Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that amendments Nos. 107 and 108 be considered en bloc.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment along with my colleagues, Mr. Clay from Missouri, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra]. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple and not controversial. It exempts Federal legislation that establishes minimum labor standards, including prohibition of child labor, establishment of a higher minimum wage, and establishment of minimum occupational safety standards. State and local governments are employers just like the private sector. So minimum labor standards are unfunded Federal mandates. This bill could have very serious consequences on the health, safety, and fair treatment of American workers. Mr. Chairman, in the 102d, 103d, and in this Congress, I have introduced bills that increase the minimum wage. They provide for a moderate increase from the current $4.25 to $5.50 an hour and index future increases to the annual cost of living. Mr. Chairman, today the minimum wage buys only 65 percent of what it did 10 years ago. At its current level, it is a hunger rate that results in full-time workers earning just $8,840 per year and falling well below the poverty level for a family of four. Any attempt to raise the minimum wage in this and future Congresses would be banned under this unfunded mandate legislation. This amendment protects hard-working Americans who deserve a livable wage. Occupational safety and health standards that protect State and government employees, as well as private sector employees, are also considered as unfunded mandates that are banned by H.R. 5. This amendment would permit the establishment of minimum occupational safety and health standards that respond to newly discovered occupational hazards. Without this amendment, no minimum standard for indoor air quality relating to tobacco smoke, toxic dust, asbestos, radioactive and other cancer causing chemicals could be established for work areas. This amendment protects the safety of working America. Mr. Chairman, more than 50 years ago, at the urging of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Congress established a basic minimum working age of 16 nationwide. This was done as a societal commitment that young Americans should be getting a good education in school rather than working in factories or sweatshops. Now the commercial exploitation of children in America is back with a vengeance in the 1990's, and this legislation would preclude the Congress from doing anything about it. Consider these alarming facts: Reported child labor violations are up more than 150 percent in the past decade, There are fewer than 40 Federal investigators and compliance officers to enforce child labor laws and 50 other fair labor standards nationwide, In the 1980's the average fine leveled on unscrupulous employers of minors who were killed on the job was all of $740. In short, the scourge of child labor is spreading all across America again. If this amendment is not approved, this legislation would hamstring the Congress from doing anything to extend workplace at a time when many of them are struggling to strike a good balance between getting a good education and gainful employment. Mr. Chairman, every civil society on Earth has seen fit to extend fundamental rights and to establish minimum labor standards for working people. The United States and more than 160 other nations are legally obligated to adopt and enforce laws promoting respect for internationally recognized worker rights and labor standards. If this amendment does not pass, the United States would signal our wholesale retreat from fundamental worker rights and minimum international labor standards. It would be a serious scar on America's credibility if we do not set minimum Federal standards that affirm our commitment to treat American workers with the same fundamental dignity and respect that they deserve. There is another aspect of H.R. 5 that I believe is ambiguous. As costs increase, the cost of States and localities to meet the same standards also increase. Thus, if it costs States more money to enforce the same occupational safety standards----

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. If I could just interrupt. If the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski] had made that request, they would have said, ``What are you smoking? Are you out of your mind? Forty billion dollars; we can't afford that.'' Right?

Mr. SANDERS. I think that they might, given the fact that they are putting $40 billion on the line. I think what people throughout this country should appreciate is that very often when the President, any President, when the leaders of Congress want to get something done that benefits the [[Page H387]] wealthiest 1 or 2 percent and puts it to the average American, what they do is move very, very quickly, because their feeling is that the less information the average American has about the situation, the better they are able to pull off the swindle. I think that is exactly what we are seeing right now. It is astounding to me that when some of us say, ``Let us do something about 5 million children in America who are hungry, provide help to them,'' there is never a sense of urgency. But when we talk about changing our trade policies so that we do not encourage American corporations to take our jobs to China or to Mexico or to poor Third World countries, there is never a sense of urgency. But suddenly, boy, are things flying around here--$40 billion, even in Washington, DC, is a lot of money. Loan guarantees of $40 billion can rebuild communities from one end of America to the other, could put millions of American people back to work at decent wages. Suddenly, however, for some reason, that discussion never takes place here. But now, because Wall Street and the investment houses want to make sure they are not going to lose any money on their Mexican investments, wham, like a bullet, is that process flying through here.

Mr. SANDERS. The gentlewoman is not suggesting that the patriotic billionaires in Mexico are not going to themselves reinvest in their own country? She is not suggesting that they might take their own money out of their own country and put that money into American banks so that the working people of the United States who are losing jobs because our jobs are being taken to Mexico should bail out these investors and these big banks? The gentlewoman is not suggesting that, is she?

Mr. SANDERS. I will just say to the American taxpayers that if you think that the best use of your money now is to guarantee loans to Mexico, money that is going to be made by large investment houses and big banks, why, then, you should call the President of the United States up, you should call your Member of Congress and, say, ``That is exactly how I want to see my tax dollars being spent. Go for it. We think it is a great idea.'' But if you are concerned about a $200 billion deficit, if you are concerned that there are people here in Congress who say that because of the deficit we have got to cut back on Medicare, on Medicaid, on nutrition programs for hungry kids, and you think that a $40 billion loan guarantee for Mexico is not how you want to see your tax dollars being spent, then I think also you should get on the phone, you should call up Speaker Gingrich, you should call up my office, Ms. Kaptur's office and the office of your Representative in Congress, your United States Senator. Mr. Speaker, we can defeat this thing if millions of Americans stand up and say, ``No, let's get our priorities straight. We have other things to do with our tax dollars other than to bail out Mexico and protect investments from large banks and investment houses.'' So let us get our priorities straight, let us flood the U.S. Congress with calls, with letters, and say to the Members of this institution, ``No bailout for Mexico. Protect American taxpayers.''

Mr. SANDERS. You are absolutely right. And I think the point that has to be made over and over again is that at a time when America, for working people, is becoming a poorer and poorer country, at a time when the gap between the rich and the poor is growing wider, when so many middle-income people need help, what an absurdity, what an outrage that the U.S. Government today, the President and leaders of Congress are proposing not to stand with middle income people, not to stand with the poor or the working people, but they are going to provide $40 billion of loan guarantees to very, very profitable Wall Street investors. And if that does not tell you who controls the U.S. Congress, then I think you may never know it. I would hope very much that we can turn this process about. I think, I say to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], it is going to come to the floor next week?

Mr. SANDERS. But what I get a kick out of is in this era of personal responsibility it is not enough that you may very well, and probably likely, will earn a 20-percent rate of return on your investment, but we are saying to these very brave investors, ``Well, if you do not make that 20 percent, if the Mexican economy does not improve, if by some chance they are not able to pay you back, do not worry about it, Uncle Sam and the taxpayers are here to bail you out.'' The irony, and I know you and I have discussed this earlier, the irony that some of the people that we are protecting are exactly the same people who have thrown American workers out on the street, taken their jobs to Mexico, now they are going back to these unemployed workers and saying, ``We want you to provide guarantees to the companies that are investing in Mexico today.'' To say that is absurd would be, I think, a massive understatement.

Mr. SANDERS. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] for her leadership role in this whole issue. You know, when we talk about the beltway mentality, and we talk about the degree to which Washington, DC, and the U.S. Congress are separated from the pain and the anguish of middle income America, I think you could not give a clearer example of that separation than this $40 billion bailout for Mexico. Now, two things are happening at exactly the same time. The President and congressional leaders are talking about a $40 billion bailout. For a start, what we are hearing is that because we have a terrible deficit situation, it may be necessary to destroy our Social Security system upon which tens of millions of senior citizens exist. There is no question but that the Republican leadership has in mind massive cuts in Medicare, in Medicaid, massive cuts in nutrition programs for hungry children. So on one hand, what we hear every single day on the floor of this House is we have a terrible deficit situation; therefore, we are going to have to cut back on the basic needs, the substance, the substantive needs of some of the most desperate people in this country, because of the deficit. Then in the same breath what we hear is, well, we have got to protect Wall Street who are making investments in Mexico, and, therefore, we are going to have to cosign a $40 billion loan guarantee. That is No. 1. And the second line of rhetoric that we hear is that we are entering into an era of so-called personal responsibility. What we are saying to hungry children in America, we have 5 million kids who are hungry, we are saying, well, you know what, in the new United States of America do not expect the Federal Government to provide you with basic nutrition, and we say to the elderly people who have paid into Social Security and Medicare for their whole lives, do not expect the Federal Government to stand with you in your time of need. Personal responsibility. You have got to do it on your own. Right? No free lunch. But at exactly this same moment, we have investors who are interested in buying bonds from Mexico, bonds by the way which are paying 19- or 20-percent returns.

Mr. SANDERS. We were the crazy protectionists. At worse we were racist, anti-Mexico. Fourteen months have come and gone. Where are the editorial writers today telling us what a good deal NAFTA was? What they are telling us now, these same exact people, is well, excuse us, I guess we are going to have to pony up another $40 billion to protect Mexico.

Mr. SANDERS. But these guys come in a few weeks ago, and we are supposed to pass this thing with virtually no committee debate, I gather no committee debate whatsoever, bring it onto the floor of the House, because the big money people want to be protected. It is really quite incredible, and the other irony I would point out is the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski] quite correctly talked about the impact of NAFTA 1 year later--loss of jobs, lessening of the trade balance. Fourteen months ago when we were debating that issue here, who would have believed it, after hearing all that the proponents told us, right? It is going to improve the standard of living of Mexican workers. It is going to create untold jobs in America; 14 months come and go, and what we are talking about now is the collapse of the Mexican economy, the decline in the volume of the peso by 40 percent, and a $40 billion bailout. You know what gets me? Where are all the editorial writers? Every major newspaper in America told us what a great thing it would be. Remember that?

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. That was the Johnson Control factory in Bennington, VT, and that was a very painful situation, very serious loss to our community and to the hundreds of workers who were affected. The only word I want to add to what you are saying, I say to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], as important as it is to document the loss of jobs, there is another process going on as well, and that is the lowering of wages of workers whose jobs remain in existence. Very clearly when you have a process by which jobs are going to Mexico and China, when workers go into their employers and say, ``We want a decent wage increase,'' what the employers are saying is, ``Hey, you better take a 10-percent decrease in wages or we can take your jobs to Mexico or anyplace else.'' So this whole process in putting continuous pressure on the decline of real wages in America. That is a very important point to keep reaffirming.

Mr. SANDERS. I can remember on the floor of this House, in my first term 3 years ago, sometime around 2 o'clock in the morning, some $2 billion that some of us had managed to put in the budget in order to feed hungry children and take care of the needs of the millions of kids in this country who are doing without. It was taken out of the budget, my colleagues. We could not afford $2 billion to take care of hungry children in America. Big debate. What really concerns me is not just that we are putting $9 billion into a line of credit from the Treasury Department, an untold line of credit from the Fed; what really gets me is there is no debate at all on this issue. Now where are all of those people who ran for election in November who talked about accountability in government, who talked about the $200 billion deficit, who talked about the balanced budget amendment? Where are they now? I am listening; I do not hear anything. I guess that when we talk about money for hungry children, when we talk about Federal aid to education, affordable housing, we cannot afford it. But when it comes to bailing out corporate America, when it comes to shoring up the peso, not only can we afford it, there is no debate, no discussion, not one word on the floor of the House. Now our honorable new Speaker, very articulate gentleman, very clear about what he believes in; some of us are eagerly awaiting his words of wisdom on this important issue. Last point on the issue: In this last election 38 percent of the American people voted; 62 percent of the people did not bother to go to the polls. Tens of millions of people no longer believe that they have a voice in what happens in government, no longer believe that the U.S. Government is here to respond to their needs. They are boycotting American politics and government, and one can understand why people give up on the political process. People are working in my State of Vermont 50, 60, 70 hours a week to keep their families afloat. They are paying too much in taxes, and now, without any discussion, we have the Government talking about a $9 billion line of credit, and that is why people are giving up on the political process.

Mr. SANDERS. The absurdities pile on top of the absurdities. Not only is everything that you are saying true in my opinion, but on top of that, we are spending tens and tens of billions of dollars to defend Asis against whom I am not exactly sure. Some years ago we were told that it was necessary to spend huge amounts of money defending freedom against the Communist Chinese dictatorship. Well, surprise, surprise. The last I read, the Chinese Communist dictatorship still exists. But now they are OK because they are, for the first time, and have been for a number of years, welcoming tens of billions of dollars of American corporate investment. So we are spending huge amounts of money defending somebody in Asia, I am not exactly sure, against a country which now welcomes American corporate investment, and in fact many of the corporations like China, because it is very difficult for the Chinese workers to stand up and defend their own rights. So the absurdity piles on top of the absurdity.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman very much for her leadership over the years. It is a pleasure to work with the gentleman from Oregon, Pete DeFazio, as well as other Members of the Congress. I am delighted to join with my colleagues today in supporting legislation which would repeal the NAFTA agreement that Congress passed last year. When Congress passed NAFTA last year we were told that this trade agreement would be a step forward for both the economy of the United States and the economy of Mexico. We were told that it would be a win- win situation. Unfortunately, 1 year later it appears to be a lose-lose agreement. Today up to 50,000 American workers have lost their jobs as a result of NAFTA and have filed for NAFTA trade-assistance benefits. The Mexican economy today is staggering and wages in Mexico are plummeting. Most alarmingly, is in the last few weeks the United States Treasury Department has opened up a $9 billion line of credit in order to shore up the sinking Mexican peso and they have encouraged United States commercial banks to lend additional billions of dollars to shore up the peso, all of which could very well lead to a disaster for the American taxpayer who ultimately could be asked to pick up the damage. It seems to me that what NAFTA is about is a continuation of a trade policy in this country which has been very unfortunate for the average American worker. Today in this country, and we do not talk about this terribly often, we have a $150 billion trade deficit. With NAFTA that deficit is becoming worse. I feel that GATT will only accelerate that problem. Economists tell us that for every $1 billion in trade we create some 20,000 jobs. That means that with $150 billion trade deficit we are looking at the loss of 3 million jobs. Second of all, when we look at the economy in America today, there are people who say the economy is doing fine, we are creating new jobs. The point to make is what kind of new jobs are we creating, what kind of old jobs are we losing? The new jobs that we are creating are, by and large, low-wage, part- time, temporary jobs that often have no benefits at all. The manufacturing jobs we are losing, in agreements like NAFTA, are decent- paying jobs that have good benefits. That process of losing decent-paying manufacturing jobs and replacing them with low-wage, part-time, service-industry jobs is one of the reasons that the average American worker is seeing a major decline in his or her standard of living. It seems to me that the beneficiaries of the NAFTA agreement, and as you will recall, I say to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], the major multinational corporations in America who will take our jobs to Mexico where they can pay people a dollar an hour, or today with the devaluation of the peso even less. Who are we kidding? Why will large corporations pay American workers $10 an hour, provide decent benefits, have to protect the environment, when they can go to Mexico and get the unfortunate and desperate Mexican workers to work for substandard wages, when they can go to China and hire people in an authoritarian society at 20 cents an hour? I think it is absolutely appropriate that we in Congress demand the repeal of NAFTA, that we make certain that the American taxpayers are not stuck with a billion dollar bill in trying to shore up the peso or protecting American banks who are lending the Mexican Government money, and I also think it is very appropriate that we begin to take a fundamental and hard look at our entire trade policy, which has worked to benefit large corporations but has worked detrimentally to the needs of the average American worker. So I think that we are doing something that is important. I hope that we will gather more and more support from Members of Congress to stand up, to repeal NAFTA, and to reverse our trade policies.

Mr. SANDERS. I think one of the questions we have to ask ourselves in this whole debate is who are the forces in America, who are the groups who pushed us into NAFTA? The answer is virtually, virtually every large multinational corporation. Who are the forces who were opposed to NAFTA and who raised over a year ago many of the same concerns that we are raising right now? Those were the groups who represented the American workers, those were the groups who represented family farmers, those were the groups who were concerned about the environment. What about the media? The gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] made an interesting point, the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] made the same point: We are talking about a $9 billion line of credit from the Treasury Department and a line of credit that we do not know from the Federal Reserve. Even in Washington, that is a lot of money. Now, every day you turn on the television and you hear about welfare reform. Well, AFDC, aid to families with dependent children, is $12 billion, a lot of money. That is on the front pages every day. How much public discussion has this untold billions of dollars been receiving on the front pages of the paper? Money which is not going to poor people in America, money which is not going to the hungry children in America, money which is going to shore up the peso and perhaps to protect American banks which are investing in Mexico. People in Vermont do not call me up and say, ``Bernie, I want to use my taxpayer dollar to shore up the peso.'' I do not think I have gotten one call on that issue yet. People are concerned about our deficit, they do not want to spend billions of dollars shoring up the peso. They would like that money to go to retire our deficit, they would like to see that money go to feed hungry children, they would like to see that money going to deal with the homeless. The second point that I want to make on this discussion: After NAFTA was passed--and everybody in this room knows that it was a tight vote, both parties split and the American people were split right down the middle, and we checked--we were concerned about the nature of the reporting that we saw during the NAFTA debates and that I am seeing right now. We checked through every large newspaper in America--the New York Times, pro-NAFTA; the Wall Street Journal, pro-NAFTA; Gannett, pro-NAFTA; and so on and so forth; 17 of the largest papers in America were all pro-NAFTA. We did not find one that was anti-NAFTA. So I would urge and request that the corporate media pay attention to this issue, maybe admit that they were wrong, and start giving some coverage to the fact that American taxpayers may be on the line for tens of billions of dollars in bailing out the Mexican economy.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this measure.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, some of the reforms we are voting today are good, and some I have problems with. The one I want to briefly focus on is the requirement that it will take a 60-percent vote to raise personal and corporate income taxes. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the current tax system in America is highly regressive. Tens of millions of working Americans and middle-income Americans are paying a higher percentage of their income in taxes than are millionaires. Corporations today in many instances that are very profitable, that are taking their jobs to the Third World, are not contributing their fair share in taxes. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that if we want a fair tax system, an equitable tax system, majority vote should rule in allowing the House of Representatives to raise taxes on the wealthy and on those corporations that are not paying their fair share of taxes.