are over 90 percent abroad.

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

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

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. The gentleman is absolutely right. Between 1979 and 1989, when the rich were getting richer, the number of taxpayers reporting adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 a year or more grew by 8 times. A lot more people were getting rich. Meanwhile, according to the House Ways and Means Committee, tax savings in 1992 for families in the upper 1 percent income bracket, total tax savings, totalled $41,886, a result of the drop in the effective tax rate for those families--it is the upper 1 percent--from 35.5 percent in 1977 to 29.3 percent in 1992. So the point that the gentleman makes is absolutely right. When we talk about why we have a $4.7 trillion debt, how can we not talk about the huge tax breaks given to the wealthiest people in America and to the largest corporations? Mr. DeFAZIO If the gentleman would yield for a moment, perhaps we can bring the discussion to what we are confronted with today. The House Republican budget starts out moving the United States toward a balanced budget by first further reducing taxes on the most wealthy, those who earn over $100,000 a year, and on the largest, most profitable corporation by $353 billion. So they first start with a--here we are. We are in the hole. We are all agree we need to have fiscal responsibility and move toward a balanced budget. First thing we do is we make the hole $353 billion deeper in order to benefit people who earn over $100,000 a year and in order give further tax relief to the corporations, and, as the gentleman from New York pointed out, who were paying taxes at about-- what is it? About a quarter, a third of the rate----