-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I look forward to offering two rollcall votes on motions to instruct conferees to the so-called ``competitiveness'' bill based on the assurances given to me by the majority leader. I am not quite sure when we are going to get to that, but I look forward to offering those two rollcall votes.

The first motion would instruct the conference committee not to provide $53 billion to the highly profitable microchip industry without protections for the American people.

The second motion would instruct conferees not to provide a $10 billion bailout to Blue Origin, a space company owned by Jeff Bezos, the second-wealthiest person in America, who is also the owner of Amazon. Amazon is a company which, in a given year, pays nothing-- zero--in Federal income taxes after making billions in profits; and, by the way, in a given year, Mr. Bezos himself, one of the wealthiest people in the country, has paid nothing in Federal income taxes despite being worth nearly $200 billion.

Let me be very clear. Mr. Bezos has enough money to buy a very beautiful $500 million yacht. It looks very nice to me, not that I know much about yachts; but that one looks very nice. Mr. Bezos has enough money to purchase a $23 million mansion with 25 bathrooms. I am not quite sure you need 25 bathrooms, but that is not my business--and here is that mansion. So, no, count me in as somebody who does not think that the taxpayers of this country need to provide Mr. Bezos a $10 billion bailout to fuel his space hobby.

When all is said and done, both of these motions are--the one on $53 billion for the microchip industry and $10 billion for Mr. Bezos--touch on an extremely important issue that is very rarely discussed in the corporate media or on the floor of the Senate, and that is how we proceed--how we go forward with industrial policy in this country.

I should be very clear in saying I believe in industrial policy. I believe that it makes sense on certain occasions for the government and the private sector to work together in a mutually beneficial way 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 extremely profitable corporations without getting anything in return: Here is your check. Do what you want. Have a nice day.

In other words, will the U.S. Government develop an industrial policy that benefits all of our society or will we continue to have an industrial policy that benefits just the wealthy and the powerful?

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 that what Dr. King said 54 years ago was not only accurate back then but is even more accurate today.

We hear a lot of talk around here about the need to create public- private partnerships. 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, whether it is handing the microchip industry a $53 billion blank check or giving Mr. Bezos a $10 billion bailout to fly to the Moon, that is not a partnership. That is the exact opposite of a partnership. That is corporate welfare. That is crony capitalism.

Each and every day, I have heard my Republican colleagues and some corporate Democrats blame inflation on runaway government spending. In fact, one of my colleagues in the Democratic caucus has even suggested that we need to take a strategic pause when it comes to making urgent Federal investments in childcare, healthcare, education, affordable housing, paid family and medical leave, and home healthcare--policies that would substantially improve the lives of the American people. Well, you know what I believe. I believe that maybe--just maybe--the time has come to take a strategic pause when it comes to providing tens of billions of dollars in corporate welfare to some of the most profitable corporations and wealthiest people on this planet.

The American people are becoming increasingly sick and tired of corporations making recordbreaking profits while ordinary people struggle to pay outrageously higher prices for gas, for rent, for food. They are sick and tired of the high cost of prescription drugs, childcare, housing, groceries. 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. The American people are sick and tired of the wealthiest people in our country and the most profitable corporations in some cases not paying a nickel in Federal income tax.

What does this so-called competitiveness bill do? Instead of addressing any of these issues, this bill provides $53 billion in corporate welfare to the microchip industry, with no protections for the American people, and a $10 billion bailout to Mr. Bezos. Now, that may make sense to Mr. Bezos, and it may make sense to other corporate leaders, but it does not make sense to me nor do I think it makes sense to the American people.

In terms of the microchip industry, the American people should know the truth. 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 as a result of moving their productions overseas. They have shut down plants in America and moved them overseas for cheap labor.

In other words, in order to make more profits, these companies closed plants in America and hired people--sometimes at starvation wages--in other countries, and now, believe it or not, these very same people, these very same companies, are in line to receive $53 billion in corporate welfare to literally undo the damage that they caused.

Now, 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 microchips. I agree. There is no argument about that. But we can and must accomplish that goal of breaking our dependence on foreign countries for microchips without simply throwing money at these huge corporations while the taxpayer gets nothing in return.

I suspect five major semiconductor companies will likely receive the lion's share of this taxpayer handout. They are Intel, Texas Instruments, Micron Technology, GlobalFoundries, and Samsung. These five companies that are in line for a $53 billion bailout made over $75 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 the very best, but let us be clear: Intel is not a poor company. Intel is not going broke--far from it. In 2021, Intel made nearly $20 billion in profits. We are talking about a company that had enough money to spend over $14 billion during the pandemic not on research and development but on buying back its own stock to reward its executives and wealthy shareholders. We are talking about a company that could afford to give its CEO, Mr. Pat Gelsinger, a $116 million compensation package last year. We are talking about a company that could afford to spend over $100 million on lobbying and campaign contributions over the past 20 years. Does it sound like this company, as well as the others, really needs corporate welfare? I don't think so.

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 in 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. That is Texas Instruments.

And on and on it goes.

So the first amendment that I would like a vote on and expect a vote on would instruct the conference committee to 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 grants, 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 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.

This is by no means a radical idea. These exact conditions were imposed on corporations that received taxpayer assistance in the bipartisan CARES Act, which, as you will recall, 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.

In addition, this amendment would instruct the conference committee to require these highly profitable companies not to buy back their own stock, not to outsource American jobs, not to repeal collective bargaining agreements, and to remain neutral in any union-organizing efforts.

Again, this is not a radical idea. All of these conditions were imposed on companies that received funding from the CARES Act, and that passed the Senate by a vote of 96 to 0.

The second motion that I have introduced touches on an issue that we have very, very rarely discussed on the floor of the Senate. Unbelievably, the so-called competition bill would provide some $10 billion in taxpayer money to Jeff Bezos, the second wealthiest person in America, for his space race with Elon Musk, the wealthiest person in America. So we are looking at a space race between the two wealthiest guys in America.

You know, when I was a young man a few years ago and Neil Armstrong went to the Moon, I recall like yesterday the kind of incredible joy and pride in this country because the United States of America did something that people never ever thought would be possible. Who would have dreamed of sending a man to the Moon? Extraordinary. The entire world, not only people in America, watched that event with bated breath. All over the world, TV sets were on on every continent on Earth. It was just an extraordinary accomplishment for all of humanity. That is what Neil Armstrong said when he stepped onto the Moon--that it was not just for the United States--but we, of course, our Nation, took special pride because that was an American project.

I worry very much that what we are seeing now is not a space race between the United States and other countries as to which nation will return to the Moon or perhaps get to Mars but, rather, a space race between Mr. Musk and Mr. Bezos--the two wealthiest people in America-- as to who will gain control over NASA and future space explorations.

In other words, if we are able to accomplish the unbelievable, extraordinary goal of sending a person to Mars, I want the flag that will be flying on that planet to be the flag of the United States of America, not the flag of SpaceX or Blue Origin.

Let us be clear: The $10 billion in this bill for Jeff Bezos and his space company, Blue Origin, is just the tip of the iceberg. The reality is that the space economy, which today mostly consists of private companies using NASA facilities free of charge to launch satellites into space, is already very profitable and could become and will likely become even more so in the future.

Bank of America predicts that by 2030, the space economy will triple in size to $1.4 trillion. That is ``trillion'' with a t.

According to the most recent data, private corporations made over $94 billion in profits a year for goods or services that are used in space--profits that could not have been achieved without the assistance of NASA, a government Agency funded by the taxpayers of America.

And while we are talking about the profitability of satellites today--and that is already a very profitable industry--sometime in the future--not next year, not 10 years from now, but sometime in the future--the real money may come to those who not only provide satellites but those who figure out how to mine lucrative minerals or asteroids. Does this sound like science fiction? It is not. This is exactly what is being worked on right now, mining lucrative minerals on asteroids.

In 2015, the famous astrophysicist, Neil deGrasse Tyson, predicted:

The first trillionaire there will ever be is the person who exploits the natural resources on asteroids . . . . There's this vast universe of limitless energy and limitless resources. I look at wars fought over access to resources. That could be a thing of the past, once space becomes our backyard.

End of quote, Mr. deGrasse Tyson.

Who gets to own the resources discovered by private corporations in space?

Well, as a result of a little-known 2015 SPACE Act that passed the Senate by unanimous consent with virtually no floor debate, private corporations are able to own all of these resources. In other words, the taxpayers of this country will get a zero-percent return on the investment they made in these private enterprises, which could turn out to be unbelievably lucrative.

Is that what we want space exploration to become? Do we really think that it is acceptable for NASA to hand out billions of dollars to some of the wealthiest billionaires in America today to make them even wealthier? Or do we want to use space exploration to benefit all of the American people and improve life here on the planet for everyone?

It is time that we had a serious debate on the future of NASA, instead of just handing out $10 billion to Mr. Bezos.

Let me conclude by saying that I happen to believe and support space exploration. I think the benefits could be extraordinary for the American people and for people all over the world. But if we continue down the path of privatizing space exploration, it also has the potential to make the obscenely rich even richer and more powerful than anyone can possibly imagine today. In my view, we cannot and must not allow that to happen.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source