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
'Inexcusable': Amnesty Slams Biden Admin for Delaying Report on Israel's Use of US Weapons
"The Biden administration had months to put together a report on information they should already be collecting."
May 09, 2024
A leading human rights organization on Wednesday slammed the Biden administration's decision to indefinitely delay the release of a report on whether Israel and other U.S. allies are using American weaponry in compliance with international law.
"The Biden administration had months to put together a report on information they should already be collecting—whether grave human rights violations and other serious violations of international law are being committed using U.S.-provided weapons in seven conflicts around the world," said Amanda Klasing, national director for government relations at Amnesty International USA. "They must release it urgently."
"This is especially urgent," Klasing added, "given the Israeli military's ground operation in Rafah, in the occupied Gaza Strip, where more than 1.4 million Palestinians, including 600,000 children, are sheltering. Burying the head in the sand tactic doesn't make the violations of the government of Israel go away."
Required under a White House policy implemented in February, the report was supposed to be delivered to Congress on May 8.
U.S. State Department spokesman Matthew Miller said during a press briefing Wednesday that the administration will "have it up in the coming days," but declined to offer a specific timeline.
"It is overdue for President Biden to end U.S. complicity with the government of Israel's grave violations of international law."
U.S. President Joe Biden admitted in a CNN interview Wednesday that the Israeli military has killed civilians in Gaza with American-made bombs—something human rights organizations like Amnesty have been documenting for months.
In a research brief submitted to the Biden administration last week, Amnesty detailed three cases in which Israel's military has used U.S.-made weapons in violation of international law. In October, Israeli forces used Joint Direct Attack Munitions manufactured by Boeing to carry out airstrikes on two Gaza homes, killing 43 civilians—including 19 children and 14 women.
While applauding Biden's decision to halt a shipment of thousands of bombs to Israel as it attacks Rafah, Amnesty said Wednesday that it was "inexcusable" for the State Department to postpone the long-awaited report.
"It is overdue for President Biden to end U.S. complicity with the government of Israel's grave violations of international law," said Klasing. "Tough conversations with counterparts in Israel are tragically and clearly not doing the job—violations continue unabated, and civilians are paying the price with their lives."
It's unclear why the administration was unable to meet its own deadline for providing U.S. lawmakers with the report on Israel's use of American weaponry.
Kevin Martin, the president of Peace Action, argued in an op-ed for Common Dreams on Thursday that the delay "reflects internal divisions within the State Department not just about Israel's fallacious claim of compliance, but what to recommend to the executive branch in terms of possible action against Israel."
An internal State Department memo that leaked last month showed that officials at four of the department's bureaus did not believe the Israeli government's written assurances that its use of American weaponry in Gaza has followed international law.
Several State Department officials have resigned since October over the Biden administration's decision to arm Israel's assault on Gaza, which has killed more than 34,900 people and sparked an appalling humanitarian crisis.
Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of Democracy for the Arab World Now, said Thursday that the Biden administration's "suspension of massive bombs to Israel is an important but long-overdue acknowledgment that Israel has been using American weapons to indiscriminately kill Palestinian civilians in violation of the most basic laws of war."
"Suspending all weapons transfers to Israel shouldn't be a political tactic," said Whitson, "but rather adhering to long-standing laws that prohibit arming abusers."
Keep ReadingShow Less
800+ Jewish Professors Urge Biden, Senate to Oppose 'Dangerous' Antisemitism Bill
"Criticism of the state of Israel, the Israeli government, policies of the Israeli government, or Zionist ideology is not—in and of itself—antisemitic," reads a new letter.
May 09, 2024
A Dartmouth University professor who once served as the school's head of Jewish studies and was violently arrested at a Palestinian rights protest last week was among more than 800 Jewish educators who had signed a letter as of Thursday, demanding that lawmakers and U.S. President Joe Biden oppose a bill claiming to combat antisemitism.
The Awareness of Antisemitism Act, said the letter, would actually "amplify the real threats Jewish Americans already face" by "conflating antisemitism with legitimate criticism of Israel."
The bill, which was passed by the Republican-controlled House last week over the objections of 70 progressive Democrats and 21 Republicans, would codify the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, which includes "targeting of the state of Israel" and "drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."
The Awareness of Antisemitism Act, which could soon be taken up by the Senate, would require the Department of Education to consider the group's working definition when determining whether harassment is motivated by antisemitism.
The professors noted that the working definition has been "internationally criticized," with more than 100 civil society organizations—including some Israeli groups—calling on the United Nations last year to reject the IHRA's interpretation because it has been "misused" to shield Israel from legitimate criticism.
"We hold varied opinions on Israel," reads the letter. "Whatever our differences, we oppose the IHRA's definition of antisemitism. If imported into federal law, the IHRA definition will delegitimize and silence Jewish Americans—among others—who advocate for Palestinian human rights or otherwise criticize Israeli policies."
The professors pointed out the irony that by using the IHRA definition—which also includes "accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel" than their own home countries—the bill "hardens the dangerous notion that Jewish identity is inextricably linked to every decision of Israel's government."
"Far from combating antisemitism, this dynamic promises to amplify the real threats Jewish Americans already face," the letter reads.
Annelise Orleck, the Dartmouth professor who was arrested last week, was joined by other Jewish academics including City University of New York professor Peter Beinart and professor emeritus Avishai Margalit of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in signing the letter.
Orleck, a labor historian, told ABC affiliate WMUR after her arrest that she hopes Dartmouth and other schools that have cracked down on and condemned pro-Palestinian protests in recent weeks will "stop weaponizing antisemitism."
The professors urged political leaders who are "earnestly concerned with antisemitism" to "join hundreds of Jewish scholars from across the globe who have endorsed alternative definitions of antisemitism—such as those contained in the Nexus Document or Jerusalem Declaration. Unlike the IHRA definition, these documents offer meaningful tools to combat antisemitism without undermining Jewish safety and civil rights by insulating Israel from legitimate criticism."
When the Antisemitism Awareness Act was passed by the House last week, Jewish-led Palestinian rights groups were among those that condemned the proposal.
Biden has angered pro-Palestinian rights groups by suggesting the campus protests that have spread across the U.S. in recent weeks, with students and faculty demanding an end to U.S. support for Israel as it bombards Gaza, are inherently antisemitic.
"Criticism of the state of Israel, the Israeli government, policies of the Israeli government, or Zionist ideology is not—in and of itself—antisemitic," reads the professors' letter, which was first publicized Wednesday. "We accordingly urge our political leaders to reject any effort to codify into federal law a definition of antisemitism that conflates antisemitism with criticism of the state of Israel."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Biodiversity and Climate Crises 'Increase the Risks of Future Pandemics': Study
"New study in Nature confirms that if we want to avoid the next pandemic—we should stop destroying biodiversity, heating, and polluting the planet," one expert said.
May 09, 2024
Biodiversity loss, the introduction of invasive species, the climate emergency, and chemical pollution all increase the risk of infectious disease, a first-of-its-kind analysis has found.
The paper, published in Nature Wednesday, reviewed 972 studies and 2,938 observations on how human-driven environmental change had impacted the spread of disease, looking specifically at 1,497 host-parasite relationships.
"New study in Nature confirms that if we want to avoid the next pandemic—we should stop destroying biodiversity, heating, and polluting the planet," Diarmid Campbell-Lendrum, who leads the World Health Organization's climate change unit and was not involved with the study, wrote on social media. "Just one more reason to go for a greener, healthier future."
"This adds to a very long list of reasons we should be rapidly moving away from fossil fuels and trying to mitigate the impacts of climate change."
The Covid-19 pandemic, which some scientists believe passed from bats to humans, has led to increased interest in how diseases emerge and spread. At the same time, research research has pointed to a larger range for pathogens and their hosts as one of the health dangers of the climate emergency. For example, The Lancet's most recent report on climate change and health predicted that, if temperatures rise by 2°C above preindustrial levels by 2100, the ideal conditions for Vibrio would expand by 17-25% and the risk of catching dengue fever would go up by 36-37%.
While previous studies had considered how certain types of environmental change—like deforestation or global heating—impacted disease spread, no study had considered the risk for plants, animals, and humans across the different ways that industrial society has altered the environment.
"This literature gap is critical to fill because resources for infectious disease management will always be limited and could be poorly targeted without knowledge of which global change drivers most affect infectious diseaserisk," the study authors write.
The researchers looked at four major drivers of change: biodiversity loss, the introduction of new species, the climate crisis, and habitat loss or alteration. They found that human-driven biodiversity loss increased illness and death by almost nine times compared with areas where biodiversity remained intact. The next most impactful changes were the introduction of new species, global heating and increased carbon dioxide levels, and chemical pollution such as pesticides and fertilizers, which can put additional pressure on plants' and animals' immune systems.
"It could mean that by modifying the environment, we increase the risks of future pandemics," study co-author Jason Rohr, a University of Notre Dame biology professor, toldThe Washington Post of the results.
One way that the loss of species can increase disease is by eliminating rare species, Rohr explained toThe New York Times. As parasites and pathogens tend to evolve to infect more common species, when these species are all that remain, the risk of infection goes up. One example is the rise of white-footed mice, who host Lyme disease. One theory is that as these mice have proliferated in comparison with other, rarer mammals, the rates of Lyme disease in the U.S. have gone up. Of course, the spread of Lyme disease has also been linked to the expansion of the range of ticks due to warming temperatures, in an example of how different environmental alterations can interact to increase illness.
"This adds to a very long list of reasons we should be rapidly moving away from fossil fuels and trying to mitigate the impacts of climate change," Bard College professor Felicia Keesing, who was not a part of the study, told the Post in response to its findings.
One of the study's more surprising discoveries was that habitat loss actually decreased disease. The authors think this is due to the rise and expansion of cities, as urban areas tend to have better public health and fewer opportunities for humans and animals to mix and exchange germs.
"In urban areas with lots of concrete, there is a much smaller number of species that can thrive in that environment," Rohr toldThe Guardian. "From a human disease perspective, there is often greater sanitation and health infrastructure than in rural environments."
Colin Carlson, a Georgetown University biologist who was not part of the research team, told the Times that the lack of urban biodiversity was "not a good thing."
Next, the researchers hope to explore more about the connections between the different drivers of change.
"Importantly, greater effort is needed to identify win-win solutions that address multiple societal stressors, such as disease, food, energy, water, sustainability, and poverty challenges," they write.
However, the study already points the way toward some recommendations: "Specifically, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, managing ecosystem health, and preventing biological invasions and biodiversityloss could help to reduce the burden of plant, animal, and humandiseases,especially when coupled with improvements to social and economic determinants of health," the researchers advise.
Carlson told the Times that the study was "a big step forward in the science."
"This paper is one of the strongest pieces of evidence that I think has been published that shows how important it is health systems start getting ready to exist in a world with climate change, with biodiversity loss," Carlson said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular