[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 167 (Thursday, October 26, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2039]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            INTRODUCTION OF THE CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY ACT

                                 ______


                          HON. BERNARD SANDERS

                               of vermont

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, October 25, 1995

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, it is now crystal clear: When it comes to 
cutting corporate welfare the Republican majority in charge of the 
104th Congress does not get it. They are determined to balance the 
Federal budget during the next 7 years on the backs of the most 
vulnerable Americans--our Nations' sick, elderly, and children.
  Corporate welfare programs in the Federal budget add as much as $125 
billion to the Federal deficit every year.
  But Speaker Gingrich and the Republican budget that will probably be 
approved by the Republican majorities in the House and Senate cut 
virtually nothing from corporate welfare over the next 7 years. 
Instead, they prefer to slash Federal funding for programs for millions 
of Americans who are struggling to provide for themselves and their 
families and for some measure of economic security.
  Like many Americans, the members of the Progress Caucus ask this 
fundamental question: Why won't the Republican majority cut the immense 
corporate welfare benefits provided every year by the Federal 
Government to very profitable corporations and wealthy Americans as an 
essential component of any fair plan to balance the Federal budget 
during the next 7 years?
  This is very unfair. There is a better way. That is why today several 
members of the 49-member Progressive Caucus and myself introduced 
legislation to cut $800 billion in corporate welfare over the next 7 
years. We call our legislation the Corporate Responsibility Act and it 
represents one of the foundations of the 11-part Progressive Caucus 
alternative to the Contract With America and the rest of the GOP agenda 
in the 104th Congress.
  We have identified dozens of tax breaks, subsidies and other Federal 
benefits for corporations and upper income taxpayers which should be 
considered for cutting or elimination. These cuts would save $570.8 
billion over a 5-year period according to estimates by respected 
economists such as the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Tax 
Committee of the Congress.
  Some of these programs are outright subsidies, such as for Export-
Import Bank loans. Others are indirect subsidies through charging less 
than market rates--or nothing at all--for goods and services sold to 
corporations--for example uranium enrichment, irrigation water, use of 
public land for grazing. Still others are indirect subsidies through 
Government purchases for unnecessary programs, such as the strategic 
petroleum reserve or the space station.
  Tax expenditures are special provisions of the Tax Code which reduce 
rates, increase deductions, provide advantageous depreciation, or 
otherwise reduce the taxes corporations and wealthy individuals pay.
  A number of reports have been issued on the subject of corporate 
welfare in recent months, and we have used data from all of them. 
However, every selection of programs that can be cut involves choices, 
and the principles that guided our selection should be made clear. In 
general, we have chosen to favor: Family farms over agribusiness; small 
businesses over multinational corporations; domestic investment and job 
creation as opposed to offshore production; consumer health and safety 
over short-term profitability; and sustainable economic development 
over environmental exploitation.
  We have emphasized supporting the needs of the average working people 
of America and cutting programs in which taxpayers' money is used to 
help companies and wealthy individuals who can, and should, be self-
sufficient.
  A summary of this 80-page bill is available through my office. In it, 
the corporate welfare programs are grouped by the industries which 
benefit from them and are listed with estimates of their cost over a 5-
year budget period based on the sources cited at the end of the 
summary. Projections were then estimated for an additional 2-year 
period to have some rough frame of reference for different approaches 
to balancing the Federal budget over the next 7 years.

                          ____________________