[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 115 (Wednesday, July 13, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3253-S3255]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                                 USICA

  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, at a time of massive income and wealth 
inequality, the American people are sick and tired of the unprecedented 
level of corporate greed that we are seeing right now. The American 
people are sick and tired of paying outrageously high prices at the gas 
pump and at the grocery store while at the same time oil companies and 
food companies are making recordbreaking profits.
  The American people are sick and tired of struggling to pay for the 
basic necessities of life while at the same time 700 billionaires in 
this country became $2 trillion richer during the pandemic. And income 
and wealth inequality today is worse than it has been for 100 years--
people on top doing phenomenally well, middle class working families 
fall further and further behind.
  The American people are sick and tired of seeing multibillionaires, 
like Mr. Musk and Mr. Bezos and Mr. Branson, taking joyrides to outer 
space in their spaceships, buying $500 million superyachts, and living 
in mansions all over the world while some 600,000 people in our country 
are homeless. In other words, we are looking at two worlds. People on 
top never did better, middle class is continuing to decline, and the 
poor are living in abysmal conditions.

  And in the midst of all of this, the American people want Congress, 
want their elected officials, to address corporate greed, to address 
income and wealth inequality, and end a tax system in which some of the 
wealthiest people in this country in a given year do not pay a nickel 
in Federal taxes, where large, profitable corporations do not pay a 
nickel in Federal taxes. And they want a tax system which is fair, 
where the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share.
  The last poll that I saw had Congress--the U.S. Congress--with a 16-
percent approval rating--16 percent. And to me, this was shocking, 
really quite shocking, because I suspect that the 16 percent who 
believe that Congress was doing something meaningful really don't know 
what is going on.
  So what is Congress doing right now at a time in which we face so 
many massive problems, not to mention climate change, not to mention a 
massive housing crisis where 18 million families are paying half of 
their income in housing, not to mention the student debt that 45 
million Americans are carrying? What is Congress about? What are we 
working on right this minute? And the answer is that for 2 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 microchip industry.
  No, we are not talking about healthcare for all. No, we are not 
talking about making higher education affordable. No, we are not 
talking about making sure that young people can earn decent salaries 
when they become teachers. No, we are not talking about leading the 
world in combating climate change. We are talking about giving $50 
billion in corporate welfare, with no strings attached, a blank check, 
to the highly profitable microchip industry.
  And, yes, if you can believe it--and I am talking to the 16 percent 
of Americans who have a favorable opinion of Congress--if you can 
believe it, this legislation may also provide a $10 billion bailout to 
Jeff Bezos, the second wealthiest person in America, so that his 
company Blue Origin can launch a rocket ship to the Moon.
  For all of my colleagues who tell us how deeply, deeply concerned 
they are about the deficit--oh, my goodness, we cannot help working 
families with a child tax credit; we cannot expand Medicare to cover 
dental and hearing aids and eyeglasses; we can't build the affordable 
housing; Bernie, we don't have the money to do that; we have a big 
deficit--well, what about the deficit when it comes to giving $52 
billion in corporate welfare to some of the most profitable 
corporations in America? I guess, when you are giving corporate welfare 
to big and powerful interests, the deficit no longer matters.
  There is no doubt in my mind that there is a global shortage in 
microchips and semiconductors, which is making

[[Page S3254]]

it harder for manufacturers to produce the automobiles and cell phones 
and the electronic equipment that we need. This shortage is costing 
American workers good jobs and raising prices for families. I don't 
think there is a debate about that reality, which is why I--and I think 
many other others here in the Senate--fully support efforts to expand 
U.S. microchip production.
  But the question that we should be asking is this. Should American 
taxpayers provide the microchip 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? My answer to that question, and I think the 
American people's answer to that question, is a resounding no.

  Let's review some recent history about the microchip industry, which 
I do not hear discussed very often here on the floor. Over the last 20 
years, the microchip industry has shut down--has shut down--over 780 
manufacturing plants in the United States. It shut down over 780 
manufacturing plants in the United States and eliminated 150,000 
American jobs while moving most of their production overseas after 
receiving some $91.5 billion in government subsidies and loans. Got 
that? They have shut down over 780 plants, thrown 150,000 American 
workers out on the street as they have gone abroad. In other words, in 
order to make more profits, these companies took government money and 
used that money to ship good-paying jobs abroad.
  And what are we doing about that? You shut down plants in America; 
you jeopardize the production of microchips here in America; you throw 
150,000 workers out on the street; and what is our response? Hey, here 
is $52 billion. Thank you very much for your patriotism and your 
respect for American workers.
  Now, that approach may make sense to some people, maybe people who 
got a lot of money from the microchip industry in campaign 
contributions. I don't know. But it sure as hell does not make sense to 
me. In total, it has been estimated that five major semiconductor 
companies will receive the lion's share of this taxpayer handout. Those 
companies are Intel, Texas Instruments, Micron Technology, 
GlobalFoundries, and Samsung.
  These five companies, my friends, made $70 billion in profits last 
year. So if you are a worker in America trying to get by on $12, $13 an 
hour, nothing we can do for you. If you can't afford the outrageous 
cost of healthcare in America, can't do anything for you. Can't buy the 
prescription drugs that your doctor prescribes because they are too 
expensive? Can't do anything for you. But if you are an industry where 
the top five companies made $70 billion in profits last year, well, we 
have some good news for you. Keep the campaign contributions coming. We 
are there for you, and we are going to give you a $52 billion handout.
  The company that will likely benefit the most from this taxpayer 
assistance is Intel. I have nothing against Intel. I wish them the 
best. But let's be clear. Intel is not a poor, struggling company. It 
is not a company which is going broke. In 2021, last year, Intel made 
nearly $20 billion in profits. That is not a bad year, $20 billion in 
profits. During the pandemic, Intel had enough money to spend $16.6 
billion not on research and development, not on starting new plants in 
America but on buying back its own stock to reward its executives and 
wealthy shareholders. That is what Intel did with its $20 billion in 
profits.
  Last year, Intel could afford to give its CEO, Pat Gelsinger, a $179 
million compensation package--$179 million compensation package. Does 
that sound like a company that needs a corporate bailout, that needs 
taxpayer money to survive?
  Over the past 20 years, Intel has spent over $100 million on lobbying 
and campaign contributions--that is the definition of the corrupt 
political system under which we live--while at the same time shipping 
thousands of jobs to China and other low-income countries. And that is 
a company that the American people should be bailing out, really?
  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, that company spent $2.5 billion 
buying back its own stock while it also, like Intel, 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. It might be interesting to note 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. Let us 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 nations. And on and on it goes.
  Let me be very clear. I believe in industrial policy. I do. I believe 
that it makes sense, on certain occasions, for the Federal Government 
and the private sector to work together to address a pressing need in 
America, to sit down and say: OK. You want to make some money. We have 
national needs that have to be addressed. How do we work well together 
so that you as a corporation do OK and so that taxpayers of this 
country do OK? That is called sensible industrial policy.
  Industrial policy means cooperation between the government and 
private sector--cooperation. It does not mean the government providing 
massive amounts of corporate welfare to profitable corporations without 
getting anything in return. That is not industrial policy. That is just 
giving the money to large, profitable corporations that make a lot of 
campaign contributions.
  The question is, Will the U.S. Government develop an industrial 
policy that benefits all of our people or will we continue to have an 
industrial policy that benefits 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 accurate back 
then, and it is even more accurate today.
  We hear a lot of talk in the Halls of Congress about the need to 
create public-private partnerships, and that all sounds very nice. But 
when the government adopts an industrial policy that socializes all of 
the risk and privatizes all of the profits, that is not a partnership; 
that is crony capitalism.
  Some of my colleagues make a 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 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. That is what a 
real partnership--private-public partnership--is about. In other words, 
if microchip 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 microchip companies receive taxpayer assistance, they 
must agree that they will not buy back their own stock, outsource 
American jobs, repeal existing collective bargaining agreements, and 
must remain neutral in any union organizing effort. This is not a 
radical idea. In fact, all of these conditions were imposed on 
companies that received taxpayer assistance during the pandemic and 
passed the Senate by a vote of 96 to 0. These are not radical demands.

[[Page S3255]]

  Moreover, I know this may be a radical idea in the Halls of Congress, 
but, no, I do not believe that this legislation should approve a $10 
billion bailout for Jeff Bezos to fly to the Moon. I know that is a 
very radical idea, but maybe, just maybe, a middle class which is 
struggling, which is falling behind, should not see their taxpayer 
dollars go to the second wealthiest person in America. Radical idea, I 
know, but that is my view. Mr. Bezos is worth some $138 billion. He 
became $33 billion richer during the pandemic, and in a given year, Mr. 
Bezos has paid nothing in Federal income taxes because he and his 
friends write a tax system that benefits the wealthy.
  I say to Mr. Bezos, if he wants to go to the Moon, let him go to the 
Moon. That is OK. But he should do it on his own dime, not that of the 
U.S. taxpayers.
  This is where we are. This country faces enormous issues. We are not 
dealing with those issues. Instead, we are talking about a massive 
bailout for profitable corporations and a $10 billion check for the 
second wealthiest guy in this country. I would hope that Members of 
Congress listen to the American people, stand up for the working class 
and the middle class of this country and not give a massive amount of 
corporate welfare to people who don't need it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.