March, 22 2022, 05:01pm EDT

Sanders Announces Hold on Consideration of Competition Legislation, Citing Billions in Corporate Giveaways
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today delivered remarks on the floor of the U.S. Senate in opposition to the COMPETES Act, which includes $53 billion in giveaways to very profitable microchip companies.
Sanders' remarks, as prepared for delivery, are below:
M. President: At a time of massive and growing income and wealth inequality, the American people are outraged at the unprecedented level of corporate greed that is taking place all around them.
WASHINGTON
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today delivered remarks on the floor of the U.S. Senate in opposition to the COMPETES Act, which includes $53 billion in giveaways to very profitable microchip companies.
Sanders' remarks, as prepared for delivery, are below:
M. President: At a time of massive and growing income and wealth inequality, the American people are outraged at the unprecedented level of corporate greed that is taking place all around them.
Today, while the working class of this country is struggling with higher gas prices, higher food prices and higher housing prices, the billionaire class and large corporations are doing phenomenally well and have never had it so good.
In America today, while the average worker is making $44 a week less in inflation based dollars than he or she made nearly 50 years ago, corporate profits are at an all-time high and CEOs have seen huge increases in their compensation packages. We have never seen in this country the level of corporate greed that we are seeing right now.
Let me give you just a few examples: While the price of gas is now $4.25 a gallon, on average, Exxon Mobil, Chevron, BP and Shell made nearly $30 billion in profits last quarter alone. Meanwhile, big oil CEOs are on track to spend $88 billion this year not to produce more oil, not to address the climate crisis, but to buy back their own stock and hand out dividends to enrich their wealthy shareholders.
And here's more corporate greed. Amazon raised the price of its prime membership by 16.8%, while it increased its profits by 75% to a record-breaking $35 billion - and, by the way, avoided $5.2 billion in taxes. Meanwhile, the founder of Amazon, Jeff Bezos, became $81 billion richer during the pandemic and is now worth $186 billion.
More corporate greed. The price of beef is up 32%, the price of chicken is up 20% and the price of pork is up 13%. Meanwhile, Tyson Foods, a major producer of chicken, beef and hot dogs, increased its profits by 140% last quarter to $1.1 billion and gave its CEO a 22% pay raise last year to $14 million. Meanwhile, its owner, John Tyson, nearly doubled his wealth during the pandemic and now is now worth $3 billion.
Here's corporate greed and the outrageous cost of prescription drugs. Last year Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson and AbbVie - three giant pharmaceutical companies - increased their profits by over 90% to $54 billion. Meanwhile, the CEOs of just 8 prescription drug companies made $350 million in total compensation in 2020.
When we talk about corporate greed we are also talking about massive levels of income and wealth inequality.
In our country today, the two wealthiest people own more wealth than the bottom 42 percent of our population - more than 130 million Americans. And the top one percent now owns more wealth than the bottom 92 percent.
Since the Wall Street crash of 2008, about 45% of all new income has gone to the top 1%. In other words, over the last many decades there has been a massive shift in income and wealth from the middle class and working families to the top one percent.
And listen to this, which really says it all. During this terrible pandemic, when thousands of essential workers died, gave up their lives doing their jobs, over 700 billionaires in America became nearly $2 trillion richer. 700 people, $2 trillion richer.
So, this is where we are today. Desperate workers are dying because they are forced to go to work to provide for their families, while the people on top are doing unbelievably well. Today, billionaires like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and Richard Branson are zooming off to outer space, buying $500 million super-yachts and mansions with 25 bathrooms. Is that really what America is supposed to be about?
We are talking now, appropriately, about the Russian oligarchy. Well, what do you think we have here now in this country? It's an American oligarchy.
M. President, the American people want us in Congress to take action to address this unprecedented level of corporate greed.
They are sick and tired of large corporations making record profits and, in a given year, paying nothing in federal income taxes.
They are sick and tired of billionaires paying a lower effective tax rate than a teacher, a nurse, a truck driver or a firefighter.
They want Congress to address corporate greed and make sure that the wealthiest people and most profitable corporations pay their fair share of taxes.
And yet, this week, what are we doing here in the Senate? We are debating legislation to provide some $53 billion in corporate welfare with no strings attached to the highly profitable micro-chip industry. And yes, if you can believe it, this legislation also provides a $10 billion bailout to Jeff Bezos so that his company Blue Origin can launch a rocket ship to the moon.
M. President, in terms of the micro-chip industry, let us be very clear.
We are talking about an industry that has shut down over 780 manufacturing plants in the United States and eliminated 150,000 American jobs over the last 20 years while moving most of its production overseas.
In other words, in order to make more profits, these companies shut down plants in America and hired cheap labor abroad. And now, believe it or not, these very same companies are in line to receive $53 billion in corporate welfare to undo the damage that they did.
Do we need to expand the enormously important microchip industry in this country so that we become less dependent on foreign nations? Absolutely. But we can accomplish that goal without throwing money at these companies with no protections for the taxpayer.
M. President, we are the only major country on earth that does not guarantee healthcare to all Americans. Apparently, our people are not "entitled" to that.
We have the highest child poverty rate of almost any major nation on earth, which has gone up by 41% since January because of the refusal of some to extend the Child Tax Credit.
Apparently, our working parents are not "entitled" to raise their kids in dignity.
We have 45 million Americans struggling with student debt because of the outrageous cost of higher education. Apparently, our young people are not "entitled" to quality education without undergoing financial distress.
But here we are today on the floor of the Senate because many of my colleagues think that the enormously profitable micro-chip industry is entitled to a massive amount of corporate welfare.
M. President, I suspect 5 major semi-conductor companies will likely receive the lion's share of this taxpayer handout: Intel, Texas Instruments, Micron Technology, Global Foundries, and Samsung.
These 5 companies made over $75 billion in profits last year.
The company that will likely benefit the most from this taxpayer assistance is Intel. Let's be clear. Intel is not a poor company. It is not going broke.
In 2021, Intel made nearly $20 billion in profits.
We're talking about a company that had enough money to spend $14.2 billion during the pandemic, not on research and development, but on buying back its own stock to reward their executives and wealthy shareholders.
We're talking about a company that could afford to give its CEO, Pat Gelsinger, a $116 million compensation package last year.
We're talking about a company that could afford to spend over $100 million on lobbying and campaign contributions over the past 20 years.
We're talking about a company whose CEO in 2003, Andy Grove, said that he had "no choice" but to continue to move jobs overseas as he predicted that the U.S. would lose the bulk of its information technology jobs to China and India - which we have.
Do we really think that a highly profitable corporation like Intel needs a taxpayer bailout worth many billions of dollars with no strings attached?
Another company that will receive taxpayer assistance under this legislation is Texas Instruments.
Last year, Texas Instruments made $7.8 billion in profits. In 2020, this company spent $2.5 billion buying back its own stock while it has outsourced thousands of good-paying American jobs to low-wage countries and spent more than $40 million on lobbying over the past 20 years.
And on and on it goes.
M. President, providing $53 billion in corporate welfare to an industry that has outsourced tens of thousands of jobs to low-wage countries and spent hundreds of billions on stock buybacks with no strings attached may make sense to some, but it does not make sense to me.
Now, M. President, I understand that there will be a major effort to pass this bill as quickly as possible in order to move it to a conference committee and send it to the President's desk.
But let me be very clear. I will not support any Unanimous Consent request to speed up the passage of this bill unless I receive a roll call vote on two amendments that I have introduced.
The first amendment would prevent microchip companies from receiving taxpayer assistance unless they agree to issue warrants or equity stakes to the Federal Government.
If private companies are going to benefit from over $53 billion in taxpayer subsidies, the financial gains made by these companies must be shared with the American people, not just wealthy shareholders. In other words, all this amendment says is that if these companies want taxpayer assistance, we are not going to socialize all of the risks and privatize all of the profits. If these investments turn out to be profitable as a direct result of these federal grants, the taxpayers of this country have a right to get a return on that investment.
M. President. This is not a radical idea. These exact conditions were imposed on corporations that received taxpayer assistance in the bipartisan CARES Act, which passed the Senate 96 to 0.
In other words, every Member of the U.S. Senate has already voted for the conditions that are in this amendment.
Further, the CARES Act was not the first time that Congress passed warrants and equity stakes tied to government assistance. During the 2008 financial crisis, Congress required all companies taking TARP funds to issue warrants and equity stakes to the Federal Government.
In addition, this amendment would also require these highly profitable companies not to buy back their own stock, not to outsource American jobs, not to repeal existing collective bargaining agreements and to remain neutral in any union organizing effort.
Again this is not a radical idea. All of these conditions were imposed on companies that received funding from the CARES Act and passed the Senate by a vote of 96-0.
The second amendment that I have introduced would simply eliminate the $10 billion bailout for Jeff Bezos to fly to the moon. If Mr. Bezos wants to go to the moon, good for him. He has $186 billion in personal wealth. He became $81 billion richer during the pandemic. He is the second richest person in America. And, in a given year, Mr. Bezos has paid nothing in federal income taxes.
If he wants to go to the moon, let him use his own money, not U.S. taxpayers.
I yield the floor.
LATEST NEWS
Amazon Won't Display Tariff Costs After Trump Whines to Bezos
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said all companies should be "displaying how much tariffs contribute to the total price of products."
Apr 29, 2025
Amazon said Tuesday that it would not display tariff costs next to products on its website after U.S. President Donald Trump called the e-commerce giant's billionaire founder, Jeff Bezos, to complain about the reported plan.
Citing an unnamed person familiar with Amazon's supposed plan, Punchbowl Newsreported that "the shopping site will display how much of an item's cost is derived from tariffs—right next to the product's total listed price."
Many Amazon products come from China. While U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent claimed Sunday that "there is a path" to a tariff deal with the Chinese government, Trump has recently caused global economic alarm by hitting the country with a 145% tax and imposing a 10% minimum for other nations.
According toCNN, which spoke with two senior White House officials on Tuesday, Trump's call to Bezos "came shortly after one of the senior officials phoned the president to inform him of the story" from Punchbowl.
"Of course he was pissed," one officials said of Trump. "Why should a multibillion-dollar company pass off costs to consumers?"
Asked about how the call with Bezos went, Trump told reporters: "Great. Jeff Bezos was very nice. He was terrific. He solved the problem very quickly, and he did the right thing, and he's a good guy."
Earlier Tuesday, during a briefing, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called Amazon's reported plan "a hostile and political act," and said that "this is another reason why Americans should buy American."
Leavitt also asked why Amazon didn't have such displays during the Biden administration and held up a printed version of a 2021 Reutersreport about the company's "compliance with the Chinese government edict" to stop allowing customer ratings and reviews in China, allegedly prompted by negative feedback left on a collection President Xi Jinping's speeches and writings.
Asked whether Bezos is "still a Trump supporter," Leavitt said that she "will not speak to" the president's relationship with him.
As CNBCdetailed Tuesday:
Less than two hours after the press briefing, an Amazon spokesperson told CNBC that the company was only ever considering listing tariff charges on some products for Amazon Haul, its budget-focused shopping section.
"The team that runs our ultra low cost Amazon Haul store has considered listing import charges on certain products," the spokesperson said. "This was never a consideration for the main Amazon site and nothing has been implemented on any Amazon properties."
But in a follow-up statement an hour after that one, the spokesperson clarified that the plan to show tariff surcharges was "never approved" and is "not going to happen."
In response to Bloomberg also reporting on Amazon's claim that tariff displays were never under consideration for the company's main site, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick wrote on social media Tuesday, "Good move."
Before Amazon publicly killed any plans for showing consumers the costs from Trump's import taxes, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on the chamber's floor Tuesday that companies should be "displaying how much tariffs contribute to the total price of products."
"I urge more companies, particularly national retailers that compete with Amazon, to adopt this practice. If Amazon has the courage to display why prices are going up because of tariffs, so should all of our other national retailers who compete with them. And I am calling on them to do it now," he said.
Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) on Tuesday framed the whole incident as an example of how "Trump has created a government by and for the billionaires," declaring: "If anyone ever doubted that Trump, and Musk, and Bezos, and the billionaires are all [on] one team, just look at what happened at Amazon today. Bezos immediately caved and walked back a plan to tell Americans how much Trump's tariffs are costing them."
Casar also claimed Bezos wants "big tax cuts and sweatheart deals," and pointed to Amazon's Prime Video paying $40 million to license a documentary about the life of First Lady Melania Trump. In addition to the film agreement, Bezos has come under fire for Amazon's $1 million donation to the president's inauguration fund.
As the owner of
The Washington Post, Bezos—the world's second-richest person, after Trump adviser Elon Musk—also faced intense criticism for blocking the newspaper's planned endorsement of the president's 2024 Democratic challenger, Kamala Harris, and demanding its opinion page advocate for "personal liberties and free markets."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Medicare for All, Says Sanders, Would Show American People 'Government Is Listening to Them'
"The goal of the current administration and their billionaire buddies is to pile on endless cuts," said one nurse and union leader. "Even on our hardest days, we won't stop fighting for Medicare for All."
Apr 29, 2025
On Tuesday, Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Democratic Reps. Pramila Jayapal of Washington and Debbie Dingell of Michigan reintroduced the Medicare for All Act, re-upping the legislative quest to enact a single-payer healthcare system even as the bill faces little chance of advancing in the GOP-controlled House of Representatives or Senate.
Hundreds of nurses, healthcare providers, and workers from across the country joined the lawmakers for a press conference focused on the bill's reintroduction in front of the Capitol on Tuesday.
"We have the radical idea of putting healthcare dollars into healthcare, not into profiteering or bureaucracy," said Sanders during the press conference. "A simple healthcare system, which is what we are talking about, substantially reduces administrative costs, but it would also make life a lot easier, not just for patients, but for nurses" and other healthcare providers, he continued.
"So let us stand together," Sanders told the crowd. "Let us do what the American people want and let us transform this country. And when we pass Medicare for All, it's not only about improving healthcare for all our people—it's doing something else. It's telling the American people that, finally, the American government is listening to them."
Under Medicare for All, the government would pay for all healthcare services, including dental, vision, prescription drugs, and other care.
"It is a travesty when 85 million people are uninsured or underinsured and millions more are drowning in medical debt in the richest nation on Earth," said Jayapal in a statement on Tuesday.
In 2020, a study in the peer-reviewed medical journal The Lancet found that a single-payer program like Medicare for All would save Americans more than $450 billion and would likely prevent 68,000 deaths every year. That same year, the Congressional Budget Office found that a single-payer system that resembles Medicare for All would yield some $650 billion in savings in 2030.
Members of National Nurses United (NNU), the nation's largest union of registered nurses, were also at the press conference on Tuesday.
In a statement, the group highlighted that the bill comes at a critical time, given GOP-led threats to programs like Medicaid.
"The goal of the current administration and their billionaire buddies is to pile on endless cuts and attacks so that we become too demoralized and overwhelmed to move forward," said Bonnie Castillo, registered nurse and executive director of NNU. "Even on our hardest days, we won't stop fighting for Medicare for All."
Per Sanders' office, the legislation has 104 co-sponsors in the House and 16 in the Senate, which is an increase from the previous Congress.
A poll from Gallup released in 2023 found that 7 in 10 Democrats support a government-run healthcare system. The poll also found that across the political spectrum, 57% of respondents believe the government should ensure all people have healthcare coverage.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Advocates Warn GOP Just Unveiled 'Most Dangerous Higher Ed Bill in US History'
"This is the boldest attempt we've seen in recent history to segregate higher education along racial and class lines," said the Debt Collective.
Apr 29, 2025
At a markup session held by a U.S. House committee on the Republican Party's recently unveiled higher education reform bill Tuesday, one Democratic lawmaker had a succinct description for the legislation.
"This bill is a dream-killer," said Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.) of the so-called Student Success and Taxpayer Savings Plan, which was introduced by Education and Workforce Committee Chairman Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) as part of an effort to find $330 billion in education programs to offset President Donald Trump's tax plan.
Tasked with helping to make $4.5 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans possible, Walberg on Monday proposed changes to the Pell Grant program, which has provided financial aid to more than 80 million low-income students since it began in 1972. The bill would allocate more funding to the program but would also reduce the number of students who are eligible for the grants, changing the definition of a "full-time" student to one enrolled in at least 30 semester hours each academic year—up from 12 hours. Students would be cut off from the financial assistance entirely if they are enrolled less than six hours per semester.
David Baime, senior vice president for government relations for the American Association of Community Colleges, suggested the legislation doesn't account for the realities faced by many students who benefit from Pell Grants.
"These students are almost always working a substantial number of hours each week and often have family responsibilities. Pell Grants help them meet the cost of tuition and required fees," Baime toldInside Higher Ed. "We commend the committee for identifying substantial additional resources to help finance Pell, but it should not come at the cost of undermining the ability of low-income working students to enroll at a community college."
The draft bill would also end subsidized loans, which don't accrue interest when a student is still in college and gives borrowers a six-month grace period after graduation, starting in July 2026. More than 30 million borrowers currently have subsidized loans.
The proposal would also reduce the number of student loan repayment options from those offered by the Biden administration to just two, with borrowers given the option for a fixed monthly amount paid over a certain period of time or an income-based plan.
At the markup session on Tuesday, Bonamici pointed to her own experience of paying for college and law school "through a combination of grants and loans and work study and food stamps," and noted that her Republican colleagues on the committee also "graduated from college."
"And more than half of them have gone on to earn advanced degrees," said the congresswoman. "And yet those same individuals who benefited so much from accessing higher education are supporting a bill that will prevent others from doing so."
“In a time when higher ed is being attacked, this bill is another assault,” @RepBonamici calls out committee leaders for wanting to gut financial aid.
“With this bill, they will be taking that opportunity [of higher ed] away from others. This bill is a dream killer.” pic.twitter.com/UjTYvnOEKv
— Student Borrower Protection Center (@theSBPC) April 29, 2025
Democrats on the committee also spoke out against provisions that would cap loans a student can take out for graduate programs at $100,000; the Grad PLUS program has allowed students to borrow up to the cost of attendance.
The Parent PLUS program, which has been found to provide crucial help to Black families accessing higher education, would also be restricted.
"Black students, brown students, first-generation college students, first-generation Americans, will not have access to college," said Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.).
“We cannot take away access to loans, and not replace it with anything else, not make the system better. We know the outcome here—Black, brown, and poor students will not figure it out. Instead, only elite students from the 1% will continue to access education.”@RepSummerLee🙇 pic.twitter.com/oGbRH154Ed
— Student Borrower Protection Center (@theSBPC) April 29, 2025
As the Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) warned last week, eliminating the Grad PLUS program without also lowering the cost of graduate programs would "subject millions of future borrowers to an unregulated and predatory private student loan market, while doing little to reduce overall student debt and the need to borrow."
Aissa Canchola Bañez, policy director for SBPC, told The Hill that the draft bill is "an attack on students and working families with student loan debt."
"We've seen an array of really problematic proposals that are on the table for congressional Republicans," Canchola Bañez said. "Many of these would cause massive spikes for families with monthly student loan payments."
With the proposal, which Republicans hope to pass through reconciliation with a simple majority, the party would be "restructuring higher education for the worse," said the Debt Collective.
"It's the most dangerous higher ed bill in U.S. history," said the student loan borrowers union. "It strips the Department of Education of virtually every authority to cancel student debt. Eliminates every repayment program. Abolishes subsidized loans."
"This is the boldest attempt we've seen in recent history to segregate higher education along racial and class lines," the group added. "We have to push back."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular