Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. I thank the gentleman from New York for his thoughts, and I thank the gentleman from Oregon. What we are fighting for is an America which will provide well for all of our people, and not an America in which the rich get richer, and most of the people see a decline in their standard of living. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. SANDERS. The gentleman is absolutely right. What we have here is the Robin Hood proposal in reverse. We take from the middle-class and working people, and we give to the very, very wealthy. I think the main point that we wanted to make this evening is that we also are concerned about a $4.7 trillion national debt and the very high deficit that we have, but we think that it is extraordinarily unfair to move toward a balanced budget on the backs of the middle class, the working people, and the low-income people, when at the same time we are giving huge tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this country, expanding military spending at a time when we do not need to do so. Mr. Speaker, our hope is that the American people begin to focus on this issue and demand a little bit of justice in this Congress, so we can deal with the budget and with our deficit in a fair and reasonable way.

Mr. SANDERS. Let me just pick up and give you a few more examples. We talk about Federal aid to housing. The leadership here in the Congress says, we cannot afford affordable housing anymore. In fact, one of the lovely proposals was to cut back on Federal aid to homeless people with AIDS. We just cannot afford to provide any money to keep those people alive. Let us talk about another interesting Federal housing program. That is the mortgage interest deduction up to mortgages of $1 million. Now, most of the people that I know in the State of Vermont, they do not have million dollars homes. Maybe it is $100,000 a house; maybe it is a $200,000 house. That is true throughout America. But interestingly, if you got a million dollar mortgage, the house can be worth more than a million dollars, you can deduct the interest on a million dollars of your mortgage. Who gets that benefit? Think it is low income people? Middle income people? No. Obviously, upper income people who own the large houses are the major beneficiaries of that program. That is called welfare. But that is a different type of welfare, because you are helping the wealthiest people in America. Another program that I have paid a little bit of attention to is called OPIC, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens] and I were talking about the decline in our economy for working people. We are seeing corporations investing $750 billion abroad while they are throwing American workers out on the street. The American taxpayers would be delighted to know that they subsidize this Federal agency, OPIC, $50 million a year, and what does this agency do? Its main job is to help American corporations invest in politically unstable countries abroad. We have AT&T, DuPont, GTE, Ford, the largest corporations in America, while they are busy throwing American workers out on the street, they are getting taxpayer help in order to invest in politically unstable countries. If there is revolution or civil war in those countries, we have provided insurance for them, and in fact have a $6.3 billion insurance liability, and on and on it goes. The point that the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens], and I are trying to make is that we can move toward a balanced budget, but we can do it in a fair way. We do not have to savage Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start, WIC, student loans, food stamps, and many, many other programs that tens of millions of Americans depend upon. One of the programs that the Republican leadership has proposed to eliminate is the LIHEAP program, which provides fuel assistance for low-income people; 40 percent of the recipients are senior citizens. In my State of Vermont it gets pretty cold in the winter, 20 below zero, 30 below zero. We have a lot of low-income senior citizens who cannot afford the money for oil and gas to heat their homes. That will be eliminated. However, we can continue to provide an enormous amount of money for corporate welfare.

Mr. SANDERS. I applaud the gentleman's remarks. He is absolutely right. I know the three of us and many others have been trying to focus this Congress on the issue of corporate welfare. When most Americans think about welfare, they say, my money is going to those poor people. Wake up. More money is going to the rich and to large corporations in terms of Federal subsidies and tax breaks than are going to the poor people. I know Mr. Owens worked on the issue of corporate welfare. I know you have some thoughts on it. Would you share some of those?

Mr. SANDERS. So what are we talking about? Again, please follow the discussion: huge tax breaks for the rich, significant increase in military spending, major cutbacks in Medicare, which will undoubtedly mean that elderly people who today cannot afford the cost of health care will have to pay more out of their own pockets, major cutbacks in Medicaid to impact on the elderly and the poor, major cutbacks in veterans' programs. I always get a kick out of whenever there is a war, everyone tells us how much they love our soldiers and the veterans. But let us be clear. In the Republican budget and in Clinton's budget, we are talking about many billions of dollars in cutbacks for our veterans, many of the people who fought in World War II, they defeated Nazism, the VA needs more help, not less money. Also we are talking about major, major cutbacks in student loans and in education. I know that Mr. Owens and his community are very concerned about the high cost of education. We want our people to get a college education. What does this budget do to the ability of your constituents and mine to get a college education?

Mr. SANDERS. I want to keep the discussion moving in this direction. All of us, the three of us, and almost everybody in the Congress recognizes that we have a very serious deficit problem, very serious national debt. But what we are talking about and wondering about is how do you move to lower the deficit when you give huge tax breaks to the rich, when you expand military spending, despite the fact we do not quite know who our enemy is, when you build planes that the Pentagon does not want. But if you are going to move toward a balanced budget in 7 years, as Mr. Gingrich wants, or 10 years, as the President wants, something has got to give. If you give tax breaks to the richest people in America, you are going to have to cut someplace. If you build $31 billion of B-2 bombers that the Pentagon does not want, you are going to have to cut someplace. Let us briefly talk about some of the areas where there will be cuts. OK? Medicare. What are they doing to Medicare in order to give tax breaks to the rich?

Mr. SANDERS. The gentleman makes two, I think, very, very important points. He explains that in America we are angry, and we have good reason to be angry. But what the Rush Limbaughs of the world and the Republican leadership are trying to do is getting us all angry at each other. Every day it seems like there is a new group that we are supposed to hate. On Monday we are supposed to hate the gays, and on Tuesday we are supposed to hate the immigrants, and on Wednesday we hate the welfare recipients, and Thursday it is antiblack day, and Friday it is antiwoman day, and on and on it goes. And yet we are never focusing on the real group of people who hold the power in this country, and that is the very, very wealthy and the large multinational corporations who contribute huge sums of money to Members of this Congress, who control this Congress and write the agenda for this Congress. I think what all of us are saying, in different ways, is that maybe the time is long overdue when the middle class and the working people and the low-income people and the women and everybody else began to stands together and say that there is something wrong when our standard of living is going down and when the richest people get richer. The gentleman from New York made a good point. There are some people who still hold the illusion that we are No. 1 in the world, we are the wealthiest country in the world. Not for working people you are not. Germany, manufacturing workers in Germany now make 25 percent more than our manufacturing workers. Do you know why corporations from Germany and Scandinavia and Europe are investing in America? Cheap labor. We now can give them cheap labor. That is what is happening. And that is a real shame. What I would like to do now with my colleagues, if we might, we want to talk about the budget, the Gingrich budget, the Clinton budget. We are trying to give some background as to how we got to where we were. We talked about the fact that one of the reasons for the national debt is huge tax breaks for the rich and the largest corporations. There is another area that is worthy of at least some discussion, given the vote today, and that is the role of military spending. Remember, $4.7 trillion debt. Obviously the cold war is over. The Soviet Union does not exist. Clearly I would imagine that today, having voted on the military budget, there was a major decrease in military spending. Is that correct, Mr. DeFazio?

Mr. SANDERS. The gentleman makes a very important point. The theory of giving tax breaks to the rich and to large corporations is if we give them tax breaks, they are going to reinvest in our communities and create jobs. It sounds like a good theory. Unfortunately, all of the facts indicate that that theory is totally bogus, given the reality of what is happening. The gentleman from New York points out that major corporation after major corporation, the same ones that got huge tax breaks in the early eighties, the same ones the Republicans want to give huge tax breaks to now, what they have done is use those tax breaks to develop more automation. Major corporation after major corporation has laid off huge numbers of American workers. We are talking about millions of workers. The other thing they have done after we give them tax breaks, is they invest abroad. They are investing in Mexico. Why do you want to pay an American worker ten bucks an hour, fifteen bucks an hour, when you have a Mexican working for a buck an hour? How about China? How many Americans know that American corporations are investing tens of billions of dollars in China. Do you know what the wages are in China? Twenty cents an hour. Last year American corporations invested $750 billion abroad. Every major in America, every Governor in America, is begging on their hands and knees for corporations to reinvest in their communities, and these corporations get the tax breaks and they go abroad.

Mr. SANDERS. Let us review, if I might. Let us review again who is getting those tax breaks. Obviously, one would think that, if one decided to give tax breaks, and that is a debatable issue, clearly you were giving it to the working people, the people who are in most trouble. Interestingly enough, if you look at the Republican budget, the wealthiest 1 percent, the people who need the tax breaks the least, are getting more in tax breaks than the bottom 60 percent.

Mr. SANDERS. Let us repeat that once again. Let me just ask the gentleman this question: Every day we hear about the crisis of our national debt, every day, every day, and we all understand the importance of that. Is the gentleman suggesting that one of the major ways the Republicans are proposing to deal with our national debt is to give huge tax breaks? Is that a strategy to deal with the deficit?

Mr. SANDERS. We are delighted to be welcoming the congressman from New York City, from Brooklyn, Major Owens.

Mr. SANDERS. If I could interrupt the gentleman, would they not be upset? Would they then go to Republican and Democratic fund-raising dinners and contribute tens and tens of thousands of dollars? I do not understand what you are saying. If we tax them, how would they contribute huge sums of money to the Republican and Democratic Parties? Surely the gentleman must be joking.

Mr. SANDERS. Is the gentleman--let us go over that once again because people may be adjusting their TV dials there to get that straight. Is the gentleman suggesting that, if the Republican proposal here in the House goes into effect, that the largest corporations in America making billions of dollars in profit will pay less in taxes than the average working stiff making $25,000 a year? Is that what the gentleman----

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I hope in a little while to be joined by some of my colleagues. Mr. Speaker, as the only independent in the Congress, I think what disturbs me most about much of the dialog which takes place here is, in fact, that the most important issues facing the American people, the reality of life in our country today, is simply not talked about enough. Every day there are heated debates that take place here, and charges and countercharges, all kinds of issues are raised, but sometimes I think that the reality of American life as it exists today really is not adequately addressed. And before we get into the issue of the budget, which I want to get into, and I hope some of my colleagues will be getting into with me as well, let us talk about reality in America today, a reality that we do not see too much discussed here. We do not see it on CBS too much, or NBC or the New York Times or our hometown papers. Mr. Speaker, I would argue that the most important issue facing the American people is that for the middle class of this country, for the average working person of this country, for those tens and tens of millions of people who constitute the vast majority of our citizenry, for those people this country is becoming a poorer and poorer country. Since 1973, when America reached its pinnacle, its high point in terms wages and benefits for ordinary working people, since 1973, 80 percent, four-fifths of the American working people have experienced either a decline in their real wages, in their standard of living, or stagnation. That means they have worked for over 20 years and they look back and they have gotten nowhere in a hurry. That is 80 percent of the American people. Average weekly earnings from 1978 to 1990 declined, went down by 13\1/2\ percent. In 1979, the average weekly wage in the United States was $387. 10 years later, in 1989, in terms of real inflation-accounted-for dollars, that wage had dropped to $335. People are working, but their standard of living is in decline. What is perhaps most frightening is that for young workers, their real wages have declined even more. There was a study done not so many months ago which indicated that for young male high school graduates going out into entry-level jobs, young men were earning 30 percent less than was the case for similar high school graduates just 15 years ago. So, when parents look out and they are working hard and they are seeing their standard of living declining, what is even more painful for them is they look out and they are seeing their sons and their daughters going out into jobs which are paying even lower wages. Mr. Speaker, between 1988 and 1993, worker productivity in the private sector increased by 5.9 percent. That is the good news. The bad news is that during that same period, average hourly earnings declined by 4 percent. By 1993, the typical family had lost $1,400 of the buying power it had in 1991. Mr. Speaker, one of the frustrations we talk about, why the American people are angry, why the American people are frustrated, a study done by Juliet Shaw was done at Harvard University which indicated that for American workers to maintain their standard of living, they had to be working now an extra 1 month a year, either in overtime or in second jobs, and in my State of Vermont it is not uncommon to see people working three jobs. Mr. Speaker, 40 percent, and this is an important fact, we talk about welfare reform, so forth and so on. Forty percent of the families in America today who live in poverty have a full-time worker. This is not unemployed people, this is not people just sleeping out on the street, and one of the reasons that our low-income workers are doing worse today than they did 20 years ago is that the minimum wage today, at a disgracefully low $4.25 an hour, has a purchasing power which is 26 percent lower than it was 20 years ago. Mr. Speaker, we look in the newspapers, and they tell us that unemployment is not such a serious problem. Maybe it is 5 percent, maybe 6 percent. Countries all over the world, in Europe or Scandinavia, they have higher rates of unemployment, but I would argue, Mr. Speaker, and I think many of our leading economists would argue, that in real fact unemployment in America is actually double than what the official statistics tell. Why is that official statistics do not include discouraged workers? That means people are living in communities where there are just no jobs. They do not go out, so therefore they are not counted as part of the unofficial employment statistic, and perhaps even more importantly part-time workers who want to work full-time are also not included as part of the official unemployment statistic. One of the very frightening aspects of the modern American economy is that when we look at the new jobs that are being created, are they good paying, 40-hour-a-week jobs? No, they are not, not in Vermont, not in the vast majority of the States in this country. Many of the new jobs that are being created are part-time jobs. You have people who want to work 40 hours a week, but they are getting 20 hours a week without benefits. Are they counted as unemployed? No, they are not. So I would just conclude my initial remarks, Mr. Speaker, and welcome the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] here by just simply saying, ``Before we talk about the budget, before we can talk about why the American people are angry, the most important reality is America has the right to be angry. Our people are working longer hours for lower wages, for less vacation time, for fewer benefits than was the case 20 years ago.'' But on the other hand there is another reality which is going on. Are all the people in America seeing a decline in their standard of living? Are we all in this boat together? The answer is probably we are not. A recent study in the New York Times: The richest 1 percent of the population now owns 40 percent of the wealth of America. We have the most uneven distribution of wealth in the entire industrialized world. The richest 1 percent owns more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. Upper income, 4 percent, earns more income than the bottom 51 percent, and, the gap between the rich and poor grows wider, the middle class continues to shrink. That is the reality of American life today for the middle class for the working class, for low-income people. Having said that, I am delighted to welcome, to my mind, certainly one of the outstanding fighters for working people in this Congress, the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, this country has a $4.6 trillion national debt, and the leadership in Congress is proposing major cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' programs, student loans, Head Start, nutrition programs, and millions of dollars in cuts in programs that Americans all over this country desperately need. Within that context, how in God's name could the Congress last night vote to expand the B-2 bomber program and spend another $1.5 billion per airplane for another 20 planes? This despite the fact that the Pentagon has said they do not need the planes, they do not want the planes. Would it not be a good thing if the elderly and the young and the sick had friends in this Congress to the degree that the B-2 bomber does?

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I am submitting a copy of an article which appeared in the Brattleboro Reformer, Brattleboro, VT today. I think that it will be of interest to many and request that it be included in the Record. [From the Brattleboro (VT) Reformer, June 13, 1995] Cheer Leader Of all the fishermen, in all the rivers, in all the states of the union, why did it have to be Tim Kipp in the Androscoggin River in Milan, N.H., when Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich stopped Sunday to chat? Kipp, a history teacher at BUHS, is Brattleboro point man for Vermont's independent Congressman Bernard Sanders. Well to the left, his presence in the middle of a river was probably the first time in years Kipp has been in the mainstream. He was waist deep in water and up to here in indignation when Gingrich, in New Hampshire testing the political waters, paused for a photo op. It didn't help that the very waters Kipp was fishing are imperiled by an anti- environment initiative championed by the conservative speaker. Gingrich, a pawn of Murphy's Law, did not know whom he was greeting when he waved hello. Kipp seethed back: ``Your politics are some of the meanest politics I have ever heard. You make Calvin Coolidge look like a liberal.'' Gingrich dismissed Kipp's testy greeting with an intriguing summary: ``The guy is from Vermont and he didn't have that cheerful New Hampshire conservatism.'' The key word here is ``cheerful.'' To be cheerful in the face of assaults on the environment and cruel cuts to veterans, children, the elderly, the poor and the sick is evidence of either viciousness or delusion. We trust it is delusion that is behind ``cheerful New Hampshire conservatism.'' Certainly, delusion--plus smoke and mirrors--are the main underpinnings of the Republican congressional agenda. Thus would tax breaks for the wealthy help reduce the budget. Thus would denying the needy simultaneously empower them. Lately, Gingrich has been hustling a picturesque, even uplifting, vision of an alternative to a national social welfare system he regards as crushingly expensive and lacking a moral soul. In Gingrich's America, private charities would shelter the homeless, feed the hungry and lend a hand to the lame and halt. The welfare state would be dismantled. Government employees would be replaced by volunteers sustained only by their sense of mission. According to the leaders of the charities that would be called upon to fill the breach left by an obliterated welfare system, however, Gingrich is, well deluded. Officials of numerous national charitable institutions-- Catholic Charities USA, the Salvation Army, the American Red Cross, among others--say private donations to their agencies have dropped off in recent years. Both tax laws and a precarious economy discourage giving, and volunteerism is down in an economy where there are too few non-working Americans with extra time on their hands. It's hard to be cheerful in the face of the truth, but somebody has to balance the happy horsefeathers offered by the speaker. Maybe Kipp should go on a speaking tour of New Hampshire and Newt ``Don't Worry, Be Happy'' Gingrich should go fishing.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following article for the Congressional Record: (From the Christian Science Monitor, June 1, 1995) The Average American Has Reason To Be Angry--Low Pay, Long Hours, and a Widening Gap Between Rich and Poor (By Bernard Sanders) It has recently been widely reported that the average American is angry. Well, the average American should be angry. Since 1973, the working people of this country have worked longer hours, earned less, and lost much of the economic security they previously had. During the last 22 years, 80 percent of American families have experienced falling or stagnant real incomes. Meanwhile, average Americans are experiencing a major drop in their standard of living, while the rich and powerful have never had it so good. New statistical studies show that the wealthiest 1 percent of the population own nearly 40 percent of the wealth of this country, more than the bottom 90 percent. That is the greatest concentration of wealth in the industrialized world and, most significantly, it is a trend accelerating faster here than anywhere else. In 1959, the richest 4 percent of American families earned as much income as the bottom 35 percent. By 1989, that top 4 percent earned as much as the bottom 51 percent. In 1980, the average pay for a chief executive officer of a major corporation was 42 times as high as that of a factory worker. Today, the CEO earns 149 times as much. Meanwhile, while profits soar and CEOs reap huge salary increases, the purchasing power of the minimum wage has declined by 26 percent over the last 20 years. Many of the new jobs being created are low-wage, part-time, or temporary, without benefits. As major corporations continue to ``downsize,'' the number of temporary jobs in America has exploded form 962,300 in 1987 to 1,657,700 in 1993. Tens of millions of American workers are experiencing extraordinary financial insecurity and pressure. Will they have their jobs tomorrow, or is the owner moving the company to China where he can get workers for 20 cents an hour? Will their limited health-care benefits be cut even further? Will they ever collect on the pension plan they've been promised? From 1988 to 1993, worker productivity in the private sector increased by 5.9 percent. Average hourly earnings, however, declined by 4 percent. By 1993, the typical family had lost $1,400 of the buying power it had in 1991. People are working longer, harder, and more productively--and they're becoming poorer. Should the average American be angry? Given the crisis facing the American middle class, what has the new Republican-controlled Congress been doing to address our nation's underlying economic problems? jobs There is nothing in the ``Contract With America'' to address our $160 billion trade deficit, the decline of our manufacturing base, and the loss of missions of decent-paying manufacturing jobs. How do we get corporate America to reinvest in this country, rather than in cheap, unprotected labor abroad? This is apparently not a subject of much interest to the Republicans, who have recently received huge amounts of corporate campaign contributions. declining living standards At a time when the rich are getting richer and the middle class and the poor are getting poorer, the Republicans have adopted a series of bills to cut benefits drastically for working people and the poor-making life more difficult for those already hurting the most. The Republicans are proposing major cuts in child nutrition, fuel assistance, education, affordable housing, Medicare, Medicaid, and college financial aid. tax cuts Fifty percent of the individual tax breaks passed by the Republican House will go to people making a $100,000 a year, and the upper 1 percent will get more in tax breaks than the bottom 60 percent. For the lower middle class, there will be virtually no tax reductions at all. Should the average American worker be angry? If we are to turn this country around and create an economy that provides well for all the people, and not just the rich, we must focus on the real causes of our problems--and demand real solutions. Most importantly, we must have the courage to take on the big money interests who--through their control of the economy, the political parties, and the media--make most of the decisions that affect our lives now and those of our children, too.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, at a time when this country has a $4.5 trillion national debt, and at a time when there are Members here who are talking about cutting back on Medicare and Medicaid and veterans programs, student loans, school lunch programs, and other programs of tremendous need for the vast majority of our people, it seems to me that we can no longer tolerate spending billions and billions of taxpayers' dollars on corporate welfare. That is money that goes to the largest corporations in America and to the wealthiest people. I want to say a few words today about one particular program which I think is a very good example of corporate welfare. That is OPIC, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. What OPIC does is receive about $5 million a year of taxpayers' money. And what they do with that money is something that is very interesting. What they do is help some of the largest corporations in America invest abroad. They provide insurance for those companies who are investing in politically unstable countries such as Russia, Eastern Europe, former Communist bloc and certain Latin American countries. What they are saying is, if there is political unrest in those countries, if your assets are nationalized, we will provide insurance to cover your loss. Also, OPIC provides generous financing to the large multinationals who wish to invest abroad. Now, it seems to me that, if the largest corporations in America wish to invest in Russia, wish to invest in Croatia, wish to invest in Peru or Latin America, they have every right in the world to do so. But it also seems to me to be absolutely wrong to say to the middle class of America, people who are working longer hours for lower abroad. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that particularly outrages me is that many of the companies who we are providing incentives to invest abroad are precisely those companies who are laying off hundreds of thousands of American workers. Now, it seems to me that it is a little bit absurd that we are helping the Ford Motor Company invest abroad, after they have laid off 337,000 workers here in the United States in the last 15 years. And I would ask my colleagues to take a good look at this chart, which is right here by my side. What this chart shows is that Ford is getting help from OPIC to invest abroad; interesting, after laying off 337,000 American workers in the last 15 years. So we are saying to Ford and the other companies, thank you very much for throwing American workers out on the street. Thank you very much for lowering the standard of living of American workers. And here is your reward, the taxpayers of America will help you invest in other countries. And we say thank you to the Exxon company. You have only laid off 86,000 American workers in the last 15 years. Here some help. Maybe you want to go abroad and hire people there for low wages. Thank you very much. Thank you AT&T, you have only laid off over 200,000 American workers. General Electric, 221,000 American workers, and so forth and so on. Now, it seems to me that rather than having the taxpayers of America providing incentives for these huge corporations to go abroad, and I might say, Mr. Speaker, and this is a fact not very often talked about, that these American corporations, the large multinationals who are laying off millions of American workers, they have invested this last year $750 billion abroad. Now, in every city in America, in every State in America, mayors and governors are getting down on their hands and knees and they are saying to these companies, invest in the State of Vermont, my state, invest in Texas, invest in California. But these corporations do not. They are laying off American workers and they are going abroad. So it seems to me that instead of encouraging them to go abroad, maybe we may want to say to them, hey, stay back here in the United States and provide jobs for our workers; pay your taxes here. At a time when this country has a $4.5 trillion national debt it seems to me that we can no longer afford to maintain various forms of corporate welfare, at great expense and risk to the taxpayers. I rise today to call for the end of Government funding for OPIC, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and for the elimination of this agency which receives about $50 million a year in funding but, more importantly, has placed at risk some $6.3 billion of taxpayer money through Government insured assets. It is important to acknowledge that concern about Government funding for OPIC extends across the political spectrum--progressives, moderates and conservatives increasingly see no sense to the public funding of this agency. I am also delighted to say that Budget Chairman John Kasich, in the recently passed Republican budget, quite appropriately called for eliminating the appropriations for OPIC, and I want to credit Mr. Kasich for doing so. Furthermore, a Wall Street Journal editorial of April 12, 1995, also called for the defunding of OPIC. The Wall Street Journal is deeply concerned, as I am, about OPIC's risky financial guarantees in Russia and Eastern Europe. A very conservative think tank--the Center for Security Policy--is also sounding the alarm regarding the growing danger of OPIC continuing to use taxpayer dollars to insure risky investments in Russia and other former Communist countries. But it is not only conservative groups who are calling for the elimination of OPIC funding. Progressive groups are also raising the same cry. For example, here in Congress the 46-member progressive caucus was the first congressional organization to call for OPIC's elimination. Furthermore, two organization affiliated with Ralph Nader--Congress Watch and Essential Information--have called for the elimination of OPIC. Mr. Speaker, if huge Fortune-500 corporations like Ford, Exxon, AT&T, General Electric, IT&T, and Coca-Cola want to make investments in politically unstable countries, they have every right in the world to do so. That is not what we are debating today. These multi-billion-dollar corporations have every right in the world to invest in Russia and Eastern Europe--in Albania, Croatia, El Salvador, Somalia, Peru, or anyplace else they want to invest. But, Mr. Speaker, they do not have the right to ask the American taxpayers to underwrite the insurance on those investments. And they do not have the right to get advantageous financing from the Government. If these corporations invest and make a lot of money--the stockholders get the profits. If, on the other hand, they invest in Russia or any other country and because of political instability they lose their assets through nationalization or expropriation--the American taxpayer picks up the bill. That is wrong. If you take a risk, you can sometimes make a lot of money. But sometimes you lose. And it is not the function of the U.S. Government to place our taxpayers at risk for $6.3 billion to protect the investments of huge, multinational corporations. Now, who are some of the corporations who are receiving this help? Here are some recent examples: OPIC is providing $105,057,000 in insurance in Russia for the Coca-Cola Export Corp.; $200,000,000 in insurance for Du Pont in Russia; $200,000,000 in insurance for Mars, Inc., in Russia, which I believe is owned by one of the wealthiest families in America; and $200,000,000 in financing for GTE and AT&T for a joint cellular telephone project in Argentina. Other major corporations that are being provided insurance by OPIC are: First National Bank of Boston, the Enron Corp., Bechtel, Cargil, Duracell, American Express, International Paper, Levi Strauss, and Citibank. Mr. Speaker, another aspect of this whole situation which bothers me very much is that the U.S. Government is providing financial incentives to the largest corporations in America to invest abroad--when, on the contrary, we should be demanding that these companies invest in the United States, hire workers in the United States, and pay taxes in the United States. Corporate America already invests $750 billion a year abroad--and the number is increasing every year. They do not need Government subsidies to increase that investment. It is especially outrageous that we are using taxpayers dollars to help finance companies who, in the last 15 years, have thrown millions of American workers out on the street. My colleagues, take a good look at this chart, and note how many workers have been fired by some of the very same companies that OPIC is now providing financial assistance to. Should we really be helping Ford Motor Co. invest abroad after they have laid off 337,000 workers in the last 15 years. Thank you, Ford, for laying off these workers. Now here is your Federal subsidy to invest abroad so that you can hire foreign workers. Exxon--86,000 workers laid off, AT&T--233,000 laid off, General Electric--221,000 workers laid off or downsized as they occasionally say. And on and on it goes. This is a list of only 10 companies--and they have laid off over 1 million workers. Helping companies go abroad after they have laid off 1 million American workers does not make a lot of sense to me. I wonder what the laid off workers of these companies must think when they learn that their tax dollars are rewarding those companies who have caused so much suffering and, to a large degree, are responsible for the terrible decline in the standard of living for working people all over this country. Yes, cut-backs in Medicare, Medicaid, student loans and veterans programs, but $50 million a year, and a $6.3 billion insurance risk for the largest corporations in America. A very sensible policy.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens] and other members of the Black Caucus for the excellent work they have done. Mr. Chairman, at a time in which the rich are getting much richer, the middle class is shrinking, and poverty is increasing, the Congressional Black Caucus has come up with a budget that moves us toward a balanced budget, but does not do it on the backs of working people, the middle class, or the poor. At a time in which the rich have enjoyed, over the last decade, huge decreases in their tax burden, the Congressional Black Caucus does not give more tax breaks to the wealthy or the large corporations, but, in fact, provides tax breaks for the middle class and says to the wealthy that it is about time you start paying your fair share of taxes. Mr. Speaker, the cold war is over. Our standard of living is declining. We have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world. It is absurd that the Republican budget proposes to be talking about significant increases in military spending. Now is the time to lower military spending so we can reinvest in this country and provide for the needs of our people. Mr. Chairman, instead of giving huge tax breaks to corporations and the wealthy, the Black Caucus budget has the guts, uniquely, to demand an end to corporate welfare. When we talk about welfare, most people say that is poor folks. What the Black Caucus budget understands is that large corporations and the wealthy end up with much more in welfare and subsidies. Let us support the Black Caucus budget.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Thank you very much. I did not bring any photographs of Vermonters with me, but I can tell you that I have attended many meetings at senior citizen centers throughout the State of Vermont, and I can tell you right now, and many people who are not senior citizens do not understand, oh, if somebody has Medicare, they have everything they need. No problem. They are fully covered. But you understand that with Medicare, people are paying sizeable premiums. Often they have to take out what is called Medigap insurance in addition to that. And despite that, Medicare does not cover prescription drugs. So right now in the State of Vermont, many, many people say, ``I have to make a choice between heating my home in the wintertime, it gets very cold in Vermont in the wintertime, or coming up with the money to pay my prescription drugs.'' Now what will happen to those people if they are forced to pay larger premiums or more out-of-pocket expenses? God only knows, but it will certainly be a very terrible day for them. I think the main point that I would like to make in this discussion, and you have already made the point, is that we all recognize that this country has a serious deficit and a serious national debt. Our Republican friends have not told us, however, how giving huge tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this country is going to move us forward toward balancing the budget. What we are talking about is a tax bill in which half of the tax breaks go to people making $100,000 a year or more. Further, 25 percent of the tax breaks go to people making $200,000 a year or more, and the wealthiest 1 percent get more in tax breaks than the bottom 60 percent.

Mr. SANDERS. Let's repeat it again. At a time when the rich are getting richer, when the middle class is shrinking, and poverty is increasing, the wealthiest 1 percent get more in tax breaks than do the bottom 60 percent. There is another point that needs to be made, and I do not think it was covered very well this afternoon. And that is we should ask ourselves how did we get into the position of having a $4.7 trillion national debt? How did it happen? I think everybody in this room understands that in the 1980's the national debt took off. It went from $1 trillion to over $4 trillion. What our friends in the Republican Party forgot to mention is that between 1981 and 1992, the wealthiest 1 percent of the population received $1.5 trillion in tax breaks. Let me say it again. Between 1981 and 1992, the wealthiest 1 percent of the population received $1.5 trillion in tax breaks. Between those tax breaks, between increased military spending, the country in fact ran up a large national debt. It seems to me that the way you solve the problem is not to give more tax breaks to the people who are primarily responsible for causing the national debt in the first place, and it seems to me to be grossly unfair to be going after the working people and the low income people whose incomes have significantly declined over the last 18 years. So this continues the Robin Hood proposal in reverse. We take from working people and low income people and we give to the rich. I think that is the essence of what this proposal is about.

Mr. SANDERS. Major cuts there, and cuts in the safe- and drug-free schools. Here you have schools all over America and in the State of Vermont working extremely hard to keep kids off of drugs, to keep kids in schools. These programs are working. They are going to be cut. What a wonderful idea to give up on these kids, let them turn to drugs, and then we spend tens of thousands of dollars keeping them in jail.

Mr. SANDERS. If the gentleman will yield, when we are talking about education, we are not just talking about student loans. Let us be clear about that. We are talking about massive cutbacks in virtually every Federal educational program: Goals 2000, the trio program, Title I, school-to-work, student incentive grants, Head Start. Is there any debate that Head Start has been enormously successful in allowing low-income kids to do better in school, to stay in school, to get a shot at life?

Mr. SANDERS. We have touched on the fact that these cuts will be devastating for Medicare recipients, they will be devastating for Medicaid recipients, they will be devastating for Social Security recipients. Let us also mention, especially those of us from the cold weather States, that they propose to eliminate, cut completely, the fuel assistance program, LIHEAP, of which 40 percent of the recipients of senior citizens. That means in the State of Vermont or in the State of Michigan, when the weather gets pretty cold and we have low-income senior citizens who need help to pay their fuel bills, it is gone. What happens to those people? We should also point out that such wonderful programs as RSVP are eliminated. The Foster Grandparent Program is eliminated. Also, we should understand that at a time when everybody in America understands that this Nation needs to be competitive in the global market, that we need to have the best educated work force in the world, major, major cuts in education. What a stupid approach, cutting your nose off to spite your face. Among other things, what this Republican proposal does is cut student loans by $33 billion. In the State of Vermont right now we have thousands of families, and I have had hearings on this, people are working 50 or 60 hours a week to send their kids to college. The cost of college is going off the wall. If we cut back on those student loans, there will be hundreds of thousands of young people all over America who will never have the opportunity to go to college. To do this in order to give tax breaks to the wealthiest people in America is very wrong.

Mr. SANDERS. If the gentleman will yield, here is another cut, and it really refers to his original statement, where he talked about a woman who, during World War II, worked in the assembly lines in order to defeat Hitler. During World War II we had millions of men and women who not only worked in the assembly lines, they were fighting all over the world against fascism. This budget makes significant cuts in veterans' programs. The bill passed by the House Committee on the Budget would, over a 7-year period, reduce veterans' programs by $8.3 billion. The Senate Committee on the Budget, in fact, would reduce veterans' benefits by $15.1 billion. Among other cuts would be an increase in the prescription drug copayment from $2 to $8. The House bill would also reduce the COLA on veterans' compensation. It would also eliminate the Veterans' Employment Program under the Job Partnership Training Act; the disabled outreach program. Boy, we are getting really tough.