Nomination of Pamela K. Hamamoto to be Representative of the United Stats of America to the Office of the United Nations and Other International Organizations in Geneva with the Rank of Ambassador

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, as I think most Americans know, about 4 years ago the Supreme Court rendered a decision, which I happen to believe is one of the worst in the history of the Supreme Court, and that is their decision regarding Citizens United. As a result of that decision, what they said is corporations are people and individuals could spend an unlimited--unlimited--sum of money in elections. By ``unlimited,'' I mean hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions of dollars--quite as much as they want through independent expenditures.

I think many Americans observed the repercussions of that decision just last month. A gentleman named Sheldon Adelson, one of the wealthiest people in this country, worth many billions, held what was called the Adelson primary in Nevada. What he did was invite prospective Republican candidates for President to come to Nevada to chat with him, to tell him their views; and if he decides to support one of those candidates, they will end up receiving, in all likelihood, hundreds of millions of dollars.
But it is not just Sheldon Adelson. Probably even more significantly, when we talk about the impact of Citizens United and we talk about the flood of money coming in from the billionaire class to the political process, it is important to talk about the Koch brothers.

I understand there has been a lot of criticism of Majority Leader Reid because he has talked about the Koch brothers, but I think the majority leader is exactly right. The issue is not personal. I don't know if the Koch brothers are nice guys or not nice guys; that is not the issue.

The issue is the impact this billionaire family, the second wealthiest family in America, is having on the political process; and, second of all, and even more importantly, what do they stand for? Who are they? Why are they pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into the political process?

I have a problem, to tell you the truth--whether somebody is a rightwinger or leftwinger--I have a real problem with these rich guys spending huge sums of money.

But at the end of the day what is important to understand is what do they want? Why are they spending so much money in politics? Why are they supporting candidates throughout this country, running for the Senate, running for the House? Clearly they will be heavily involved in the next Presidential election. What do they stand for? That is the issue.

It disturbs me very much, by the way, that the media hasn't been talking about that. What do these guys stand for? What do they want?

Many Americans know the Koch brothers provided the main source of funding for the creation of the tea party--that is fine--and many Americans know the Koch brothers want to repeal the Affordable Care Act. They have run a lot of ads supporting candidates who want to repeal the Affordable Care Act. That is their view, and that is fine as well.

But what I think most Americans don't know is the Koch brothers want to repeal virtually every major piece of legislation that has been passed in the past 80 years to help the middle class, to help working families, to help the elderly, to help the children, to help low-income people. Their view, their ideological view, is that we should eliminate or substantially cut back on all of those programs.

In 1980, David Koch, one of the Koch brothers, was the vice presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party. In fact, he helped fund the Libertarian Party in that year. I want to read to you and discuss with you a few of the excerpts from the 1980 Libertarian Party platform that David Koch ran on. People may think: Well, that was back in 1980. But do you know what. It is my impression their views haven't changed one iota; that they are funding many organizations all over this country that essentially espouse those very view views David Koch ran on in 1980.

This is the first quote that was in the 1980 Libertarian Party platform David Koch ran on as a vice presidential candidate and helped fund. He said: ``We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system.''

That is their view. That shouldn't surprise anybody. These guys do not believe government should be involved in health care, in retirement security. It is totally consistent with what they believe.

But when Americans see ads on television paid for by David Koch, I hope they understand these guys eventually want to see--probably not tomorrow--the repeal of Social Security. They want to privatize it, they don't want it to exist.

What is the reality? The reality is the overwhelming majority of the American people disagree with the Koch brothers. The reality is Social Security is probably the most successful Federal program in the history of our country. For more than 78 years, in good times and in bad, Social Security has provided every single benefit owed to every eligible American without delay. That is in good times, bad times, recession, boom, whatever it was. Before Social Security was created, nearly half of seniors lived in poverty. Today, while still too high, that number is 9.1 percent. We have gone from 50 percent down to 9.1 percent largely because of Social Security.

The main point is according to virtually every poll I have seen, including the latest National Journal poll on the subject, 76 percent of the American people do not want to cut Social Security at all, an issue you and I were involved in. They do not want to cut Social Security. They sure as heck do not want to repeal Social Security.

So when you see the ads on television being paid for by the Koch brothers, understand where they are coming from in terms of Social Security.

Let me give another quote, and this is an exact quote from the 1980 platform of the Libertarian Party, David Koch, vice presidential candidate: ``We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.''

Abolition, what does that mean? It means if you are a senior citizen, 70 years of age, you are not feeling well, you go to the doctor, the doctor diagnoses you with cancer, you are not going to have Medicare there for you. If you don't have a lot of money, how are you going to get the health care you need? Well, you know what. You may not, because according to the Koch brothers, the Federal Government should not be involved in public health insurance programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.

What happens if you are a low-income person? What happens if your kid is on the Children's Health Insurance Program, called Dr. Dynasaur in Vermont--I don't know what it is called in Hawaii--but it covers all of the States in this country. Millions of kids are getting their health insurance through the Children's Health Insurance Program. What is the Koch brothers' view? We should eliminate it. The Federal Government should not be involved in health insurance.

According to the latest polls I have seen on this subject, 81 percent of the American people do not want to cut Medicare benefits at all and 60 percent of the American people don't want to cut Medicaid benefits at all, because they understand that in these tough times it is terribly important that we have guaranteed health care programs for our people. Yet the view of the Koch brothers is we should end Medicare and Medicaid.

So, again, when you see ads on television, understand who is paying for them.

We have been discussing the minimum wage bill. The Presiding Officer and I agree it is absolutely imperative that we raise the minimum wage. I think $10.10, the bill we had on the floor last week, is a start. I would go farther, but I think most Americans understand a family breadwinner and a family who is making all of $7.25 an hour or $14,000 or $15,000 a year is not a wage upon which anyone can live.

Yet when you read the platform David Koch ran on--and again, their success has been that where their ideas were thought to be pretty crazy and kooky in 1980--he got 1 percent of the vote and ran because they thought Ronald Reagan was much too liberal in 1980--today these ideas are increasingly becoming mainstream. They are in the Ryan budget passed by the Republican House. They are reflected by actions in the Senate by my Republican Senate colleagues.

One example is when we talk about the minimum wage, some of us think we have to raise it. Their view, what the Koch brothers said in 1980, and I believe it is their view today:

We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws.

So this is not a debate about whether you raise the minimum wage to $10.10. You do what they are doing in Seattle, WA, over a period of time raising it to $15 an hour, whether you raise it to $9 an hour, that is not their debate. Their debate is we should repeal the concept of the minimum wage.

What does that mean in real terms? It means that in high-unemployment areas of this country where workers are desperate for jobs, if an employer says: I am going to give you 3 bucks an hour, and you say: I can't live on 3 bucks, and the employer says: Well, I have 20 other people who are prepared to take the job, that is their goal. They do not believe the Federal Government should be involved in providing at least a minimum wage for the workers of this country.
They believe, among other things, that we should abolish the U.S. Postal Service, and I want to get into that. Their view is, again, the Postal Service, a Federal Government program--not a question of having a debate, how do you strengthen the Postal Service, what do you do, and what do you not do--they want to abolish the U.S. Postal Service.

Let me go to another quote from David Koch, which I think maybe is the most interesting of all. This is where they are coming from. This is their philosophy:

We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and ``aid to the poor'' programs. All these government programs are privacy-invading, paternalistic, demeaning, and inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.

I want to put into English what they say. What they are saying is they want to get rid of food stamps, they want to get rid of all nutrition programs, all affordable housing programs, Meals On Wheels Programs, which help vulnerable seniors, congregate meal programs, Head Start--which obviously are important to millions of working families and their children.

So you ask: Well, what happens if I am hungry and there is no food stamp program because they want to get rid of all of these programs, because they think the Federal Government should not be involved in these issues? What do we do when people are hungry when they can't find jobs?

Well, they can go to their local church, they can go to their local charity. Maybe they will get some help, maybe they won't. In other words, we are back to the days of Charles Dickens. We are back to the days of Charles Dickens where ordinary people and lower income people have no rights and no benefits. The only way they get help is if some charity is there to dole out some money.

I don't believe that is where the American people are, and I don't believe that is what the American people want.

Back In 1980, the Libertarian Party had a rather bold proposal, and they said: ``We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.''

Essentially what they are saying is no more government. That is it. No more government.

There is going to be a vote in a few minutes, and I am going to seesaw, and I will be back on this issue. But I wanted to point out to what degree these folks, who are worth at least $80 billion, whose wealth increased last year by $12 billion, who have indicated they are prepared to spend as much as it takes to elect people who to some degree or another--I am not sure all of the candidates they support agree with everything they say, but they know what they are doing. They are smart.

They are spending huge sums of money to create an America in which the wealthiest people will get huge tax breaks while working families, the middle class, the elderly, the children, and the sick will be left out on the street all by themselves. That is not the vision of America the American people believe in. I doubt there are 5 or 10 percent of the American people who believe in that vision, maybe less than that.

But when you have $80 billion, and you are worth that much and can spend unlimited sums of money, you will have a huge impact on the political process, and you will have candidates who talk about this perspective, who defend this point of view, because that is where their money or campaigns comes from, rather than talking about the needs of working families or ordinary Americans.

Let me make this last point, and that is this: It was 34 years ago the Koch brothers said:

We urge the repeal of Federal campaign finance laws, and the immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election Commission.

They have come so far in 34 years that that is now the position of a number of Republicans, including, as I understand it, the chairman of the National Republican Party.

What does that mean? It means if you repeal all campaign finance laws, the Koch brothers and other billionaires will not just be able to spend as much as they want on independent campaign expenditures, they will be able to give money directly to the candidates of their choice.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time for debate has expired.

Mr. SANDERS. Let me conclude by saying: I hope everybody pays attention to what the Koch brothers stand for.

With that, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source