[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 61 (Wednesday, April 6, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2031-S2033]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                     Motions to Instruct Conferees

  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,

[[Page S2032]]

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

[[Page S2033]]

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.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.