July, 13 2022, 03:21pm EDT
![Senator Bernie Sanders](https://assets.rbl.ms/32012641/origin.jpg)
Sanders Slams Corporate Giveaways in Microchip Legislation
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) Wednesday on the floor of the U.S. Senate called for the USICA conference committee to not approve the billions in corporate giveaways slated for a handful of wealthy and powerful microchip companies, including a $10 billion bailout for Jeff Bezos to fly to the moon.
Sanders' remarks, as prepared for delivery, are below.
WASHINGTON
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) Wednesday on the floor of the U.S. Senate called for the USICA conference committee to not approve the billions in corporate giveaways slated for a handful of wealthy and powerful microchip companies, including a $10 billion bailout for Jeff Bezos to fly to the moon.
Sanders' remarks, as prepared for delivery, are below.
M. President: At a time of massive income and wealth inequality, the American people are sick and they are tired of the unprecedented level of corporate greed that is taking place from one end of this country to the next.
They are sick and tired of paying outrageously high prices at the gas pump and at the grocery store while the oil companies and the food companies are seeing profits at an all-time high.
They are sick and they are tired of struggling to pay for the basic necessities of life while 700 billionaires in our country became $2 trillion richer during the pandemic.
They are sick and tired of CEOs making 350 times more than the average worker, while over half of our people live paycheck to paycheck.
They are sick and they are tired of seeing multi-billionaires like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and Richard Branson taking joy rides to outer space, buying $500 million super-yachts and living in mansions with 25 bathrooms when some 600,000 people are homeless in America.
They want Congress to address corporate greed and make sure that the wealthiest people and most profitable corporations pay their fair share of taxes.
M. President, the last poll that I saw had Congress with a 16% approval rating. This to me is shocking, really shocking. And I suspect it has to do with the fact that the 16% are not yet fully aware of what Congress is doing.
So what is Congress doing? For nearly two months, a 107-member conference committee has been meeting behind closed doors to provide over $50 billion in corporate welfare with no strings attached to the highly profitable micro-chip industry.
And yes, if you can believe it, this legislation may also provide a $10 billion bailout to Jeff Bezos so that his company Blue Origin can launch a rocket ship to the moon.
M. President: For all of my friends who tell us how concerned they are about the deficit, how we cannot fund the needs of our children, how we can't fund the needs of our seniors, a $53 billion blank check to some of the most profitable corporations in America and a $10 billion bailout to the second wealthiest person in our country is an absolute outrage. It is why the American people today have such low regard for Congress.
M. President, there is no doubt that there is a global shortage in microchips and semiconductors which is making it harder for manufacturers to produce the cars, cell phones and electronic equipment that we need. This shortage is costing American workers good jobs and raising prices for families. That is why I fully support efforts to expand U.S. microchip production.
But the question we should be asking is this: Should American taxpayers provide the micro-chip industry with a blank check of over $50 billion at a time when semiconductor companies are making tens of billions of dollars in profits and paying their executives exorbitant compensation packages? I think the answer to that question should be a resounding NO.
Let's review some recent history. Over the last 20 years, the micro-chip industry has shut down over 780 manufacturing plants in the United States and eliminated 150,000 American jobs while moving most of its production overseas after receiving over $9.5 billion in government subsidies and loans.
In other words, in order to make more profits, these companies took government money and used it to ship good-paying jobs abroad. Now, as a reward for that bad behavior, these same companies are in line to receive a massive taxpayer handout to undo the damage that they did. That may make sense to someone. It does not make sense to me.
In total, it has been estimated that 5 major semi-conductor companies will receive the lion's share of this taxpayer handout: Intel, Texas Instruments, Micron Technology, Global Foundries, and Samsung. These 5 companies made $70 billion in profits last year.
The company that will likely benefit the most from this taxpayer assistance is Intel. I have nothing against Intel. I wish them well. But, let's be clear. Intel is not a poor company. It is not going broke.
In 2021, Intel made nearly $20 billion in profits. During the pandemic, Intel had enough money to spend $16.6 billion, not on research and development, but on buying back its own stock to reward its executives and wealthy shareholders.
Last year, Intel could afford to give its CEO, Pat Gelsinger, a $179 million compensation package. Over the past 20 years, Intel spent over $100 million on lobbying and campaign contributions while shipping thousands of jobs to China and other low-income countries. Does it sound like this company really needs corporate welfare?
Another company that would 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.
Who else is in line to receive corporate welfare under this bill?
Well, how about the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC)? It is in line to potentially receive billions of dollars in federal grants under this bill.
M. President: Guess who the largest shareholder of TSMC is? Well, if you guessed the Government of Taiwan you would be correct - which should come as no surprise to anybody who studies how other countries throughout the world conduct industrial policy.
So let's be clear: When we provide TSMC money, we are giving that taxpayer money directly to the Government of Taiwan.
Samsung, another very large corporate entity from South Korea is also in line to receive federal funding under this bill.
In other words, not only would this bill be providing corporate welfare to profitable American corporations, but we would literally be handing over U.S. taxpayer dollars to corporations that are owned or controlled by other countries.
And on and on it goes.
M. President: Let me be clear. I believe in industrial policy. I believe that it makes sense, in certain occasions, for the government and the private sector to work together to address a pressing need in America.
Industrial policy to me means cooperation between the government and the private sector. Cooperation. It does not mean the government providing massive amounts of corporate welfare to profitable corporations without getting anything in return.
M. President: The question is will the United States government develop an industrial policy that benefits all of our society, or will we continue to have an industrial policy that benefits the wealthy and the powerful?
M. President: In 1968, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said: "The problem is that we all too often have socialism for the rich and rugged free enterprise capitalism for the poor."
I am afraid what Dr. King said 54 years ago was accurate back then and it is even more accurate today.
We have heard a lot of talk in the halls of Congress about the need to create public-private partnerships - and that all sounds very good. But when the government adopts an industrial policy that socializes all of the risk and privatizes all of the profits that's not a partnership. That is crony capitalism.
Some of my colleagues make the point that the microchip industry is enormously important for our economy and that we must become less dependent on foreign nations for micro-chips. I agree. There is no argument about that. But we can and must accomplish that goal without simply throwing money at these companies while the taxpayer gets nothing in return.
In my view, we must 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 generous taxpayer subsidies, the financial gains made by these companies must be shared with the American people, not just wealthy shareholders. In other words, if micro-chip companies make a profit as a direct result of these federal grants, the taxpayers of this country have a right to get a reasonable return on that investment.
Further, if micro-chip companies receive taxpayer assistance, they must agree that they will not buy back their own stock, outsource American jobs overseas, repeal existing collective bargaining agreements and must remain neutral in any union organizing effort.
This is not a radical idea. All of these conditions were imposed on companies that received taxpayer assistance during the pandemic and passed the Senate by a vote of 96-0.
Bottom line: Let us rebuild the U.S. microchip industry, but let's do it in a way that benefits all of our society, not just a handful of wealthy, profitable and powerful corporations.
Moreover, M. President, I know this may be a radical idea in the halls of Congress, but no. I do not believe that the USICA conference committee should approve a $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 $138 billion in personal wealth. He became $33 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. The House did the right thing by not providing Jeff Bezos with a $10 billion bailout in its version of USICA. The conference committee should follow the House's lead on that issue. I yield the floor.
LATEST NEWS
Kamala Harris Wins March for Our Lives' First-Ever Endorsement
"Kamala Harris has proven herself to be a thoughtful and forceful leader on gun violence, who has time and again listened to young people and fought for our lives."
Jul 24, 2024
March for Our Lives, which was launched six years ago after yet another U.S. mass shooting, announced its first-ever political endorsement on Wednesday, backing Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris' bid for the White House.
"The stakes couldn't be higher," said the group, which was founded in the wake of the February 2018 massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. "As one of the largest youth-led movements in the nation, we are clear-eyed about the challenge ahead and we believe that Kamala Harris is uniquely suited to meet this moment."
Warning of the threat posed by Republican former President Donald Trump—who just survived an assassination attempt—and his running mate, U.S. Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio), March for Our Lives said that "the country that young people will soon inherit stands at the precipice—on one side, authoritarianism that threatens our fundamental rights, including our right to live freely without fear of gun violence; on the other, a world where we can keep fighting to build the future that young people know we deserve."
"We need an ardent defender of democracy, a gun violence prevention champion, and a leader who will listen to young people, give us a seat at the table, and fight for our future. We believe that Kamala Harris is that candidate, and the right person to stand up for us and fight for the country we deserve," the organization continued, detailing how she has been "a forceful champion for gun safety and for young people" as vice president and a U.S. senator representing California.
"Young people are inheriting an increasingly precarious world," the group added, highlighting youth deaths from gun violence, Israel's war on the Gaza Strip, the escalating climate emergency, and far-right politicians pushing extremist policies. "We have been struggling to feel excited about voting in this election, and are increasingly pessimistic that change is possible. But we know that another Trump presidency is simply not an option that young people can afford—our lives are literally at stake."
Harris began seeking the Democratic nomination for November after President Joe Biden dropped out and endorsed her on Sunday. March for Our Lives said that "we call on her to run a campaign that fights for the policy solutions that young people want, like an assault weapons ban, action on climate change, a vigorous defense of abortion, court reform, and an immediate and lasting cease-fire in Gaza. Young people are savvy voters, who will see through empty promises and cynical horsetrading. We believe that Kamala will step above that and fight for a bold, progressive future—and we will hold her accountable for that."
Since Sunday, Parkland shooting survivor and March for Our Lives co-founder David Hogg has been fiercely supporting Harris, posting on his social media frequent updates about her historic fundraising successes over the past few days.
"Kamala Harris has proven herself to be a thoughtful and forceful leader on gun violence, who has time and again listened to young people and fought for our lives," Hogg said in a statement Wednesday. "Given her strong record on gun safety and prioritizing youth voices during her time in office, I'm proud that Kamala Harris will receive March for Our Lives' first-ever endorsement, and I'm so excited for our work to mobilize young people for her campaign."
Natalie Fall, the group's executive director, toldABC News—which first reported on the endorsement—that "we see a lot of energy around Vice President Harris in this election; there's no denying that. I think everybody's seeing it right now."
"I just think young people in particular didn't really see themselves represented or reflected in the Biden ticket in the way that they wanted. It's not to say that President Biden hasn't had great accomplishments," she explained. "But I think we need someone who can meet this moment and who is up to the challenge of taking Donald Trump to task and really defeating his effort to erode all of our institutions and our democracy."
March for Our Lives members plan to participate in this year's election through creative campaigns, door-knocking, and phone banks, Fall said. In a statement, she added that the group aims to elect not only Harris but also candidates "up and down the ballot" who support its priorities.
"March for Our Lives will work to mobilize young people across the country to support Vice President Harris and other down-ballot candidates, with a particular focus on the states and races where we can make up the margin of victory—in Arizona, New York, Michigan, and Florida," she pledged. "We are ready to double down on this commitment and elect the first woman, first Black woman, and the first person of South Asian descent to become our next president."
The gun violence prevention group's endorsement adds to Harris' mounting pile. Throughout the week, she has also received support from many Democratic governors and members of Congress as well as climate, labor, and reproductive rights groups.
As young people rally behind Harris, she is also seeing support from advocates for older Americans. Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works, wrote in a Wednesday opinion piece for Common Dreams that "Joe Biden has been the best president for seniors in over half a century. Kamala Harris will be even better."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Ben-Gvir Endorses Trump, Says He's More Likely to Back War on Iran
The Israeli security minister, who leads the far-right Jewish Power party, accused the Biden administration of thwarting Israel's victory against Hamas.
Jul 24, 2024
Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir endorsed former U.S. President Donald Trump—the 2024 Republican nominee—for the White House in an interview published Wednesday in which he accused the Biden administration of preventing Israel from winning its war on Gaza.
"I believe that with Trump, Israel will receive the backing to act against Iran," Ben-Gvir, who heads the far-right Otzma Yehudit (Jewish Power) party, toldBloomberg. "With Trump, it will be clearer that enemies must be defeated."
"A cabinet minister is supposed to maintain neutrality," the 48-year-old minister conceded, "but that's impossible to do after [U.S. President Joe] Biden."
"The U.S. has always stood behind Israel in terms of armaments and weapons, yet this time the sense was that we were being reckoned with—that we were trying to be prevented from winning. That happened on Biden's watch and fed Hamas with lots of energy," added Ben-Gvir, who was convicted in 2007 of incitement to racism after he advocated the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.
While Biden, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and other administration officials have decried Israel's indiscriminate bombing of Gaza and high civilian casualties—at least 140,000 Palestinians killed, injured, or missing, according to local and international agencies—the U.S. has approved billions of dollars in new military aid and more than 100 arms sales to Israel since October.
During his White House tenure, Trump—who boasted that he "fought for Israel like no president ever before"—moved the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and brokered the Abraham Accords between Israel and Arab nations Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan, and the United Arab Emirates.
Trump has said that Israel should "get the job done" in Gaza, while criticizing the Israel Defense Forces for posting videos showing its obliteration of the embattled Palestinian enclave.
"I don't know why they released wartime shots like that. I guess it makes them look tough. But to me, it doesn't make them look tough," Trump said in April. "They're losing the PR war. They're losing it big. But they've got to finish what they started, and they've got to finish it fast, and we have to get on with life."
While Trump says he wants a deal with Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons, as president he unilaterally withdrew the U.S. from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action—also known as the Iran nuclear deal—and oversaw a "maximum pressure" campaign against Tehran featuring deadly economic sanctions.
On the advice of Iran hawks in his administration including then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Trump also ordered the January 2020 assassination of Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Gen. Qasem Soleimani in Iraq.
Ben-Gvir's interview was published as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was set to address a joint meeting of U.S. Congress Wednesday in Washington, D.C. A growing number of Democratic lawmakers have called for not only a cease-fire in Gaza but also a suspension of U.S. military aid to Israel, whose conduct in the war is on trial for genocide at the International Court of Justice.
Dozens of Democratic lawmakers and Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont have signaled they will skip Netanyahu's speech. Vice President Kamala Harris, who is also the Senate president, said she will not preside over Wednesday's session. Harris, who is the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee in the wake of Biden's withdrawal from the race on Sunday, said she will meet privately with Netanyahu on Thursday.
Echoing calls from groups including CodePink and the Council on American Islamic Relations, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) said this week that the prime minister should be arrested for war crimes and genocide.
Karim Khan, the International Criminal Court prosecutor, has
applied for arrest warrants for Netanyahu, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and three Hamas leaders for alleged war crimes including extermination committed on and after October 7.
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Leads Global Surge in Oil and Gas Expansion, Analysis Finds
"The U.S. has become a petrostate and is still, even under President Biden, permitting new drilling," John Sterman of MIT said. "The developed countries don't show any significant efforts to limit drilling."
Jul 24, 2024
Five wealthy countries including the United States have led a global surge in oil and gas development in 2024, threatening international climate goals, according to an analysis published by The Guardian on Wednesday.
The U.S., United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and Norway together are projected by the end of 2024 to have issued licenses for fossil fuel projects that will emit 11.9 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions over their lifetimes—far more than in any of the previous five years, and roughly equal to a full year of emissions from China, the world's highest emitter—according to industry data analyzed by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) and shared with the newspaper.
The five states are responsible for more than two-thirds of all oil and gas licenses issued globally since 2020, with the U.S. alone accounting for half of the world total. President Joe Biden's administration increased oil and gas licensing by 20% over Trump-era levels, and issued a record 758 new extraction licenses in 2023, according to the analysis.
"The U.S. has become a petrostate and is still, even under President Biden, permitting new drilling," John Sterman, a climate policy expert and professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology's business school, told The Guardian. "The developed countries don't show any significant efforts to limit drilling."
Sterman pointed to a "fundamental contradiction" between rich countries' international commitments and their ongoing fossil fuel expansion. "We can't keep going on like this," he said.
Revealed: wealthy western countries lead in global oil and gas expansion
Surge by world’s wealthiest countries – such as the US and the UK- threatens to unleash 12bn tonnes of planet-heating emissions.
By @olliemilman & @ninalakhani https://t.co/esY5IuIfi9
— jonathanwatts (@jonathanwatts) July 24, 2024
The industry's grip on U.S. politicians has made significant policy change in Washington difficult. In the past decade, fossil fuel companies have spent $1.25 billion on federal lobbying and more than $650 million on campaign contributions, according to OpenSecrets data.
The Conservative-led U.K. government issued a surge of North Sea licenses in the first half of this year, but lost power to the Labour Party following a general election earlier this month. It's not yet clear if Labour will be able or willing to rescind licenses already issued. Currently the U.K. is set to finish 2024 with 72 licenses for projects that would create 101 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions over their lifetimes—a 50-year high, according to the IISD analysis. Norway and Australia are also seeing major upticks this year.
Capital expenditure at the world's largest oil companies is up 60% since 2020, with $302 billion projected to be spent on well development this year, The Guardian reported. The fossil fuel expansion continues even though the reserves in rich countries are generally hard to reach, as more accessible reserves have already been tapped.
The expansion also comes in spite of disturbing climate news—2023 was hottest year on record, June was the 13th consecutive hottest month, and Monday was the hottest day, having broken a record set the previous day—and dire warnings from leading international institutions. No new fossil fuel projects can proceed if the world is to meet the 1.5° Paris agreement target, the International Energy Agency declared in 2021.
In December, at the United Nations COP28 climate summit, the world's nations agreed to transition away from fossil fuels, though the agreement was viewed by climate campaigners as weakly worded and ridden with loopholes.
Delegates from wealthy Western nations often present themselves as change-seekers in international climate negotiations, but the IISD analysis adds to evidence that such nations are in fact a big part of the problem.
"Fossil fuel corporations, and the governments that support them, will never stop unless forced to," Bill McGuire, a climate scientist at University College London, said on social media in response to the analysis. "Neither has any interest in the future of the climate, our world, or their own kids."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular