Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. If the gentleman will yield, let us recapitulate here: Huge tax breaks for the wealthiest individuals in America, doing away with corporate taxes for some of the largest and most profitable corporations in America, and savage cutbacks for the most vulnerable in this country. I think unless one is very naive, I think we can understand why these things happen. And they happen for reasons like an event that took place in this city some 3 months ago, and I know my colleagues here remember the event. The Republican Party held a little fund raiser, just a little ordinary dinner that folks came to.

Mr. SANDERS. I think $1,000 a plate with gratuities included, and they provided an extra cup of coffee for free.

Mr. SANDERS. That was for another one; that was for the right-wing television network, but this was for poor folks, only $1,000 a plate. And I think at the end of that night they walked away with $11 million. Now why would the largest corporations in America and the wealthiest people in this country contribute to the party? And they doing it because they believe in the Democratic spirit and they just wanted to get involved? Maybe, but I do not think so. I think that there are very smart people who made an investment. They invested in the Republican Party, and the last several months we have seen why they invested. It is a very good investment to buy a ticket for a thousand bucks at a dinner and find out your corporation does not have to pay anything in taxes, or if you are making $200,000 a year your are going to pay $11,000 less in taxes. But, interestingly enough, the average working persons did not go to that dinner, and you know what the average working person got? Among many other devastating cuts, the Republican proposal cuts back, eliminates, not cuts back, eliminates unemployment insurance-extended benefits. Many areas all over this country where unemployment is very, very high, we have recessions, things get bad, what the Republicans proposal does is make it impossible for a worker to get unemployement after 13 weeks. What do you do then? Well, how come they go cut and the rich got tax breaks? Maybe it has something to do that tens of millions of dollars that are now flooding into the Republican Party from some of the wealthiest people in America.

Mr. SANDERS. If the gentleman would yield, I just very briefly say this: Today we heard from our Republican friends that they had a mandate. Let us not forget that in the November elections, 62 percent of the people did not vote, did not vote. We can turn this around. We can win this fight. We can stop these devastating cuts and this transfer of wealth to the upper-income people. We can do it, but we cannot do it with Members of Congress alone. We are going to need the help of millions and millions of American citizens who are fighting hard to maintain their standard of living. So if you do not think it is right that we give huge tax breaks to the rich and cut back on a zillion programs that affect the children and the old and working people and students, if you think that is wrong, we are going to need your help. So let us stand up together and let us fight back. Let us get a little justice in America.

Mr. SANDERS. Let us talk about it.

Mr. SANDERS. If the gentleman will yield, the gentlewoman from California points out that at a time when the wealthiest people and the largest corporations receive far more welfare than do the poor in terms of tax breaks and subsidies, when that corporate welfare is well documented they did not have the guts to go after those people, but they do have the guts to go after the children, after the homeless, after the elderly, after the veterans. There is another area that has not gotten a whole lot of discussion.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to the proposal presented by the Republican leadership. At a time when this country has a very large deficit and a $4.7 trillion national debt, it is vulgar. It is crass to be giving huge tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this country and to the largest corporations. It is unacceptable that half the tax breaks in this proposal go to people making $100,000 a year or more and that the wealthiest 1 percent will receive more in tax breaks than the bottom 60 percent. It is pathetic that at a time when the richest 1 percent of the population own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent and when the upper 4 percent of earners make more money than do the bottom 50 percent of earners, that taxpayers making over $200,000 a year receive a tax break of $11,000 while those making less than $30,000 receive a tax cut of $124. And the rich get richer, and everyone else gets poorer. Mr. Chairman, it is especially outrageous to be talking about tax increases for the rich when we all know that it was the huge tax breaks for the richest 1 percent in the 1980's that was a major cause of the explosion of the deficit during that period. As a result of tax breaks given to the wealthiest 1 percent, the Treasury Department lost over $1.5 trillion between 1981 and 1992, 1.5 trillion in tax breaks to the richest 1 percent during the 1980's. And guess what in the 1990's? They are coming [[Page H5130]] back for more tax breaks for the very same people. Shame. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to this budget proposal presented by the Republican leadership. At a time when this country has a very large deficit and a $4.7 trillion national debt, it is vulgar and it is crass to be giving huge tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this country and to the largest corporations. It is unacceptable that half the tax breaks in this proposal go to people making $100,000 a year or more, and that the wealthiest 1 percent will receive more in tax breaks than the bottom 60 percent. It is pathetic that at a time when the richest 1 percent own more wealth than do the bottom 90 percent, and when the upper 4 percent of earners make more money than do the bottom 51 percent--that taxpayers making over $200,000 a year receive a tax break of more than $11,000, while those making less than $30,000 would receive a tax cut of $124. And the rich get richer and everyone else gets poorer. Mr. Chairman, it is especially outrageous to be talking about any tax increase for the rich when we all know that it was huge tax breaks for the richest 1 percent in the 1980's that was a major cause of the explosion of the deficit during that period. As a result of tax breaks given to the wealthiest 1 percent, the Treasury Department lost over $1.5 trillion between 1981 and 1992--which is approximately half of the national debt that was accumulated during that period. Given the fact that the tax breaks provided to the wealthiest 1 percent is largely responsible for the deficit, why in God's name would we give them more tax breaks now. Mr. Chairman, this Republican budget cuts taxes for the rich and the largest corporations, spends $92 billion more on the military over 7 years, and then makes devastating cuts for the middle class, for working people, for the elderly, for students, and for the poor. Senior Citizens: At a time when many of our seniors are finding it extremely difficult to pay for their health care needs the Republican House budget calls for, over a 7-year period, a $282 billion cut in Medicare and a $184 billion cut in Medicaid. The American Association of Retired Person [AARP] estimates that this proposal means that the average Medicare beneficiary would pay over $3,500 more out-of-pocket over the next 7 years. Further, Social Security will be cut by $24 billion from 1999 to 2002 due to a six-tenths of 1 percent reduction in the COLA formulation. Also, the LIHEAP fuel assistance program will be eliminated, and there will be a major cut-back in senior citizen housing. Such excellent senior programs as the Foster Grandparents Program, and RSVP will also be eliminated. Education: While college costs are soaring, and many middle class families are experiencing declining incomes, the budget reduces student loans by $33 billion. According to the administration, the Republican plan to eliminate Government-paid interest on student loans while the student is in school would cost 4 million undergraduates more than $3,000 each during the course of a 4-year college career. Further, the Republican budget would eliminate or drastically reduce funding for such important educational programs including Goals 2000, the TRIO Program, title I, School-To-Work, student incentive grants, Head Start and Safe and Drug-Free Schools--among others. There is little question that not only will these cuts be harmful to education, but they will result in higher state and local taxes. Veterans: The bill passed by the House Budget Committee would, over a 7-year period, reduce veterans programs by $8.3 billion. The Senate Budget Committee proposal 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 Veterans Outreach program, the Local Veterans Employment Representative Program, and the homeless veterans reintegration project. Workers: At a time when millions of American workers have lost their jobs because many American companies are downsizing, or moving to Mexico, this budget not only cuts back significantly on job training programs, but it eliminates unemployment insurance extended benefits. That means that unemployed workers would not get assistance after 13 weeks. The poor: While poverty is increasing and the United States continues to have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world, the Republican proposal cuts back on food stamps, child nutrition programs, childcare, affordable housing, WIC, and assistance to the homeless. Culture: At a time when television is filled with more and more violence and junk, this budget eliminates funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. It also eliminates funding for the National Endowment for the Arts which has been so effective in providing seed money for many excellent projects. Should the United States move toward a balanced budget and address its $4.7 trillion national debt? Yes. Should we, at the same time, be giving huge tax breaks to the top 4 percent of earners who make more money than do the bottom 50 percent? No. Should we balance the budget on the backs of the middle-class and working people who are already hurting, and who are experiencing a decline in their standard of living? Absolutely not.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, this bill will reverse the significant progress we have made under the Clean Water Act. For the first time in 25 years, our water is expected to become dirtier instead of cleaner. We may well be returning to a time when our rivers catch fire, we cannot swim and fish in our lakes, and human health is jeopardized by toxic chemicals in our water. It is no secret that the House Republican leadership worked hand in hand with the chemical companies and other special interests to draft a bill littered with loopholes for polluters and developers. The bill includes a myriad of exemptions and waivers for industry which will significantly increase water pollution. It also removes approximately 50 percent of wetlands--which provide a natural water filtering system--from Federal protection. It is deeply disturbing that the attack on the environment that was so prevalent in the Contract With America has now reached into environmental successes like the Clean Water Act. I am pleased that this bill reauthorizes funds for the State revolving loan fund that helps towns, like rural towns in my State of Vermont, upgrade their sewage treatment facilities. It also authorizes funds to help these same towns clean up agricultural pesticide runoff. Unfortunately, in today's environment of cutbacks I am seriously concerned that these needed funds will not become a reality. I strongly urge the appropriators to fully fund these programs so that small rural towns can meet their environmental responsibilities. I am deeply disappointed that the House rejected an amendment which included these important authorizations and linked them with meaningful relief from unnecessarily burdensome regulations. Instead the House is considering a bill that gives industry free rein to pollute our waterways and developers the right to develop our ecologically important wetlands.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, did you know that investment by U.S.-based multinational corporations abroad rose by 7.2 percent to a total of $716.2 billion in 1993 and increased at an even faster rate in the first half of 1994? Stop and think about the jobs and economic growth that would have been generated here in the United States of America if that investment capital had been plowed into rebuilding our Nation instead of boosting offshore competition and production. It is time for Uncle Sam to help redirect much more of our Nation's limited investment capital into providing good-paying jobs for Americans here at home. The best place to start is by eliminating various special interest tax breaks and subsidies that reward U.S. companies for investing abroad rather than in the United States and that add tens of billions to our Federal deficit every year. Currently Federal tax and spending policies actually favor overseas investment by U.S.-based multinational corporations in many ways, instead of rewarding domestic investment and job creation. That is why I have been joined by other members of the Progressive Caucus in sponsoring comprehensive legislation--The Come Home, Corporate America Bill--to cut the corporate welfare for U.S.-based multinational corporations that are busy hollowing out our Nation's production base, exporting good-paying U.S. Jobs, and bilking the American taxpayer all at the same time. My bill will cut the Federal deficit by $252 billion over the next 5 years by wiping out assorted special interest tax loopholes and subsidies that have been handed out year after year to U.S.-based multinational corporations. These are the same companies that have turned their backs on millions of American working families whose hard work and personal allegiance has been instrumental in building these Fortune 500-type companies into economic powerhouses. Specifically, my bill will achieve major deficit reduction by cutting the following multinational corporate welfare: Abolishing the foreign tax credit; Eliminating tax deferral of income from controlled foreign corporations; Cracking down on transfer pricing, whereby multinational corporations arbitrarily allocate computed income among their operations in different countries; Eliminating special tax break that allows companies to exclude 15 percent of their export income generated from special subsidiaries often created merely to claim and process the break; Repealing tax exemption from U.S. taxes for employees of multinational corporations regardless of whether or not that income is subject to foreign taxation. Companies often equalize tax liabilities so that their employees' after-tax income is the same, thus allowing the company to pad their profits; Abolishing the Overseas Private Investment Corporation [OPIC] which obligates the American taxpayer to insure and underwrite political risk insurance for companies to invest in scores of foreign countries; Cutting below-market loan subsidies and fees provided by the Export- Import Bank for foreign purchasers to buy from U.S. companies; Eliminating tax loopholes allowing earnings stripping and intrafirm transfers that allow companies to inflate their deductible expenses; Abolishing exemption for foreign investors to avoid paying capital gains tax on the sale of their stock in U.S. corporations; and Repealing the exemption that allows foreign investors to avoid paying taxes on interest received on bonds issued in the United States.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of the amendment. I thank the chairman very much and would like the opportunity, if the gentleman from California would respond, just to ask him a brief question, if I might. My ears may have been playing a trick on me, but I thought I heard the gentleman a moment ago say something quote unquote about homos in the military. Was I right in hearing that expression?

Mr. SANDERS. That is not what we were talking about. You used the word homos in the military. You have insulted thousands of men and women who have put their lives on the line. I think they are owed---- Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would also say that if my friend in support of this amendment, if my friend from Oregon was involved in the nuclear freeze movement, I want to congratulate him. There are millions of Americans who wonder about the wisdom of spending millions and millions more dollars building more and more nuclear weapons at the same time as the Republicans are cutting back on Medicare, Medicaid, and student loans. Furthermore, I find it incomprehensible that at a time when the vast majority of the people in this country are terribly concerned about what is going on in the environment, terribly concerned about the environmental implications of nuclear energy, that the American people do not know what is in their waterways, and that various military installations might be exempted from Federal regulatory practices. So I very much applaud this amendment.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman----

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman----

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

Mr. SANDERS. You said something about homos in the military. Was the gentleman referring to the thousands and thousands of gay people who have put their lives on the line in countless wars defending this country? Was that the groups of people that the gentleman was referring to?

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, at a time when the gap between the rich and the poor is growing wider, I am not impressed by the Republican plan which provides huge tax breaks for the wealthiest people in this country and the largest corporations, and cuts back savagely on a wide variety of programs meant for low-income and middle-income people. When thousands and thousands of senior citizens in the State of Vermont today are finding it very hard to pay their health care bills, I am not impressed by a Contract With America which savagely cuts back on Medicare and Medicaid. When millions of middle class families today cannot afford to send their kids to college because of the high cost of higher education, I am not impressed by a Contract With America which cuts back terribly on loans that millions of young people will need in order to get to college. The Contract With America works for the rich. It is a disaster for middle-income and working people.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of 80,000 Vermont senior citizens who receive Medicare, I rise today in vehement opposition to the proposed 7-year, $400 billion cut in Medicare funding proposed by the Republican leadership. Today under present funding, many Vermont seniors are hard-pressed to pay the high cost of Medicare premiums, and many others cannot afford the expensive prescription drugs that they desperately need. Any cuts which will raise premiums or cut benefits or raise deductible will cause terrible pain for some of the most hard-pressed citizens in America and in Vermont. It is unconscionable to cut back on Medicare when we are giving huge tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this country. It is unconscionable to cut back on Medicare when we spend $100 billion a year on corporate welfare.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. I find it interesting, the contract of America, the Republican proposal, talks about a whole lot of things, but it is amazing how it manages to miss the most important policy issues that affect the needs of working people. I say, ``I know, Mr. Hinchey, you have been working hard here fighting for the right of working people. What are some of the initiatives you would like to see taking place?''

Mr. SANDERS. I know that when we talk about the issue of jobs and the declining standard of living for the average American worker, what we are extremely mindful of is that for the young workers, especially for those who do not have a college education, their future indeed is very bleak. And one of the points that has to be made when we try to understand anger in America is that for tens of millions of Americans the American dream is fading fast, the dream that, if I work very hard, my kids are going to have a higher standard of living than I do. Now I know that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens] has worked hard on a jobs bill which attempts to address some of the issue that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey] was talking about. Mr. Owens, what about a jobs bill?

Mr. SANDERS. Thank you. We do not hear much about that figure. He is suggesting a terribly radical idea hardly heard on the floor of the House, and that is that maybe trade policy should work for the benefit of the average American worker rather than the head of the large corporations who are trying to take our jobs to Mexico and China. We are delighted now to welcome a Congressman from upstate New York, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey].

Mr. SANDERS. The gentleman is suggesting a very radical idea. He is suggesting the trade policy in America, and I think this year we have had $160 billion trade deficit.

Mr. SANDERS. Let me just go back to another point. We are trying to understand why in America tens of millions of middle-income and working people are living under such stress, and we are trying to understand how it is that every day on the talk shows and here in Congress we hear people attacking minorities, attacking poor people, men attacking women as the cause of the problem, people attacking gay people, attacking immigrants, and yet it is amazing to me how little discussion there is on the issue that the gentleman from New York and the gentleman from Oregon and I are talking about, and that is the fact that the wealthiest 1 percent are seeing enormous increases in their holdings in America, that the wealthiest earners, 20 percent earners, now earn more earned income than do the bottom 80 percent, that major corporation after major corporation are throwing American workers out on the street, going to Mexico where they are hiring people at 75 cents an hour, going to China where they are hiring desperate people there for 20 cents an hour. How come we are not allowed to focus our anger on those people, just on the poor, but not on the rich? I did not read in the Constitution, I did not read in the schoolbooks that we are not allowed to talk about the wealthy and the power that they have over the lives of Americans. But somehow or another there seems to be a fear in this institution, and certainly on talk radio, that, gee whiz, we are not allowed to talk about the wealthy and the power that they have. How come there is not discussion that the chief executive officers in America today of the Forbes 500 corporations are now earning 150 times what their workers are making? Is that justice? Is that fair? Is that what the American system is supposed to be about? Why are we not discussing and worker supposed to bring up a family on $4.25 an hour minimum wage or even $5 an hour?

Mr. SANDERS. I am delighted that we are being joined by one of the outstanding Congressmen, fighters for working people; I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens].

Mr. SANDERS. If the gentleman will yield, what we are trying to explore is in fact why Americans are angry, and what I get upset about is people are angry, they should be angry, but to a large degree they do not know what they are angry about. What the gentleman from Oregon has just said is that in the early 1980's some of the largest corporations in America, and in America most of the stock is owned by the wealthiest people, what he said is that in the early 1980's, major corporations earning billions in profit paid zero in Federal taxes, less than the working stiff who makes $20,000 a year, and because the Congress, which had passed that legislation, was a little bit embarrassed going back to their districts, they passed a minimum corporate tax law which said to these corporations that, ``After all your lawyers and all of your fancy accountants get through going through the tax loopholes, you still are going to have to pay at least something in taxes.'' And what the gentleman has just described is that several weeks ago right here on the floor of the House the Republican leadership voted to repeal that minimum corporate tax, so we are going to go back to those good old days when major corporations paid zero in taxes.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, it is no great secret that throughout the United States of America today there is a great deal of anger, there is a great deal of unrest. Fortunately not every angry person goes about blowing up buildings and killing hundreds of innocent people, but all over this country, people are feeling an unease. Something bad is happening and they do not quite understand what it is about. What I would like to do this hour, Mr. Speaker, with the help of some of my colleagues, is to perhaps try to explain to the working people of America, to the middle-income people of America, perhaps some of the reasons why people are angry, why people are frustrated, and then maybe make some suggestions as to how we can develop public policy which will improve life for all of our people. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by quoting from an I think very important article that appeared on the front page of the New York Times on Monday, April 16, just a couple of weeks ago. And what it says is that the United States of America today has by far the most unequal distribution of wealth in the entire industrialized world. And the article says that: Recent studies show that rather than being an egalitarian society, the United States has become the most economically stratified of industrialized nations. Even class societies like Britain, which inherited large differences in income and wealth over centuries, going back to their feudal past, now have greater economic equality than in the United States. Then the article goes on to say: Federal Reserve figures from 1989, the most recent available, show that the wealthiest 1 percent of American households, with net worth of at least $2.3 million each, own nearly 40 percent of the Nation's wealth. That in contrast to Britain where the richest 1 percent only own 18 percent of the wealth. So in other words, we are now living in a country from which the richest 1 percent own 40 percent of the wealth, which is more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. Rich are getting richer, poor are getting poorer, the middle class is shrinking, and I think that explains or begins to explain why it is that American people and especially working people, the middle-income people are feeling very, very anxious. Because the bottom line is, and we do not talk about that too much here, Democrats do not talk about it, Republicans do not talk about it, Rush Limbaugh somehow forgets to talk about it, but the reality is that since 1973, four-fifths, 80 percent of the American workers have experienced falling or stagnant real incomes. Now what does that mean? That means in the last 22 years the American people are working very, very hard, in many instances they are working longer hours, in fact a study came out recently, if you can believe this, that in order to compensate for the falling wages American workers are now receiving, workers are now working an extra 1 month a year. In my own State of Vermont it is certainly not uncommon for workers to be working not one job, not two jobs, but on occasion three jobs. Since 1973, for production workers, there has been a 20-percent decline in real wages. There has been an increase in poverty. For low- wage workers, workers who just have a high school degree, who do not have any college, the drop in entry-level jobs has been precipitous. For young male workers there has been a 30-percent decline in entry- level wages for young men graduating high school going into the work force; for young women the drop has been 18 percent. There was an interesting article which I think typifies much of what is happening in this country, that appeared in the Wall Street Journal some months ago and they said the good news is that in the Midwest, many of the factories that has been closed in the 1980's are now reopening, workers are now going back to work in the factories. That is the good news. The bad news is that those workers, same workers are going back to the same factories at wages which are paying them 50 percent to 60 percent to 70 percent of what they made 10 or 12 years before.