Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by quoting from an article that appeared on the front page of the New York Times today and what the article does is analyzes a poll that was done by the New York Times and CBS News. Let me read, if I might, the second paragraph on the front page. It goes as follows: ``Despite the best efforts of the Republicans to publicize and promote what they call their legislative revolution, the survey,'' i.e., the poll that CBS and the New York Times did, ``suggested that much of the public remains largely disengaged. Only 38 percent said they had read or heard anything about the Contract With America, the Republican policy agenda that has driven the House in these first three months. Forty-seven percent said they were `mostly disappointed' with the first 100 days compared with 39 percent who said they were pleased, and Mr. Gingrich's personal ratings remain remarkably negative.'' What I find disturbing about the results of the poll is not really whether people cared about Mr. Gingrich or how much they liked or disliked the Contract With America, what I find absolutely incredible is that only 38 percent of the people contacted said they had read or heard anything about the Contract With America. Now, how can that be? Every single day on the front pages of newspapers there are discussions about the Contract With America. Turn on the television tonight, every news program will be discussing the Contract With America, and only 38 percent of the people had heard anything about the Contract With America. What is that about? It suggests to me a very serious problem in America. And that is, by the tens of millions of people, ordinary Americans are tuning out and not paying attention, ignoring the politics that goes on in this country. This phenomenon was certainly reflected in the November 8 election that brought the Republicans power in both the House and the Senate. In that ``mandate,'' 38 percent of the American people voted; 62 percent of the people did not vote at all. The question, therefore, is, what is going on with American democracy? And the deeper question that I think we must ask ourselves is, to what degree are we, in fact, today a democracy, when the vast majority of the people do not vote and when tens of millions of people are not aware of what is going on in our society and within our political system? Mr. Speaker, I would argue that perhaps, and I am not quite sure of the full reasons as to why so many people have given up on the political process. I do not really know why when Sweden holds an election, 90 percent of the people come out to vote. France is now in the middle of a major campaign. The guess is that over 70 percent of the people will vote there. And in Canada, our neighbor, over 70 percent of the people vote. I cannot tell you why it is that so few people in America have faith in the political system and no longer participate, no longer vote, no longer care about what goes on here in Washington. Here every day people are yelling and screaming, but it does not mean much to the folks out there. I would argue that perhaps the major reason is that the average American today is hurting very, very badly. The average American family is in a lot of pain. We are becoming a poorer nation. Our standard of living is in decline. The gap between the rich and the poor is growing wider. Millions of Americans are fearful that their jobs are going to go to Mexico. They are going to go to China. Millions of Americans are working longer hours. They are afraid to stand up on the job and protect their rights and fight for their rights because they are going to get fired. And I think with people in pain they look to Washington, they turn on the television and they do not see the reality of their lives reflected in the debate that takes place here in Congress. They listen to corporate America on the media. They do not see that reality reflected. And they say, Hey, I am in trouble. I am in pain. My standard of living is going down. My kids are going to have a lower standard of living than I am. I cannot afford health care. My job is going to Mexico. Who is talking for me? Certainly not the politicians. Why should I pay any attention?

Mr. SANDERS. There certainly has not. I have introduced legislation which would not allow any more funding from the Exchange Stabilization Fund to go to the bailout of Mexico without the appropriation and the authority of a vote from the Congress. But we have not been able to get that legislation on the floor of the House. When we talk about cynicism, let's talk a little bit about Mexico, let's talk a little bit about NAFTA, and I know that my friend from Oregon has introduced legislation to repeal NAFTA. What really gets to me is that a year and a half ago when there was a vigorous debate on the floor of the House, we had the Clinton administration fighting terribly hard for the NAFTA agreement, we had the leadership of the Republican Party fighting very, very hard for the NAFTA agreement, we had virtually every multinational corporation in America telling us just what a wonderful thing NAFTA would be for American workers and Mexican workers. We had the corporate media, every, underlined, every major newspaper in the America editorialized in favor of NAFTA. That is the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the L.A. Times, you name it. All of the establishment and the money interests said, ``Boy, NAFTA is just what we need.'' I ask the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] why he introduced legislation to repeal NAFTA. Has it not been quite the success that these corporate giants and pundits told us it would be?

Mr. SANDERS. In other words, the point is that with over $20 billion of taxpayers' money at risk, Speaker Gingrich and the Republican leadership in conjunction with a number of Democrats are prepared not to allow that debate on the floor of the House, not to allow that vote.

Mr. SANDERS. Right.

Mr. SANDERS. That means----

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, more than half of the tax cuts proposed by the Republicans today for individuals will benefit families earning over $100,000 a year, and more than a quarter of the tax cuts will go to families earning over $200,000 a year. The highest-earning 1 percent of families will get more in tax cuts than the 60 percent of families at the lower end of the income scale. This is the Robin Hood proposal in reverse. We savagely cut programs for the poor and the vulnerable, and we give huge tax breaks to the rich and the powerful. Mr. Speaker, this is bad legislation because it does not allow us to debate the tens of billions of dollars in corporate welfare that goes to rich and large corporations. It does not allow us to debate the propriety of millionaires saving huge amounts of money on mortgage interest deductions. This is bad legislation, a bad rule; let us defeat it. Mr. Speaker, politics and much of what goes on here in Congress is really not very complicated. Everybody here understands that the majority of poor and working people don't vote and, for a variety of reasons, don't have much confidence that what happens here is relevant to their lives. On the other hand, the wealthy and the powerful do vote, do contribute very heavily to the political parties, do have well-paid lobbyists and lawyers working full time for their interests. And that in a nutshell is why the rich get richer, the middle class is shrinking, and the poor are becoming poorer and are facing a terrible onslaught from the leadership of this House. Mr. Speaker, during the last several months some of the wealthiest people in America and representatives of the largest corporations came together to contribute $11 million in one night to the Republican Party. Others came together for a $50,000-a-plate fund raising dinner with Newt Gingrich to raise money for a rightwing television network. Corporation like Amway and Golden Rule Financial have been contributing hundreds of thousands of dollars into Republican party coffers. And today, Mr. Speaker, is payback time. After cutting back massively on programs for low income people, on programs for children, on programs for the elderly, for students, for the homeless, for people with Aids, today is payback time for the rich and the powerful. Today, they get the return on their campaign contributions to the Republican party. Mr. Speaker, according to the Treasury Department, more than half of the tax cuts proposed by the Republicans for individuals will benefit families earning over $100,000 a year, and more than one quarter of the tax cuts will go to families earning over $200,000 a year. The highest earning 1 percent of families will get more in tax cuts than the 60 percent of families at the lower of the income scale. For the very highest income people, the top 1 percent, the Republican proposal creates an average tax reduction of $20,362, for the lowest income 20 percent taxes are reduced by all of $36.00. The Robinhood proposal in reverse. We cut savagely programs needed by the poor and vulnerable in order to give tax breaks to the rich and the powerful. Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill because it does not allow us to provide rational alternatives to the tax breaks for the rich scheme that is being presented today. It does not allow us to cut the tens and tens of billions of dollars in corporate welfare that the largest corporations in America receive. It does not allow us to debate the propriety of millionaires saving large sums of money in taxes from the mortgage interest deduction on their palatial mansions. It does not allow us to remove Federal subsidies for such Federal agencies as OPIA, the Overseas Private Investment Association in which tax payers are paying to see their own jobs go to third world countries. Mr. Speaker, we need open and vigorous debate about how we can move toward a balanced budget in a fair and progressive way--not on the backs of the weak and the vulnerable. We need fair and open debates to begin the process of eliminating the tax loopholes and the subsidies which the wealthy in large corporations receive.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, this is a bad bill and a very unfair bill. This is, in fact, a bill based precisely on the principles of class warfare. That is exactly what it is. I say to my colleagues, ``When you take from the poor, and you give to the rich, that's class warfare. When you take from hungry children and give to profitable multinational corporations, that's class warfare.'' Mr. Chairman, half of the individual tax breaks in this bill go to families earning $100,000 a year, and this bill cuts back on nutrition programs for hungry children. That is class warfare. A quarter of the tax breaks go to people earning $200,000 a year, and the bill cuts back on loans to college students whose families today cannot afford the high cost of college. That is class warfare. The highest earning 1 percent of the population will get more tax breaks than the bottom 60 percent, and then they cut back on a wide variety of programs that lower income senior citizens need. I say to my colleagues, ``When you tell low income seniors in Vermont that they have to live without fuel assistance, that's class warfare.''

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the American Homemakers/Caregivers and Middle-Class Flexible Savings Act of 1995. This bill is being introduced by my colleague, Maurice Hinchey, on behalf of the Progressive Caucus as part of our 11-point alternative to the Republican Contract With America. My constituents have impressed upon me the growing financial plight of many middle- and low-income working Americans. They are working harder and longer and finding it more difficult all of the time to make financial ends meet, let alone put any money into savings. This legislation will make it easier for middle- and low-income Americans who earn up to $75,000 to save more, while giving those Americans who are in an unforeseen financial pinch greater penalty-free access to their Individual Retirement Account [IRA] funds. This Progressive Caucus bill will help middle- and low-income taxpayers in four fundamental ways. First, it will substantially increase the level of contributions that they can deposit in an IRA. Since IRA's were first made possible in 1981, the contribution levels governing how much can be contributed annually and who can deduct their contributions, in sum or in part, have eroded due to inflation. Our bill increases contribution levels to make up for inflation since 1981. It also indexes contribution levels yearly to keep pace with inflation. Second, our bill authorizes higher IRA contribution levels for nonworking spouses in households with one or more children under the age of 6. That contribution level will also be indexed to keep pace with inflation. This provision could be called the IRA homemaker provision. Arguably, those Americans who most need to save for retirement their children in their most important formative years. That financial sacrifice should be recognized and redressed by allowing nonworking spouses with young children to better save for later years. Third, our bill will also allow middle-class taxpayers greater flexibility to withdraw their IRA funds without being subject to the 10 percent penalty in order to pay for expenses for higher or vocational education, to pay catastrophic medical expenses, to start a small business, to buy a first home, or to meet unemployment emergencies. Arguably, wealthier taxpayers don't have commensurate cashflow problems vis a vis their IRA's and should still be encouraged to keep their money in savings. There is no question that more Americans are confronting daunting educational expenses. At the rate tuition costs continue to rise--at least twice the rate of inflation--4 years at a State university by the year 2000 may cost over $50,000. Also growing numbers of American workers are returning to classrooms to prepare for midcareer changes or to upgrade existing job skills. This legislation will permit withdrawals for higher education and/or vocational education for many of these Americans who are struggling to put themselves or their children through college. With health care costs skyrocketing, we simply must find ways to help ease the burden of sudden medical expenses for American working families. A serious illness can be financially devastating to all but the very wealthy. Our bill will allow individuals and families to withdraw IRA funds penalty-free for catastrophic medical expenses during the taxable year to the degree that the amount of such expenses does not exceed 7\1/2\ percent of adjusted gross income--that is, the existing threshold for deductibility of medical expenses for itemizers. Individuals could draw upon their IRA's for themselves, spouses, children, and/or parents. It is also true that most of the new jobs being created are to be found in America's small businesses. Therefore, it should be made easier for entrepreneurial Americans to amass startup capital when they decide to start a new business in midcareer or otherwise. Finally, our bill also extends a helping hand to unemployed Americans as well as first-time homebuyers. Let me conclude by underscoring that Progressive Caucus members believe if there is to be tax cut legislation enacted this year that tax relief should be focused upon middle- and low-income taxpayers. Well-to-do individuals and corporations already received disproportionate tax cuts throughout the 1980's. It is fitting and proper that the tax relief to be provided under our bill is to be financed, at least in part, by taking a first step to cut tens of billions in corporate welfare in the Federal budget--the establishment of a minimum tax on the income of foreign-owned companies earned from business activities in the United States.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, the American people are angry and frustrated about the Congress and its lack of responsiveness to their needs. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle class continues to shrink. Congress does not act and the people are angry. The standard of living of the average American continues to go down, down, down, and we continue to lose huge numbers of decent-paying jobs to desperate third-world countries. Congress does not act and the people are angry. The United States today is the only major industrialized Nation on Earth without a national health care system. Congress does not act and the people are angry. What are term limits going to do about any of this? Nothing, except perhaps make a bad situation worse. Mr. Chairman, the problem with American politics is not that we cannot force out every Member of Congress every 6 years. That is not the problem. The problem is that the U.S. Congress today is dominated by big money interests, and that this institution works primarily for the wealthy and the powerful, and not the ordinary American. That is the problem, and all of the term limits in the world are not going to change that reality. Mr. Chairman, if we are going to make the Congress responsive to ordinary Americans, we need campaign finance reform, not term limits. We need to stop millionaires from buying their own seats, and end the absurdity of 20 percent of the Members of Congress being millionaires themselves. We need to stop corporations from putting huge amounts of campaign contributions into political parties as soft money. We need to stop powerful interests like the insurance companies from buying the air waves to prevent real health care reform. Mr. Chairman, let us pass campaign finance reform, not term limits, and return power back to ordinary Americans.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, U.S. Representatives Maurice Hinchey, Cynthia McKinney, Peter DeFazio, Nydia Velazquez, and myself are introducing legislation today, on behalf of the Progressive Caucus, which provides a giant step forward to rebuilding public confidence in the integrity of the U.S. Congress. Our bill helps make certain that all Members of Congress keep our focus on the public interest by requiring that Members of Congress put their stock portfolios and other financial assets in blind trusts or divest. Did you know that numerous State and local governments require that public officeholders recuse themselves on voting matters in which they have financial interests at stake? But not the U.S. Congress. Did you know that Federal law since the Civil War bars a government official in the executive branch from participating in policy matters in which that official has a personal financial interest? But not the U.S. Congress. Currently, House Rule VIII requires that a Member of Congress not vote on matters of personal financial interest to that Member. But in truth, the scope of this rule has been dramatically narrowed over time to where it is now interpreted to mean that a Member of Congress should not vote when the matter is personal to him or her, but may vote on the matter if the question affects a Member of Congress as one of a larger class, such as stockholders of a company or bondholders of a municipality or corporation. Even at that, compliance with the provisions of House Rule VIII is now at the discretion of each Member of Congress and entirely voluntary. In practice, this has created a very lax environment in which potential and perceived financial conflicts of interest are common and often go undisclosed to voters and the general public. When questionable cases do come to light, they serve to heighten general public suspicion about the impact of special interest money and influence-peddling on congressional decision-making. That is why we are introducing our new bill to amend the Ethics in Government Act--The Public Interest Legislature Act--to respond to growing public distrust arising from many Members of Congress routinely voting on bills in which they have financial interests. We believe it will go a long way toward rebuilding public confidence in the integrity of the U.S. Congress. Fundamentally it will reassure all Americans that their elected representatives in Congress are working full time on public business and not distracted or tempted to cash in on public service in any sense of those words. Our bill has three main provisions: First, to require that Members of Congress--subject to civil and criminal penalties for failure to do so--either put their stocks, bonds, and other financial assets--excluding their principal homes--in excess of $1,000 into blind trusts; or, divest themselves of their stocks, bonds, and other financial assets in excess of $1,000-- excluding their principal homes. Second, to strengthen the financial disclosure requirements of existing law to require more detailed, accurate, and timely reports on the financial assets of Members of Congress, their spouses, and their principal staff members involved with legislative activities of the Congress. At present, the disclosure requirements are of such wide ranges and so loose as to make the current disclosure requirements of marginal use in informing the public about potential financial conflicts of interest; and Third, to prohibit Members of Congress from using official expenses to pay the costs associated with preparing financial disclosure reports. This week the Congress is acting upon another part of the Contract With America--a proposed constitutional amendment to impose term limits on how long a person can serve as a Member of Congress which is referred to as the so-called Citizen Legislature Act. Like so much of the Contract With America, the proposed Citizen Legislature Act is a bogus bill with a misleading title that does nothing about the real problem undermining the respect of the American people for their Congress--the funneling of enormous sums of special interest money into congressional campaigns and legislative lobbying. The degree to which big money skews congressional policy making in favor of special interests over the public interest may be debatable. But there is absolutely no debate that many Americans now perceive that many Members of Congress run for office to enrich themselves indirectly, if not directly. Unless the Congress takes serious action to correct this perception, fewer and fewer Americans will hold on to the belief that the Congress is capable of acting for the public interest of all Americans and not just privileged economic elites. Our bill meets this threat to American democracy by insulating Members from allegations and suspicions of personal financial chicanery in the conduct of the people's business. As part of the 11-part Progressive Caucus Alternative to the Republican Contract With America--The Progressive Promise, this legislation represents real congressional ethics reform in contrast with self-serving gimmicks like term limits that will do nothing to reduce the corrosive influence of big money on congressional decision making.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. If I could just jump in and say not to understand that reality and when we discuss welfare reform is totally absurd. If I might, we have been joined by the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields]. An interesting night because we have somebody from the Midwest, somebody from the south, Mr. Becerra is from California, and I am from Vermont, so I think it should be a good discussion. Mr. Fields, would you like to join us.

Mr. SANDERS. I would just simply say, and I say this, by the way, as an independent, and in my view it is wrong just to blame the Republicans and not to hold Democrats in criticism as well, but I think one thing that has disturbed me very much as we discuss the problems facing this country is Republicans took power in both houses, all of 38 percent of the American people came out to vote. Sixty-two percent of the people are so turned off by the political system they did not bother to vote. Most poor people in America, many working people in America do not vote. So what ends up happening is you have 38 percent of the people who vote, you have people who contribute huge amounts of money to the political system, they are able to finance candidates of their choice, so you have one whole group is invisible. If you do not vote and you are earning the minimum wage, who do you think is going to care about you? If somebody contributes, they buy a table for $10,000 at the Republican fundraiser, that 10 people will have far more influence over the political process than 20,000 people in Louisiana who are working for minimum wage or farmers in Vermont who are trying to get by on $10,000 a year. So I would simply hope that we can revitalize the political process. If we increase voter turnout by 20 percent, this institution would be radically different. Mr. Becerra.

Mr. SANDERS. Ms. Kaptur.

Mr. SANDERS. If I might, I find really one of the more outrageous outrages of the Contract With America is when we talk, every single day on the floor of this House, people talk about the virtues of education. We hear it all of the time. And yet built within the Contract With America are major cutbacks which will make it increasingly difficult for millions of young Americans to afford to go to college. I am sure the situation is the same in Ohio, Louisiana or California. Certainly it is in Vermont. I am getting letters every day where people say, Congressman Sanders, do not let them cut back on the Pell grants. That is what keeps me in college. Do not have them force me to pay interest while I am in college on my loans. It means I am going to drop out of college. Do not let them cut back the work study program. When everybody understands that it is extremely difficult today to earn a good living without a college degree, the shortsightedness and the selfishness of saying to working-class Americans, sorry, we are giving tax breaks to the rich or maybe we are going to put $50 billion in star wars, but for young Americans, I got a letter today, Congressman Sanders, I am working two jobs, taking a full-time load in my college in Vermont. Do not let them cut back. Yet some people think star wars, tax breaks for the rich, are a greater priority. I do not understand that at all.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Fields, do many of your constituents spend $50,000 for a dinner.

Mr. SANDERS. I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra], the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields], and the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] very much.

Mr. SANDERS. If I could just ask the gentleman a question, within the last couple of months there were two very well publicized fundraising events here in the Nation's Capital. On one night, I believe it was about a month ago, the Republican party raised in one night $11 million. On another occasion, Senator Gramm, who is a Republican candidate for their nomination for president, raised, I believe, over $3 million on one night. On another occasion, Speaker Gingrich held a fundraiser for his television network at $50,000 a plate. Now, I find it interesting that the Contract With America, must have been just an oversight, I am sure, just by accident, they forgot to put in campaign finance reform. clearly an oversight, clearly has nothing to do with what you have just been talking about. In other words, we all understand that this system is dominated by money and big money. When people contribute $11 million in one night, when the wealthiest people in America make those contributions, they are not investment. And the investment that they are making is precisely what Mr. Becerra was talking about a moment ago. Tax breaks for the rich.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Becerra, what does it look like to the people in California?

Mr. SANDERS. If I might interrupt, Mr. Fields from Louisiana, what does it look like when kids are going to see cutbacks in nutrition programs and $20 billion is spent bailing out Mexico?

Mr. SANDERS. Next week I believe the tax bill will be coming before the House. Last week the House Committee on Ways and Means, as I understand it, passed a provision, this is hard to believe, especially for people, those real deficit hawks concerned about the large deficit, that would repeal the minimal corporate tax. Now, some people may remember that in the early 1980's, when the large corporations in America were writing tax law in this country, what we had is the outrage, was the outrage of huge multibillion dollar corporations like General Electric, AT&T, du Pont, wealthy, powerful corporations, who were paying in the early 1980's zero in taxes. Zero in taxes. Well, the embarrassment became so deep that finally in 1986, a minimal corporate tax was passed that said, corporations, even with all your good lawyers you can go through all the loopholes you have put into the system and you pay nothing in taxes, there has got to be a minimal tax. Recently, last week, the House Committee on Ways and Means proposed to do away with that minimal tax. But I know that there is another aspect of corporate welfare that has interested Ms. Kaptur very, very much, and that is the bailout of Mexico. And maybe in terms of the discussion that we are having now, in which last week we cut back, the Republicans voted to cut back on fuel assistance for 5 million Americans, cut back on the WIC program, cut back on senior citizen housing, now, tell us perhaps how could we find $20 billion, not just the Republican problem by the way, how can we find $20 billion to bail out Mexico?

Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra].

Mr. SANDERS. That makes $25 million a year, I believe, the same fellow.

Mr. SANDERS. Rush Limbaugh is that low income fellow that has a hard time feeding himself, is that the fellow?

Mr. SANDERS. In terms of welfare, not to understand that the $4.25 minimum wage today is virtually a starvation wage which forces people into welfare is not to understand the reality of what is going on in America today. The minimum wage today is 20 percent lower in purchasing power than it was in 1970. If we are serious, it seems to me, about welfare reform, then we must begin to talk about a real jobs program which rebuilds America. There is an enormous amount of work that could be done. We could take people off of welfare and put them to work rebuilding America, but we are not hearing that discussion from our Republican friends. If we are serious about welfare reform, we must talk about raising the minimum wage to a living wage so people can escape from poverty and earn enough money to take care of their children. If we are serious about welfare reform, we must improve our child care capabilities. What mother, what father can go out to work and leave his or her children abandoned in a house or an inadequate child care capabilities? That would be wrong. If we are serious about welfare reform, we must educate our people and provide job training so they can, in fact, go out and earn the wages that they need and the dignity that they want. The last point I want to make before I give the floor over to my good friend from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] is to say that when we talk about welfare reform, which is a very important subject, we should also understand that welfare reform for the poor is only one part of the issue. We should also be talking about welfare reform for the rich and welfare reform for the large multinational corporations. Studies done by conservative groups such as the CATO Institute, liberal groups like Ralph Nader's Public Citizen, moderate groups like the Democratic Leadership Council's Progressive Policy Institute have demonstrated that there are tens and tens and tens of billions of dollars in welfare that go to the rich and go to the big corporations. So if we are serious about welfare reform, I think it is appropriate we begin that debate as well. I am now happy to introduce my good friend from Ohio, Marcy Kaptur.

Mr. SANDERS. I think not. I think not. But I thank you. I would love to do it. I really would.