SANDERS SAYS HE IS CONSISTENT IN HIS VIEWS 2006: Sanders Said That He Had Never Changed His Mind On A Closely-Held Position. “Q: My third and last question let me start with Mr. Sanders, you’ve served 8 terms in congress, that’s 16 years. I wonder during this time period could you give us an example of an issue where you originally had one position and then as you learned more about it, you completely changed your mind. Sanders: No. Q: It’s never happened. Sanders: No I mean I think you learn more about an issue. Your position may evolve in a nuanced way. But no. My views pretty much from a philosophical perspective are not different than when I came to Congress.” [SoundCloud, Bernie Sanders, Audio Clip: “2006: No Change In Policies,” Accessed 6/8/15] Sanders’ Political Thinking Had Not Changed Since He First Ran For Office in 1971. “Sanders, tonight, is saying the same things to these students that he said to some of their parents and grandparents. You don’t go to a Sanders speech expecting to be surprised. His political thinking (the only kind of thinking that he seems to do) has not changed since he first ran for the Senate as a candidate of the Liberty Union party in 1971 and captured 2 percent of the vote. A reporter, now retired, who remembers covering Sanders back then, says today, “Even if you don’t like Bernie—and I don’t—you have to admire him for two things: his consistency and his determination.”“ [Weekly Standard, 5/22/15] AGRICULTURE Department Of Agriculture Sanders Cited The Department Of Agriculture As An Example Of An Agency Where Wasteful Spending Was Taking Place. “Host: Give me an example of an agency where there’s wasteful spending, where you think there are cuts ought to be made? Sanders: Well I mentioned the Department of Defense, which is rampant with— Host: Beyond the Department of Defense. Sanders: I think that you can go to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. I think we can make Medicare into a more efficient—there’s a huge amount of fraud that we are seeing in Medicare. We have documented it both in terms of some small time operators ripping it off in the system, as well as corporate interests. I think that if we are aggressive and effective, we can save substantial sums of money.” [Senator Sanders on Debt Negotiations, 06/30/2011, 08:00] Ethanol Opposed Tax Cuts, Tax Credits, And Subsidies For Ethanol Production Burlington Free Press: Bernie Sanders Is “On Record Opposed To Continuing Ethanol Subsidies.” “Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., are on record as opposed to continuing ethanol subsidies, but Welch has been more outspoken on the subject, supporting a 2011 GOP amendment to ban funding for EPA regulations on the ethanol content of gasoline.” [Burlington Free Press, 11/17/13] Sanders Ethanol Is Not As Effective As Other Energy Sourced Because It “Drives Up Food Prices.” Well, that among other things [ethanol] drives up food prices. You want people around the world to have enough food to eat. But I think bottom line here is that in terms of energy I think we are facing a moral imperative and that is the need to move away from fossil fuel and move to energy efficiency, where my state is doing a pretty good job, and to sustainable energy like wind, solar, geothermal and biomass. [Iowa Public Television, 3/23/15] 2011: Sanders Voted For Bill That Eliminated Ethanol Blenders Tax Credit, And Eliminated 54Cent-Per-Gallon Ethanol Tax. On June 16, 2011, Bernie Sanders voted yes on Senate Vote #90. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Feinstein, D-Calif., amendment no. 476 that would eliminate the 45-cents-per- gallon tax credit that refiners get for blending ethanol with gasoline and the 54-cents-per-gallon tariff on imported ethanol. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #90, 6/16/2011]  Sanders: Subsidies To The Ethanol Industry Had “A Negative Impact On Farmers And Consumers…” “I voted today to end the ethanol subsidy which would save taxpayers $3 billion for the remainder of this year. Subsidizing the ethanol industry not only is a great expenditure of taxpayer dollars, but it also has a negative impact on farmers and consumers in Vermont and around the world in terms of higher feed prices and higher prices for food.” [Sen. Bernie Sanders press release, 6/6/11]  The Ethanol Blenders Tax Credit Had Existed For 30 Years. “The Senate voted June 16 to repeal the 30-year-old ethanol blenders tax credit by a wide 73 27 margin, thus signaling growing support to eliminate the subsidy as negotiations continue to find an appropriate vehicle in the House that would allow Congress to end the credit. The amendment not only would end the 45-cents-per-gallon tax credit that refiners get for blending ethanol with gasoline, but also the 54-cents-per-gallon tariff on imported ethanol. An analysis of the vote showed that 33 Republicans, 38 Democrats and both of the Senate's independents (Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont) were in favor of eliminating the ethanol subsidy and tariff.” [The Food & Fiber Letter, 6/20/11] 2007: Sanders Voted Against Eliminating 54-Cent-Per-Gallon Ethanol Tax. On June 20, 2007, Bernie Sanders voted no on Senate Vote #218. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Gregg, R-N.H., motion to waive the Budget Act with respect to the Grassley, R-Iowa, point of order against the Gregg amendment no. 1718 to the Baucus, D-Mont. amendment no. 1704 to the Reid, D-Nev., substitute amendment no. 1502. The Gregg amendment would repeal a 54-cent tax on ethanol. The Baucus amendment would establish $32.1 billion in tax incentives for alternative energy sources while imposing taxes on the oil and gas industry. It would create $3.6 billion worth of renewable energy bonds, establish $11 billion in tax incentives for renewable energy and authorize $2.5 billion for the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act. The substitute would overhaul national energy policies including requiring the annual use of 15 billion gallons of biofuels by 2015, increasing the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2020 and making petroleum price gouging a federal crime in a "national energy emergency." It would also encourage carbon sequestration research, require the federal government to purchase 15 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2015 and direct the State Department to pursue strategic partnerships with major energy-consuming and energyproducing nations. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #218, 6/20/2007] 2005: Sanders Voted Against Bill That Provided An Estimated $85 Billion Worth Of Subsidies And Tax Breaks On Most Forms Of Energy, Including Ethanol. In 2005, Sanders voted against the energy conference report that exempted oil and gas industries from some clean-water laws, streamlined permits for oil wells and power lines on public lands, and helped the hydropower industry appeal environmental restrictions. The bill also included an estimated $85 billion worth of subsidies and tax breaks for most forms of energy – including oil and gas, “clean coal,” ethanol, electricity, and solar and wind power. The bill included $2 billion for “risk insurance” in case new nuclear plants run into construction and licensing delays. And nuclear utilities would be eligible for taxpayer-backed loan guarantees of as much as 80 percent the cost of their plants. The bill passed 275-156. [Washington Post, 7/30/05; HR 6, Vote #445, 7/28/05] Mixed Record On Ethanol Mandates Sanders Supported The Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS), Said “We Got To Put More Emphasis On Cellulosic Ethanol.” “Brent Roske: “We’re in Iowa right now. Back in 2007 you voted for the Renewable Fuel Standard in the Senate. What are your thoughts about it now?” Sen. Sanders: “I think as somebody who believes climate change is the greatest global crisis that we face, I think it’s absolutely imperative that we move away from fossil fuel, from oil, from coal, move to energy efficiency and move to sustainable energies. "And Iowa, by the way, in general is doing a very good job, as is my home state of Vermont. "Iowa is one of the leaders in the country in wind and in biofuels. "So I support the Renewable Fuel Standard, I think we got to put more emphasis on cellulosic ethanol, which is a more efficient form of biofuel than what we currently have.”” [Transcript via Press Release via Biofuels Journal, America’s Renewable Future, 9/15/15] Sanders Told Quad City Times He Did Not Have A Definitive Answer On Renewable Fuel Standard And Ethanol Incentives. "Times reporter Ed Tibbetts pressed Sanders for a position on the Renewable Fuel Standard that includes incentives for Iowa ethanol production. “I know this is important to Iowa. I don’t have a definitive answer. I’ve got to learn more. You will get an answer.”" [Editorial, Quad City Times, 5/30/15] SUPPORTED ETHANOL MANDATES AND PRO-ETHANOL MEASURES 1992: Sanders Voted For A Measure Instructing The Secretary Of Energy To Increase The Use Of Renewable Octane Enhancers Such As Ethanol. On May 20, 1992, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #133. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Jontz, D-Ind., amendment to require the secretary of Energy to establish an octane replacement program to increase the use of domestically produced, renewable, non-petroleum octane enhancers such as ethanol. The amendment would also create a system for the use of marketable octane credits for gasoline sold in the United States. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #133, 5/20/1992] 2001: Sanders Voted To Establish A 10-Year Ethanol Reserve Program. In 2001, Sanders voted for an amendment to establish a 10-year renewable energy reserve program to purchase and store agricultural products needed to produce bio-energy and renewable fuels. The amendment was defeated, 100-323. [CQ Floor Votes, 10/03/01; HR 2646, Vote #363, 10/03/01] 2005: Sanders Voted To Allow Energy Department To Include Ethanol And Biodiesel In Strategic Fuels Reserve. On April 20, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #116. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Kaptur, D-Ohio., amendment that would rename the Strategic Petroleum Reserve the Strategic Fuels Reserve, and would give the Energy Department authority to include alternate fuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel, in the reserve. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #116, 4/20/2005] 2007: Sanders Voted To Authorize EPA Biennial Assessments Of Corn Crop Availability For Fuel And Feed Uses. Sanders to direct the EPA "to conduct twice yearly assessments of corn crop availability for fuel and feed uses." [Vote #220, 6/20/07; CQ Vote Description, 6/20/07] NOTE: Hillary voted against this. 2007: Sanders Voted For The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 Which Mandated The Use Of 36 Billion Gallons OfEthanol By 2022. Sanders voted for passage of the bill that would overhaul national energy policies and increase the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. The bill would make petroleum price gouging a federal crime in a "national energyemergency" and subject the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries to U.S. antitrust laws. It would mandate the use of 36 billion gallons of ethanol by 2022, create new efficiency standards for appliances and federal buildings and promote new energy technologies. It also would require the annual use of 15 billion gallons of biofuels by 2015, encourage carbon sequestration research and direct the State Department to pursue strategic partnerships with major energyconsuming and energy-producing nations. [HR 6, Vote #226, 6/21/07] NOTE: Clinton also voted Yes. Energy Independence and Security Act Expanded And Extended Renewable Fuels Standard. “The RFS originated with theEnergy Policy Act of 2005 and was expanded and extended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). The RFS requires renewable fuel to be blended into transportation fuel in increasing amounts each year, escalating to 36 billion gallons by 2022. Each renewable fuel category in the RFS program must emit lower levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) relative to the petroleum fuel it replaces.” [US Department Of Energy, accessed 9/16/15] The Bill Authorized $200 Million In Annual Grants For Renewable Fuel Blends. “[The Energy Independence and Security Act of2007] Authorizes a program to provide grants for infrastructure development for renewable fuel blends of more than 10% but not greater than 85% ethanol. The program includes technical and marketing assistance. Also authorizes a pilot program to establish fueling infrastructure corridors. Authorization is $200 million annually for 2008-2014 ($1.4 billion authorized).” [U.S. Department ofEnergy, 12/19/07; HR 6, Senate Vote #226, 6/21/07] 2011: Sanders Voted Against Barring Federal Funds From Being Used To Construct An Ethanol Blender Pump Or An Ethanol Storage Facility. On June 16, 2011, Bernie Sanders voted no on Senate Vote #91. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: McCain, R-Ariz., amendment no. 411 that would bar the use of federal funds for the construction of an ethanol blender pump or an ethanol storage facility. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #91, 6/16/2011] …AND OPPOSED ETHANOL MANDATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 2003: Sanders Voted Against Requiring Ethanol Producers To Double Their Output As Part Of A Larger Energy Bill Providing Tax Breaks For Oil And Gas Production. “On November 18, 2003, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #630. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the conference report on the bill that would implement a comprehensive national policy for energy conservation, research and development. It would authorize $25.7 billion in tax breaks over 10 years, including $11.9 billion to encourage oil and gas production, $2.5 billion for "clean coal" programs, $2.2 billion in incentives for alternative motor vehicles, and $1.8 billion for the electric power industry and other businesses. It would authorize $18 billion in loan guarantees for a natural gas pipeline from Alaska. Ethanol producers would be required to double their output. Makers of the gasoline additive MTBE would be protected from liability, but would have to cease production of the additive by 2015. The bill would also impose reliability standards for electricity transmission networks and ease restrictions on utility ownership and mergers.” [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #630, 11/18/2003] 2004: Sanders Voted Against Requiring Gasoline To Contain More Ethanol As Part Of A Larger Energy Bill Providing Tax Breaks For Oil And Gas Production. On June 15, 2004, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #241. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would implement a comprehensive national policy for energy conservation, research and development. It would authorize $25.7 billion in tax breaks over 10 years, including $11.9 billion to encourage oil and gas production, $2.5 billion for "clean coal" programs, $2.2 billion in incentives for alternative motor vehicles, and $1.8 billion for the electric power industry and other businesses. It would authorize $18 billion in loan guarantees for a natural gas pipeline from Alaska. It would require that gasoline sold in the United States contain an increased volume of ethanol. Makers of the gasoline additive MTBE would be protected from liability, but would have to cease production of the additive by 2015. The bill would also impose reliability standards for electricity transmission networks and ease restrictions on utility ownership and mergers. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #241, 6/15/2004] 2005: Sanders Voted Against Energy Policy Act Of 2005, Which Provided An Estimated $85 Billion Worth Of Subsidies And Tax Breaks On Most Forms Of Energy, Including Ethanol. In 2005, Sanders voted against the energy conference report that exempted oil andgas industries from some clean-water laws, streamlined permits for oil wells and power lines on public lands, and helped the hydropower industry appeal environmental restrictions. The bill also included an estimated $85 billion worth of subsidies and tax breaks for most forms ofenergy – including oil and gas, “clean coal,” ethanol, electricity, and solar and wind power. The bill included $2 billion for “risk insurance” in case new nuclear plants run into construction and licensing delays. And nuclear utilities would be eligible for taxpayerbacked loan guaranteesof as much as 80 percent the cost of their plants. The bill passed 275156. [Washington Post, 7/30/05; HR 6, Vote #445, 7/28/05] Energy Policy Act Originated Renewable Fuels Standard. “The RFS originated with the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and was expanded and extended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). The RFS requires renewable fuel to be blended into transportation fuel in increasing amounts each year, escalating to 36 billion gallons by 2022. Each renewable fuel category in the RFS program must emit lower levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) relative to the petroleum fuel it replaces.” [US Department Of Energy, accessed 9/16/15] Corn And Crops Vowed To Lower Subsidies; Impose Regulations On Big Farms Sanders: What Is Right About 2012 Federal Spending Bill Is That “It Ends Some Subsidies That Go To Big Farmers And Corporate Agriculture Who Really Don’t Need It.” ED SCHULTZ: “For more, let’s turn to Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Senator, great to have you with us tonight. You have the floor, Bernie. What is right and what is wrong about this [federal spending] bill?” SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I), VERMONT: “What’s right about the bill, it ends some subsidies that go to big farmers and corporate agriculture who really don’t need it. Clearly, what is wrong about this bill is that at a time when poverty is increasing in America and when half of the people on Food Stamps are either children or the elderly, it cuts four billion over a 10-year period.” [Bernie Sanders on The Ed Show, MSNBC, 6/20/12] 2002: Sanders Voted For Conference Report Of Farm Bill That Lowered Upper Limit Of Payments To Individual Farmers. In 2002, Sanders voted for the final version of the new farm bill, which reauthorized federal agriculture programs for six years. The bill included the following major provisions: Re-established programs that supply payments to farmers when commodity prices fall below specified levels. Raised mandatory and direct farm program spending by $73.5 billion over 10 years. Provided $243 billion for food stamps and restore benefits for legal immigrants. Increased conservation spending to $17.1 billion. After two years, required certain goods to be labeled by country origin. Lowered the total limit on payments to individual farmers to $360,000. Authorized a new $1 billion dairy program for three and a half years The bill passed, 280-141. [CQ Floor Votes, 5/02/02; HR 2646, Vote #123, 5/02/02] Sanders Voted For Amendment Barring Farm Subsidy Payments To Full-Time Farmers Earning More Than $750,000 A Year. On December 13, 2007, Bernie Sanders voted yes on Senate Vote #426. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Klobuchar, D-Minn., amendment no. 3810 to the Harkin, DIowa, substitute no. 3500. The Klobuchar amendment would bar farm subsidy payments to full-time farmers earning more than $750,000 a year, after expenses, and part-time farmers earning more than $250,000 a year, after expenses. The substitute would authorize $286 billion from fiscal 2008-2012 for federal farm, nutrition assistance, rural development and agricultural trade programs. It would create a new optional subsidy called the Average Crop Revenue program, which would tie payments to statebased farm revenue figures. Farmers making more than $750,000 a year in adjusted gross income would not be able to collect subsidies in 2010 and subsequent crop years if they made less than two-thirds of their income from farming. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #426, 12/13/2007] 2004: Sanders Voted Against U.S.-Morocco Trade Deal That Would Cut Tariffs On Agricultural Products, Including Corn. On July 22, 2004, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #413. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would implement a trade agreement that would reduce tariffs and trade barriers between the United States and Morocco. It would make more than 95 percent of bilateral trade in consumer and industrial products duty-free immediately, with all remaining tariffs eliminated within nine years. It also would provide for new tariff-rate quotas for U.S. farmers and ranchers of poultry and beef and would cut tariffs on agricultural products such as sorghum, corn, soybeans and corn and soybean products. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #413, 7/22/2004] Supportive Of Continuing Assistance To Crop Growers 2005: Sanders Voted For $93.6 Billion Agriculture Appropriations Bill That Provided Funding For Crop Subsidies. “In 2005, Sanders voted for the $93.6 Billion Agriculture Appropriations Bill. The bill included $17.8 billion in discretionary spending and funds for the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Money in the bill was also to go towards entitlement programs such as food stamps and crop subsidies. The bill passed 378-46. [CQ Floor Votes, 5/23/06; CQ Today, 5/23/06; HR5384, Vote #193, 5/23/06] Farm Bills 1996 Farm Bill 1996: Bernie Sanders Against Final Passage Of Farm Bill. On February 29, 1996, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #42. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill to reauthorize through 2002 all major federal farm programs, replacing current price- support programs with a system of fixed annual payments to farmers that would decline over the next seven years. The bill gives farmers more flexibility in deciding what to plant, extends the sugar and peanut support programs with some modifications and phases out price supports for butter and dry milk. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #42, 2/29/1996]  Bernie Voted To Adopt Conference Report Of 1996 Farm Bill. On March 29, 1996, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #107. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the conference report to the bill to reauthorize and provide about $47 billion through 2002 for core federal farm programs, replacing current price-support programs with a system of fixed annual payments to farmers that would decline over the next seven years while granting them more flexibility in deciding what to plant. The bill would also scale back some provisions of the sugar and peanut support programs; phase out price supports for butter, dry milk and cheese over four years; reauthorize the food stamp program for two years; expand conservation and rural development programs; and retain permanent farm law established in 1938 and 1949 after 2002. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #107, 3/29/1996] 2002 Farm Bill 2002: Sanders Then Voted For Conference Report Of Farm Bill That Lowered Upper Limit Of Payments To Individual Farmers. In 2002, Sanders voted for the final version of the new farm bill, which reauthorized federal agriculture programs for six years. The bill included the following major provisions: Re-established programs that supply payments to farmers when commodity prices fall below specified levels. Raised mandatory and direct farm program spending by $73.5 billion over 10 years. Provided $243 billion for food stamps and restore benefits for legal immigrants. Increased conservation spending to $17.1 billion. After two years, required certain goods to be labeled by country origin. Lowered the total limit on payments to individual farmers to $360,000. Authorized a new $1 billion dairy program for three and a half years The bill passed, 280-141. [CQ Floor Votes, 5/02/02; HR 2646, Vote #123, 5/02/02] Sanders Praised Development Of A National Diary Program In Conference Report. "Importantly, we have finally brought the Midwest and the Northeast together to develop a national dairy program which will work well for family farmers all across the country. Todays victory on the floor of the House brings us one step closer to providing dairy farmers in Vermont with the financial safety net they had with the Northeast Dairy Compact, and to realizing our goal of extending that help to family farmers across the nation." [Associated Press, 5/2/02] 2001: Bernie Sanders Against Final Passage Of House Version Of Farm Bill. On October 5, 2001, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #371. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Authorize $167 billion over ten years for farm price supports, conservation programs, food aid and rural development. Authorize $5 billion annually through 2012 to growers of corn, wheat, soybeans, rice and cotton. Payments would be made on a countercyclical program, meaning they would increase as prices dropped. Fixed payment plans based upon acres planted and set aside for conservation would be retained from the previous farm law. Eliminate a marketing tax on sugar at a cost of $440 million over 10 years, reduce the interest rate on sugar price support loans and authorize a payment-in-kind program that would allow growers to pay loans in sugar instead of cash. Extend a milk price support program through 2011 at a cost of $773 million. Create several marketing assistance loan programs similar to those for other commodities, including a loan program for wool and mohair at $164 million over 10 years and a honey loan program. Overhaul the peanut commodity program at a cost of $3.4 billion to make it resemble other crops' arrangements more closely. End the marketing quota program and pay quota holders for the loss of crops they planted under it. Give the Agriculture secretary the authority to combat outbreaks of plant and animal diseases with emergency funds. Provide an additional $200 million in spending authority for surplus commodity purchases. Create a Technical Assistance Specialty Crop fund to assist with barriers to fruit and vegetable trade. Authorize $15 million annually for the life of the bill for the Senior's Farmers Market Program. Authorize $16 billion through 2011 for soil, water and wildlife programs. Authorize $1.4 billion for the Conservation Reserve Program through 2011, with a 39.5 millionacre enrollment cap. Authorize $10.3 billion through 2011 for the Environmental Quality Incentive Program. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #371, 10/5/2001]  2002 Farm Bill Increased Average Income Support For Corn Growers. “The 2002 Farm Bill generally increases the level of income support that has been provided during the past three years to Illinois corn and soybean producers. Under ‘typical’ scenarios where recent support has been $60 to $80 per acre, it is estimated that the new bill would provide about $10 to $15 more per acre.” [farmdoc.illinois.edu, 6/7/12]  2002 Farm Bill Increased Average Loan Rate For Corn. “The national average loan rate for corn was increased from its current level of $1.89 per bushel to $1.98 for the 2002 and 2003 crops. The soybean rate was lowered from $5.26 to $5.00, while the wheat rate increased from $2.58 to $2.80. For 2004-07, the soybean rate remains at $5.00 while the corn rate drops to $1.95 and the wheat rate drops to $2.75. […] The national average loan rate for corn was increased from its current level of $1.89 per bushel to $1.98 for the 2002 and 2003 crops.” [farmdoc.illinois.edu, 6/7/12] House Failed To Pass Sanders Sponsored Amendment To Farm Bill To Create National Version Of Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. “The Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact, which paid dairy farmers in the region a premium for their milk, would go national under a proposal developed by Vermont's congressional delegation. U.S. Rep. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., first proposed the idea Thursday as an amendment to the new farm bill. The provision failed 194-224, but it drew crucial support from some Midwestern representatives who have been the strongest opponents of the compact. "What we have developed is an approach which creates a national compact approach which would be as good for Vermont and New England as the current system, but is national in scope (and) helps the Midwest, south and other parts of the country," Sanders said.” [Associated Press, 10/5/01] Midwestern Farmers Opposed Diary Compact As Unfairly Benefitting New England Farmers. “Sanders introduced the plan four days after the Northeast Compact expired. The compact ensured that New England dairy farmers received a minimum price for the milk they sold. For the four years the compact was in existence it paid New England farmers an extra $146 million. But the compact was opposed by midwestern farmers who felt it put the interests of New England farmers ahead of their needs.” [Associated Press, 10/5/01] Sanders Proposed National Dairy Fairness and Unity Amendment Changed Dairy Compact To Base Minimum Price Not On Liquid Milk Sold, But Milk Destined For Other Uses. “Sanders' new proposal, called the National Dairy Fairness and Unity Amendment, is similar to the Northeast compact by guaranteeing that farmers would receive a minimum price for their milk. What sets the new proposal apart is it would not be based on the amount of milk produced that was destined to be sold in its liquid form. Instead, it would be paid for milk destined for other uses, such as cheese or butter, as well.” [Associated Press, 10/5/01] Program Was Funded By Premiums Paid By Dairy Processors And Distributed To Farmers By Regional Board. “The program would cost taxpayers nothing. Like the dairy compact, premiums would be paid by dairy processors. Money collected would be distributed to farmers by regional boards, which would administer the program. Individual states would choose whether to participate in the program. A drawback for New England farmers would be that a single national minimum milk price, $17.50 per hundred pounds, would be established rather than allowing the different regions to set separate prices. But members of the delegation felt that would be a small price to pay passage of the overall bill.” [Associated Press, 10/5/01] 2007 Farm Bill Sanders Criticized Bush Administration For Cuts To The Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) Program “The following information was released by the office of Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy: […] Following are the comments of the members of the Vermont Congressional Delegation on the President's MILC Program proposals: […] Sen. Bernie Sanders: "While I am certainly pleased that the Administration at least acknowledges the need for the MILC Program, it is clear that they just do not understand the scope of the crisis dairy farmers are facing. We should be trying to improve the federal safety net for family dairy farmers, not dismantling it. As Congress considers the Farm Bill, I look forward to working with Senator Leahy and Congressman Welch to preserve and improve federal protections for family farmers in Vermont and across this country."” [Press Release via States News Service, Sen. Patrick Leahy, 1/31/07] 2007: Bush Administration Proposed, In The Farm Bill, To Cut The MILC Program’s Payment Rate From A 34 Percent Of The Different Between $16.94 Per Cwt And The Class I Price In Boston To 20 Percent By FY 2013. “The following information was released by the office of Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy: The Bush Administration Wednesday outlined the President's proposals for the new Farm Bill that Congress will be working on this year. The Administration proposes continuing the Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) Program -- which was established in the last Farm Bill under the leadership of the Vermont Congressional Delegation but with reduced help to farmers. Under the Administration's proposal, dairy producers would continue to be eligible to receive assistance if the Class I price in Boston in any month falls below $16.94 per cwt. For FY 2008, the proposed payment rate would remain at the current rate of 34 percent of the difference between $16.94 per cwt and the Class I price in Boston. But in subsequent years, the payment rate would be cut to 31 percent in FY 2009, 28 percent in FY 2010, 25 percent in FY 2011, 22 percent in FY 2012, and 20 percent in FY 2013-2017. The Bush Administration's plan also would reduce the eligible quantity of milk to 85 percent of the 3-year average of milk marketed during Fiscal Years 2004-06.” [Press Release via States News Service, Sen. Patrick Leahy, 1/31/07] 2007: Sanders Supported One-Month Extension Of MILC Program. “Sanders said, “Family dairy farmers in Vermont and across this country are up against the wall with high feed and energy costs. The Vermont delegation is working every angle to see that family farmers get the help they need to continue farming. Getting this one-month extension of the MILC program is a critical first step in our efforts to create an effective safety net for dairy farmers.”” [Press Release via States News Service, Sen. Patrick Leahy, 4/24/07] 2007: Sanders Supported Senate Passage Of A Full Extension Of The MILC Program. “The U.S. Senate Thursday approved legislation authored by Sen. Patrick Leahy that would pave the way for a full extension in the 2007 Farm Bill of the MILC program, the safety net that helps dairy farmers ride out downturns in milk prices. […] Sanders said, "Dairy farmers in Vermont and across the country are hurting with inadequate prices. The MILC language in this bill will give us the opportunity to create a strong dairy language in the upcoming Farm Bill."” [Press Release via States News Service, Sen. Patrick Leahy, 3/29/07] Senate Passed A Full Extension Of MILC Program. “The U.S. Senate Thursday approved legislation authored by Sen. Patrick Leahy that would pave the way for a full extension in the 2007 Farm Bill of the MILC program, the safety net that helps dairy farmers ride out downturns in milk prices. The Senate-passed bill also includes nearly $4 billion in farm disaster relief, which would help farmers nationwide recover from emergencies they faced last year. In Vermont, the aid would especially help dairy producers hit hard by flooding. The bill also includes $95 million specially set aside to help dairy farmers in Vermont and across the country. The provisions are included in a supplemental appropriations bill that includes funds for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the first timetable the Senate has passed for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, further Katrina-related relief, aid for refugees in Darfur and other trouble spots, and other midyear appropriations adjustments. The Leahy MILC provision provides a 10-year baseline that ensures mandatory funding for the MILC (Milk Income Loss Contract) program and would lay the groundwork for reauthorizing the program in this year's Farm Bill.” [Press Release via States News Service, Sen. Patrick Leahy, 3/29/07] 2007: Sanders Voted For Senate Passage Of The Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007. Sanders voted for the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007. “Thanks to the application of a little last-minute budgetary magic, the farm bill before the Senate this week authorizes about $10 billion in new subsidies, price guarantees and disaster aid in the next decade, even as farmers report near-record profits.” [Washington Post, 11/13/07; HR 2419, Senate Vote #434, 12/14/07] Washington Post: Bill Would Pay Farmers $15 A Year For Each Eligible Acre “Whether They Plant Anything Or Not.” “One innovation would pay farmers $15 a year for each eligible acre -- whether they plant anything or not -- while guaranteeing them an additional payment if crop revenues in their state fall short of the norm. […] The plan is backed by the National Corn Growers Association and is sponsored by Sens. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), Sherrod Brown (DOhio) and Harkin.” [Washington Post, 11/13/07] Sanders Voted Against Amendment Replacing Existing Commodity-Support Programs With Several Revenue-Insurance Programs. On December 11, 2007, Bernie Sanders voted no on Senate Vote #417. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Lugar, R-Ind., amendment no. 3711 to the Harkin, D-Iowa, substitute no. 3500. The Lugar amendment would replace current commodity-support programs with several revenue-insurance programs that would make payments when revenue or yields fall below a historic level. It would extend the Counter-Cyclical Program through crop year 2008 and phase out direct payments by crop year 2012. It would reduce the reimbursements to crop insurance agents to 15 percent of premiums and would require the Agriculture secretary to establish a recourse-loan program. The substitute would authorize $286 billion from fiscal 2008-2012 for federal farm, nutrition assistance, rural development and agricultural trade programs. It would create a new optional subsidy called the Average Crop Revenue program, which would tie payments to state-based farm revenue figures. Farmers making more than $750,000 a year in adjusted gross income would not be able to collect subsidies in 2010 and subsequent crop years if they made less than two-thirds of their income from farming. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #417, 12/11/2007] Sanders Said That The 2007 Farm Bill Was Not Perfect And Criticized Support For “Agribusiness And Wealthy Farmers.” “Sanders admits that, while this Farm Bill is far from perfect, it's better than many previous editions. "Obviously, I don't think that agribusiness and wealthy farmers need the kind of support that they're getting," he says. "But if you are concerned about poverty and hunger in America, and if you're concerned about obesity, you're concerned about the Farm Bill."” [Seven Days, 7/21/07] Sanders Voted For Amendment Barring Farm Subsidy Payments To Full-Time Farmers Earning More Than $750,000 A Year. On December 13, 2007, Bernie Sanders voted yes on Senate Vote #426. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Klobuchar, D-Minn., amendment no. 3810 to the Harkin, D-Iowa, substitute no. 3500. The Klobuchar amendment would bar farm subsidy payments to full-time farmers earning more than $750,000 a year, after expenses, and part-time farmers earning more than $250,000 a year, after expenses. The substitute would authorize $286 billion from fiscal 2008-2012 for federal farm, nutrition assistance, rural development and agricultural trade programs. It would create a new optional subsidy called the Average Crop Revenue program, which would tie payments to state- based farm revenue figures. Farmers making more than $750,000 a year in adjusted gross income would not be able to collect subsidies in 2010 and subsequent crop years if they made less than two-thirds of their income from farming. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #426, 12/13/2007] 2007 Senate Farm Bill Included A Five Year Extension Of The MILC Program And Would Increase The Payment Percentage. “The 2007 Senate Farm Bill would extend the MILC program for the life of the bill, 2008 to 2012, while expanding the program in two ways that are especially important to Vermont dairy producers. Leahy made this possible earlier this year by pushing through a funding baseline for an extension of the MILC program. The Senate Farm Bill would raise the payment percentage under the program, and it would expand program eligibility to fully cover about 90 percent of dairy farmers. The bill also includes a wide variety of other Vermont priorities, including more support for farmers who want to make the transition to organic production, added help for the cleanup of Lake Champlain through conservation assistance partnerships with farmers, and more resources for anti-hunger programs like the Vermont Food Bank.” [Press Release, Sen. Patrick Leahy, 11/9/07] Bush Administration Issued A Veto Threat Against Expanding The MILC Program. “The three members of the Vermont Congressional Delegation -- Sen. Patrick Leahy (D), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) and Rep. Peter Welch (D) -- are pushing back against a new Bush Administration veto threat against expansion of the MILC program, the basic safety net for dairy farmers when prices plummet. The Administration included its objections to expanding the MILC program in a new veto warning message lodged this week against the Senate' version of the Farm Bill. The Senate began debating a new five-year Farm Bill this week and continues work on the bill next week. The Bush Administration' new Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) on the Senate' Farm Bill includes the following objections to the MILC program provisions in the Senate bill: The bill also increases the payment rate for the Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) program and increases the quantity of milk that is eligible to receive MILC payments. These increases likewise do not signify reform, result in more market distorting policy, and increase government costs.” [Press Release via States News Service, Sen. Patrick Leahy, 11/9/07] 2007: Sanders Criticized Bush Administration’s Veto Threat Of MILC Program Expansion. “Sanders said, Once again, the White House is putting its far-right ideology ahead of the needs of the country. In this case, the President' irresponsible promised veto will hurt family farmers, hungry children, and the environment. While this Farm Bill is not everything that I would want, it makes needed improvements in our nutrition programs, extends and improves the MILC program that is so important to family dairy farmers, and it puts additional emphasis on conservation and renewable biofuels. Americans said very clearly last November that they want change. President Bush should honor the wishes of the American people and withdraw his veto threat. The Bush Administration seems to have no trouble finding money to pay for the war in Iraq and tax cuts for the wealthy, but somehow there's just not enough money for hungry children.” [Press Release via States News Service, Sen. Patrick Leahy, 11/9/07] Sanders Voted For The Conference Report Of The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. On May 15, 2008, Bernie Sanders voted yes on Senate Vote #130. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the conference report on the bill that would reauthorize federal farm and nutrition programs for five years, including crop subsidies and food stamps, as well as conservation, rural development and agricultural trade programs. It would authorize a $10 billion increase for nutrition programs, offset by extending customs user fees. It also would cut direct payment subsidies overall by $313 million, in part by reducing the percentage of acres for which a farmer can collect those payments from 85 percent to 83.3 percent. Farmers making more than $750,000 a year in farm- related income and those with more than $500,000 a year in non-farm-related income would not be eligible for federal subsidies. It would provide a $65,000 limit for counter-cyclical payments, authorize $1.3 billion to enroll new acreage in the Wetlands Reserve Program and reduce the Conservation Reserve Program to 32 million acres. Country-of-origin labels for all meat would be required by September 2008. It also would extend the Milk Income Loss Contract program through fiscal 2012 and provide a subsidy for the purchase of excess sugar in the U.S. market to make sugar-based ethanol. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #130, 5/15/2008] June 2008: Farm Bill Became Law Following Veto Override By Congress. “Congress passed a $300 billion farm bill over President Bush's veto for a second time Wednesday, a step made necessary by a clerical error when the original bill passed. The Senate voted 80-14 to approve the measure over Bush's objections, following a 317-109 vote in the House of Representatives. Both votes were well above the two-thirds majority needed to override the veto, which Bush delivered Wednesday morning.” [CNN, 6/18/08] Sanders Praised Congressional Approval Of Five-Year Farm Bill That Extended And Expanded The MILC Program. “The following information was released by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders: The Vermont Congressional Delegation Sen. Patrick Leahy (D), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I), and Rep. Peter Welch (D) Thursday hailed today' final congressional approval of a new 5-year Farm Bill that will extend and strengthen the safety net that dairy farmers rely on when milk prices plummet. The new charter for the Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) program includes a major breakthrough for dairy farmers. [Press Release, Sen. Bernie Sanders, 5/15/08] Sanders And Vermont Delegation Won “Feed Cost Adjuster” To 2008 Farm Bill, Expanding Benefits To Milk Producers Facing Rising Production Costs – A Benefit Unavailable To Producers Of Other Commodities. “For the first time, dairy farmers rising production costs will help trigger MILC program payments, reflecting expenses that are being pushed higher by soaring fuel, feed and transportation prices. Leahy, Sanders and Welch were able to add the new "feed cost adjuster" to the MILC formula. The victory came in the face of long odds -- no other commodity program in the Farm Bill gets a similar benefit to help with rising production costs. The Vermonters also worked to strengthen the MILC program in two other ways, by increasing both the payment and eligibility rates.” [Press Release, Sen. Bernie Sanders, 5/15/08] Sanders Praised The Farm Bill For Helping Vermont Dairy Farmers, Providing A “Strong Safety Net For Family Based Agriculture,” Addressing Hunger Crisis, And Moving Toward Sustainable Energy. “Sanders said, "This farm bill helps Vermont dairy farmers and provides a major step forward in addressing the growing crisis of hunger in America. It provides a strong safety net to protect family-based agriculture. It also provides increased funding for emergency food banks, and it takes significant steps forward in terms of moving us toward more sustainable energy."” [Press Release, Sen. Bernie Sanders, 5/15/08] 2012 Farm Bill 2012: Sanders Voted For The Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2012. “Forty-six Democrats and 16 Republicans voted for the bill. Both Independents who caucus with the Democrats, Sens. Joe Lieberman (Conn.) and Bernie Sanders (Vt.), voted for it. […] The bill funds agriculture, farm and nutrition programs over the next five years. It is projected to spend $969 billion over ten years.” [The Hill, 6/21/12; S 3240, Vote # 164, 6/21/12] Sanders Supported Senate Passage Of Farm Bill That Included New Program To Support Dairy Farmers. “Sanders said, "The time has come to put dairy farmers in the drivers' seat. For too long they and their hard working families have had no control over their raw milk supply or its price on the market. They deserve to make business decisions for their dairy operations in a more stable and just pricing environment."” [Press Release via Congressional Documents and Publications, Sen. Patrick Leahy, 6/21/12] Five Year Farm Bill That Included New Program To Stabilize Supports To Dairy Farmers. “Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Representative Peter Welch Thursday hailed Senate passage of a 5-year Farm Bill that includes a new risk-managementbased safety net to help dairy farmers pummeled by wild price swings in milk prices. The bill includes an entirely new approach, advocated by Leahy, Sanders and Welch, to help stabilize the dairy industry, which has been rocked by volatile and unmanageable price shifts in recent years. The existing MILC safety net program simply pays farmers when the price of milk falls below a set level - a fixed safety net that does not address the underlying price fluctuations. The new approach approved by the Senate will allow each farmer buy insurance that pays out when the margin between the price the farmer is paid, and the cost of producing milk, drops too low. Each farmer can choose whether, and how much of a margin, to insure, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture will provide the insurance at a lower cost for the first 4 million pounds of milk -- about the annual production of 200 to 250 cows.” [Press Release via Congressional Documents and Publications, Sen. Patrick Leahy, 6/21/12] 2014 Farm Bill 2014: Sanders Voted For The Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2013. “The long-stalled farm bill, which represents nearly $1 trillion in spending over the next 10 years and passed on a rare bipartisan vote, 68 to 32, produced clear winners and losers. Over all, farmers fared far better than the poor. The nearly 1,000-page bill, which President Obama is to sign at Michigan State University on Friday, among other things expanded crop insurance for farmers by $7 billion over a decade and created new subsidies for rice and peanut growers that would kick in when prices drop. But anti-hunger advocates said the bill would harm 850,000 American households, about 1.7 million people spread across 15 states, which would lose an average of $90 per month in benefits because of the cuts in the food stamp program. [New York Times, 2/4/14; HR 2462, Senate Vote #21, 2/4/14] Sanders Said 2014 Farm Bill Had Some Positive, But Some “Very Negative” Provisions, But That The Bill Would “Bring Greater Stability To Vermont Daily Farmers.” “The office of Sen. Bernard Sanders has issued the following press release: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today issued the following statement after he voted with the 68-32 majority to pass and send to President Barack Obama a new five-year farm bill: "This was a difficult vote on a bill which has some positive provisions but also some very negative ones. "This bill will bring greater stability to Vermont dairy farmers by helping them to manage risks and produce products more efficiently. It also is good news that a successful MILC program will stay in place until new insurance provisions for dairy farmers are implemented."” [Press Release, Sen. Bernie Sanders, 2/4/14] Sanders Criticized 2014 Farm Bill For Cutting The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) By $8.6 Billion Over 10 Years. “The office of Sen. Bernard Sanders has issued the following press release: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today issued the following statement after he voted with the 68-32 majority to pass and send to President Barack Obama a new five-year farm bill: "This was a difficult vote on a bill which has some positive provisions but also some very negative ones. [...] "I am very disappointed that this bill makes $8.6 billion in cuts over the next decade to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. While the final bill steps back from $40 billion in food stamp cuts that House Republicans had demanded, it is both morally and economically wrong to cut assistance to families in a very difficult economy.” [Press Release via US Fed News, Sen. Bernie Sanders, 2/4/14] Bill Ensured Farmers Would Receive A Payment If Corn Prices Dropped Below A Certain Level. “In addition to crop insurance, farmers will also reap the benefits of one of two programs to replace direct payments. Under what’s known as Price Loss Coverage, farmers receive payments if prices for corn, soybeans and 12 other crops dive below a certain level.” [The New Republic, 2/4/14] National Corn Associations Supported Revenue-Based Safety Net Programs In Farm Bill. “OCWGA and the National Corn Growers Associated have long supported revenue-based farm bill safety net programs. The centerpiece of the deficit reduction measures in the bill is the new Ag Risk Coverage (ARC) program, which is based on the bipartisan Aggregate Risk and Revenue Management Act (ARRM). This new approach to farm risk management ends the era of fixed, ‘direct payments.’” [Ohio’s Country Journal, 6/10/13] Bloomberg: Payments To Growers Of Corn And Other Crops Was Expected To Increase By $4 Billion As Unanticipated Consequence Of Farm Bill. A record U.S. harvest has pushed crop prices so low that taxpayers may pay billions of dollars more to subsidize farmers than anticipated just months ago, thanks in part to changes Congress approved this year. […] Payments to growers of corn, peanuts and other crops may reach $6.5 billion for this year’s harvest, or about $4 billion more than lawmakers anticipated in the farm bill, said Vincent Smith, director of the Agricultural Marketing Policy Center at Montana State University. [Bloomberg, 10/20/14] Politico: “It Is Easy To Envision” Corn Growers “Getting Double Or Triple What They Received Under The Direct Payment Program.” Farm bill advocates would answer that the $4.4 billion is still cheaper than the old system of direct payments. But lawmakers are increasingly concerned about a political backlash if large subsidies to big producers again become a political issue. For the next few years, at least, it is easy to envision corn growers under ARC getting double or triple what they received under the direct payment program. Peanut growers got $65 million in direct payments in 2014. By 2017, CBO projects that their payments could reach $209 million under PLC. [Politico, 1/29/15] 2014 Farm Bill Ended Direct Payments Under MILC Program And Replaced It Was A Voluntary Insurance Program To Protect Farm Income When Profit Margins Shrank To Unsustainable Levels. “The Farm Bill was approved in a final passage vote of 66 to 27. The new dairy program would replace the existing price supports and direct payments under the Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) program with a voluntary insurance program that will help protect farm income when profit margins shrink to unsustainable levels. One provision in the new farm bill would provide insurance to farmers, at modest rates, that would pay them if the price of producing milk falls to $4 dollars above the price of selling milk. Farmers could buy supplemental insurance for a price differential of up to $8. To assist small farmers, the price for this supplemental insurance for the first 4 million pounds -- about the annual production of 200250 cows -- would be lower than the price for larger dairies. Another provision builds on legislation introduced two years ago when Leahy and Sanders proposed a ‘supply management' system for dairy farms. Sanders Supported Change, And Said Vermont Dairy Farmers Played An Important Role In The Development Of The New Insurance Program. “Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said a farm bill that the Senate approved Monday includes dairy safety net provisions that would help Vermont's family farms. […] Sanders said, “Vermont dairy farmers played an important role in the development of this voluntary insurance program that will help protect farm income when profit margins shrink to unsustainable levels. It will keep farm milk prices from being too low for too long.”” [Press Release via US Official News, Sen. Patrick Leahy, 6/12/13] Sanders Said 2014 Bill Would Keep MILC Program In Place Until New Insurance Program Could Be Implemented. “The office of Sen. Bernard Sanders has issued the following press release: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today issued the following statement after he voted with the 68-32 majority to pass and send to President Barack Obama a new five-year farm bill: "This was a difficult vote on a bill which has some positive provisions but also some very negative ones. "This bill will bring greater stability to Vermont dairy farmers by helping them to manage risks and produce products more efficiently. It also is good news that a successful MILC program will stay in place until new insurance provisions for dairy farmers are implemented."” [Press Release, Sen. Bernie Sanders, 2/4/14] Sanders Encouraged Dairy Farmers To Participate In The Margin Protection Program (MPP) Following The End Of The MILC Program. “Vermont's congressional delegation on Wednesday released a statement in order to let every Vermont dairy farmer know as quickly as possible that the deadline for taking advantage of a new dairy safety net program is December 5, just around the corner. "We are encouraging every Vermont dairy farmer," Senator Patrick Leahy, Senator Bernie Sanders and Congressman Peter Welch said, "to consider participating in the new Margin Protection Program (MPP) for Dairy that we worked to include as a part of the 2014 Farm Bill. With the end of the Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) program, MPP is now the only federal safety net available for dairy farmers when milk prices fall. It will offer a revenue risk management tool for dairy producers when the difference between the price of milk and price of feed falls below coverage levels that farmers themselves choose. While the MPP is not as effortless to use as MILC, it can provide much better protection for all of Vermont’s dairy farms. We specifically worked to help design this program to be simple to use and to offer advantages to all dairy producers regardless of management style or business model.” [Vermontbiz.com, 11/20/14] Supported Farm Subsidies, Especially For Milk Sanders: Proposals To End Farm Subsidies And “Letting The Price Of Milk Be Set By The Free Market” Were “”Absolutely Frightening.” “We should not fall into the trap of ending subsidies and abandoning farmers to the so called free market. Let me say loud and clear that I think the scheme that Democrat Paul Poirier favors—of ending farm subsidies and letting the price of milk be set by the free market—to be absolutely frightening for Vermont dairy farmers. The market is not free if it is controlled by a few corporations; if government farm policy is a failure, you don’t shoot the farmers, you change the policy.” [Statement by Mayor Bernard Sanders, 10/6/88] Sanders Introduced Bill To Establish A Dairy Market Stabilization Program. “Dairy Market Stabilization Act of 2010 - Amends the Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 1983 to direct the Secretary of Agriculture (USDA) to publish in the Federal Register a proposed order to establish the dairy market stabilization program that shall apply to all dairy facilities within the contiguous United States that produce milk for sale commercially. Sets forth program provisions.” [S 3531, introduced 6/24/10] Sanders Introduced A Bill To Support Milk Prices. “Milk Supply Management and Nutrition Assistance Act of 1993 - Amends the Agricultural Act of 1949 to establish a milk producer referendum mechanism regarding implementation of the alternative milk price support and inventory management program established by this Act. Establishes the National Milk Marketing Board to administer the alternative program. Establishes such alternative program, with milk prices to be supported at a rate set by the Board, with annual adjustments to reflect milk producers' production costs. List the factors for Board consideration.” [HR 3370, introduced 10/26/93] 1988: Sanders Received Endorsement From Local Dairy Farmers Because Only He Was Talking About “Farm Prices” Rather Than “Ending Subsidies.” “‘A group of Vermont dairy farmers today endorsed Mayor Bernard Sanders for Congress, praising both his record in Burlington and his position on protecting the family dairy farm in Vermont. Speaking at a press conference here today, the group of 13 dairy farmers said a letter expressing their support of Sanders was being mailed to approximately 600 Vermont dairy farm families. In the letter, the farmers said, ‘It's election time, and all the candidates for Congress are talking about farms. Some are talking about ending subsidies. Some are talking about world markets. Only one-Bernie Sanders-is talking about farm prices.’” [Press Release, Sanders for Congress, 10/28/88] Farm Group: Sanders Was “The Only Candidate Who Is Pushing For What Farmers Need: Higher Farm Milk Prices.” “The farm group includes Lee and Bob Light of Plainfield; Hilda and Yves Daigle of Westfield; Ted and Mary Brenneman of Marshfield; Dexter and Alice Randall of Troy; Eugenie Doyle and Sam Burr of Bristol; Francis Knowles of Charlotte; and Mary and Bob Judd, Sr., of Troy. The letter also stated, ‘Bernie is the only candidate who is pushing for what farmers need: higher farm milk prices. He has public ally called for increasing milk prices to at least where they were in 1980.’” [Press Release, Sanders for Congress, 10/28/88] GMOs 2012: Sanders Introduced Amendment To Require Labelling Of Genetically-Engineered Foods In Farm Bill. “Proposed legislation to label genetically engineered foods (aka GMOs) has failed in 19 states. In at least two states, Vermont and Connecticut, legislation failed immediately after Monsanto threatened to sue these states should a labeling requirement become law. Senators Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) introduced an amendment to the 2013 farm bill that would states the right to require labels on food products that are genetically engineered. It also failed.” [Eureka Times Standard 10/25/12]  Mega Agribusiness Company Monsanto Opposed Sanders’ Amendment. “Since the defeat, several other states have considered enacting similar laws. However on Thursday, by a vote of 27-71, the U.S. Senate defeated an amendment to the 2013 Farm Bill crafted by Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont that sought to ensure states would be able to enforce their own laws requiring foods containing GMOs to be labeled. Monsanto maintains that GMOs are safe. ‘To date, no commercialized biotech products have ever been associated with an actual hazard to humans or animals,’ Katie Sauer, communications manager for Monsanto's Corn States, wrote in an article posted on Monsanto.com.” [McClatchy, 5/26/13]  Sanders: “Powerful Biotech Companies Like Monsanto […] Would Prefer That People Not Know What Is In Their Food That They Produce.” TAPPER: “Last week, senators debated whether states could require food labeling for products with genetically engineered ingredients.” SEN. BERNARD SANDERS, I-VERMONT: “The concept that we’re talking about today is a fairly common sense and non-radical idea […] When you take on very powerful biotech companies like Monsanto and large food corporations, who in many ways would prefer that people not know what is in their food that they produce, they are very powerful.” [CNN, 5/30/13] Sanders Supported Labeling Of Foods With Genetically Modified Ingredients. “U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today congratulated the Vermont Legislature for passing a bill making Vermont the first state in the nation to require labels on food containing genetically-modified ingredients. I am very proud our small state stood up to Monsanto and other multi-national food conglomerates and is taking the lead in a movement to allow the people of our country to know what is in the food that they eat, Sanders said. Working with Vermonters, I will continue my efforts in Washington to pass national legislation on this important issue.” [Sanders press release, 4/23/14] Sanders Proposed Farm Bill Amendment That Would Allow States To Require GMO Labeling. “In Washington, D.C., Sanders earlier this year proposed an amendment to the farm bill to let states require labels on food or beverages made with genetically-modified ingredients. The amendment was defeated but Sanders said he would continue to press for federal action on food labels. His proposal would have required the Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to report to Congress within two years on the percentage of food and beverages in the United States that contain genetically engineered ingredients.” [Sanders press release, 4/23/14; CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #135, 5/23/13] Amendment Was Overwhelmingly Defeated. “The Senate voted 70-21 against an amendment by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., to make clear that states have authority to require labels designating foods with genetically modified ingredients.” [Grand Forks Herald, 5/27/13] 2012: Sanders Proposed Similar GMO Labeling Amendment. On June 21, 2012, Bernie Sanders voted yes on Senate Vote #161. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Sanders, I-Vt., amendment no. 2310 that would allow states to require that any food, beverage or other edible product have a label indicating that it contains a genetically engineered ingredient. The amendment was defeated 73-26. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #161, 6/21/2012] Sanders Proposed Legislation To Protect States Enacting GMO Labeling Laws From Lawsuits. “But U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, Vt.-I, wants to ensure that his home state -- and any other state -- can enact such "GMO-labeling" laws without fear of litigation from opponents. Sanders announced Wednesday that he has proposed a farm-bill amendment that would allow states to require labeling on foods that are produced with or derived from organisms that have been genetically engineered. "Vermont and other states must be allowed to label GMO foods," Sanders said. "My provision would protect states from threatened lawsuits."” [Brattleboro Reformer, 5/23/13] Sanders Said He Would Continue Working On Issue Because People Had A Right To Know What Is In Their Foods. “The Senate today rejected by a vote of 71 to 27 an amendment by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to let states require labels on food or beverages made with genetically modified ingredients. “An overwhelming majority of Americans favor GMO labeling but virtually all of the major biotech and food corporations in the country oppose it,” Sanders said. “Today’s vote is a step forward on an important issue that we are going to continue to work on. The people of Vermont and the people of America have a right to know what's in the food that they eat,” he added.” [Sanders press release, 5/26/13] Sanders Said A Mother Had The Right To Know What She’s Feeding Her Child. “Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today proposed an amendment to the farm bill that would let Vermont and other states require clear labels on any food or beverage containing ingredients that have been genetically modified. “All over this country, people are becoming more conscious about the foods they are eating and the foods they are serving to their kids and this is certainly true for genetically engineered foods,” Sanders said. “I believe that when a mother goes to the store and purchases food for her child, she has the right to know what she is feeding her child.”” [Sanders press release, 5/26/13] Sanders Said People Should Decide Labeling Requirements, Not Monsanto And Other Corporations. “The Sanders Amendment would make it clear that states may require clear labels that let consumers know what they're eating. “Monsanto and other major corporations should not get to decide this, the people and their elected representatives should,” Sanders said.” [Sanders press release, 5/26/13] Sanders Voted To Permit Civil Suits In Cases Related To GMO Foods Unless The Foods Were Clearly Labeled As Genetically Modified. On March 10, 2004, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #50. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Andrews, D-N.J., amendment no. 2 that would permit civil liability suits in cases related to food that contains genetically engineered material, unless the food's labeling explicitly states that it contains genetically engineered material. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #50, 3/10/2004] Sanders Voted To Require A Study On The Effected Of Genetically Engineered Salmon. On May 24, 2012, Bernie Sanders voted yes on Senate Vote #106. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Murkowski, R-Alaska, amendment no. 2108 that would require the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to analyze the effects of genetically engineered salmon on the economy and the environment before the Food and Drug Administration could declare the salmon fit for human consumption. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #106, 5/24/2012] Sanders Said That While He Does Not Believe GMO Food Causes Health Problems, People Have A Right To Know If Food Is Genetically Modified. “I respectfully disagree. It is not my view, nor have I suggested, that GMO food causes health problems. What I have said is that the people of our country, as well as people around the world, have the right to make choices in terms of what they eat and have the right to have labels telling them whether or not food is made with GMOs. As you know, GMO labeling exists in dozens of countries and the state legislature in Vermont also passed a bill requiring that. I support that effort.” [Reddit AMA, 5/19/15] Agribusiness 1988: Sanders Warned Of Growing Agribusiness Corporation Threat To Small Farmers. “What Vermont and American farmers are experiencing now is more than a farm crisis, it is a moral crisis. It's a policy that puts farmers out of business and puts profits in the pockets of agribusiness corporations and food processors. It sacrifices family farmers so corporations can tighten their grip on our food system; it accuses farmers of surplus and tells the hungry we have no food. Nowhere is the growing power of corporations more evident than in agriculture. Forbes Magazine said it well in Jan. of 1987: ‘Falling prices were disastrous for farmers, but the losses they suffered matched the profits reaped by the next link in the food chain •••the processors.’" [Statement by Mayor Bernard Sanders, 10/6/88] Sanders Supported Regionalized Farm Policy To Combat Rise Of Big Agribusinesses, But Acknowledged It Was “Wrong To Pit Region Against Region. “I support a regionalized farm policy because it makes economic and environmental sense. And because we should not concentrate food production in one region. But it must be fair to all regions. I understand it’s wrong to pit region against region, family farmer against family farmer. This is the ‘divide and conquer’ strategy that has weakened the political power of farmers and allowed corporations to dominate food and farm policy. This is not a struggle between the Northeast and the Midwest; it’s a struggle between the family farmer and corporate agriculture.” [Statement by Mayor Bernard Sanders, 10/6/88] Community Supported Agriculture Sanders Sponsored Bill To Create Program To Support Farmers And Increase Availability Of Community Supported Agriculture In Low Income Areas. “Amends the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 to direct the Secretary of Agriculture (USDA) to carry out a program, to be known as the Community-Supported Agriculture Promotion Program, to promote community-supported agriculture (CSA). Defines the term "CSA" to mean a farm operated in a manner consistent with community- supported agriculture, as defined by the Secretary. States that the purposes of the program are to: (1) increase domestic consumption of agricultural commodities by improving and expanding, or assisting in the improvement or expansion of, domestic CSA programs; (2) aid in the development of new CSA programs; and (3) increase participation in CSA in low-income areas or food deserts.” [S 4030, introduced 12/15/10] Sanders Supported The “Buy Local” Concept Over Importing Food From Overseas. “I think that people are increasingly concerned what food they are eating, what they’re giving their kids. They don’t want food coming from China and other countries where the level of requirements and safety standards are not as high as they should they. And I think that people are more and more attuned to organic farmers. I can tell you that in Vermont, almost every town in the state now has a farmer’s market […] I am very supportive of that of the buy local concept, of the buy organic movement.” [Brunch With Bernie, 6/22/12, 10:45] CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM Sanders Said "I Want A Political System Where Working People, Middle Class People, Young People…Can Run For Office Without Having To Beg For Money." “He said it's time to take the power back from the wealthiest 10 percent of America and spread the wealth back to the middle class. To do that, Sanders said, Citizens United needs to be overturned. The Supreme Court case, Sanders argued, allowed the top 10 percent to buy the United States government by donating to candidates who want to make the rich richer. "I want a political system where working people, middle class people, young people…can run for office without having to beg for money," Sanders said.” [Des Moines Register, 6/14/15] Sanders: If We Are Serious About Solving Problems, “We Must Be Deadly Serious About Campaign Finance Reform.” “If we are serious about creating jobs, about climate change and the needs of our children and the elderly, we must be deadly serious about campaign finance reform and the need for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.” [Sanders Remarks, 5/27/15] Sanders: Media, Corporations, Powerful Do Not Want Young, Lower Income, Or Working People Involved In The Political Process. “The truth of the matter is that the media, large corporations, the people who control politically our country today do not want you to participate. They want a low turnout of primarily upper middle class people, they want big money to dominate the political process. Their nightmare is that young people, lower income people, working people jump into the process. They do not want that.” [Salon, 5/9/15] Sanders Criticized The Political System For Allowing Candidates To Start Off With Enormous Financial Advantages Over Their Opponents. “I think it is corrupt. And by that, I don’t mean individuals, but what I mean is the system as a whole. [...] I think roughly speaking, we should be starting from a level playing field. I don’t think that you have the right, or I have the right, to start off with 10 times more money than you do.” [C-SPAN, 1/15/98, 49:05] 1998: Sanders Urged Campaign Finance Reform On The Grounds That Large Corporate Donors Were Repaid In Political Favors. “If you want to know why the priorities of this country are the way they are, you have to look at campaign finance reform. And you have to appreciate that the wealthiest one percent of the population contribute eighty percent of the campaign donations. That large institutions– when I talk about, Barb and I were talking about the bailout of Chase Manhattan and so forth, it’s not an accident. The average citizen does not go to $50,000-a-plate fundraisers and does not sleep in the Lincoln Room. They contribute huge sums of money, and they get paid back. They get paid back in tax breaks, they get paid back in absurd trade policies, they get paid back in a whole lot of ways.” [C-SPAN, 1/15/98, 23:43] Sanders Criticized The Motives Of Large Political Donors As Not Out Of “Concern About Civics And The Political System.” “Let’s not be naive. I mean, if somebody gives, right? If Newt Gingrich goes out and has a $50,000-a-plate fundraiser for the Republican party, or the President of the United States does the same for the Democratic party, I am sure that you will agree with me that the people who are making these huge contributions are not doing it because of their concern about civics and the political system.” [C-SPAN, 1/15/98, 24:39] 1987: Sanders Said Big Money Played An Enormously Important Part In Who Governed. “In the U.S. today, big money plays an enormously important part in determining who governs. The reason that most Senators and Congressmen and governors are very wealthy people is that it cost [sic] a huge sum of money to run for national and statewide office, and with very few exceptions, only the rich can play that game.” [Speech dictated by Bernie Sanders to Richard Sugarman, 10/23/87] 1986: Sanders Supported Bill Designed To Ensure That Political Protest And Association Were Protected. “And I think in the state of Vermont we have a long history of respect for the rights of individuals. The word should go out that while we strongly believe in effective law enforcement, that crime is not going to be tolerated, on the other hand we absolutely do not want there to be a chilling effect on the right of people to think or act politically. So I think this bill is a worthy one and I support it.” [SoundCloud, Bernie Sanders, “1986 No Political Surveillance,” Accessed 6/4/15] Publicly Funded Elections Sanders Proposed A Constitutional Amendment To Limit The Corrupting Influence Of Private Wealth In Public Election. “Constitutional Amendment - Declares that, whereas the right to vote in public elections belongs only to natural persons as U.S. citizens, so shall the ability to make contributions and expenditures to influence the outcome of public elections belong only to natural persons. Declares that nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to restrict the power of Congress and the states to protect the integrity and fairness of the electoral process, limit the corrupting influence of private wealth in public elections, and guarantee the dependence of elected officials on the people alone by taking certain actions.” [S J Res 11, introduced 3/13/13] Amendment Established Public Financing Of Elections And Requirements To Ensure Disclosure Of Contributions And Expenditures “Made To Influence The Outcome” Of An Election. “Includes among such actions: (1) the establishment of systems of public financing for elections; (2) the imposition of requirements to ensure the disclosure of contributions and expenditures made to influence the outcome of a public election by candidates, individuals, and associations of individuals; and (3) the imposition of content neutral limitations on all such contributions and expenditures. Declares that nothing in this Article shall be construed to alter freedom of the press. Grants Congress and the states power to enforce this Amendment through appropriate legislation.” [S J Res 11, introduced 3/13/13] Sanders’ Proposal Would Encourage Politicians To Pay Attention To Those Without The Ability To Buy Influence. “Publicly funded elections. Instead of seeing the spectacle of candidates for president and Congress taking turns begging for money at gatherings of billionaires and corporate lobbyists, public funding for campaigns might encourage politicians to pay attention to those of us who don't have the ability to buy influence in our government. This feels vaguely un-American only because it has been so long since money did not rule American politics.” [David Horsey, Baltimore Sun, 5/12/15] Sanders: “We Need To Overturn Citizens United With A Constitutional Amendment […] We Need To Move Toward Public Funding Of Elections.” “The major issue in terms of our electoral system is truly campaign finance reform […] We need to overturn Citizens United with a constitutional amendment. We need to pass disclosure legislation. We need to move toward public funding of elections.” [Reddit, 5/19/15] Sanders Called For Public Funding Of Elections. “Long term, we need to go further and establish public funding of elections.” [Sanders Remarks, 5/27/15] Sanders Advocated For Candidates To Depend On A Combination Of Small Donations And Federal Matching Of Those Grants. “I’m talking about a combination of things. Number one, I’m talking about eliminating soft money, so that you don’t get any help from the Republican party, and so no one gets help from the Democratic party, so the people cannot contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars to either party. Right? That’s number one. And number two, what I’m talking about is a combination of factors. Number one, if you really have support in your community, go out and get $25 contributions, $50 contributions, and the federal government should match those contributions, contribution for contribution. [...] So it’s a combination of getting you to depend on small donations–a large number of small donations– plus government matching those grants.” [C-SPAN, 1/15/98, 50:20] Sanders Proposed Public Financing For Congressional Elections. “The ninth bill in the Progressive Promise is The Taking Back our Congress Act, which curbs influence-peddling and special-interest lobbying through tougher lobbying restrictions and campaign finance reform; to prohibit ex-members of Congress and executive branch officials from lobbying on behalf of foreign governments and companies; to improve ballot access so more Americans can run for office; and to authorize some public financing of congressional elections to make it more affordable for more candidates to run regardless of personal wealth.” [Rep. Bernard Sanders, Congressional Record, 1/26/95] Citizens United Sanders: Citizens United Has “Totally Corrupted” The American Political System, Allowing Billionaires To Own The US Government. “As a result of the disastrous Supreme Court decision on Citizens United, the American political system has been totally corrupted, and the foundations of American democracy are being undermined. What the Supreme Court essentially said was that it was not good enough for the billionaire class to own much of our economy. They could now own the U.S. government as well. And that is precisely what they are trying to do.” [Sanders Remarks, 5/27/15] Sanders Said His Supreme Court Litmus Test Would Be Overturning Citizens United. “They will determine who the candidates are. Let me say this thing. If elected president, I will have a litmus test in terms of my nominee to be a Supreme Court justice. And that nominee will say that we are all going to overturn this disastrous Supreme Court decision on Citizens United because that decision is undermining American democracy. I do not believe that billionaires should be able to buy politicians.” [Face the Nation, 5/10/15] Sanders Promised Any Supreme Court Nominee Would Move To Overturn Citizens United. “I have said it before and I'll say it again. I will not nominate any justice to the Supreme Court who has not made it clear that he or she will move to overturn that disastrous decision which is undermining our democracy.” [Sanders Remarks, 5/27/15] Sanders: Citizens United Is Undermining Our Democratic Way Of Life. “SANDERS: I mean, television is an important medium. You cannot ignore that. You cannot ignore the reality of income and wealth inequality. You cannot ignore the fact that Citizens United is undermining our democratic way of life. Now, there are two sides to the story. I'm not saying everybody has got to agree with me, but have that issue, have that debate. That's what elections should be about.” [CNN, 5/24/15] Sanders Condemned Republicans For Voting Against A Constitutional Amendment To Reverse The Citizens United Decision. “Though the Republican move was anticipated, Senator Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent who has been one of the Senate’s most ardent advocates for reform, expressed frustration with the result. ‘I am extremely disappointed that not one Republican voted today to stop billionaires from buying elections and undermining American democracy,’ said the senator, who has advocated for a more sweeping amendment to address the influence and power of corporate cash on American elections and governance. ‘While the Senate vote was a victory for Republicans, it was a defeat for American democracy. The Koch brothers and other billionaires should not be allowed to spend hundreds of millions of dollars electing candidates who represent the wealthy and the powerful.’ Now, said Sanders, ‘the fight to overturn Citizens United must continue at the grassroots level in every state in this country.’” [The Nation, 9/11/14]  Senate Republicans Blocked Constitutional Amendment To Reverse Citizens United Decision. “Senate Republicans on Thursday blocked a constitutional amendment meant to reverse two recent Supreme Court decisions on campaign spending. Senate Democrats needed 60 votes to end debate on the measure, but fell short in the 54-42 party-line vote. Earlier this week, more than 20 Republicans voted with Democrats in a 79-18 vote to advance the amendment in order to force Democrats to spend the week debating the merits of the measure.” [The Hill, 9/11/14] 2011: Sanders Introduced Constitutional Amendment To Overturn Citizens United Decision And Outlaw For-Profit Corporations From Campaign Spending. “Last month, Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL) stood up for the 99 Percent by introducing the Outlawing Corporate Cash Undermining the Public Interest in our Elections and Democracy (OCCUPIED) Amendment, which would overturn the Citizens United decision, re-establishing the right of Congress and the states to regulate campaign finance laws, and to effectively outlaw the ability of for-profit corporations to contribute to campaign spending. ‘Americans of all stripes agree that for far too long, corporations have occupied Washington and drowned out the voices of the people,’ said Deutch in a statement introducing the amendment. ‘It is time to return the nation’s capital and our democracy to the people.’ Today, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) introduced a Senate version of Deutch’s amendment. ‘There comes a time when an issue is so important that the only way to address it is by a constitutional amendment,’ said Sanders in a statement provided to ThinkProgress.” [ThinkProgress, 12/08/11] Sanders Introduced Constitutional Amendment Declaring That Corporations Do Not Have The Same Rights As People. “Declares that the rights protected by the Constitution are the rights of natural persons and do not extend to for-profit corporations, limited liability companies, or other private entities established for business purposes or to promote business interests under the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state. Declares that such corporate and other private entities are subject to regulation by the people through the legislative process so long as such regulations are consistent with the powers of Congress and the states and do not limit the freedom of the press.” [SJ Res 33, introduced 12/8/11] Koch Brothers HEADLINE: “Bernie Sanders Calls Rivals' Cash Dash 'A National Disgrace'” [Politico, 6/30/15] Sanders Called Presidential Campaign And Super PAC Fundraising Before The FEC Deadline A “Mad Scramble” And “A National Disgrace.” “Bernie Sanders on Tuesday is knocking his fellow presidential candidates’ last-minute cash dash before the FEC deadline, calling it “a national disgrace.” “It is a national disgrace that billionaires and other extremely wealthy people are able to heavily influence the political process by making huge contributions,” he said in a statement. “The Koch brothers alone will spend more than the Democratic and Republican parties to influence the outcome of next year’s elections. That’s not democracy, that’s oligarchy.” The statement from the Vermont independent — an ardent support of campaign finance reform who has rejected the notion of his own affiliated super PAC — said the “mad scramble” for super PAC money from other candidates is appalling. “Elections should be determined by who has the best ideas, not who can hustle the most money from the rich and powerful,” Sanders said.” [Politico, 6/30/15] Sanders: Koch Brothers Represent An Oligarchy; This Campaign Is About One Person, One Vote. “According to media reports the Koch brothers alone, one family, will spend more money in this election cycle than either the Democratic or Republican parties. This is not democracy. This is oligarchy. In Vermont and at our town meetings we know what American democracy is supposed to be about. It is one person, one vote – with every citizen having an equal say – and no voter suppression. And that's the kind of American political system we have to fight for and will fight for in this campaign.” [Sanders Remarks, 5/27/15] Koch Brothers And Other Billionaires Are Deciding Elections And Turning The Country Into An Oligarchy. “When you have a handful of billionaires able to spend as much money as they want, supporting their candidates, so people like the Koch who are extreme right wing, what you are looking and let's be clear - is the undermining of American democracy and moving our nation to an oligarchic form of society - and I mean that very seriously - where a handful of billionaires will determine who are elected officials are.” [CNN, New Day, 5/6/15] Sanders Blasted Efforts Of Kochs And Other Billionaires Who Were “Buying Elections” In Effort To Influence American Democratic System. “The other big focus of Sanders’s speech was railing against the country’s wealthiest. He often mentioned Charles and David Koch, the billionaire brothers who have poured money into conservative political campaigns over the past few years, and took more jabs at them than he did at his main Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton. ‘I do not believe American democracy is about billionaires buying elections,’ he said. ‘One person, one vote is what American democracy is supposed to be about.’” [Concord Monitor, 5/28/15] Sanders: “Billionaires Aren’t Going to Support Me.” “Look, as a result of this disastrous Supreme Court decision on Citizens United, the Koch brothers and other billionaire families are buying elections. We are seeing the undermining of American democracy. All I can say is I’m not going to have a superPAC. Billionaires are not going to support me. But what we have raised are tens of thousands of people -I think we`re over 50,000 who have contributed an average, Chris, of $43 to BernieSanders.com, our Web site.” [MSNBC, Hardball, 5/5/15] Sanders Called The “War Of Billionaires” In Campaigns Is “Vulgar.” “And he lambasted the growing influence that major donors like Charles and David Koch on the right and Tom Steyer on the left now have on the political process. “Frankly, it is vulgar to me that we're having a war of billionaires,” Sanders said. Asked whether he would bless a wealthy donor's support for a pro-Sanders Super PAC, he said: “No.”“ [CNN, 4/30/15] Sanders Said Koch Brothers Are “Undermining American Democracy.” “How many people are comfortable with the Koch Brothers putting almost a billion dollars into electing the candidates of their choice? That is undermining American democracy. Citizens United has got to be overturned. And then, of course, you’ve got climate change and the need too transform our energy system. Those are a few of the issues, Tavis.” [PBS, 5/11/15] Super PACs 2015: Sanders Announced He Would Not Start A Super PAC. “Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who just announced he is running for the Democratic nomination for president, said early Thursday he won’t be using a super-PAC — a fundraising tactic that has become de rigueur for most candidates. “I am one of the exceptions,” he said during an interview with ABC News. “I am not going to start a super-PAC. I’m not going to go around the country talking to millionaires. Now I'm saving my time because they wouldn't give me any money anyhow, and that's fine.”“ [The Hill, 4/30/15] Sanders Said He Would Not Condone Wealthy Donors Contributing To A Super PAC Supporting Him. “Asked if he would condone a contribution by a wealthy donor to a super-PAC supporting his campaign, Sanders said, “No.”“ [The Hill, 4/30/15]  Headline: “Bernie Sanders pledges not to accept super PAC support” [Washington Post, 5/10/15] Sanders Pledged To Refuse Super PAC Assistance From Billionaires. “Throughout his career, Sanders' rallying cries have alienated the party establishment among both Democrats and Republicans. He vows to buck the system once again by not taking billionaire donations from super PACS instead preferring small, individual donations, this, in a day when it could take twobillion dollars to finance a winning Presidential campaign...which brings us back to our earlier premise. ‘You can't win because the fundraising challenge is too great.’ ‘Fair question and you know what? Maybe they're right.’ The only way we win is if millions of people say enough is enough, the billionaires will not be electing the next President of the United States.’” [ABC9 News, 5/30/15] 2012: In Vermont, “No Harsher Critic” Of Super PACs Than Bernie Sanders. “In Vermont, there’s been no harsher critic of super PACs and Citizens United than Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). He has introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and is backing a resolution opposing “corporate personhood” that some 30 Vermont towns will take up in Town Meeting Day elections on March 6.” [Seven Days Vermont, 2/15/12] … But Said He Would Not Rule Out Accepting Help From A Super PAC. “But in a sign of the times, even Sanders says he couldn’t rule out accepting help from a super PAC if push came to shove. In an interview in his Burlington office earlier this week, Vermont’s junior senator told Fair Game that if faced with a super-PAC-financed opponent this fall, a Sanders-supported super PAC is “something we would look at. But I hope we’re not going to have to.”” [Seven Days Vermont, 2/15/12] 2012: Bernie Sanders Suggested He Would Be Open To Accepting Help From Super PACs. “SD: President Obama caused a ruckus last week when he said he would embrace the super PAC for his reelection. Would you ever accept help from a super PAC for your own reelection? BS: I certainly would prefer not to. But I will tell you this. There is no member of the United States Senate that I think Wall Street, the oil companies, the coal companies, the military-industrial complex would like to defeat more than me. And I think it’s not going to happen, so I think that’s kind of a hypothetical question that I’m not going to have to deal with. But we can chat about it if, six months from now, many, many millions of dollars are coming in attacking me. SD: If it was a last resort...? BS: That’s something we would look at, but I hope it’s not going to have to ... It’s the same issue as dealing with Obama. Should you be principled and allow your opponent to spend huge sums of money and you say, ‘Well, I’m a principled guy and we’re going to get outspent 5to-1, and I’m going to lose the election?’ Well, it’s just something we’ll have to look at if and when it arises.” [Seven Days, 2/15/12] Sanders Promised Not To Take Corporate PAC Money Or Encourage Any Super PACs. “PLUM LINE: No Super PAC money of any kind? SANDERS: I will not encourage — I will not be part of any Super PAC. PLUM LINE: No Wall Street money? SANDERS: Throughout my career I have not taken any corporate PAC money. That will remain for this race as well.” [Washington Post, 5/1/15] Sanders “Understand[s] Where [Hillary Clinton] Is Coming From” But Pledged He Would Not Court Super PAC Donors. “Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Sunday reiterated his pledge not to accept super PAC support but stopped short of knocking Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton’s decision to court allied super PAC donors. “I understand where she is coming from. [But] I will not have a super PAC,” Sanders, who last month launched a bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, said on “Face the Nation” on Sunday. “...I don't think we're going to outspend Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush or anybody else, but I think we are going to raise the kinds of money that we need to run a strong and winning campaign.”“ [Washington Post, 5/10/15] Bernie Sanders: Clinton’s Decision To Court Super PAC Donors Was “Unfortunate.” “On Capitol Hill last week, Sanders told CNN that Clinton's decision to personally court super PAC donors was ‘unfortunate.’ ‘We're living in a world since Citizens United where multi-millionaires and billionaires are playing a horrendous role in the political system’ Sanders said, referring to the Supreme Court's 2010 ruling that paved the way for super PACs to direct virtually uncapped amounts of money to aid political candidates. ‘That's why I believe that we need to overturn Citizens United and move to public funding of elections.’” [CNN, 5/18/15] Sanders: “I’m Not Going To Have A Super PAC In This Campaign… That’s Not My World.” “"I'm not going to have a super PAC in this campaign," Sanders said. "I don't go to fundraisers where millionaires sit around the room and say here's a million, here's $5 million for your super PAC. That's not my life. That's not my world. And I think the American people are saying that is not what our politics should be about." He said the money he's raised so far has come from more than 100,000 individual donors, giving an average of $42 each.” [Associated Press, 5/25/15] Sanders: Campaign Would Do Its “Best” To Raise Money From Small Donors, But It May Be “Too Late” For Candidates Like Himself To Compete With Super PAC Money. COURIC: “You’re refusing to use Super PACs as I mentioned. Your average campaign donor, I guess, is paying an average of $42 per donor. You want to raise $50 milion, but with all due respect, Senator, how do you compete when Senator Clinton is saying, you know, we’re going to raise $2 billion.” SANDERS: “Katie, that is an excellent question and we’re just going to do the best we can. […] and frankly let me be honest with you, it may be too late. The billionaires may be too powerful and maybe the only candidates who can win get money from the billionaires and are beholden to the billionaires.” [Sanders Katie Couric Interview, Yahoo, 6/1/15] Sanders Took Aim At “Wall Street Firms And Financial Services Companies” And “Decried The Emergence Of Super PACs.” “Another contrast Mr. Sanders drew with Mrs. Clinton was his promise to ‘break up the largest financial institutions in the country,’ taking aim at Wall Street firms and financial services companies that have contributed heavily to Mrs. Clinton’s past campaigns. He also decried the emergence of super PACs; Mrs. Clinton is relying on one in her campaign, and they are common in the Republican field.” [New York Times, 5/26/15]  Headline: PACs promote Sanders, whether he likes it or not [USA Today, 5/30/15] Sanders Said He Did Not Sanction Any Super PAC. “"I have not sanctioned any super PAC," Sanders, an independent, said in an interview. "A major problem of our campaign finance system is that anybody can start a super PAC on behalf of anybody and can say anything. And this is what makes our current campaign finance situation totally absurd."” [USA Today, 5/30/15] Independent PACs Were Popping Up To Support Sanders. “But that hasn't stopped independent political action committees from forming in support of his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. One such committee, "Bet on Bernie 2016," even arranged for Sanders' photo to flash — without his knowledge, according to the Vermont senator — on an electronic billboard last month in New York City's Times Square. […] A Bet on Bernie news release says it is seeking volunteers to participate in telethons, raise money and boost Sanders on social media. The committee is a hybrid PAC that has one account for making donations to Sanders and another super PAC-style account for making independent expenditures to boost his candidacy.” [USA Today, 5/30/15] Collective Actions PAC “Draft Bernie” Super PAC Founded In January 2014. “Nobody may have been happier to hear those words than the man who, more than a year ago, launched the "Draft Bernie" effort. "It would appear we drafted Bernie," said Christopher Pearson, who filed with the FEC to create a "Draft Bernie" super PAC in January 2014. "I'm relieved. I think the country needs Bernie's message."” [Washington Post, 4/29/15] Pro-Sanders Super PACs Had Not Raised Much Money. “There are already some pro-Sanders superPACs, including Ready for Bernie Sanders 2016 and Draft Bernie, that have yet to raise much money.” [The Hill, 4/30/15] “Draft Bernie” Super PAC Raised Less Than $7,000. “Most of Pearson's efforts to get Sanders in the race came by way of social media outreach. His super PAC only raised $6,819. Compare that to Clinton's "Ready for Hillary" operation, which raised more than $12 million in anticipation of her run.” [Washington Post, 4/29/15] “Ready for Bernie Sanders 2016” Super PAC Founded In February 2015. “This PAC was founded by Cary Lee Peterson, the chairman of the Independent National Committee. Peterson told Bloomberg's Julie Bykowicz that he believes he can raise millions of dollars for a potential Sanders campaign.” [Bloomberg, 4/9/15] “Ready for Bernie Sanders 2016” Super PAC Had Not Yet Filed With The FEC. [Bloomberg, 4/9/15] Sanders Had A Non-Sanctioned Super PAC, Ready for Bernie Sanders 2016, That Had Yet To Receive Contributions. “Sanders — despite his big-money-in-politics opposition — is supported by a super PAC calling itself Ready for Bernie Sanders 2016. Perhaps appropriately, the super PAC hasn’t reported raising any money yet.” [Center for Public Integrity, 5/28/15] Pro-Bernie Sanders Super PAC Collective Actions PAC (fka Draft Bernie) Was Formed By Former Sanders Staffer Vermont Rep. Chris Pearson.. “But Sanders isn’t being entirely straight when he says he doesn’t have a super PAC. By law, such entities can’t directly coordinate with the candidates they back, so many are run by close confidantes and former aides well acquainted with the candidates’ strategy and message. Such is the case with Collective Actions PAC, which is operated by Rep. Chris Pearson (P-Burlington), who previously served as Sanders’ campaign coordinator and press assistant. Founded in January 2014 as Draft Bernie, the PAC maintains the Run Bernie Run Facebook and Twitter accounts and, according to its website, plans to invest in online advertising. Pearson says his Super PAC will fund grassroots projects to spread Sanders’ message, but he admits it will also serve a more traditional role: skirting fundraising limits by taking contributions from those who’ve already donated the maximum $2,700 to Sanders’ official campaign.” [Seven Days, 7/22/15] Collective Actions PAC Told The FEC It Has “A Number Of Large Donors Who Are Interested” In Contributing. “Pearson says his Super PAC will fund grassroots projects to spread Sanders’ message, but he admits it will also serve a more traditional role: skirting fundraising limits by taking contributions from those who’ve already donated the maximum $2,700 to Sanders’ official campaign. ‘We’re trying to raise big checks, yes,’ Pearson says. ‘We’ll see how successful I will be.’ Collective Actions doesn’t have to file a report with the Federal Election Commission until the end of July, and Pearson won’t reveal how much he’s raised. But in a letter he sent the FEC last month, he wrote that the PAC ‘has a number of large donors who are interested’ in contributing. [Seven Days, 7/22/15] Head Of Collective Actions PAC: “If Your Concern Is That [Our Super PAC]’S A Way For People To Spend Big Money On Campaigns, Sure, That’s What A PAC Is… And Do I Find It A Bad Law? I Do. But It Is The Law Of The Land.” ““Isn’t it hypocritical for a Progressive pol who talks a big game about campaign finance reform to exploit the very rules he opposes in support of an anti-super PAC candidate? Pearson admits it’s ‘strange,’ but he defends Collective Actions as different from, say, Bush’s Right to Rise super PAC, because Sanders doesn’t appear at Collective Actions fundraisers. ‘But yeah, if your concern is that it’s a way for people to spend big money on campaigns, sure, that’s what a PAC is,’ he says. ‘And do I find it a bad law? I do. But it is the law of the land.’” [Seven Days, 7/22/15] Pro-Bernie Sanders Super PAC Briefed The Sander’s Campaign’s Field Director. “Just how independent Collective Actions is from the Sanders campaign isn’t entirely clear. Spokesman Michael Briggs ignored repeated questions about the matter. Pearson says he’s briefed campaign field director Phil Fiermonte, a close friend. ‘I said, ‘Well, I think I’m going to keep the PAC going because I think there’s some real opportunities here,’ Pearson recalls. ‘We both sort of chuckled [at] how absurd it all is, and that was it. I know that they’re aware of all of it.’ [Seven Days, 7/22/15] Bernie Sanders’ Field Director Seemed To Defend The Sanders Campaign Accepting Help From Super PACs. “Surely, though, Sanders would prefer Pearson to ditch his super PAC now that the candidate has decided he doesn’t want one, right? Not necessarily. When Seven Days asked about it in March 2014, the campaign defended Pearson’s move. ‘Until we overturn Citizens United, the suggestion that opponents of right-wing Republicans should unilaterally disarm and not use the tools available to them is absurd,’ Fiermonte said in a written statement. ‘To suggest that there is any comparison between a small, grassroots organization in Vermont and the multi-billion-dollar political machine bankrolled by the Koch brothers is preposterous.’ It’s ‘absurd’ to renounce super PACs? Tell that to Sanders 2016.” [Seven Days, 7/22/15] Contribution Limits 2014: Sanders Voted Against The Year-End Spending Bill, Also Known As The “Cromnibus.” “The Senate has avoided a government shutdown, easily clearing the $1.1 trillion ‘cromnibus’ funding the government through September. The government was scheduled to shut down at midnight Saturday, but the Senate first cleared a four-day stopgap measure by voice vote and later reached a deal to clear the cromnibus after lawmakers in both parties sparred over who was to blame for the impending shutdown theatrics. The final vote was 56-40 in an extremely bipartisan vote, with 21 Democrats, 18 Republicans and independent Bernard Sanders of Vermont voting no.” [Roll Call, 12/13/14] Year-End Spending Bill “Drastically [Undercut] The 2002 Landmark McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Overhaul” By Effectively Increasing The Contribution Limits To The Party Committees By $324,000. “The $1.01 trillion spending bill unveiled late Tuesday will keep most of the federal government funded through next September -- and it's packed with hundreds of policy instructions, known on Capitol Hill as ‘riders,’ that will upset or excite Democrats, Republicans and various special interest groups. […] The bill would dramatically expand the amount of money that wealthy political donors could inject into the national parties, drastically undercutting the 2002 landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance overhaul. Bottom line: A donor who gave the maximum $32,400 this year to the Democratic National Committee or Republican National Committee would be able to donate another $291,600 on top of that to the party’s additional arms -- a total of $324,000, ten times the current limit.” [Washington Post, 12/09/14] McCain-Feingold Bernie Sanders Voted Yes On 2002 House Vote # 34 (Campaign Finance Overhaul - Passage), Also Known As McCain-Feingold. On February 14, 2002, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #34. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would ban "soft money" donations to national political parties but allow up to $10,000 in soft-money donations to state and local parties for voter registration and get-out-the vote activity. The bill would prevent issue ads from targeting specific candidates within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary. The bill also would increase the individual contribution limit from $1,000 to $2,000 per election for House and Senate candidates, both of which would be indexed for inflation. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #34, 2/14/2002] PAC Spending 1988: Sanders Supported Campaign Finance Reform Aimed At Limiting The Influence That PACs Had On Elections. “The four-term Mayor of Burlington also repeated his call for comprehensive campaign financing reform that would eliminate the influence of corporations and political action committees on the federal elections. ‘From day one of this campaign I have pledged to support election reform for national elections. PACs gave out $12 million In donations to Congressional candidates in 1974 and the amount ballooned to $132 million In 1986. Congress should not be for sale to PACs,’ Sanders concluded.” [Press Release, Sanders for Congress, 11/3/88] Referendums 1975: Bernie Sanders’ Political Party Advocated An Amendment To Vermont’s Constitution, Which Would Also Citizens To Introduce Legislation Through Referendum. “In addition, LU will ‘actively oppose’ the S-1 legislation currently being discussed by the U.S. Congress, which, LU says, ‘contains dangerously anti-democratic provisions which seriously threaten the basic rights of freedom of speech, assembly and dissent. LU will also seek support for an amendment to the Vermont Constitution which will allow Vermont freemen to the right of initiative, in which citizens themselves may initiate legislation through the referendum procedure. Currently, only members of the state legislature may initiate legislation. The state legislature, LU says, ‘is not responsive to the needs of the working people of Vermont and the right of initiative would create an improved and more democratic situation.” [Bennington Banner, 12/19/75] CIVIL LIBERTIES Patriot Act Recent Comments On The Patriot Act Sanders Celebrated Court Of Appeals Ruling That Bulk Collection Of Phone Records Is Not Authorized Under The Patriot Act. “Two 2016 candidates from opposite sides of the aisle are celebrating a federal court ruling that the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of phone records isn’t authorized by the Patriot Act. Sens. Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders— who are both declared 2016 presidential candidates — celebrated the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on Thursday. Their outspoken opposition to the NSA program has served to differentiate them from other presidential hopefuls, and highlighted how the issue unites some politicians on both the left and right.” [Wall Street Journal, 5/7/15] Sanders Said “NSA Is Out Of Control And Operating In An Unconstitutional Manner” After Federal Court Ruled NSA Bulk Collection Of Phone Records Was Not Authorized By Patriot Act. “In my view, NSA is out of control and operating in an unconstitutional manner. I worry very much about kids growing up in a society where they think ‘I’m not going to talk about this issue, read this book, or explore this idea because someone may think I’m a terrorist.’ That is not the kind of free society I want for our children.” [Sanders Statement via Twitter, 5/7/15] Sanders: Congress Should Rewrite The Eavesdropping Provision Of The Patriot Act And Introduce Strong Limits To Protect The Privacy and Civil Liberties Of Americans. “Now Congress should rewrite the expiring eavesdropping provision in the so-called USA Patriot Act and include strong new limits to protect the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. Let me be clear: We must do everything we can to protect our country from the serious potential of another terrorist attack. We can and must do so, however, in a way that also protects the constitutional rights of the American people and maintains our free society.” [Bernie Sanders, Time, 5/7/15] Sanders: “We Can Protect Americans From Terrorism Without Undermining Constitutional Rights… I Worry That We Are Moving Toward An Orwellian Society.” “I voted against the USA Patriot Act and voted against reauthorizing the USA Patriot Act. Obviously, terrorism is a serious threat to this country and we must do everything that we can to prevent attacks here and around the world. I believe strongly that we can protect our people without undermining our constitutional rights and I worry very very much about the huge attacks on privacy that we have seen in recent years -- both from the government and from the private sector. I worry that we are moving toward an Orwellian society and this is something I will oppose as vigorously as I can.” [Reddit, 5/19/15] Sanders: Patriot Act Sanctioned “Orwellian Surveillance” That “Invades Privacy” Of Americans. “Unfortunately, this sort of Orwellian surveillance, conducted under provisions of the Patriot Act, invades the privacy of millions of law-abiding Americans. […] I believed then and am even more convinced today that the law gave the government far too much power to spy on Americans and that it provided too little oversight or disclosure.” [Bernie Sanders, Time, 5/7/15] Sanders Said NSA Collection Was Moving Country “Rapidly Into an Orwellian Type Of Society.” “Chris, I worry very much about the United States moving rapidly into an Orwellian type of society. And, you know, it’s not just that the NSA is collecting virtually avenue phone call made in America, has access to the Web sites that you visit, the e-mails that you send. It’s the private sector knowing what books you’re buying, what food you’re eating, your medical records, banking records -- this is really scary stuff. And technology has significantly outpaced legislative ability to protect our privacy.” [MSNBC, 5/20/15] Sanders Said “Massive Distrust” Of Surveillance Problems Negatively Impacting US Relationship With International Community. “U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) called the NSA "out of control" Oct. 28. Sanders told National Public Radio that the "massive distrust" that these surveillance policies engender is having a negative impact on our relations with the international community. "Countries throughout the world have got to work together in strengthening the global economy, combatting terrorism and addressing the planetary crisis of global warming. The United States cannot help lead those efforts if our allies don't trust us," Sander said.” [Addison Eagle, 10/29/13] Sanders “Deeply Concerned” About “Unconstitutional” Actions Of NSA. “"I am deeply concerned about recent revelations that the National Security Agency (NSA) and other intelligence agencies are collecting enormous amounts of information about phone calls that Americans make, emails that we send, and websites that we visit," Sanders wrote then. "In my view, these actions are clearly unconstitutional."” [National Journal, 5/1/15] Sanders Said Data Collection Revelations Proved His Initial Concerns About The Patriot Act To Be True. “Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., also voiced outrage. "As one of the few members of Congress who consistently voted against the Patriot Act, I expressed concern at the time of passage that it gave the government far too much power to spy on innocent United State citizens and provided for very little oversight or disclosure. Unfortunately, what I said turned out to be exactly true."” [Burlington Free Press, 6/11/13] Sanders Pushing Hillary Clinton Left On NSA Spying. “Instead, as Congress considers pulling back the Patriot Act's spy programs, it's Vermont independent Bernie Sanders—the Senate progressive who's actually running for president—who's mounting a challenge. Only Sanders has staked out a strong enough position to conceivably put pressure on Clinton. Warren has recently kept quiet about the programs, and Martin O'Malley, the former governor of Maryland who is likely to enter the Democratic race later this month, has even less to say on the topic.” [National Journal, 5/19/15] Sanders Said NSA Spying Was An Area Of Disagreement With Hillary Clinton. “Asked Tuesday if he found himself in agreement with Paul on the issue of NSA spying, Sanders admitted that "sometimes you have strange bedfellows." He went on to say that NSA spying is an area of disagreement with Clinton, who voted for the Patriot Act in 2001. "I do not want to see the Constitution of the United States undermined, and I feel very much that's going on," Sanders said on CNN.” [National Journal, 5/19/15]  Headline: On NSA Spying, Bernie Sanders, Not Elizabeth Warren, Is Pushing Hillary Clinton Left [National Journal, 5/19/15] Sanders: Government Should Collect Records Only If It Had A “Reason To Believe Someone May Be Involved With Terrorist Activity.” “I think everybody agrees that if the government or law enforcement has reason to believe someone may be involved with terrorist activity, we want all the investigation that we possibly can, obviously, but what we don’t want is the government investigating or compiling records on people who have nothing to do with terrorism. […] if people are not involved and there’s no evidence that they are, I don’t want to see their information being collected.” [Sanders Katie Couric Interview, Yahoo, 6/1/15] Sanders: We Don’t Have To Sacrifice Liberties And Privacy Rights To Fight Terrorism. “The issue is all of us agree you have to be vigorous in fighting terrorism, do everything we can. But I hope the American people understand we don't have to sacrifice all of our liberties and our privacy rights to do that. I do not want to see the Constitution of the United States undermined and I feel very much that's going on.” [CNN, 5/19/15] Sanders Said NSA Practices Undermined Freedom, Encouraged Self-Censorship. “Sanders says the NSA's practices, which were approved by President Barack Obama, but were not vetted by Congress, put the privacy Americans expect in jeopardy. It also has the potential to harm democracy, he said. "What does freedom mean if the U.S. government knows about every call you're making, has your banking records and knows who your friends are?" Sanders said. "Is that what a free society is about?" Freedom, he says, is "very subtle," and it can be undermined by self-censorship when people begin to fear that the government is looking over their shoulders. If you look at an Al-Qaida website or check a book out on terrorism, Sanders says, "You'll be on a list for sure." The sense that the government is watching affects what people talk about and what they write about.” [Brattleboro Reformer, 2/3/14] Sanders Sent Letter To NSA Director Questioning If NSA Had Spied On Elected Officials. “Last year, Sanders sent a probing letter to Gen. Keith Alexander, then the head of the spy agency, demanding the answer to "one simple question": Has the NSA spied on members of Congress or other elected officials? (The answer, which came later: Probably.)” [National Journal, 5/1/15] Sanders Defined Spying As Gathering Metadata. “Friday, Vermont's independent U.S. Sen. Bernard Sanders sent a letter to Gen. Keith Alexander, director of the NSA, asking if his agency is "spying' on members of Congress. "I am writing today to ask you one very simple question," Sanders wrote. "Has the NSA spied, or is the NSA currently spying, on members of Congress or other American elected officials?" In the letter, Sanders defined spying as "gathering metadata on calls made from official or personal phones, content from websites visited or emails sent, or collecting any other data from a third party not made available to the general public in the regular course of business."” [Rutland Herald, 1/7/14] NSA Responded That Members Of Congress Had The “Same Privacy Protections As All U.S. Persons.” “Over the weekend, the NSA issued a press release addressing Sanders' question. "NSA's authorities to collect signals intelligence data include procedures that protect the privacy of U.S. persons," the statement said. "Such protections are built into and cut across the entire process. Members of Congress have the same privacy protections as all U.S. persons." Leaked information from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden revealed the NSA collects the phone records of millions of Americans.” Rutland Herald, 1/7/14] Sanders Worried NSA Data Collection Could Give NSA Ability To Blackmail Congress. “"I raised this question because I want to make clear to the American people how dangerous this is," Sanders said Monday. "The NSA has the ability to blackmail and embarrass members of Congress." Sanders drew parallels to the Watergate scandal as he addressed the possibility of the NSA leaking information about a political campaign.” [Rutland Herald, 1/7/14] Daily Mail: “NSA REFUSES to deny spying on Congress after Senator presses for answers” [Daily Mail, 1/5/14] SNOWDEN After Snowden Revelations, Sanders Questioned If We Living In A “Free Society.” “Did the National Security Agency spy on elected officials? What should the legal consequences be for Edward Snowden for leaking classified documents that exposed the NSA’s massive surveillance of Americans’ telephone, email and Internet records? The NSA has not yet directly responded to a letter from Sen. Bernie Sanders asking if members of Congress were part of its dragnet. The agency, however, did not rule it out in a statement to journalists. Sanders discussed the surveillance in interviews on Monday with CNN and WPTZ-TV. ‘Are we a quote unquote free society, which we tout ourselves to be, we claim to be, if the United States government knows every phone call you've made, knows where you are, has the capability of intercepting your emails and knows the websites that you've visited. Is that what a free society is about?’ Sanders said.” [Sanders Press Release, 1/6/14] Sanders Said There Is “No Debate” That Snowden Committed A Crime, But Called The Information He Provided “Extremely Important” And Said The Government Should Provide Him Clemency. “The senator also was asked about the legal fate of Snowden, the former NSA contractor now living in Russia to avoid criminal prosecution in the United States. Said Sanders, ‘The information disclosed by Edward Snowden has been extremely important in allowing Congress and the American people to understand the degree to which the NSA has abused its authority and violated our constitutional rights. On the other hand, there is no debate that Mr. Snowden violated an oath and committed a crime. In my view, the interests of justice would be best served if our government granted him some form of clemency or a plea agreement that would spare him a long prison sentence or permanent exile from the country whose freedoms he cared enough about to risk his own freedom.’” [Sanders Press Release, 1/6/14] Sanders Stated There Was No Question That Edward Snowden “Committed A Crime,” But That One Must Weigh That Against The Undercover Surveillance Activity He Exposed. In response to Wolf Blitzer asking whether he believes that Edward Snowden committed a crime or was simply a wellintentioned whistleblower, Sanders said: “I think there is no question that he committed a crime, obviously. He violated his oath, and he leaked information. On the other hand, what you have to weigh that against is the fact that he has gone a very long way in educating the people of our country and the people of the world about the power of a private agency in terms of their surveillance over the people of this country, over foreign leaders and what they are doing. So I think you’ve got to weigh the two.” [The Situation Room, CNN, 1/6/14, 3:30] Sanders Supported Snowden Having “A Price To Pay,” But Opposed A Long Prison Sentence Or Exile From The United States. “My own belief is that I think, I would hope, that the United States government could kind of negotiate some plea bargain with him, some form of clemency. I think it would not be a good idea or fair to him if he had to spend his entire remaining life abroad, not being able to come back to his country. So I would hope that there is a price that he has to pay, but I hope it is not a long prison sentence or exile from his country.” [The Situation Room, CNN, 1/6/14, 4:00] 2001: Bernie Sanders Voted Against Original Passage Of The USA PATRIOT Act Bernie Sanders Voted Against Original Passage Of The USA Patriot Act. On October 24, 2001, Bernie Sanders voted against the USA Patriot Act. “The House voted Wednesday to give the federal government broader law enforcement powers in a counter-terrorism bill that would make it easier for police to eavesdrop on phone conversations, seize voice messages, track e-mails and obtain certain confidential records. Spurred by the Sept. 11 attacks and the recent anthrax scare, the House voted 35766 in favor of a wide range of anti-terrorism tools titled the USA Patriot Act. Its passage came after weeks of negotiations between the House, the Senate and the Bush administration, which had requested even broader powers to hunt down terrorists.” [Miami Herald, 10/25/01; HR 3162, Vote #398, 10/24/01] Sanders Said USA Patriot Act Was “Too Broad,” Relaxing Restrictions On Police Agencies That Extended Beyond Terrorism Investigations. “Rep. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., on Thursday criticized anti-terrorism and economic stimulus packages that passed the House a day earlier. Sanders, who voted 'No' on both bills, said the anti-terrorism bill was too broad, and that the economic stimulus package amounted mainly to tax cuts for the rich and corporations. The antiterrorism legislation greatly relaxes restrictions on police agencies and extends beyond terrorism to other areas of criminal enforcement, Sanders said.” [Associated Press, 10/25/01] Sanders Said USA Patriot Act’s Broad Language Could Be Used To Crack Down On Demonstrators Across The Political Spectrum. “Sanders said the bill contains language defining domestic terrorism in part as actions designed "to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion." He said such language could be used to crack down on people engaging in demonstrations, and could affect people anywhere on the political spectrum, be they opponents of global trade agreements or abortion. "I believe that we have to be very, very careful about trampling on the Bill of Rights, and, especially in a moment of crisis, passing legislation that in years to come we will regret," he said in a telephone interview.” [Associated Press, 10/25/01] Sanders Worried That Patriot Act Allowed Surveillance In Investigations Unrelated To Terrorism And Granted Law Enforcement Access To Sensitive Records Without Evidence Of A Crime. “Sanders issued a statement saying the bill would "minimize judicial supervision of telephone and Internet surveillance by law enforcement authorities in anti-terrorism investigations AND in routine criminal investigations UNRELATED to terrorism." The capitalizations were his. He made the same charge about the government's "ability to conduct secret searches." He added that the bill would "grant the FBI broad access to sensitive medical, financial, mental health and educational records about individuals without having to show evidence of a crime and without a court order."” [Associated Press, 10/25/01] 2003: Sanders Introduced Bill To Repeal Section Of Patriot Act That Gave Authorities Access To Records At Libraries And Bookstores Sanders Introduced Freedom To Read Protection Act. “The nation's top booksellers are supporting a bill to repeal an anti-terrorism provision that gives the FBI broader power to force bookstores and libraries to turn over records of what their customers are reading. Barnes & Noble and Borders -- the country's two largest booksellers -- joined other retailers, librarians, publishers, journalists and authors on Thursday backing Vermont Rep. Bernie Sanders' Freedom to Read Protection Act to restore privacy protections for bookstore and library records. Booksellers say the Patriot Act, a sweeping anti-terrorism bill passed shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, gives FBI agents too much power to demand reading records without probable cause to suspect that the people being investigated are terrorists.” [Gannett News Service, 5/15/03]   Headline: Sanders Seeks To Repeal Part Of Patriot Act [Burlington Free Press, 12/21/02] Headline: Sanders To Introduce Legislation Curtaining Patriot Act [Associated Press, 3/6/03] Legislation Would Remove Ability To Secretly View Records Of Reading Materials Checked Out Or Purchased. “Independent Rep. Bernie Sanders introduced legislation to repeal a section of the USA Patriot Act that lets the government secretly view records of materials checked out of public libraries or bought in bookstores and observe Web activity on library computers. The law passed shortly after the terrorist attacks allows the government to obtain search warrants from a special court to view business records, including those of libraries. It also forbids librarians or booksellers to talk about any investigations.” [Associated Press, 3/6/03] Sanders: Reading Without Government Intrusion “One Of The Cornerstones Of Our Democracy.” “The bill (HR 1157) would exempt libraries and booksellers from a section of the Patriot Act (PL 107-56) that expanded the FBI's ability to get information on terrorism suspects -- including what books they purchased and borrowed. "One of the cornerstones of our democracy is . . . to read printed material without government intrusion," Sanders said.” [CQ Weekly, 5/7/03] Ashcroft Said FBI Had Not Used Patriot Act To Get Library Or Business Records. ” Attorney General John Ashcroft said Wednesday the FBI has not sought a single record from a library or business under a part of the Patriot Act widely criticized as opening Americans' reading habits or personal information to undue government scrutiny. In a memo to FBI Director Robert Mueller obtained by The Associated Press, Ashcroft said he decided to disclose the previously classified information to "counter the troubling amount of public distortion and misinformation" surrounding section 215 of the anti-terrorism law.” [Associated Press, 9/17/03] Ashcroft Said Patriot Act Opponents Promoting False “Hysteria” Over Library Provision. “Attorney General John Ashcroft is taking the offensive against political opponents and civil liberties groups that contend the Bush administration has overstepped the Constitution in the fight against terrorism. In an increasingly pointed series of speeches, Ashcroft is accusing some detractors of fomenting false "hysteria" that the government is secretly monitoring library patrons and spying on innocent American citizens.” [Associated Press, 9/20/03] Sanders: Patriot Act “Poses Very Serious Danger To American Constitutional Rights.” “The USA Patriot Act, hastily passed in the wake of the horrific attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, poses a very serious danger to American constitutional rights. Instead of working with many of us in Congress who want to eliminate the unconstitutional provisions in that bill, Attorney General John Ashcroft wants to make it even worse.” [Bernie Sanders, USA Today, 9/23/03] Sanders: Standard In Patriot Act So Loose Government Can Get Anything It Wants. “Section 215 of the law allows government agents access to any business records -- including library and bookseller-patron information -- by requesting an order from the government's secret intelligence court. The legal standard for obtaining an order is so loose that the government is virtually certain to get whatever it wants, whenever it wants. In other words, the FBI can go on a "fishing expedition" to find out the reading habits of any American without probable cause. That's wrong.” [Bernie Sanders, USA Today, 9/23/03] Sanders: It Is Not Necessary To Sacrifices Liberties To Protect Ourselves From Terrorism. “By being here tonight you are adding to the millions of Americans who have come together to discuss one fundamental question: Is it really necessary to sacrifice our cherished liberties in order to protect ourselves from the threat of global terrorism? In my experience, as I have participated in similar discussions in different parts of the country, the answer to this question has been a resounding No!” [Sanders Remarks, California Institute Of Technology, 4/19/04] Sanders: President Bush Tried To Paint Opponents Of Patriot Act As Not Supporting Keeping America Safe. “He wants it black and white. If you support the Patriot Act, you support keeping America safe. If you don't support it, you want America to be vulnerable to future terrorist attacks. In my view that's a totally unacceptable characterization of all those people from across the political spectrum that want to keep America safe, and still preserve the Bill of Rights and Constitution while we do it.” [Sanders Remarks, California Institute Of Technology, 4/19/04] Sanders: Patriot Act “Unnecessary and Dangerous,” “Threatens The Very Freedoms That Define America.” “I voted against that legislation because I feared it could lead to an unnecessary and dangerous expansion of the federal government's reach into our private lives. This so-called "Patriot" bill was rushed through the Congress with little debate, in a time of great national anxiety and anger, with no opportunity for Members to amend the bill in any way. Unfortunately, as time has passed and people have had an opportunity to study what is in that bill, concerns that I and others had have only grown. More and more Americans and more and more Members of Congress have come to realize that the Patriot Act threatens the very freedoms that define America.” [Sanders Remarks, California Institute Of Technology, 4/19/04] Sanders: “Taking Away Our Liberties Does Not Make Us Safer.” “Many falsely assume that by giving government more power and sacrificing our privacy, due process, and civil liberties that we have solved the interdepartmental communication problem and made America safer. That is not the case. Taking away our liberties does not make us safer. This false choice, of security or liberty, that many have offered in the post 9-11 era, must be rejected.” [Sanders Remarks, California Institute Of Technology, 4/19/04] Sanders Proposed The SAFE Act, Which Narrowed Certain Patriot Act Provisions, Such As Limiting The Ability Of FBI To Search One’s Home With Minimal Notification. “Sanders is also a lead supporter of legislation known as the SAFE Act. This legislation would narrow five of the most troubling provisions of the Patriot Act including one which allows the FBI to search someone's home or office without notifying them until weeks or even months later - in criminal cases, including cases having nothing to do with terrorism.” [Press Release, Rep. Bernie Sanders, 4/20/04 (via Archive.org)] Bush Administration Threatened To Veto Commerce, Justice And State Department Appropriations If It Included Sanders’ Patriot Act Amendment. “The White House threatened Wednesday to veto a wide-ranging spending bill if the House uses it to weaken the USA Patriot Act, raising the prospect of an election-year fight over President Bush's quest for expanded powers to counter terrorists. The warning came as Rep. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., prepared to try amending the spending measure with a provision making it harder for the government to order libraries or book sellers to provide records to investigators. The vote seemed likely to occur today. […] Sanders was planning to offer his amendment to a bill providing $39.8 billion next year for the departments of Commerce, Justice and State.” [Durham Herald-Sun, 7/8/04] Amendment Failed After Republicans Switched Votes. “The amendment, offered by Rep. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., was intended to curb the power of investigators to obtain library and book purchase records for potential suspects. It failed on a tie vote after House Republican leaders held the vote open for nearly 20 minutes while they convinced 10 colleagues, who had initially voted in favor, to switch their votes. "Shame, shame, shame," Democrats chanted as the minutes passed and votes were switched.” [Connecticut Post, 7/9/04] House Later Passed Sanders’ Bill As An Amendment To Appropriations Bill. “In a snub to the Bush administration, the House approved an amendment Wednesday that would prohibit the FBI from enforcing one of the most controversial provisions of the sweeping 2001 anti-terrorism law known as the Patriot Act. Thirty-eight Republicans voted in favor of the amendment offered by Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., to the spending bill (HR 2862) that would fund the departments of Commerce, Justice and State as well as NASA. It was adopted, 238-187. The White House threatened June 14 to veto the bill if it included such a provision, but it is likely to be stripped out during conference negotiations with the Senate.” [CQ Today, 6/15/05]  Headline: Sanders wins Patriot rollback [Burlington Free Press, 6/16/05] Sanders Applauded District Court Decision That Struck Down Patriot Act Provision Act Unconstitutional. “Yesterday a U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero struck down one of the key provisions of the Patriot Act as unconstitutional. The current law allows the FBI to demand information from Internet service providers without judicial oversight or public review. The judge ruled this "effectively bars or substantially deters any judicial challenge" and violates free-speech rights by imposing permanent silence on targeted companies. […]Next year certain sections of the Patriot Act, including Section 215, are due to sunset Bills have already been introduced in Congress to repeal the sunsets. Congressman Sanders will be leading the fight in Congress to ensure that there will be committee hearings as well as open and honest debates surrounding the sunsets.” [Sanders press release, 9/30/04] Sanders Formed Bipartisan Patriot Act Reform Caucus. “A coalition of conservative and progressive members of Congress today held a news conference to announce the formation of the Patriot Act Reform Caucus. Press conference participants Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Ron Paul (R-TX), and Jerry Nadler (D-NY), and Butch Otter (R-ID), called for initiatives that protect the safety and security of our nation, while ensuring that the laws we pass to fight the war on terrorism do not violate civil liberties or diminish our system of checks and balances.” [Sanders press release, 4/29/05] 2006: Bernie Sanders Voted Against Patriot Act Reauthorization That Made 14 of 16 Provisions Permanent Sanders Said He Did Not Want The Patriot Act Scrapped, But Wanted To Take A “Hard Look” At Which Provisions To Sunset. “CAVUTO: So, you got your way with this, but you want the whole thing scrapped, the whole Patriot Act scrapped. Why? SANDERS: No, I did -- no, no, no. That's not true. I don't want the whole Patriot Act scrapped. There are a number of provisions which are sunsetted. And we want to take a hard look at them. They're sunsetted for a number of reasons. The bottom line here is, Neil, terrorism is very serious business. And I think every member of Congress has the constitutional responsibility to make sure that we do everything that we can to protect the American people from terrorist attacks.” [Fox News, 6/16/05] Sanders Said Sneak-And-Peak Provision Was Concerning. “CAVUTO: What are some of the others you want to sunset away? SANDERS: Well, I think there's the sneak-and-peek provision which concerns me. I don't think it is a great idea to be able to give the FBI the right to go into your home, go through your belongings any time they want without independent judicial review.” [Fox News, 6/16/05] Bernie Sanders Voted USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006. On March 7, 2006, Bernie Sanders against the USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006. “By a vote of 280-138, the House passed the bill (S 2271) sponsored by Sen. John E. Sununu, R-N.H., that would make three changes to legislation already cleared extending 16 expiring provisions in the law (PL 107-56) known as the Patriot Act. Considered under suspension of the rules, the bill required a two-thirds majority for passage and made it by the slimmest of margins. Sununu made a visit to the House floor and was noticeably working members throughout the vote.” [CQ Today, 3/7/06; House Vote #20, 3/7/2006] Bernie Sanders Voted Against Patriot Act Reauthorization Conference Report That Made 14 Of The Patriot Act’s 16 Sections Permanent. On December 14, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted against adoption of the conference report on the bill that would make permanent 14 of the 16 provisions of the anti-terrorism law known as the Patriot Act set to expire at the end of the year, and extend for four years the two provisions on access to business and other records and "roving" wiretaps. It would permanently extend provisions that expand law enforcement's power to investigate suspected terrorists. The measure would allow recipients of "national security letters" demanding information to consult with a lawyer and to challenge it in court. It also would permit "sneak and peek" searches and seizures of property, and would allow a delay of up to 30 days for notifying individuals of such searches. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #627, 12/14/2005] Bernie Sanders Voted Against Passage Of Patriot Act Reauthorization That Made 14 Of The Patriot Act’s 16 Sections Permanent. On July 21, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted against passage of the bill that would make permanent 14 of the 16 provisions of the Patriot Act. “The House, overriding fears that Americans' freedoms are being restricted, voted to make permanent provisions of the Patriot Act that gave authorities more investigative power in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Lawmakers voted 257-171 Thursday to make permanent 14 of the Patriot Act's 16 sections that are scheduled to expire in December, rejecting the civil liberties concerns of Democrats and some Republicans who wanted to limit several provisions of the antiterrorism law. […] The other two provisions -- Section 215, which gives the FBI secret access to people's business, medical, library, bookstore and other shopping records, and Section 206, which authorizes so-called roving wiretaps -- would be renewed for 10 years as part of the vote.” [San Francisco Chronicle, 7/22/05; House Vote #414, 7/21/2005] Bernie Sanders Voted To Extend The Sunset Provisions On All Expiring Patriot Act Provisions. On July 21, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #413. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Boucher, D-Va., motion to recommit the bill to the Judiciary Committee with instructions to extend the sunsets of all 16 expiring Patriot Act provisions under current law through Dec. 31, 2009. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #413, 7/21/2005] Bernie Sanders Voted To Require FBI Director To Personally Approve Requests For Library And Bookstore Records. On July 21, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #403. “For example, the House voted 402-26 to require that under Section 215 the director of the FBI personally approve agents' requests for library or bookstore records on which books individuals have borrowed or bought. The so-called library provision has stirred emotions among lawmakers and their constituents worried about government intrusion. Under the law, librarians and booksellers cannot tell patrons and customers the government has records of their reading habits.” [Gannet News Service, 7/22/05; House Vote #403, 7/21/2005] House Republicans Blocked A Vote On Sanders’ Amendment To Remove Libraries And Bookstores Entirely From List Of Places Federal Police Could Seize Records. “Sanders offered an amendment that would have removed libraries and bookstores from the list of places that federal police could seize records and personal information. House Republican leaders refused to allow Sanders' amendment from reaching the House floor for a vote. Although judges must approve these seizures, they need not be tied to any individual criminal activity, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. Sanders successfully pushed through a similar amendment to a spending bill last month with the support of 199 Democrats and 38 Republicans. "The reason the Republican leadership didn't want this to come to the floor is that they knew it would pass," Sanders said. "This is an absolute outrage."” [Gannett News Service, 7/22/05] Bernie Sanders Voted Yes On 2005 House Vote # 404 (Patriot Act Reauthorization - Roving Wiretaps ). On July 21, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #404. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Issa, R-Calif., amendment that would require authorities to notify the issuing judge of a venue change of a surveillance facility or place within 15 days or at the earliest reasonable time as determined by the court. It also would require authorities to specify the total number of electronic surveillances that have been or are being carried out. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #404, 7/21/2005] Bernie Sanders Voted Yes On 2005 House Vote # 405 (Patriot Act Reauthorization - Violence Against Rail and Mass Transit ). On July 21, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #405. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Capito, R-W.Va., amendment that would authorize up to 20 years in prison for individuals who commit terrorist or other violent attacks on land, water, or air against railroad and mass transportation systems. It would provide a minimum sentence of 30 years if the vehicle attacked is carrying spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste, and a mandatory life sentence, with the possibility of the death penalty, if the attack results in the death of a person. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #405, 7/21/2005] Bernie Sanders Voted Yes On 2005 House Vote # 406 (Patriot Act Reauthorization - National Security Letter ). On July 21, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #406. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Flake, R-Ariz., amendment that would specify that the recipient of a national security letter may consult with an attorney and challenge the letter in court. It would authorize a judge to throw out the letter if complying with the request would be "unreasonable or oppressive." It would allow the letter recipient to challenge the non-disclosure requirements of the request in court. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #406, 7/21/2005] Bernie Sanders Voted Yes On 2005 House Vote # 407 (Patriot Act Reauthorization - Forfeiture of Assets ). On July 21, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #407. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Delahunt, D-Mass., amendment that would raise the threshold for authorities to seize assets of suspected terrorists. It would allow assets to be seized only for those specifically accused of terrorist crimes. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #407, 7/21/2005] Bernie Sanders Voted Yes On 2005 House Vote # 408 (Patriot Act Reauthorization - Sneak and Peek Searches ). On July 21, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #408. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Flake, R-Ariz., amendment that would require the Administrative Office of the Courts to report annually to Congress on the number of search warrants granted and eliminate unduly delaying a trial as a reason for delaying notification of "sneak and peek" searches. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #408, 7/21/2005] Bernie Sanders Voted Yes On 2005 House Vote # 409 (Patriot Act Reauthorization - Data-Mining Technology ). On July 21, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #409. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Berman, D-Calif., amendment that would require the Justice Department to report to Congress on the development and use of data-mining technology by federal departments and agencies. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #409, 7/21/2005] Bernie Sanders Voted Yes On 2005 House Vote # 410 (Patriot Act Reauthorization - Maritime Security ). On July 21, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #410. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Schiff, D-Calif., amendment that would make it a crime to use a vessel to smuggle terrorists or dangerous substances, including nuclear material, into the United States. It would impose criminal penalties for providing false information to a federal law enforcement officer at a port or on a vessel and would increase penalties for anyone who fraudulently gains access to a seaport. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #410, 7/21/2005] Bernie Sanders Voted Yes On 2005 House Vote # 411 (Patriot Act Reauthorization - Terrorism Financing ). On July 21, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #411. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Hart, R-Pa., amendment that would increase criminal penalties for anyone convicted on charges of financing terrorists to $50,000 in fines per transaction and 20 years in prison. It also would add terrorism-financing offenses to the list of crimes that constitute money-laundering and would permit authorities to seize the assets of anyone who has committed terrorist acts against foreign countries or international organizations. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #411, 7/21/2005] Bernie Sanders Voted Yes On 2005 House Vote # 412 (Patriot Act Reauthorization - Seizure of Assets ). On July 21, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #412. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Jackson-Lee, D-Texas, amendment that would allow for the seizure of assets in the enforcement of a civil judgment against an individual or entity who has engaged in planning or perpetrating an act of domestic or international terrorism. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #412, 7/21/2005] 2008: Bernie Sanders Voted Against FISA Amendments Act of 2008 Bernie Sanders Voted Against FISA Amendments Act of 2008. On July 9, 2008, Bernie Sanders voted no on Senate Vote #168. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would overhaul the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which governs electronic surveillance of foreign terrorism suspects. The bill would allow warrantless surveillance of foreign targets who may be communicating with people in the United States after the secret FISA court approves surveillance procedures; the administration can begin that surveillance prior to the FISA court review if the need is deemed urgent. The bill would require FISA warrants for surveillance of U.S. citizens overseas. It would allow federal district courts to waive existing lawsuits against companies that assisted President Bush's warrantless surveillance program. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #168, 7/9/2008] FISA Amendments Act Gave NSA “Almost Unchecked Power To Monitor Americans’ International Calls And Emails. “The FISA Amendments Act, passed in 2008 and reauthorized in 2012, gives the National Security Agency almost unchecked power to monitor Americans’ international phone calls and emails. On October 29, 2012, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the ACLU’s challenge to the law. In February 2013, the Supreme Court dismissed the ACLU's lawsuit.” [ACLU, accessed 5/21/15] Bernie Sanders Voted Yes On 2008 Senate Vote # 164 (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance - Immunity from Civil Liability). On July 9, 2008, Bernie Sanders voted yes on Senate Vote #164. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Dodd, D-Conn., amendment no. 5064 that would strike the provisions providing retroactive immunity from civil liability to telecommunications companies that have participated in the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance program. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #164, 7/9/2008] Bernie Sanders Voted Yes On 2008 Senate Vote # 165 (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance - Lawsuit Dismissal). On July 9, 2008, Bernie Sanders voted yes on Senate Vote #165. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Specter, R-Pa., amendment no. 5059 that would require the dismissal of lawsuits against telecommunications companies that have participated in the administration's warrantless surveillance program if a federal district court concludes that the assistance was provided in connection with an intelligence activity that violated the U.S. Constitution. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #165, 7/9/2008] Bernie Sanders Voted Yes On 2008 Senate Vote # 166 (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance - Pending Lawsuits). On July 9, 2008, Bernie Sanders voted yes on Senate Vote #166. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Bingaman, D-N.M., amendment no. 5066 that would stay all pending lawsuits against telecommunications companies that have participated in the administration's warrantless surveillance program until 90 days after Congress receives the required inspectors general report on the program. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #166, 7/9/2008] Bernie Sanders Voted No On 2008 Senate Vote # 167 (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance - Cloture). On July 9, 2008, Bernie Sanders voted no on Senate Vote #167. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Motion to invoke cloture (thus limiting debate) on the motion to proceed to the bill that would overhaul the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which governs electronic surveillance of foreign terrorism suspects. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #167, 7/9/2008] 2009: Bernie Sanders Introduced The Justice Act To Reform Patriot Act Bernie Sanders Was An Original Co-Sponsor Of The Judicious Use of Surveillance Tools In Counterterrorism Efforts (JUSTICE) Act. “Senator Russ Feingold and nine other senators introduced S. 1686, the JUSTICE Act in the 111th Congress, which reforms our surveillance laws, including the Patriot Act and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, an even broader expansion of government power.” [ACLU, accessed 5/21/15; S 1689, introduced 9/17/09] Justice Act Would “Curb Some Of The Sweeping Powers Of The Patriot Act.” “TIME magazine had just reported, Several liberal Senate Democrats such as Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, along with Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont, have proposed a bill known as the Justice Act, which would curb many of the sweeping powers of the Patriot Act.” [Newsmax, 9/28/09] Justice Act Would Reauthorizing Expiring Patriot Act Provisions, But Would Add New Limits. “The bill would reauthorize the expiring Patriot Act provisions, but would add new limits: roving wiretaps could no longer target John Doe suspects and would require identification of the target. It would also leave in place the ability of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to compel document disclosure, but would limit that power to the records of people connected to terrorism or espionage. It would make numerous other changes, such as limiting use of National Security Letters — a power the FBI has misused in the past, according to the Inspector General of the Justice Department — to force document disclosure and lifting telecommunication companies' immunity from civil claims arising from the Bush Administration's warrantless wiretaps.” [Time, 9/25/09] Justice Act Would Only Allow Government Access To Communications, Financial Records, And Tangible Things That Are Directly Related To A Terrorist Suspect Or Spy. “The JUSTICE Act amends the national security letter (NSL) authority so that the government can only access communications, financial and credit records when they have something to do with a terror suspect or spy. Under the original Patriot Act, the government can collect the records of innocent people whenever it deems them “relevant” to an investigation – without any oversight by an impartial court. The current standard is so low that independent audits found that approximately 50,000 are issued every year and many are issued against people two or three times removed from an actual suspect. The JUSTICE Act amends section 215 of the Patriot Act, the so-called “library records provision”. As currently written, section 215 permits the government to get a secret warrant for any tangible thing, such as library or medical records, by showing only that the records are “relevant” to an investigation. The bill would require the government to show that the records relate to a suspected terrorist or spy.” [ACLU, accessed 5/21/15] Justice Act Limits That Authority Of Phone Call And Email Collection And Distribution. “The JUSTICE Act amends last year’s FISA Amendments Act that allows the government to collect phone calls and emails coming into or going out of the United States even if an American is on one end and even if that person is not suspected of doing anything wrong. This bill limits that authority by requiring that the collection of phone calls and emails at least be targeted and not conducted in a dragnet fashion where any number of people can be swept up into government databases. The bill also makes sure that when Americans’ communications are collected by the government under this warrantless program, the phone calls and emails are listened to, used or distributed only if there is reason to believe they relate to terrorism.” [ACLU, accessed 5/21/15] Justice Act Reins In Authority For Government To Conduct Secret Searches. “The Patriot Act made it easier for the government to secretly conduct searches without giving prior notice by authorizing “sneak and peek” searches whenever notice would jeopardize an investigation. The JUSTICE Act reins in this authority by removing this broad catch-all, but permits government officials to continue secret searches in emergency or urgent circumstances.” [ACLU, accessed 5/21/15] Justice Act Would Require Gag Orders To Meet First Amendment Standard. “The JUSTICE Act requires that gag orders that come with national security letters or section 215 orders meet traditional First Amendment standards. If a recipient of one of these requests wishes to speak out about the government’s actions, the burden will be on the government to convince a court that national security will jeopardized if the recipient is not gagged.” [ACLU, accessed 5/21/15] Justice Act Would Prevent Prosecution Of Those Who Work With Or For Humanitarian Causes In War Torn Countries. “The JUSTICE Act will amend the material support statute – which criminalizes giving anything of value to a terrorist organization – so that people can only be prosecuted if they knew or intended the money or other support to further terrorist acts. It will prevent prosecution of people who work with or for charities that give humanitarian aid in good faith to war torn countries.” [ACLU, accessed 5/21/15] Justice Act Would Hold Telecommunications Companies Responsible For Turning Americans’ Private Communications Over To The Government Without A Warrant. “The JUSTICE Act will reverse last year’s congressional grant of immunity to telecommunications companies that unlawfully turned over Americans’ private communications to the government without a warrant compelling them do so. Consumers will be able to seek redress in the courts to prevent this from happening in the future.” [ACLU, accessed 5/21/15] 2009: Bernie Sanders Voted For Defense Appropriations Bill That Included Temporary Reauthorization Of The Patriot Act Bernie Sanders Voted For Defense Department Appropriations That Included Extension Of Expiring Patriot Act Provisions. On December 19, 2009, Bernie Sanders voted for a “$636-billion defense appropriations bill that includes money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a 3.4% pay hike for the military and a two-month extension of unemployment benefits. The bill was approved, 88-10, after Democrats blocked a Republican attempt to delay the measure's passage in an effort to slow debate on controversial healthcare legislation. The defense bill provides $508 billion for regular Defense Department operations and $128.3 billion for the wars. […]Lawmakers also temporarily reauthorized portions of the USA Patriot Act and provided Medicare funding to forestall for two months a scheduled 21% cut in payments to doctors who treat patients in the government health program for the elderly.” [Los Angeles Times, 12/20/09; Senate Vote #384, 12/19/2009] 2011: Bernie Sanders Voted Against Three Month Extension Of Expiring Patriot Act Provisions Bernie Sanders Voted Against Three Month Extension Of The Patriot Act. On February 15, 2011, Bernie Sanders voted no on Senate Vote #19. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would extend through May 27, 2011, three provisions of the anti-terrorism law known as the Patriot Act. The provisions allow the government to seek court orders for "roving" wiretaps on suspects who use multiple devices or modes of communication, to request access to "any tangible thing" deemed related to a terrorism investigation and to seek warrants to conduct surveillance of "lone wolf" foreign terrorist suspects who may not be connected to a larger terrorist group. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #19, 2/15/2011] 2011: Bernie Sanders Voted Against Four Year Extension Of Expiring Patriot Act Provisions Bernie Sanders Voted Against Cloture On Extension Of Expiring Provisions Of The Patriot Act. On May 23, 2011, Bernie Sanders voted against cloture on a four-year extension of expiring Patriot Act provisions. “Congress headed toward approval of a four-year extension of expiring provisions of the Patriot Act after the Senate voted overwhelmingly Monday to advance the anti-terrorism law over the objections of a coalition of conservatives and liberals. Because of strong support from the Obama administration, a bipartisan majority in both the House and Senate is expected to ensure passage this week, preventing a lapse of the federal enforcement powers. The provisions expire Friday. […] The Senate voted 74-8 on Monday to advance the bill, with four Democrats, three Republicans and independent Sen. Bernard Sanders of Vermont opposed.” [Charleston Gazette, 5/24/11; Senate Vote #75, 5/23/2011] Bernie Sanders Voted No On 2011 Senate Vote # 76 (Patriot Act Extensions - Motion to Table). On May 24, 2011, Bernie Sanders voted no on Senate Vote #76. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Reid, D-Nev., motion to table (kill) the Reid motion to proceed to the bill that would extend through June 1, 2015, three provisions of the anti-terrorism law known as the Patriot Act. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #76, 5/24/2011] Bernie Sanders Voted Against Closing Debate On Extension Of Expiring Patriot Act Provisions. On May 26, 2011, Bernie Sanders voted against cloture to close debate on extending expiring Patriot Act provisions. “The US Senate moved Thursday toward extending controversial counter-terrorism search and surveillance powers at the heart of the Patriot Act adopted after the September 11, 2001 attacks. In a procedural move, US lawmakers voted to end debate on the subject which would allow them to pass to a formal vote on extending the act just hours before it expires at midnight (0400 GMT Friday). The Senate voted 79-18 against to close debate. But with the clock ticking, they still had to agree to waive the usual 30-hour waiting period after the end of debate before proceeding to a vote.” [Agence France Presse, 5/26/11; Senate Vote #81, 5/26/2011] Bernie Sanders Voted Against Extension Of Expiring Patriot Act Provisions. On May 26, 2011, Bernie Sanders voted against a motion to extend expiring provisions of the Patriot Act. “The US Senate voted Thursday to extend until 2015 controversial counter-terrorism search and surveillance powers at the heart of the Patriot Act adopted after the September 11, 2001 attacks. Lawmakers adopted the measure 72-23 just hours before it expires at midnight (0400 GMT Friday), sending the bill to the House of Representatives […] FBI and intelligence officials have warned that if the Patriot Act is not extended by the deadline they would be robbed of crucial tools in the fight against terrorism -- including wiretapping.” [Agence France Presse, 5/26/11; Senate Vote #84, 5/26/2011] Sanders Voted Against Four Year Extension Because It Gave Government Too Much Power To Spy On Innocent Americans. “Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today voted against a four-year extension of government surveillance powers. "I voted against extending the Patriot Act today for the same reason I voted against enacting it in 2001: it gives the government far too much power to spy on innocent United States citizens and provides for very little oversight or disclosure. While we must aggressively pursue international terrorists and all of those who would do us harm, we must do it in a way that protects the Constitution and the civil liberties which make us proud to be Americans."” [Sanders press release, 5/26/11] Bernie Sanders Voted To Table An Amendment By Senator Paul To Prevent Law Enforcement From Obtaining Gun Purchase Records. On May 26, 2011, Bernie Sanders voted for a motion to table amendment #363, sponsored by Senator Rand Paul. “Paul had introduced or co-sponsored nearly a dozen amendments to the legislation, but only two were brought to a vote. The first would exclude firearms purchases from the business records law enforcement officials can access under the Patriot Act. The second would shift the burden from banks and other financial institutions to law enforcement to generate so-called "suspicious activity reports." [Politico, 5/26/11; Senate Vote #82, 5/26/2011] Bernie Sanders Voted To Table An Amendment By Senator Paul That Would Require Banks To Generate “Suspicious Activity Reports” Only If Requested By Law Enforcement. On May 26, 2011, Bernie Sanders voted for a motion to table amendment #365, sponsored by Senator Rand Paul. . “Paul had introduced or co-sponsored nearly a dozen amendments to the legislation, but only two were brought to a vote. The first would exclude firearms purchases from the business records law enforcement officials can access under the Patriot Act. The second would shift the burden from banks and other financial institutions to law enforcement to generate so-called "suspicious activity reports." [Politico, 5/26/11; Senate Vote #83, 5/26/2011] 2012: Bernie Sanders Voted Against Reauthorization Of FISA Amendments Act of 2008 Bernie Sanders Voted Against Reauthorization Of The FISA Amendments Act Of 2008. On December 28, 2012, Bernie Sanders voted no on Senate Vote #236. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would reauthorize for five years, through 2017, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which governs electronic surveillance of foreign terrorism suspects. The law allows surveillance of foreign targets who may be communicating with people in the United States provided that the secret FISA court approves surveillance procedures. It would allow the attorney general and director of national intelligence to jointly authorize, for up to one year, investigations involving surveillance targeting foreigners who are reasonably believed to be located outside the United States. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #236, 12/28/2012] Sanders And Bipartisan Group Of Senators Wrote Letter Raising Concerns About Loophole That Gave Government Ability To Search Americans’ Private Communications Without A Warrant. “As the U.S. Senate debates the renewal of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, U.S. Senators Tom Udall and Jeff Bingaman sent a letter with Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and a bipartisan group of legislators, including […] Bernie Sanders (I-VT.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Dick Durbin (D-Il.) to request more information about the number of Americans' communications secretly collected by the U.S. government and raise concerns about a loophole in the four-year old surveillance law that gives the government the ability to search for Americans' private communications without a warrant. In a letter to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, the group of senators asked for unclassified information on how many communications to or from Americans may have had been collected under section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act and whether the government has conducted warrantless searches for the phone calls or emails of individual Americans.” [Udall press release, 7/27/12] Bernie Sanders Did Not Vote On 2012 Senate Vote # 232 (FISA Reauthorization - Substitute Amendment). On December 27, 2012, Bernie Sanders did not vote on Senate Vote #232. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Leahy, D-Vt., substitute amendment no. 3437 that would reauthorize until June 2015, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which governs electronic surveillance of foreign terrorism suspects. It also would require the intelligence community inspector general to review the implementation of surveillance authorities and report findings to Congress no later than Dec. 31, 2014. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #232, 12/27/2012] Bernie Sanders Did Not Vote On 2012 Senate Vote # 233 (FISA Reauthorization - Intelligence Surveillance Court Disclosures). On December 27, 2012, Bernie Sanders did not vote on Senate Vote #233. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Merkley, D-Ore., amendment no. 3435 that would require the government to disclose Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court decisions, orders or opinions on surveillance requests unless such a disclosure is not in the interest of U.S. national security. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #233, 12/27/2012] Bernie Sanders Did Not Vote On 2012 Senate Vote # 234 (FISA Reauthorization - Third Party Information). On December 27, 2012, Bernie Sanders did not vote on Senate Vote #234. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Paul, R-Ky., amendment no. 3436 that would require the government to either get a warrant or express consent to obtain information given to third parties. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #234, 12/27/2012] Bernie Sanders Voted Yes On 2012 Senate Vote # 235 (FISA Reauthorization - Domestic Communications Report). On December 28, 2012, Bernie Sanders voted yes on Senate Vote #235. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Wyden, D-Ore., amendment no. 3439 that would require the director of national intelligence to report to Congress on how many domestic communications the government has collected under the 2008 foreign surveillance law. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #235, 12/28/2012] 2013: Bernie Sanders Introduced Restore Our Privacy Act Sanders Introduced Restore Our Privacy Act, Which Would Limit Powers Of NSA And FBI To Track Phone Calls. “Sen. Bernie Sanders introduced legislation late Thursday to put strict limits on sweeping powers used by the National Security Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation to secretly track telephone calls by millions of innocent Americans who are not suspected of any wrongdoing. “We must give our intelligence and law enforcement agencies all of the tools that they need to combat terrorism but we must do so in a way that protects our freedom and respects the Constitution’s ban on unreasonable searches,” Sanders said.” [S. 1168, introduced 6/13/13; Sanders press release, 6/14/13] Under Restore Our Privacy Act, Authorities Would Have To Present Specific Information And Establish Reasonable Suspicion To Secure Court Approval To Monitor Business Records. “Authorities would be required to establish a reasonable suspicion, based on specific information, in order to secure court approval to monitor business records related to a specific terrorism suspect. Sanders’ bill would put an end to open-ended court orders that have resulted in wholesale data mining by the NSA and FBI. Instead, the government would be required to provide reasonable suspicion to justify searches for each record or document that it wants to examine.” [Sanders press release, 6/14/13] Bill Would End “Open-Ended Court Orders That Have Resulted In Wholesale Data Mining By The NSA And FBI. “Sanders’ bill would put an end to open-ended court orders that have resulted in wholesale data mining by the NSA and FBI. Instead, the government would be required to provide reasonable suspicion to justify searches for each record or document that it wants to examine. The measure would eliminate a presumption in current law that anyone “known to” a suspect is relevant to the investigation. It also would increase congressional oversight by requiring the attorney general to provide reports to all members of Congress, not only members of the judiciary and intelligence committees.” [S. 1168, Introduced 6/13/13; Sanders Press Release, 6/14/13] Sanders Legislation Would Require Authorities Establish Reasonable Suspicion Based On Specific Information In Order To Monitor Business Records. “Under legislation I have proposed, intelligence and law enforcement authorities would be required to establish a reasonable suspicion, based on specific information, in order to secure court approval to monitor business records related to a specific terrorism suspect. In renewing the surveillance law, Congress also should reassert its proper role overseeing how intelligence agencies use, or abuse, the law that our intelligence community has operated in a way that even they knew the American public and Congress would not approve.” [Bernie Sanders, Time, 5/7/15] Sanders’ Legislation Would “Put A Definitive Stop To Indiscriminate Metadata Collection.” “Vermont’s other senator has also penned a piece of legislative response to the surveillance leaks. Sen Bernie Sanders’ bill takes a more aggressive approach with Section 215 than Leahy’s does. It would put a definitive stop to indiscriminate metadata collection. Sanders’ legislative solution would amend the Patriot Act to require the government to supply specific evidence that shows it has reasonable suspicion that records are tied to an identified terrorist suspect before it can start monitoring them.” [vermontbiz.com, 6/25/13] 2014: Sanders Voted For Consideration Of USA Freedom Act Sanders Voted For Consideration Of The USA Freedom Act. “Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked a sweeping overhaul of the once-secret National Security Agency program that collects records of Americans’ phone calls in bulk. Democrats and a handful of Republicans who supported the measure failed to secure the 60 votes they needed to take up the legislation. The vote was 58 to 42 for consideration. […] Under the bill, which grew out of the disclosures in June 2013 by Edward J. Snowden, the former intelligence contractor, the N.S.A. would have gotten out of the business of collecting Americans’ phone records. Instead, most of the records would have stayed in the hands of the phone companies, which would not have been required to hold them any longer than they already do for normal business purposes, which in some cases is 18 months.” [New York Times, 11/18/14; S 2685, Vote #282, 11/18/14] Sanders Voted For USA Freedom Act. “And last year, Sanders voted for the Senate's USA Freedom Act, which would have effectively ended the phone-records program.” [National Journal, 5/1/15] Sanders Would Not Say If He Would Vote For May 2015 Version Of USA Freedom Act. “Sanders' opposition to the NSA's spying programs is clear—he's called them "Orwellian" and invasive—but he hasn't said whether he'll vote for the version of the USA Freedom Act that has been put forward in this session of the Senate. Sanders also has a history of progressive votes on the issue. He emphasized in a Time op-ed published last week that he's never voted for the Patriot Act, which authorized the NSA's bulksurveillance programs after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Last November, he voted for the USA Freedom Act, which would have ended the NSA's bulk-data gathering.” [National Journal, 5/19/15] Sanders Advocated For Government Intervention Only In Instances “Where There Is Reason To Believe That Somebody May Be Involved In A Terrorist Attack.” “Where there is reason to believe that somebody may be involved in a terrorist attack, I want our government to do everything that it can to protect the American people. But what I do not want are files being kept on the 99.99% of Americans who have nothing to do with terrorism.” [CNN Newsroom, CNN, 1/17/14, 4:13] Sanders: “I Don’t Agree With The Overall Position Of The President” On Government Surveillance. “I don’t agree with the overall position of the President on that issue. Again, I do not think that the Constitution of the United States supports the belief that every call made by every American–99.99% who have nothing to do with terrorism–should be kept on file.” [CNN Newsroom, CNN, 1/17/14, 2:26] Seat Belts Sanders Opposed Seat Belt Laws And A 21-Year-Old Drinking Age On Principle Of Civil Liberty. “Independent gubernatorial candidate Bernard Sanders vowed Tuesday that he would guard individual rights better than either of his two opponents and cited his opposition to a seat belt law and to the 21year-old drinking age as examples. ‘I simply do not believe that the State of Vermont has the right to get into everyone’s personal [automobile and force them to wear seat belts.],’ said the three-term Burlington mayor, who noted that he personally always chooses to wear a seatbelt. Likewise, Sanders said, drunk driving is a ‘serious problem which must not be tolerated.’ But, he added, ‘Discriminating against an entire generation of young people by raising the drinking age to 21, as the governor and the Legislature did last session, is not in my view a fair or intelligent way of dealing with the problem.’” [Rutland Daily Herald, 8/20/86] Sanders Vowed To Veto Any Proposed Seat Belt Law And 21-Year-Old Drinking Law. “Sanders said if elected governor he would work to repeal the 21-year-old drinking law and would veto any seatbelt legislation.” [Rutland Daily Herald, 8/20/86] Sanders Said He Would “Fight Like Hell” Against Seat Belt Laws And Other Federal Government Mandates. “‘It is absolutely and totally undemocratic for the federal government to be telling 50 states in the union that they should have to have seat belt laws,’ Sanders said. ‘I would fight like hell and work with other states to get the federal government out of the business of telling states what to do.’” [Rutland Daily Herald, 8/20/86] Sanders Supported Motorcycle Helmet Legislation Because He Felt That Riding Without A Helmet Presented A Greater Danger Than Riding In A Car Without A Seat Belt. “Pressed on the question, Sanders said he felt riding a motorcycle without a helmet represented a greater danger than riding in a car without a seatbelt and that government interference was therefore justified to ensure helmets are worn.” [Rutland Daily Herald, 8/20/86] CHOICE Bernie Sanders Argued A Woman’s Decision To Have An Abortion Should Be A “Decision For The Woman, Her Family And Physician To Make, Not The Government.” “We are not returning to the days of back-room abortions, when countless women died or were maimed. The decision about abortion must remain a decision for the woman, her family and physician to make, not the government. We are not going back to the days when women could not have full access to birth control. Incredibly, here in the year 2012, that is exactly what the Blunt Amendment, which we defeated last month in the Senate, was all about. The Blunt Amendment would have allowed any employer who provided health insurance, or any insurance company, the right to deny coverage for contraception or any other kind of procedure if the employer had a ‘moral’ objection to it. While I am glad that we defeated this horrendous amendment, it certainly was a sad day in our country when every Republican, save one, voted for it.” [Senator Bernie Sanders, Huffington Post, 4/30/12] 2012: NARAL Pro-Choice America Celebrated Sanders’ Re-Election. “Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, congratulated U.S. Senate incumbents endorsed by the organization’s political action committee for their successful re-election bids. ‘I extend my sincere congratulations to our pro-choice champions in the U.S. Senate for running such successful campaigns,’ Keenan said. ‘They have served as the firewall keeping anti-choice measures off the president’s desk. Time and again, they fight to protect our right to choose, playing an especially important role in light of the House’s War on Women these past years.’ Pro-choice leaders returning to the U.S. Senate include: U.S. Sens. Ben Cardin (D-MD), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and Bernie Sanders (I-VT), among others.” [NARAL Pro-Choice America, 11/6/12] 1996 – 2014: NARAL Pro-Choice America Gave Bernie Sanders A 100% Rating 17 Times. [Vote Smart, accessed 6/5/15] 1996 – 2014: National Right To Life Committee Gave Bernie Sanders A 0% Rating 12 Times. [Vote Smart, accessed 6/5/15] Life News: National Right To Life Committee Listed Sanders As Voting For A Pro-Life Measure Only Once Out Of 101 Votes Scored. “Out of 101 votes on a wide range of pro-life issues, as scored by the National Right to Life Committee, Sanders has a six percent pro-life voting record. The only times Sanders has ever voted pro-life were times when he supported a ban on human cloning. Otherwise, on issues from abortion funding to banning partial-birth abortions and pro-abortion Obamacare to pushing abortion on an international scale, Sanders has been a staunch abortion activist.” [Life News, 4/30/15] 1972: Bernie Sanders: “If A Woman Wants An Abortion She Should Be Able To Get One At A Federally Funded Hospital.” [Bennington Banner, 1/5/72] Sanders Voted Against Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. In 2003, Sanders voted against HR 760, the Patrial Birth Abortion Ban Act. [HR 760, Vote #242, 6/4/03] Sanders Signed Letter Expressing Disappointment With HHS Decision To Block Plan B Availability Over The Counter. “We are writing to express our disappointment with your December 7, 2011 decision to block the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) recommendation to make Plan B One-Step available over-the-counter. We feel strongly that FDA regulations should be based on science. We write to you today to ask that you provide us with the rationale for this decision. […] Sincerely, […] Bernie Sanders United States Senator.” [Blumenthal press release, 12/13/11] Sanders Signed Letter Affirming That Access To Birth Control, Including Emergency Contraception, Reduces Unintended Pregnancies. “As numerous medical societies and patient advocates have argued, improved access to birth control, including emergency contraception, has been proven to reduce unintended pregnancies. Nearly half of all pregnancies that occur in the United States each year are unintended. Keeping Plan B behind the counter makes it harder for all women to obtain a safe and effective product they may need to prevent an unintended pregnancy. Sincerely, […] Bernie Sanders United States Senator.” [Blumenthal press release, 12/13/11] TRAP Laws Sanders Cosponsored Women’s Health Protection Act To Trump State TRAP Laws. “House and Senate Democrats on Wednesday reintroduced the Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA), a response to an unprecedented onslaught of state-level restrictions on abortion providers that has restricted women’s access to reproductive health care. The WHPA would prohibit any state or federal laws that single out abortion providers for restrictions that don’t apply to similar medical services, such as TRAP (targeted regulation of abortion provider) laws, forced ultrasounds, waiting periods, or restrictions on medication abortion.” [S. 217, Introduced 1/21/15; RH Reality Check, 1/21/15] CRIME Said Crime Could Be Handled More Easily In Burlington Than In Urban Areas 1980s: Sanders Said Crime In New York City Or Los Angeles “May Well Be Out Of Hand Because Of The Enormous Social Chaos” But In Burlington, Crime “Can And Must Be Dealt With Through Rational And Intelligent Decision Making.” “The city administration, under Gordon Pauquelle, has been extremely' negligent in its relationship to the police department and to the rapidly rising crime rate in our city. In New York City, in Boston or in Los Angeles the crime problem may well be out of hand because of the enormous social chaos in those areas. In Burlington, Vermont, however, the crime situation can and must be dealt with through rational and intelligent decision making.” [Sanders newspaper advertisement, date unknown, ~1980] Policing Sanders Said That, As President, He Would Vigorously Crack Down On Discrimination “At All Levels Of Our Society” Through The U.S. Justice Department. “JAVIER PALOMAREZ: I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but if I can capture the essence of the response, you would solve social issues and challenges through economic solutions. SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Well that’s an important way. I mean, one cannot turn one’s back on the fact that 36% of Hispanic youth are unemployed, or that millions of Hispanics don’t have any health insurance, or can’t afford health insurance. Those are issues that have to be dealt with. Is that the only issue? We have got to break down discrimination in America—that goes without saying. And I would have a Department of Justice, which would be vigorous in fighting discrimination at all levels of our society.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, 7/30/15] Sanders Called Police Brutality A “Huge Issue” And Said “How Do You Have Police Departments In This Country That Are Part Of Their Communities, Not Oppressors In Their Communities?” “The Nation: A criticism directed toward you early in the campaign was that you were very focused on economics, but not sufficiently focused on critical issues such as police brutality and mass incarceration. Isn’t this something you have to address? Sanders: Clearly, police brutality and what goes on in AfricanAmerican communities and other communities is a huge issue…. The question is: How do you have police departments in this country that are part of their communities, not oppressors in their communities? How do you have police officers who, when they commit acts of crime, are held accountable and are indicted? How do you have police officers receiving the proper training that they need? How do we demilitarize our police departments? All of these are important issues. The good news is that, as a country, we are paying far more attention to this issue than we previously did. If anyone thinks that the kind of police brutality that we’re seeing now is something new, they are sorely mistaken. The good news, in a sense, is that it’s now becoming public and we’re seeing it and talking about it.” [The Nation, 7/6/15] Sanders Said That While It Was Good That Police Brutality Was Becoming More Visible, It Was Not A New Issue. “The Nation: A criticism directed toward you early in the campaign was that you were very focused on economics, but not sufficiently focused on critical issues such as police brutality and mass incarceration. Isn’t this something you have to address? […] The good news is that, as a country, we are paying far more attention to this issue than we previously did. If anyone thinks that the kind of police brutality that we’re seeing now is something new, they are sorely mistaken. The good news, in a sense, is that it’s now becoming public and we’re seeing it and talking about it. There has to be, I think, a significant change in police culture in terms of [the use of force]. That is a major issue that has to be dealt with. And we will deal with it, period.”” [The Nation, 7/6/15] Sanders Called On Police Officers To Be Held Accountable For Unfair And Unequal Treatment, Particularly Of Black Men. “But at a town hall meeting in Marshalltown on Saturday Sanders delivered passionate remarks on those issues. “You can like Barack Obama, you can dislike Barack Obama, but what is important is to judge people based on their ideas, their character and not the color of their skin,” he said, drawing heavy applause. But he also said there is more work to be done. He alluded to the recent deaths of several black men at the hands of police. He called on officers who break the law while performing their official duties to be held accountable. “It is clear we still have a long way to go. It is not acceptable to me, or I hope anyone in this room, that a black male walking down the street could be assaulted and treated horrendously and unfairly by a police officer,” Sanders said. “We need to change our culture with regard to policing in this country, and when police officers act in a way that is illegal, they, like every public official, must be held accountable.”” [Times Argus, 6/15/15] Sanders Said That Too Many People Of Color Were Subjected To A System That Treats Regular People Like Criminals. “He said minorities are facing challenges in the U.S. that must still be addressed. “What we do know is that the struggle for equality continues today, and the front line of that struggle is the inner cities across our nation. From Ferguson to Baltimore, too many African Americans and other minorities find themselves subjected to a system that treats citizens who have not committed crimes like criminals,” he said.” [Times Argus, 6/15/15] Sanders Said That “In Some Respects, People [i.e. Police Officers] Are Going To Lethal Weapons Before They Should […] Lethal Force Is A Last Resort.” “Police officers, Sanders said, have challenging jobs and must make difficult decisions. But those that commit crimes must be held accountable, he said. “The truth is that being a police officer is a very, very difficult and stressful job, and most of the cops out there are doing good jobs under difficult circumstances. But what we must be clear about is we need to change a culture, where in some respects, people are going to lethal weapons before they should,” Sanders said. “What we need to do is to make sure that police officers around this country have the training that they need, which is not always the case. That lethal force is a last resort. And that we need to be clear that when any public official, including a police officer, breaks the law that individual must be held accountable.”” [Times Argus, 6/15/15] Sanders Advocated For “Community-Based Policing” In Light Of Ferguson Tragedy. “If there is any silver lining in the tragedy of Ferguson, is that I hope we learned some very important lessons. When I was mayor of Burlington, Vermont, and all over this country, what mayors are trying to do is develop community-based policing, where police officers are seen as part of the neighborhood, they know people in the neighborhood, they are trusted by people in the neighborhood. When you see the kind of force that’s being used in Ferguson, it really does make an appeal that the police department there is an occupying army in a hostile territory. And that is absolutely not what we want to see in the United States. So I think we’ve got to rethink a lot of this heavy equipment that police departments around the country are utilizing.” [The Ed Show, MSNBC, 8/18/14, 0:28] Sanders Said That, As Mayor Of Burlington, VT, He Moved The Police To Focus On Community Policing. “Sanders recalled his time as mayor of Burlington, Vt., in the early 1980s and the push to transform the department to one focused on community policing. “We moved it to community policing, which is where I think our police departments should go, which means that police are part of the community and not seen as an oppressive force,” he said.” [Times Argus, 6/15/15] Sanders: Police Officers Need To Become A Part Of The Community To Improve Relations With Public. “Uh…first of all, I think we need to change the tone of police community relations. I was a mayor for 8 years. And what we instituted in Burlington, VT was the concept of community policing, where the police officers become part of the community and not seen as somebody from the outside coming in, and I believe in that.” [Sanders Katie Couric Interview, Yahoo, 6/1/15] Sanders Supported Community Policing. “Sanders also called for “community policing, where police are perceived as part of the community, the good guys, rather than as interlopers.”“ [CNN, 4/30/15] Sanders Said There Needs To Be A “Radical Change In [Police] Culture” In The United States, Where Police Officers “Minimize [The Use Of] Force.” “It is not acceptable, to me, and I think the overwhelming majority of Americans, to have African American young men walk down the street and be scared to death about what might happen when a police officer appears. So, we need, A, radical training, radical change in culture, where we minimize force, not go to the gun quite as quickly as has been the case for so many years. Number two, we have to demilitarize many of the police departments in this country.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Diane Rehm Show, 6/10/15] Sanders: “…For Decades Now, We Have Known That Police Officers Have Treated People Who They Have Captured In Shameful Manners, In Some Cases, Killing Them.” “The bad news is that for decades now, we have known that police officers have treated people who they have captured in shameful manners, in some cases, murdered them. The good news is that that type of behavior is not being seen on television, it is being seen on cell phone video. And we're seeing more of it. And I think the American people are saying, enough is enough.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Diane Rehm Show, 6/10/15] Sanders Was “Impressed” By South Carolina’s Indictment Of Police Officers Who Used Excessive Force. “But there are cops who do not do a good job. Who act absolutely inappropriately, we have seen that recently. And if a police officer acts inappropriately, that police officer must be held accountable. And I have been impressed by areas like South Carolina for example, when they saw the evidence of a police officer shooting somebody in the back, they indicted that police officer, and that’s what should happen.” [Sanders Katie Couric Interview, Yahoo, 6/1/15] Sanders Believed Police Forces Needed To “Demilitarize” And Instead Adopt “Community Policing” Policies. “…When you see some of these pictures on TV with tanks and this very heavy duty military equipment, it doesn't look like a local police department. It looks like an occupying force. And C, I think we have to move this country toward community policing, where people feel comfortable, they know their local cop on the beat. [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Diane Rehm Show, 6/10/15] Sanders: We Need To “Demilitarize The Police.” “We have got to demilitarize the police. You don’t need tanks, you don’t need heavy military equipment in the communities of the United States of America.” [Sanders Katie Couric Interview, Yahoo, 6/1/15] Sanders Supported Body Cameras. “He also commented on the violent protests that have erupted in Baltimore after the death of Freddie Gray, a 25-year-old man who was in police custody. Sanders said he supports requiring police officers to wear body cameras and other reforms so that “suspects are treated with respect.” Long-term, he said, tensions in urban areas between police and residents need to be eased through increased economic and educational opportunity.” [CNN, 4/30/15] Sanders Said That Beat Cops Had “Very, Very Difficult Jobs[s]” And “The Vast Majority” Do Good Work. “Who has, by the way, a very, very difficult job. No one should think being a police officer is easy. The vast majority of police officers do good work. Some don't.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Diane Rehm Show, 6/10/15] Sanders Insisted That Police Departments Needed Tools To Combat Certain Threats, But Not The Heavy Equipment That Depicted Them As “Occupying Armies.” In response to Ed Schultz asking whether he thinks the problem is the equipment or the police department’s use of the equipment, Sanders responded: “I think it’s the latter. Clearly, police departments all over this country have a difficult time dealing with drug pushers and people who are very well armed. We want to make sure that our police department has the effective tools and equipment to combat those threats. But on the other hand, I do not think you need tanks and heavy military-looking equipment in low-income communities in America. I think that essentially makes a difficult situation, a dangerous situation, much more provocative, and much more difficult. Again, police departments should not be perceived as occupying armies. I think this is an issue, along with the economic issue of having to create jobs for our young people, that Congress should be addressing when we return.” [The Ed Show, MSNBC, 8/18/14, 2:38] Sanders Would Be In Favor Of Taking A “Hard Look” At The Program Allowing Police Departments To Utilize Heavy Equipment. In response to Ed Schultz asking if he would be in favor of reducing the amount and use of the military equipment seen in Ferguson, Sanders responded: “I think I would be absolutely in favor of taking a hard, hard look at that program. I don’t know that you could make a hundred percent generalization, but I do not want to see communities and small towns and small cities all over America have heavy equipment, which makes people in those communities just feel like they are an enemy. That, I certainly think, is not appropriate.” [The Ed Show, MSNBC, 8/18/14, 3:52] Sanders Believed That Combating Police Brutality Involved Outfitting Police With Camera And Ensuring Young People Are In School. “So short term we got to make sure police officers have cameras, we have to make sure there’s police reform so that suspects are treated with respect. Long term we got to make sure our young people are working, they’re in school, they’re not hanging out on street corners.” [Sanders Speaks out on Baltimore Protests, 4/30/15] Prison System Sanders Said He Wanted America To Be Known As The Best Educated, Not The Country With The Most People In Jail. “I want America to be known as the country with the best educated population in the world, not the country with the most people in jail than any other country. And that is why I’ve introduced legislation both for young people and the general population that creates decent paid jobs, rebuilding our infrastructure and transitioning away from fossil fuels. We need to raise the minimum wage from starvation wage of $7.25 to $15 so that anyone working in this country does not live in poverty.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, National Council of La Raza Annual Conference (Kansas City, MO), 7/13/15] Sanders: “It Makes A Lot More Sense To Me To Be Investing In Jobs, In Job Training” Than To Build More Jails. ““It makes a lot more sense to me to be investing in jobs, in job training .  .  . than to be building more and more jails and to be locking more and more people up,” Sanders said.” [Washington Post, 6/4/15] Sanders: “The Answer To Unemployment And Poverty Is Not And Cannot Be The Mass Incarceration Of Young African Americans.” “Sanders said high unemployment among these demographic groups correlates to higher incarceration rates. ‘The answer to unemployment and poverty is not and cannot be the mass incarceration of young African Americans,’ he said.” [The Hill, 6/8/15] Sanders Said That “A Black Male Baby Born Today” Had A One In Three Chance Of Going To Jail. “Several 2016 presidential candidates in both parties have discussed how the criminal justice system might be improved. The latest to address this issue was Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders during a June 11, 2015, interview on PBS. "A black male baby born today, if we do not change the system, stands a one-in-three chance (of) ending up in jail. This is (an) unspeakable tragedy."” [PolitiFact, 6/15/15] PolitiFact: Sanders’ Data Is Old And The Trends May Have Changed, But His Claim Is “Mostly True.” “Sanders said that "a black male baby born today, if we do not change the system, stands a one-in-three chance (of) ending up in jail." This calculation, while it’s the most recent one available, is 14 years old, and changes in the underlying data suggest that the actual odds of incarceration may be somewhat smaller today. Still, other evidence suggests that blacks have a disproportionate likelihood of ending up in prison. On balance we rate it Mostly True.” [PolitiFact, 6/15/15] Washington Post Fact Checker: Sanders’ Data Is Old And The Trends Likely Decreased The Ratio, Therefore His Claim Cited A “Two-Pinocchio Statistic.” “The basic lesson is: Read the footnotes. Sanders and various media organizations did not do enough due diligence to understand how old these numbers are. There is certainly little justification to assert that a black baby boy born “today” face these odds of entering prison. At best one can say that a baby born in 2001 faced these odds — if the rate had remained the same. But it looks like the rate has declined, calling into question the “1 in 3” statistic. The actual figure is as yet unknown, and still could be high. But this figure should be treated with caution until BJS produces an updated estimate. Until then, this is a Two-Pinocchio statistic.” [Washington Post, 6/16/15] Sanders Said The United States Lags Behind Other Countries In Rehabilitating Prisoners. “Point being, in those countries, and I don’t want to over do it, no country is perfect, every country has their problems, but the goal of prison in those countries is not only to keep people who are harmful to society locked up, which goes without saying, but the goal is to rehabilitate. To make sure that when people leave prison they don’t come back again. Now picking up on your point. Shamefully, and you got to keep asking these questions, and the reason I’m running for President is because I’ll ask these questions. How does it happen not just that we lag behind so many other countries in so many areas?” [Bernie Sanders at Johns Hopkins, 6/3/15] As An Example Of Rehabilitative Prison Programs In Other Countries, Bernie Sanders Told An Anecdote About A Prisoners Union In Denmark. “Okay, so this is a funny story. It was in Denmark. My wife and I went to…were on a trip there. So typical enough, all these other guys are going to museums and I say, “let’s go to the jail. Let’s take a look at what’s going on in there, in their maximum security prison.” So we went in there and talked to the warden—this is a true story —we walked in there and talked to the warden, very nice guy, and he said, “Well let me ask you this. Would you like to meet with the prisoners union before we go in?” Prisoners union? “Oh yes, we have a union of prisoners.” So we met with the prisoners union. Point being, in those countries, and I don’t want to over do it, no country is perfect, every country has their problems, but the goal of prison in those countries is not only to keep people who are harmful to society locked up, which goes without saying, but the goal is to rehabilitate.” [Bernie Sanders at Johns Hopkins, 6/3/15] Sanders Said China, “An Authoritarian Country Four Times Our Size,” Has Fewer Prisoners Than The United States. “How does it happen that in the United States of America we have more people behind bars than any other country on earth? (33:20) All of you know China is a communist, authoritarian country. What’s the population of China does anybody know? It’s over a billion people. What is it? It’s about four times the size of America. We have more people behind bars than an authoritarian country four times our size. How does this happen?” [Bernie Sanders at Johns Hopkins, 6/3/15] Sanders Said American Prisons Make Prisoners Into Better Criminals. “How does this happen? How does it happen? And the rate of recidivism is extraordinarily high. If you want to go to a place where they can really teach you to be good criminals, we put people in jail. And they come out and they learn how to be better criminals. So absolutely we need to rethink our whole law enforcement and criminal justice system.” [Bernie Sanders at Johns Hopkins, 6/3/15] Sanders’ Senate Office Tweeted About An Article Critical Of The Criminal Justice System. “We Lock Up Tons of Innocent People-and Charge Them for the Privilege -@AJVicens, @MotherJones:http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/we-lock-up-tons-of-innocentpeopleand-charge-them-for-the-privilege …” [Twitter, Office of Sen. Bernie Sanders, 6/9/15] Vera Institute Report Found That More People Were Jailed Even As Crime Rate Went Down. “The prison problem also extends to jails, which hold defendants awaiting trial and prisoners sentenced for minor offenses. A new report from the Vera Institute of Justice, a nonprofit focused on justice policy, reports that America's local jails, which hold roughly 731,000 people on any given day, are holding more people even though the crime rate is going down. Jails disproportionately detain people of color longer and for lesser crimes. The report also finds that jails are less likely to give inmates the rehabilitation and mental-health support that could keep them out of prison.” [Mother Jones, 2/17/15] Inmates Often Paid Fees For Laundry, Room And Board, And Booking While In Jail. “Spending any time in jail can, and usually does, significantly alter someone's ability to lead a normal life upon release. Plus, many jail inmates have to pay fees for laundry service, room and board, and even booking fees. Even if they're later found innocent, they still must pay those bills, leaving many former defendants indebted to the system.” [Mother Jones, 2/17/15] Sanders Said It Makes “More Sense To Invest In Education And Job Training For Young People Than More Jails.” “And bottom line is, to me, it makes a lot more sense when you have today 5.5 million young people who have either graduated high school or dropped out of high school, who today are doing nothing, they’re hanging out on street corners, they don’t have jobs, they’re not in school. Maybe it makes more sense to invest in education and job training for those young people than more jails. That’s something I believe very strongly.” [Bernie Sanders at Johns Hopkins, 6/3/15] Sanders: “We Need To Rethink Our Whole Law Enforcement And Criminal Justice System.” “So absolutely we need to rethink our whole law enforcement and criminal justice system.” [Bernie Sanders at Johns Hopkins, 6/3/15] Death Penalty 1986: Sanders Opposed The Death Penalty And Supported Sentencing Guidelines For Judges. “Vermont’s three leading candidates for governor agreed in a debate Wednesday that the state should adopt sentencing guidelines for its judges to to follow and that the death penalty should not be adopted. […] Kunin said she believed sentencing guidelines were ‘important because there is a loss of faith in whether or not we get equal justice under the law.’ Sanders agreed. […] he could not support the death penalty.” [Associated Press, 10/30/86] NOTE: Clipping is cut off so Sanders’ full quote is missing. 1986: Sanders Said That While He Understood The “Anger And Frustration That The Families Of Victims Feel,” He Could Not Support The Death Penalty. “Kunin said she agreed sentencing guidelines were ‘important because there is a loss of faith in whether or not we get equal justice under the law.’ Sanders agreed. He echoed the views of his opponents when he said that, while he understood the ‘anger and frustration that the families of victims feel,’ he could not support the death penalty.” [Rutland Daily Herald, 10/30/86] 1991: Sanders Opposed 1991 Crime Bill That Expanded Capital Punishment, Saying “Let Us Put An End To State Murder, Let Us Stop Capital Punishment.” “Sanders opposed the Violent Crime Prevention Act of 1991 during his first year in the U.S. House of Representatives. ‘All over the industrialized world now, countries are saying, ‘let us put an end to state murder, let us stop capital punishment’,’ Sanders said in a 1991 speech on the House floor. ‘But here what we’re talking about is more and more capital punishment.’ The bill, which included provisions to authorize the death penalty as appropriate punishment for crimes involving the murder of a law enforcement officer, terrorism and drug trafficking, never reached the desk of President George H.W. Bush.” [PolitiFact, 9/2/15; HR 3371, Vote #327, 10/22/91]  Sanders Said “This Is Not A Crime Prevention Bill. This Is A Punishment Bill, A Retribution Bill, A Vengeance Bill” That Was Unbecoming Of An Industrialized Nation. “I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the McCollum amendment and, in fact, in strong opposition to this so-called crime prevention bill. Mr. Speaker, let us be honest. This is not a crime prevention bill. This is a punishment bill, a retribution bill, a vengeance bill. All over the industrialized world now, countries are saying, `Let us put an end to state murder; let us stop capital punishment. But here what we are talking about is more and more capital punishment. What we are discussing now is an issue where some of our friends are saying, we are not getting tough enough on the criminals.” [Sanders Floor Speech, 10/22/91]  Sanders Said The U.S. Had “Beaten” South Africa And The Soviet Union In Jailing Its Own Population, And That The Bill Would Disproportionately Punish The Poor And Black Community. “But my friends, we have the highest percentage of people in America in jail per capita of any industrialized nation on Earth. We’ve beaten South Africa. We’ve beaten the Soviet Union. What do we have to do, put half the country behind bars? Mr. Speaker, instead of talking about punishment and vengeance, let us have the courage to talk about the real issue: how do we get to the root causes of crime. How do we stop crime, which is in fact a very, very serious problem in this country? And Mr. Speaker, I’ve got a problem. I’ve got a problem with a President and a Congress which allows 5 million children to go hungry, 2 million people to sleep out on the streets, cities that become breeding grounds for drugs and violence, and they say we are getting tough on crime. If you want to get tough on crime, let us deal with the causes of crime. Let us demand that every man, woman, and child in this country have a decent opportunity and a decent standard of living. Let’s not keep putting poor people into jail and disproportionately punishing blacks.” [Sanders Floor Speech, 10/22/91] 1994: Sanders Opposed The Crime Bill’s Death Penalty Provisions. “Sanders also oppose the death penalty provisions, and said he would prefer a bill that stresses more preventive measures and less prison-building. ‘This legislation is not perfect,’ Sanders said. ‘Very little that comes out of Washington is perfect.’” [Burlington Free Press, 8/17/94]  Sanders Voted For An Amendment To Substitute Life Imprisonment For The Death Penalty Provisions in The Bill. “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, wherever a Federal law provides for the imposition of the penalty of death, the court shall instead impose the penalty of imprisonment for life.” [H. Amdt 503 to HR 4092, Vote #107, 4/14/94]  Spokesman: Sanders Voted For The Final Version Of The Crime Bill, Which Expanded The Death Penalty, Because “It Included The Violence Against Women Act And The Ban On Certain Assault Weapons.” “In 1994, however, Sanders voted in favor of the final version of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, a bill that expanded the federal death penalty. Sanders had voted for an amendment to the bill that would have replaced all federal death sentences with life in prison. Even though the amendment failed, Sanders still voted for the larger crime bill. A spokesman for Sanders said he voted for the bill ‘because it included the Violence Against Women Act and the ban on certain assault weapons.’” [PolitiFact, 9/2/15] 1994: Burlington Free Press: Sanders Said The Good Parts Of The Crime Bill Outweighed The Bad, And That The Death Penalty Was Rarely Applied In Federal Cases. “The death penalty, another hot-button issue, has not figured prominently in this campaign. Both candidates [Sanders and Carroll] oppose it, but Sanders was criticized for voting for the crime bill, which expanded the list of federal crimes punishable by death penalty. Sanders said the good parts of the bill, such as more money for prisons, police and crime-prevention programs, outweighed the bad, and in any case the death penalty is rarely applied in federal cases.” [Burlington Free Press, 10/28/94]  2005: Federal Prosecutors Sought Death Penalty Against Man For A 2000 Murder Originating From A Carjacking In Vermont. “Vermont, a famously liberal New England state that abolished capital punishment decades ago, is about to see its first death penalty trial in more than 40 years - a case brought not by Vermont authorities but by federal prosecutors. Some are wondering why the U.S. Justice Department is making a federal case out of the whole thing. Jury selection got under way this week in Burlington for the trial of Donald Fell, 24. He is charged with carjacking 53-year-old Teresca King in Vermont in 2000 and beating her to death nearly 200 miles away in New York as she prayed by the side of the road. The trial is set to begin July 5 [Associated Press, 5/6/05]  Vermont’s Acting U.S. Attorney Said Federal Government Had Jurisdiction Because The Crime Extended Across State Lines. “From the outset, federal prosecutors took charge of the case against Fell and Lee, charging them with carrying out a carjacking that ends in a death. Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft rejected a plea bargain that would have spared Fell's life. From the outset, federal prosecutors took charge of the case against Mr. Fell and Mr. Lee, charging them with carrying out a carjacking that ended in a death. Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft rejected a plea bargain that would have spared their lives. Vermont’s Acting U.S. Attorney David Kirby said the federal government had jurisdiction because the crime extended across state lines.” [Associated Press, 5/6/05]  Donald Fell Was Sentenced To Death in 2005, But Not Been Executed And Will Face A Retrial In 2016. “Donald Fell was led into a federal courtroom Friday in Burlington, his gaze cast downward. Since Fell's last appearance here nearly 10 years ago — when he was convicted and sentenced to death for killing a North Clarendon woman — he seemed to have lost considerable weight, looking thin in a black-and-white striped prison jumpsuit from a New York county jail. He had grown facial hair and wore brown-framed glasses. Terri King's family stared silently at the man who admitted killing their loved one 15 years ago after he and an accomplice kidnapped her, stole her car and drove her to New York. King, 53, was beaten to death while she prayed for her life in November 2000. The case returned to court Friday morning for the first hearing since a judge last year threw out Fell's conviction and death sentence after defense attorneys uncovered juror misconduct during the first trial. Lawyers and the judge agreed to schedule a retrial tentatively for fall 2016 in Rutland.” [Burlington Free Press, 4/10/15] Recent Statements May 2015: Sanders Said He Was “Against Capital Punishment In General,” Not Just In Cases Concerning Mentally Incapacitated Persons. “I am against capital punishment in general, I understand, and certainly for people who are mentally incapacitated who don’t know what they’re doing or even what’s happening to them. I think people have been executed who really were not even aware of what was going on and that's not something that a civilized nation should be engaged in. But in general this is what I think, look there are people who commit horrendous, horrendous, horrendous crimes, we all know that. And we are furious at them, we can’t understand their barbarity. But I think with so much violence in this world today I just don’t think the state itself, whether it’s state government or the federal government, should be in the business of killing people. So when you have people who have done terrible, terrible things, they’re going to spend the rest of their lives in jail and that’s a pretty harsh punishment, but I am against capital punishment.” [Brunch With Bernie, 5/1/15] June 29, 2015: Sanders Opposed Capital Punishment. “With so much violence already in the world, I just don't think the state itself should be killing people. I'm against capital punishment.” [Twitter, Bernie Sanders, 6/29/15]  June 29, 2015: The Supreme Court Held That The Use Of Midazolam In Lethal Injections Did Not Violate The Constitution’s Prohibition On “Cruel And Unusual Punishment.” “The Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 on Monday to uphold a procedure used by states to carry out executions by lethal injection. The justices were considering a challenge brought by death-row inmates in Oklahoma, who allege that the use of a sedative called midazolam has resulted in troubling executions that violate the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Problematic executions in Oklahoma and elsewhere have captured national headlines since early last year. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for the majority that included Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. Alito said the prisoners failed to identify a ‘known and available alternative method of execution that entails a lesser risk of pain,’ which he said was required under the court’s previous ruling upholding lethal injection. And he said plaintiffs had failed to establish that a massive dose of midazolam ‘entails a substantial risk of severe pain.’” [Washington Post, 6/29/15] Sep. 2015: Sanders Supported Putting People Convicted Of “Horrible Crimes” Away For The Rest Of Their Lives When Appropriate, And Not Allow A Sense Of Anger And Vengeance To Prevail. Chris Villayni: We have now identified a 2 year old was just identified two days ago or yesterday, Bellabond a beautiful two year old who was unfortunately, allegedly, beaten to death, punched to death, by her mother’s boyfriend and it just a total total mess, brutal vicious murder, and it’s got the whole state just stunned, the country stunned, in a situation with that you don’t find any possibility that the death penalty is appropriate? Bernie Sanders: I don’t believe in the death penalty. Let’s, there are people, sick people, you can only imagine the sickness of somebody like that, you know a couple of months ago in South Carolina, you had some guy walking into a Bible prayer meeting, praying with people, and then taking out a gun and killing 9 people. We get angry, we are revolted, we are disgusted by what we see. But in my heart of hearts, I don’t believe that the state, the government, should be in the business of taking human life. So when we find somebody guilty of horrible crimes, you put them away for as long as you want, for the rest of their lives, that’s the appropriate thing to do. But I think we have got to not allow our anger and sense of vengeance to prevail on that issue. You know I know people disagree with that. [Sanders Interview on Boston Herald Radio, 9/21/15] October 2015: Sanders Called For The End Of The Death Penalty On The Senate Floor A Day After Clinton Said She Opposed Ending The Death Penalty. “A day after Hillary Rodham Clinton said she opposed abolishing the death penalty, Senator Bernie Sanders took to the Senate flooron Thursday and declared that “the time is now for the United States to end capital punishment.” In seizing an opportunity to appeal to liberals who might be disappointed with Mrs. Clinton’s views, Mr. Sanders asserted that ending the death penalty was “the right point of view,” arguing that the government “should itself not be involved in the murder of other Americans.” “I would rather have our country stand side-by-side with European democracies rather than with countries like China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and others who maintain the death penalty,” Mr. Sanders said.” [First Draft, New York Times, 10/29/15] Sanders Said He Didn’t Believe The Government “Should Be Adding To The Violence By Taking A Human Life,” Especially Because Many Innocent People Of Color Had Been Wrongly Executed In The Past. “The second issue that's important to me is I believe – and I know this is not necessarily a popular position – but I believe the time is now for the United States to join almost every other major western industrialized democracy in saying no to the death penalty. No to the death penalty. We should not be in the company of countries like China, Iran and Saudi Arabia. We all know that there are horrific situations of murder in this country. My view is lock those people up, throw away the key, but I think in a world of such violence, such savagery, I just don't think that the state, the government in this country should be adding to the violence by taking a human life. And also, I think many of us understand that a lot of innocent people, often people of color, have been executed who, in fact, were not guilty of the charges made against them. So I think the United States should join the rest of the western industrialized world and abolish the death penalty.’ [Live with Thomas Roberts, MSNBC, 10/30/15] Sanders: “I Do Not Want To See The United States Of America Be Allied With Countries Like China, Iran And Saudi Arabia In Supporting The Death Penalty.” SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: “I do not want to see the United States of America be allied with countries like China, Iran and Saudi Arabia in supporting the death penalty. I would rather be allied with Western Europe and with all of those countries who have abolished the death penalty.” [Live with Thomas Roberts, MSNBC, 10/30/15] Sanders: “Frankly, We Should Not Be In The Company Of China, The World’s Leader In The Use Of The Death Penalty, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Sudan, Yemen, Egypt, Somalia, And Jordan.” “And lastly, Mr. President, when we talk about criminal justice reform, I believe it is time for the United States of America to join almost every other Western, industrialized country on Earth in saying NO to the death penalty. Frankly, we should not be in the company of China, the world’s leader in the use of the death penalty, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Sudan, Yemen, Egypt, Somalia, and Jordan. Rather, we should be in the company of virtually every other major democratic society on Earth that understands that in a world of rampant violence and hatred, we must go beyond the doctrine of revenge--“an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” We are all shocked and disgusted by some of the horrific murders that we see in this country, seemingly every week. And that is precisely why we should abolish the death penalty. At a time of rampant violence and murder, the State should not be part of that process. When people commit horrendous crimes, we should lock them up and throw away the key. But the State, in a democratic, civilized society, should itself not be involved in the murder of other Americans.” [Sanders Prepared Remarks On Criminal Justice Reform, 10/29/15] Drug Policy Sanders Issued A Proclamation In Support Of The War On Substance Abuse. “PROCLAMATION: WHEREAS, substance abuse has grown to an enormous degree in our society, threatening the quality of life and structure of families throughout the nation; and WHEREAS, the national war against substance abuse must be fought on many levels and on many fronts; and WHEREAS, a successful counter-attack on drugs will require the active support of all of the citizens of our cities; and WHEREAS, the United States Conference of Mayors has declared Tuesday, November 18, 1986 Mayor’s D-Day in the War on Drugs and has called upon all mayors to join that day in a national mobilization that will raise all citizens'awareness [sic] of the threat posed by legal and illegal substance abuse. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that I, Bernard Sanders, Mayor of Burlington, Vermont, proclaim Tuesday, November 18, 1986 MAYOR’S D-DAY IN THE WAR ON SUBSTANCE ABUSE in Burlington and call upon all citizens of our city to participate in our goal of a city without substance abuse. [Signed] Bernard Sanders, Mayor” [Proclamation, Office of the Mayor, Bernard Sanders, 11/18/86] Sanders Supported “Undo[ing] Some Of The Structures Of This War On Drugs,” Including Incarceration Of Nonviolent Drug Offenders. “I think we want to be aggressive in going after those heavy duty drug dealers who are trying to poison children but we have jails all across this country which are filled with non violent drug users who need treatment and not jail cells. So I think there is a growing sentiment which I strongly support to undo some of the structures of this war on drugs which has caused just enormous amount of human suffering and huge expenditures of dollars.” [Brunch With Bernie, 5/1/15] Sanders Said That Incarcerating People For Nonviolent Offenses Was “Destroying A Lot Of Lives.” “The Vermont State legislature, and they’re certainly not alone, just recently passed legislation, as I understand it, would decriminalize possession of a small amount of marijuana. And I think you’re going to see that trend increasing all ofer the country. I think your point is right, that we are spending a lot of money and destroying a lot of lives by putting people who have not been involved in violent crime behind bars. So I think we have to rethink in a very significant way the entire war on drugs.” [Brunch With Bernie, 5/17/13, 25:00] Sanders: “Clearly The Trend Is To Decriminalize” When It Came To Marijuana, But Didn’t Indicate His Own Position On The Issue. “I think what you’re seeing is a significant evolution on this issue, Colorado has legalized marijuana, there is a lot of debate in my state and states all over the country to move in that direction. I think people are trying to ascertain what is going on in Colorado, how well it is working, what problems may be arising. But I would say Floyd, like in many other issues, things don’t happen overnight, but clearly the trend is to decriminalize. I think you’re seeing more and more states decriminalizing marijuana, people who have small amounts of it. And that is the direction that it is moving. And you have on the other hand law enforcement folks who worry about marijuana leading to cocaine, leading to heroin which is a very serious problem and that’s kind of where the debate is right now. But there’s no question that I think the trend is toward a liberal direction in terms of marijuana.” [Brunch With Bernie, 2/6/15] Sanders Wanted To See Effects Of Legalization And Decriminalization Laws In States Before Making A “Final Opinion” On Marijuana Policy. “Colorado, some other states, are looking at, have looked at, have legalized it. In Vermont we de-criminalized it. I want to take a look at how that is going before I make a final opinion.” [Sanders Katie Couric Interview, Yahoo, 6/1/15] Sanders Said He Wanted To Learn More About Legalization Of Marijuana Before Deciding His Opinion On A National Level. “On Saturday, as he traveled to a campaign rally at the University of Denver, Sanders said he wanted to learn more about Colorado’s legalization of recreational pot before he talks about what he wants to see happen at the national level. “It’s something that we are going to look at,” he said. “In fact, I do want to talk to some people tonight and tomorrow to get a sense of what is going on in Colorado. We will be talking about this issue.”” [Denver Post, 6/23/15] Sanders Said Arresting Marijuana Users Was Not A High Priority As Mayor And That He Will Observe Colorado To Determine Whether Marijuana Should Be Nationally Legalized. “Question: Where do you stand on a nationwide legalization of marijuana? Sanders: [During my time as mayor], I don’t recall that too many of the [university students] were being arrested; it wasn’t an issue that we felt was of the highest priority of arresting kids who were smoking marijuana. I’m also on board legislation, have co-sponsored legislation, dealing with medical marijuana. I think Colorado was the first state in the country to legalize marijuana. I want to take a good look of the pluses and minuses of that, and we can go from there.” [WMUR-TV Interview with Senator Bernie Sanders, 03/20/2015, 23:50] Sanders Supported Vermont’s Decriminalization Of Possession Of Small Amounts Of Marijuana, As Well As Medical Marijuana. “Let me just say this -- the state of Vermont voted to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana and I support that. I have supported the use of medical marijuana. And when I was mayor of Burlington, in a city with a large population, I can tell you very few people were arrested for smoking marijuana. Our police had more important things to do. Colorado has led the effort toward legalizing marijuana and I'm going to watch very closely to see the pluses and minuses of what they have done. I will have more to say about this issue within the coming months.” [Reddit, 5/19/15]  Headline: Bernie Sanders hints at support for legalized pot [The Hill, 5/19/15] Sanders: “I Smoked Marijuana Twice. Didn’t Quite Work for Me.” “‘I smoked marijuana twice. Didn’t quite work for me,’ the Vermont Independent senator told Couric. ‘I coughed a lot,’ he said. ‘It’s not my thing, but it is the thing for a whole lot of people.’” [Politico, 6/01/15] Bernie Sanders Said He Supported Legalizing Marijuana, Replied “Yes” When Asked If He Had Ever Used It. “It was amazing how many people had heard the morning radio show and had liked what I said. This radio show was interesting in that a man had called in and asked; ‘Did I hear Mr. Sanders say that he was for the legalization of marijuana?’ The commentator said; ‘Yes, he said that.’ The man said; ‘Could I ask Mr. Sanders if he has ever smoked marijuana?’ Strangely enough, despite all the times that I had talked about the need for legalizing marijuana, that was the first time that question was ever directly asked of me. I said, ‘Yes, I have smoked marijuana.’ And that was the end of that.” [Seven Days Vermont, 12/1/72] Sanders Said He Would Wait to See Effect of States’ Marijuana Legalization Laws Before Taking Stance. “When asked about his stance on the legalization of marijuana, Sanders was similarly cautious. He said he did not yet know whether he would support full legalization as Colorado and Washington state now have, some form of decriminalization as was passed in Vermont, or another measure, and will instead wait to see the results of the states’ new laws before deciding.” [Politico, 6/01/15] Sanders Said the War On Drugs Was Not Successful. “[Sanders] did, however, take a stand against the War on Drugs, which he said has ‘not been successful.’ ‘We have far far far too many people in jail for non-violent crimes,’ said Sanders.” [Politico, 6/01/15] Sanders: If You Wanted To Argue That Marijuana Was Less Harmful Than Tobacco, “You’d Probably Be Making A Correct Argument.” “And if you want to make the argument that maybe marijuana is less harmful to health than tobacco, I think you’d probably be making a correct argument. Some may disagree, but I think that’s probably true.” [Sanders Katie Couric Interview, Yahoo, 6/1/15] Sanders: “We Didn’t Arrest That Many People For Marijuana” While I Was The Mayor Of Burlington. “When I was mayor of the city of Burlington, which has a large University, and one or two of the kids were smoking marijuana we suspect, we didn’t arrest that many people for marijuana.” [Sanders Katie Couric Interview, Yahoo, 6/1/15] Sanders said, “It Would Be Hard For Me To Argue That Marijuana Is A Worse Product Than Tobacco.” “Caller: Senator, do you support the repeal of marijuana prohibition? Sanders: Let me tell you this, when I was mayor of Burlington, and we have a university town here, and I don’t think anybody got arrested for smoking marijuana, and I think what Colorado is doing is interesting. I’m not a great fan of drugs, I got to say that, on the other hand, it would be hard for me to argue with you that marijuana is worse product than tobacco. So I think let’s see what Colorado does and go from there.” [Brunch with Bernie, 9/26/14] Sanders Supported “Undo[ing] Some Of The Structures Of This War On Drugs,” Including Incarceration Of Nonviolent Drug Offenders. “I think we want to be aggressive in going after those heavy duty drug dealers who are trying to poison children but we have jails all across this country which are filled with non violent drug users who need treatment and not jail cells. So I think there is a growing sentiment which I strongly support to undo some of the structures of this war on drugs which has caused just enormous amount of human suffering and huge expenditures of dollars.” [Brunch With Bernie, 5/1/15] Sanders Proposed Enforcing Punishment For Drug Trafficking And Abuse. “The second bill in the Progressive Promise is The Equal Justice Before the Law Act, which is an anticrime package that retains key aspects of the anticrime legislation enacted in 1994 to prevent crime as well as punish that which happens; to crack down on white-collar crime—for example, S&L bailout, defrauding Federal Government on procurement, criminal penalties for willful violation of child labor laws by employers that result in serious bodily injury or death of minors in the workplace, eliminate deductibility of legal expenses when a company is accused of a crime—and on drug trafficking and abuse.” [Rep. Bernard Sanders, Congressional Record, 1/26/95] 1990: Bernie Sanders Said The Legalization Of Drugs Would “Doom An Entire Generation Of Young People.” “After Sandoval announced Monday that she favors legalizing drugs such as marijuana, cocaine and heroin, spokesmen for Smith and Sanders conveyed their respective candidates’ responses: A Smith staffer said the congressman opposes drug legalization and instead favors better drug education and treatment and improving the nation’s schools and job opportunities. A Sanders’ staffer read a similar statement prepared by the candidate, in which Sanders said legalization would ‘doom an entire generation of young people.’” [Burlington Free Press, 7/12/90] 1990: Bernie Sanders: “Making Drugs Cheaper And Available Will Doom An Entire Generation Of Young People, Often Low-Income And Minority, To A Sedated Life On Society’s Perimeter.” “On Monday, the day after the papers said she had 1.3 percent of the vote, she held a press conference calling for the legalization of drugs. […] Soon after the press conference, reporters called to get Bernie’s response. He dictated a short statement which I read. ‘I agree with many people, including the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who believe that making drugs cheaper and available will doom an entire generation of young people, often low-income and minority, to a sedated life on society’s perimeter.’” [Steven Rosenfeld, “Making History in Vermont: the Election of a socialist to Congress,” 1992, P.111] 1990: Bernie Sanders’ Democratic Opponent Charged That Bernie Sanders’ Portrayal Of The Drug Crisis Was “Racist.” “Democratic congressional candidate Dolores Sandoval on Wednesday lashed out at the two front-runners in Vermont’s U.S. House race, saying their responses to her call to legalize drugs were ‘racist.’ ‘I don’t think that they’re racist, but they have just taken in the racist image that has been portrayed in the media,’ Sandoval said, referring to Rep. Peter Smith, R-Vt., and Independent congressional candidate Bernard Sanders. […] Holding up a copy of Wednesday’s Burlington Free Press, she pointed to headlines on an article about a Colchester man pleading guilty to drug charges and a report of a Brattleboro man charged with growing marijuana, saying, ‘The organized criminal drug element is alive and well right here in the whitest state of the nation.’” [Burlington Free Press, 7/12/90] 1986: Sanders Decried “Ineffective” Use Of State Funds To Prosecute Marijuana Users And Supported An Individual’s Right To Engage In Any Activity In The Privacy Of Home. “The Burlington mayor also said that he believes it is ‘an ineffective’ use of state funds to prosecute marijuana users and that in general he supports an individual’s right to engage in any activity in the privacy of his own home as long as it does not endanger… [CUT OFF].” [Rutland Daily Herald, 8/20/86] 1972: Bernie Sanders Advocated The Legalization Of Marijuana. “In response to a number of students’ questions, Sanders advocated: […] --The legalization of marijuana.” [Bennington Banner, 10/25/72] 1971: The Liberty Union Party’s Platform Called For “The Abolition Of Compulsory Education” And The “Legalization Of… The Use Of Marijuana.” “Among other Liberty Union platform items are the abolition of compulsory education and the funding of alternative education; legalization of abortions and the use of marijuana; withdrawal of military forces from all foreign countries and the end of support for overseas dictatorships distribution of foreign aid through international agencies.” [Vermont Freeman, “Early November,” 1971] 1971: Bernie Sanders Ran On A Platform Calling For The Legalization Of All Drugs. “Freedom: ‘The government spies on its citizens, ignores civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution, and imposes penalties for crimes which have no victim.’ Sanders said he would seek an end to abortion laws, legalize all drugs, eliminate restrictions on birth control, and end all discrimination based on sex, race or anything else.” [Bennington Banner, 12/11/71] 1971: Bernie Sanders Advocated The Legalization Of Heroin. “About drugs, Sanders asked, ‘What does it say about this country when two kids in New York City die every day from an overdose of heroin? Everybody knows it’s a killer; the government tries to stop its use by making it illegal, and yet people keep taking it. They’re committing suicide, and they know it. What does that say about a young person’s will to live, about the value of human potential? If heroin were legal, at least we’d know the dimensions of the problem, and be able to deal with it rationally.’” [Bennington Banner, 12/11/71] Crime Prevention Sanders Co-Sponsored The Youth PROMISE Act. “Congressman Robert “Bobby” Scott (VA) and Senators Robert Casey (PA) and Olympia Snowe (ME) have introduced H.R. 1064 / S. 435, the “Youth Prison Reduction through Opportunities, Mentoring, Intervention, Support and Education Act” (the “Youth PROMISE Act”) to reduce crime before it happens by investing in research-based programs. The Youth PROMISE Act mobilizes community leaders and invests almost exclusively in prevention and intervention, as opposed to the standard approach, which is obviously not working, of waiting for a crime to occur and then putting the alleged criminals in jail. […] THE NAACP STRONGLY SUPPORTS THE YOUTH PROMISE ACT AND URGES EVERY MEMBER OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE TO SUPPORT AND COSPONSOR THIS IMPORTANT LEGISLATION.” [S 435, co-sponsored 12/2/09; NAACP press release, accessed 8/18/15] Voted Against 1991 Crime Bill Voted For The 1994 Crime Bill Bernie Sanders Voted For The 1994 Anti-Crime Bill Signed By President Clinton. On August 21, 1994, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #416. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the conference report to authorize $30.2 billion over six years and to require that all spending authorized by the bill come from a six-year, $30.2 billion crime trust fund realized from eliminating 270,000 federal jobs. The bill would authorize $6.9 billion for crime prevention programs, such as after-school sports leagues and job training programs, $8.8 billion for community policing programs and the hiring of 100,000 new police officers, and a $7.9 billion grant program to build state and local prisons. The bill also would ban 19 specific assault weapons, expand the death penalty to dozens of new federal crimes, mandate life imprisonment without parole for three-time violent felons, provide for community notification of violent sex offenders, allow prior sex offenses to be admitted in federal trials and require HIV testing when requested in federal rape trials. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #416, 8/21/1994] Bernie Sanders Voted Against Motion To Recommit Crime Bill With Instructions To Remove Crime Prevention Programs From The Bill. On August 21, 1994, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #415. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: McCollum, R-Fla., motion to recommit the conference report to conference with instructions to prioritize the authorizations to maximize programs for public safety and policing, prison construction and border patrol, after eliminating the crime prevention programs in the bill as outlined in a proposal made by Brewster, D-Okla., and Hunter, R-Calif. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #415, 8/21/1994] Bernie Sanders Voted For The 1994 Anti-Crime Bill. On April 21, 1994, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #144. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill to authorize more than $27.5 billion over six years for various anti-crime initiatives, including $13.5 billion for new prisons and more than $7 billion for crime prevention programs. The bill would require life imprisonment for threetime violent offenders, expand the death penalty to apply to dozens of federal crimes and authorize grants to hire 50,000 additional police officers. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #144, 4/21/1994] Supported The Crime Bill, Said Positives Outweighed The Negatives Sanders Spoke In Support Of The Bill Twice, Supported Increased Funding For Police, Children’s Programs, Addicts And Battered Women. “Sanders spoke in support of the rule and the bill twice Thursday before the vote. He told his colleagues that the nearly $57 million the state would receive during the next six years would mean additional police officers, a variety of children’s programs, help for drug addicts and programs for battered women.” [Gannett News Service via Burlington Free Press, 8/12/94] Sanders Said He Would Vote For The Crime Bill, Despite Opposing Some Provisions, Said That The Crime Control Provisions Outweighed The Negatives. “Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I will be voting in favor of the crime bill today, despite some provisions in it with which I stongly disagree because, on balance, its positive initiatives to control crime outweigh the negatives. But I want to make it clear that in my view, no approach toward crime will be effective if we continue to ignore the poverty, despair and hopelessness which are the root causes of crime.” [Rep. Bernard Sanders, Congressional Record, 8/11/94] Sanders Said “The Crime Bill Is Far From Perfect.” “Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, the crime bill is far from perfect, but I'm getting a little bit tired of hearing from some Members who criticize every program that will try to prevent young people from turning to crime, violence, and drugs as pork.” [Rep. Bernard Sanders, Congressional Record, 8/18/94] Sanders Supported Crime Prevention Provisions Of The Crime Bill And Supported Provisions To “Keep Young People From Turning To Crime, Drugs, And Violence.” “Let me be very clear, I do not consider it as pork or wasteful spending if we are successful in developing approaches which keep young people from turning to crime, drugs, and violence. In fact, I consider that money very well spent and an important investment for the future of this country. Further, when we spend $25,000 a year to keep one prisoner in jail, I consider crime prevention to be very cost effective for the taxpayers, in other words, I would prefer to spend a few hundred million dollars on a program which keeps kids from turning to crime than a hundred times more money keeping those same young persons in jail.” [Rep. Bernard Sanders, Congressional Record, 8/18/94] Sanders Was Upset That Republicans Tried To Defeat The Crime Bill; Sanders Voted For The Crime Bill. “Republicans succeeded Thursday in handing President Clinton a defeat on the anti-crime bill, but Rep. Bernard Sanders said it is the average person who will suffer if Congress can’t salvage the bill. “What upset me is that very clearly on the part of many Republicans, they wanted to give Bill Clinton a defeat,” Sander said. “There are a lot of provisions in this bill I don’t like, but I thought it meant more money for police in Vermont and more money for prevention programs.” He joined 11 Republicans and 198 Democrats in voting for a procedural rule to bring the $30.2 billion measure to the floor for debate and a vote. Fifty-eight Democrats and 167 Republicans, however, voted against it. The 225-210 vote leaves Democrats scrambling to pick up the pieces.” [Gannett News Service via Burlington Free Press, 8/12/94] Sanders Said The Violence Against Women Funding In The Crime Bill Was “Perhaps Most Important To Me.” “Perhaps most important to me, however, this crime bill will provide $8 million dollars to Vermont to allow us to deal with the epidemic of violence against women. In Vermont, there were six women murdered last year, and every single one of them was killed by an abusive spouse or partner-and God only knows how many other women were beaten and assaulted. This bill, through funding for a wide variety of services, will finally allow us to give women the protection that they have long been denied.” [Rep. Bernard Sanders, Congressional Record, 8/11/94] Supported Increased Funding For Specific Programs, Including Drug And Crime Enforcement Sanders Supported Increased Funding For Police, Drug And Crime Enforcement, Anti-Crime And Children’s Programs In The Crime Bill. “Mr. Speaker, at a time when increased property taxes in Vermont are placing a very painful burden on our citizens, it is absolutely appropriate that the Federal Government play an increased role in helping our communities address the crime problem. Under this legislation the State of Vermont will receive at least $44 million dollars to hire more than 500 new Police officers; $6.5 million for drug and crime enforcement in our most rural areas; $3 million for our cities and towns to use in ways they feel useful, and $1.2 million for a variety of children's programs.” [Rep. Bernard Sanders, Congressional Record, 8/11/94] Sanders Criticized Opponents Who Called The Crime Bill “Pork”, Said That It Would Protect People Against Crime. “But when some of us ask, Why is it that we have the highest rate of incarceration in the world; why is it that we have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world; why is it that our kids drop out of school; and why is it that we are not feeding hungry kids and providing jobs for our kids and educational opportunities for our kids? They say that is pork. Mr. Speaker, let us get our priorities right. Let us protect the people. Let us protect them against crime.” [Rep. Bernard Sanders, Congressional Record, 8/11/94] Spoke Out Against High Incarceration Rate Sanders Said That The U.S. “Already Imprison[ed] More People Per Capita Than Any Other Country” And Said That The Country Needed To Choose Between Creating More Jobs And Building More Jails. “And Mr. Speaker, all the jails in the world, and we already imprison more people per capita than any other country, and all of the executions in the world, will not make that situation right. We can either educate or electrocute. We can create meaningful jobs, rebuilding our society, or we can build more jails.” [Rep. Bernard Sanders, Congressional Record, 8/11/94] Sanders Said That The U.S. Had The Highest Per Capita Incarceration Rate In The World And Needed To Address “The Root Causes Of Crime.” “Mr. Speaker, given the fact that we already have the highest rate per capita of incarceration in the entire world, I think that it's high time that we begin to look at the root causes of crime which have an enormous amount to do with poverty, lack of education, lack of jobs, and lack of hope.” [Rep. Bernard Sanders, Congressional Record, 8/18/94] Sanders Said Reaching A Compromise On The Crime Bill Would Be Difficult. “But the coalition of Democrats opposed to a ban on 19 types of semi-automatic weapons and Republicans who called the bill soft on crime because of $8 billion earmarked for youth outreach programs prevailed. Sanders said he had expected the vote on the rule to be close. Lawmakers milled around on the floor to watch the tally, and Sanders said Democratic lawmakers were tense. Democrats will try to devise a compromise acceptable to the House and the Senate, but Sanders said he thinks it will be a tricky balancing act.” [Gannett News Service via Burlington Free Press, 8/12/94] Criticized Funding For Building Prisons Sanders Said He Would Have Preferred That The Crime Bill Include More Preventive Measures And Less Prison-Building. “Sanders also oppose the death penalty provisions, and said he would prefer a bill that stresses more preventive measures and less prison-building. “This legislation is not perfect,” Sanders said. “Very little that comes out of Washington is perfect.” ” [Burlington Free Press, 8/17/94] Opposed Death Penalty Provisions Sanders Voted For An Amendment To Substitute Life Imprisonment For The Death Penalty Provisions in The Bill. “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, wherever a Federal law provides for the imposition of the penalty of death, the court shall instead impose the penalty of imprisonment for life.” [H. Amdt 503 to HR 4092, Vote #107, 4/14/94] Sanders Opposed The Crime Bill’s Death Penalty Provisions. “Sanders also oppose the death penalty provisions, and said he would prefer a bill that stresses more preventive measures and less prison-building. “This legislation is not perfect,” Sanders said. “Very little that comes out of Washington is perfect.” ” [Burlington Free Press, 8/17/94] 1994: Burlington Free Press: Sanders Said The Good Parts Of The Crime Bill Outweighed The Bad, And That The Death Penalty Was Rarely Applied In Federal Cases. “The death penalty, another hot-button issue, has not figured prominently in this campaign. Both candidates [Sanders and Carroll] oppose it, but Sanders was criticized for voting for the crime bill, which expanded the list of federal crimes punishable by death penalty. Sanders said the good parts of the bill, such as more money for prisons, police and crime-prevention programs, outweighed the bad, and in any case the death penalty is rarely applied in federal cases.” [Burlington Free Press, 10/28/94] Sanders’ 2006 Campaign Website Had A Section Highlighting His “Tough On Crime” Votes, Including The 1994 Crime Bill Sanders Campaign Website Had A Section Called “BERNIE SANDERS' STRONG RECORD OF SUPPORTING TOUGH ON CRIME LEGISLATION” [Bernie Sanders For Senate Campaign Website, 10/18/06] Sanders’ Campaign Highlighted All Of Sanders Votes For Increased Funding For Police And AntiDrug Programs. “SANDERS: STRONG ON FUNDING POLICE AND ANTI-DRUG PROGRAMS Voted for Over $650 Million to Fight Crime. [Vote #104, 4/14/94, H.AMDT.499 on H.R.4092, passed 395-25, Sanders: Y] Voted for $200 Million for Local Police Programs. [Vote #193, 5/26/93, H.R.2244, passed 287-140, Sanders: Y] Voted for $1.8 Billion for Police Officers and $233 Million for Crime Prevention Programs. [Vote #571, 7/25/95, H.R.2076, Sanders: Y] Voted for $30.5 Million for Anti-Drug Program, the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program . [Vote #173, 6/20/01, H.R.2216, failed 212-216, Sanders: Y] Voted for $175 Million for Public Housing Drug Elimination Program. [Vote #287, 7/27/01, H.R.2620, failed 197-213, Sanders: Y] Voted for $9 Million for Anti-Drug Program, the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program. [Vote #343, 6/29/05, H.R.3058, passed 315-103, Sanders: Y]” [Bernie Sanders For Senate Campaign Website, 10/18/06] Sanders Campaign Highlighted His Support For The COPS Programs, Including His Vote For The Crime Bill That Created The Program. “SANDERS: STRONG ON THE COPS PROGRAM Voted for the 1994 Crime Bill that Created the COPS Program. [Vote #416, 8/21/94, conference report on H.R.3355, Sanders: Y] Voted for $7.5 Billion for Cops on the Beat Program . [Vote #124, 2/14/95, H.R.728, failed 196-235, Sanders: Y] Voted for Reauthorization of COPS Program . [Vote #232, 6/17/99, H.R.1501, failed 191-233, Sanders: Y] Voted for $300 Million Increase to $1.3 Billion Total for COPS Program . [Vote #386, 8/5/99, H.R.2670, failed 208-219, Sanders: Y] Voted for $11.7 Million Increase for COPS Meth Seizure Program . [Vote #233, 7/17/01, H.R.2500, failed 187-227, Sanders: Y] Voted for $106.9 Million for the COPS Program. [HR 4754, Vote #330, 7/7/04; CQ Vote Report #330, 7/7/04; Houston Chronicle, 2/3/04; New York Times, 5/25/04; R 74-148; D 131-64; I 1-0] Voted for $200 Million for Local Law Enforcement Including $100 Million for COPS . [Vote #244, 6/14/05, H.R.2862, failed 196-230, Sanders: Y] Voted for $10 Million Increase in Funding for COPS Program . [Vote #248, 6/14/05, H.R.2862, failed 260-168, Sanders: Y]” [Bernie Sanders For Senate Campaign Website, 10/18/06] Sanders’ Campaign Boasted That He “Has Voted for Over $186 Billion for the Justice Department to Fight Crime.” “Sanders Has Voted for Over $186 Billion for the Justice Department to Fight Crime. Sanders has a strong record of voting for funding for the Justice Department to fight crime. [Vote #154, 6/13/91, H.R.2608, Sanders: Y; Vote #354, 7/30/92, H.R.5678, Sanders: Y; Vote #517, 10/19/93, H.R.2519, Sanders: Y; Vote #408, 8/18/94, H.R.4603, Sanders: Y; Vote #135, 4/25/96, H.R.3019, Sanders: Y; consolidated appropriations: Vote #455, 9/28/96, H.R.3610, Sanders: Y; omnibus bill: Vote #355, 7/30/98, H.R.4328, Sanders: Y; Vote #538, 10/20/98, conference report to H.R.4328, Sanders: Y; consolidated appropriations: Vote #610, 1/18/99, H.R.3194, Sanders: Y; consolidated appropriations: Vote #603, 12/15/00, H.R.4577, Sanders: Y; Vote #438, 11/14/01, H.R.2500, Sanders: Y; consolidated appropriations: Vote #542, 11/20/04, H.R.4818, Sanders: Y; Vote #268, 6/16/05, H.R.2862, Sanders: Y]” [Bernie Sanders For Senate Campaign Website, 10/18/06] Sanders’ Campaign Highlighted His Support For The Crime Bill And Its Creation Of the Violence Against Women Act. “Sanders Voted for Violence Against Women Act and Tried to Restore It After the Supreme Court Overturned it in 2000. In 1994 Sanders voted for the 1994 Crime Bill that created the Violence Against Women Act and he voted in 2000 to reauthorized the program. The program provided grants to combat violence against women, created a domestic violence hotline, funding battered women's shelters, and educating judges and court personnel. In 1998, Sanders also was an original cosponsor of legislation to further the program and provided additional assistance to children who are victims of violence. In May 2000, the Supreme Court ruled that the act violated portions of the commerce clause that allows Congress to regulate interstate Commerce. Sanders cosponsored legislation to restore provisions of the program and is currently a cosponsor of legislation to reauthorize the program. [Vote #416, 8/21/94, conference report on H.R.3355, Sanders: Y; Vote #491, 9/26/00, H.R.1248, passed 415-3, Sanders: Y; H.R.3514, 105 th Congress, introduced 3/19/98; H.R.5021, 106 th Congress, introduced 7/27/00; H.R.3171, 109 th Congress, introduced 6/30/05]” Sanders Campaign Said He Had A Strong Record Fighting Crimes Against Women, Cited His Vote For The Crime Bill Creating Community Notification Of Sex Offenders And Allowing Rape Victims to Request HIV Status Of Attackers. “Bernie Sanders has a strong record of achievement in Congress when it comes to fighting the worst kinds of crimes against women. He has voted to give rape victims the right to request the HIV status of their attacker; voted for community notification of violent sex offenders; voted for the creation of the national sex offender database; and voted for life sentences without parole for repeat sex offenders. Bernie has also done so much to help Vermont women who are the victims of violence. In November 2001, he secured $100,000 for the building renovation and construction of a battered women's shelter in St. Albans . In November 2004, he secured $72,750 in funding for the Vermont Network Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault for the construction and rehabilitation of domestic violence shelters in Vermont.” [Bernie.org via Archive.org, accessed 8/24/15] White Collar Crime Sanders Proposed Punishment For “White-Collar Crime” In The Equal Justice Before The Law Act. “The second bill in the Progressive Promise is The Equal Justice Before the Law Act, which is an anticrime package that retains key aspects of the anticrime legislation enacted in 1994 to prevent crime as well as punish that which happens; to crack down on white-collar crime—for example, S&L bailout, defrauding Federal Government on procurement, criminal penalties for willful violation of child labor laws by employers that result in serious bodily injury or death of minors in the workplace, eliminate deductibility of legal expenses when a company is accused of a crime—and on drug trafficking and abuse.” [Rep. Bernard Sanders, Congressional Record, 1/26/95] Sanders Proposed Elimination Of Legal Expense Deductions When Company Is Accused Of Crime. “The second bill in the Progressive Promise is The Equal Justice Before the Law Act, which is an anticrime package that retains key aspects of the anticrime legislation enacted in 1994 to prevent crime as well as punish that which happens; to crack down on white-collar crime—for example, S&L bailout, defrauding Federal Government on procurement, criminal penalties for willful violation of child labor laws by employers that result in serious bodily injury or death of minors in the workplace, eliminate deductibility of legal expenses when a company is accused of a crime—and on drug trafficking and abuse.” [Rep. Bernard Sanders, Congressional Record, 1/26/95] Has A Mixed Record On Prohibiting Prisoners From Pell Grants Bernie Sanders Voted Against An Amendment To Prohibit Prisoners From Access To Pell Grants. On April 20, 1994, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #136. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Gordon, D-Tenn., amendment to prohibit awarding Pell grants to federal and state prisoners. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #136, 4/20/1994]  Bernie Sanders To Ban Prisoners From Pell Grants If A Study Certified The Grants Were Not Cost Effective At Reducing Recidivism. On April 20, 1994, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #137. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Wynn, D-Md., amendment to prohibit awarding Pell Grants to federal, state and local prisoners after Jan. 1, 1996, unless the secretary of Education certifies the grants reduce recidivism, are cost-effective, and the inmates make satisfactory progress toward completion of an education program. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #137, 4/20/1994] Supported Federal Funding For Local Police, Including Bryne Memorial Grants 1991: Bernie Sanders Voted To Establish A Police Corp Program To Provide Scholarships For Those Who Commit to Serve As Police For Four Years. On October 22, 1991, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #325. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: McCurdy, D-Okla., amendment to establish a Police Corps program that provides a federal college scholarship of up to $10,000 per year in return for a four-year commitment to serve in a state or local police force. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #325, 10/22/1991] 1994: Bernie Sanders Voted To Establish A Police Corp Program To Provide Scholarships For Those Who Commit to Serve As Police For Four Years On April 20, 1994, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #138. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: McCurdy, D-Okla., amendment to authorize $100 million in fiscal 1995 and $250 million in fiscal 1996 for a police corps program that would provide up to $10,000 a year to individuals in return for a four-year commitment to serve in law enforcement, and authorize $30 million in each of fiscal 1995-99 for scholarships to current law enforcement personnel to further their education. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #138, 4/20/1994] Bernie Sanders Voted To Increase Funding For The Bryne Memorial Grant Program. On July 26, 1995, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #572. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Mollohan, D-W.Va., amendment to increase funding by $30 million to $505 million for the Byrne Memorial grant program, which provides assistance to state and local governments for drug control and law enforcement, and offset the costs by cutting funding, from $300 million to $270 million, for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, which provides grants to reimburse states for the cost of incarcerating illegal aliens who commit serious crimes. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #572, 7/26/1995] Supported Mandatory Minimums Bernie Sanders Voted For Mandatory Minimum Sentences For Possession Of A Gun While Committing A Violent Crime Or Drug Trafficking Offense . On February 24, 1998, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #18. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: McCollum, R-Fla., motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill to impose mandatory minimum sentences for possession of a gun while committing a violent crime or drug trafficking offense. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #18, 2/24/1998] Voted For Increased Federal Support For States To Build Prisons Bernie Sanders Voted To Increase Federal Grants For States To Build Prisons On April 19, 1994, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #124. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Chapman, D-Texas, amendment to increase the authorization for grants to states for prison construction by $10.5 billion to $13.5 billion. The amendment would distribute 75 percent of the money based on a state's violent crime rate, and the other 25 percent would be distributed as an incentive for states to comply with "Truth in Sentencing Laws," which require long prison terms for violent offenders. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #124, 4/19/1994] Voted To Codify Civil Asset Forfeiture Law Bernie Sanders Voted To Codify Civil Asset Forfeiture Laws As Part Of A Reform Package. On June 24, 1999, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #255. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill to establish general rules for civil forfeiture proceedings. The bill would establish that a lack of consent or a lack of knowledge is sufficient for property owners to employ the "innocent owner" defense against a government attempt to seize property, if the owner took reasonable steps to prevent the illegal use of the property. Under the bill, in order to seize property, the government would have to prove that the property was used in an illegal act, not just allege it. The bill would allow seized property to be released to the owner if continued seizure would cause "substantial hardship" for the property owner; would allow courts to appoint counsel to property owners who cannot afford representation while challenging a seizure; and would allow owners to sue the government for negligence if the property is damaged or lost while in the government's possession. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #255, 6/24/1999] Voted Against PROTECT Act Sanders, Ron Paul And 12 Democrats Voted Against House Version Of The Child Abduction Prevention Act. [HR 1104, Vote #89, 3/27/03] Democrats Voting Against House Version Included Reps. Conyers, Lee, And Waters. The following Democrats voted against the Child Abduction Prevention Act – CBC members: John Conyers (MI), Jesse Jackson, Jr (IL), Stephanie Tubbs Jones (OH), Barbara Lee (CA), Bobby Scott (VA), Maxine Waters (CA), Mel Watt (NC); other Dems: Jim McDermott (WA), Alan Mollohan (WV), Jim Oberstar (MN), Martin Sabo (MN), Pete Stark (CA). [HR 1104, Vote #89, 3/27/03] Sanders, Ron Paul And 23 Democrats Voted Against Conference Report Of Bill, Titled The PROTECT Act. [S 151, Vote #127, 4/10/03] Democrats Voting Against Conference Report Also Included Reps. Cummings, Lewis, Frank and Kucinich. In addition to all of the Democrats who voted against the House version, the following Democrats voting against the conference report of the PROTECT Act – CBC members: Frank Ballance (NC), William Clay (MO), Elijah Cummings (MD), Danny Davis (IL), Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (MI), John Lewis (GA), Donald Payne (NJ), Edolphus Towns (NY); other Dems: Barney Frank (MA), Dennis Kucinich (OH), Jerrold Nadler (NY). [S 151, Vote #127, 4/10/03] PROTECT Act Established National Amber Alert Coordinator And Strengthened Punishments For Crimes Against Children PROTECT Act Codified National Amber Alert Coordinator And Strengthened Law Enforcement’s Ability To Prevent And Punish Crimes Against Children. “The Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today (PROTECT) Act, signed into law on April 30, 2003, comprehensively strengthened law enforcement’s ability to prevent, investigate, prosecute, and punish violent crimes committed against children. The PROTECT Act codified the previously-established National AMBER Alert Coordinator role in the Department of Justice.” [Department Of Justice, accessed 8/24/15] Bill Passed By A Wide Margin Despite Criticism Of Sentencing Provisions Inserted By House Republicans Conference Report Incorporated The House Version, HR 1104, Including Sentencing Provisions That Limited Discretion Of Federal Judges. “Despite increasing pressure on the House to take up the Senate's stand-alone AMBER plan bill (S 121), particularly after the rescue of Utah teenager Elizabeth Smart, the House passed a bill (HR 1104) that included a number of provisions to increase penalties for sex crimes against children, ban computer-generated or "virtual" child pornography, and limit the ability of federal judges to depart from sentencing guidelines, in addition to the AMBER plan provisions. After passing HR 1104, by a vote of 410 to 4 the House then took up S 151, inserted the provisions of HR 1104, passed the amended bill by unanimous consent and requested a conference with the Senate.” [CQ House Action Report, 4/9/03] Justice Rehnquist Wrote That The Legislation “Would Do Serious Harm” To The Sentencing Guideline System And “Seriously Impair The Ability Of Courts To Impose Just And Responsible Sentences.” “Some of the sentencing provisions drew fire from Rehnquist, who as chief justice of the U.S. heads the federal Judicial Conference, a policymaking group of top judges that advises Congress. "The Judicial Conference believes that this legislation, if enacted, would do serious harm to the basic structure of the sentencing guideline system and would seriously impair the ability of courts to impose just and responsible sentences," Rehnquist wrote in a letter to Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.).” [Los Angeles Times, 4/11/03] At Press Conference With CBC Chair Rep. Cummings, Sen. Daschle Criticized House Republicans For Inserting Controversial Language Into Amber Alert Bill. "The final issue that I would raise is that we also hope we can resolve this matter of Amber Alert. At the last moment, unfortunately, our Republican colleagues in the House inserted very, very controversial language regarding sentencing guidelines. [...] We are looking into what procedural opportunities there may be to strip out this offensive language and hopeful that before this bill is sent to the president it can be done in the right way. We strongly support the AMBER alert system. It ought to be passed. But it ought not pass with the blow that it causes to the sentencing guidelines infrastructure that we have in our country today." [Media Availability with Sen Daschle and Rep. Cummings, 4/10/03] Sen. Daschle Accused Republicans Of “Kidnapping” Bill To Achieve “Partisan And Wholly Unrelated Goals Gutting Judicial Sentencing Guidelines.” “Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) accused Republicans of "kidnapping the Amber alert bill in an attempt to achieve partisan and wholly unrelated goals gutting judicial sentencing guidelines." Still, he voted for the measure, a testament to the political popularity of other parts of it.” [Los Angeles Times, 4/11/03] On Day Of Senate Vote, Sen. Leahy Issued A 33 Page Statement Denouncing House Republicans For Inserting Sentencing Provisions He Feared Would Be Ruled Unconstitutional. “The same day, Leahy issued a 33-page statement denouncing the Republican-led House for tacking provisions onto the bill that he feared would be ruled unconstitutional. "After months and months of trying, we've finally gotten a green light for a national Amber Alert program," Leahy said in his April 10, 2003, statement. "The problem has never been winning enough support to pass it. The problem has been that our bill has garnered such strong support that it has been abused as a sweetener for highly controversial add-ons." Among the add-ons placed on the bill by House Republicans was one restricting the discretion of federal judges in crafting sentences for a range of crimes.” [Associated Press, 9/21/06] Despite Criticisms, PROTECT Act Passed Senate 98-0. “Sanders was one of only 14 House members to vote against the bill, which passed the Senate 98-0, with U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. -- a Sanders supporter -- voting in favor.” [Associated Press, 9/21/06] PROTECT Act Became A Central Campaign Issue For Sanders In 2006 Sanders Vote Against Child Abduction Protection Act Became A “Central Campaign Issue” In 2006. “On March 27, 2003, U.S. Rep. Bernard Sanders voted against a bill that would have set up a national coordinator for the Amber Alert system, which warns the public when a child has been kidnapped. It's a vote that has come back to haunt him, and one that demonstrates the political liability that can come from even the most well-intentioned "nay" or "yea." The vote has become a central issue in the heated campaign between Sanders, an independent, and Republican Richard Tarrant, in the race to succeed retiring U.S. Sen. James Jeffords.” [Associated Press, 9/21/06] Brattleboro Reformer: Sanders’ 2004 Opponent Used Similar Attack That Was Denounced By Democrats And Republicans. “Parke tried a similar attack ad in 2004 and it was quickly pulled off the air after Republicans and Democrats alike denounced it. Sanders apparently knew something similar was coming from Tarrant, for he reportedly taped a response ad several months ago to be used the moment Tarrant started attacking him. "For months, my opponent Rich Tarrant has been spending millions telling us about himself," said Sanders in the response ad. "Well, it's his right and he can spend it if he wants to. But he has no right to distort my record or what I stand for."” [Editorial, Brattleboro Reformer, 9/5/06] Sanders Campaign Said He Supported Amber Alert System, But Felt Sentencing Provisions In The Bill Were Unconstitutional Sanders Campaign Manager Said He Voted Against The Amber Alert Bill Because He Felt The Sentencing Provisions Were An Unconstitutional Intrusion By Congress Onto The Judicial Branch. “Among the add-ons placed on the bill by House Republicans was one restricting the discretion of federal judges in crafting sentences for a range of crimes. Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver said Sanders is a strong supporter of the Amber Alert program, and signed onto a 2004 letter to the House leadership requesting full funding for it. But Sanders voted against the Amber Alert bill because he felt its sentencing provisions were an unconstitutional intrusion by Congress, taking power that should rest with the judiciary.” [Associated Press, 9/21/06] Sanders Campaign Manager Said He Voted Against The Bill Because It Would Have Taken Sentencing Authority Away From Federal Judges And Juries. “Sanders voted against the bill because a provision would have taken authority from federal judges and juries, tying their hands and giving power to the sentencing commission, according to Waver. Sanders supports the Amber Alert program, he said.” [Associated Press, 8/22/06] Sanders Campaign Said He Supported Mandatory Minimums, But That The Amber Alert Bill Restricted Sentencing Much More Broadly. “Lennon said Sanders "wants to have it both ways" on restricting sentences. He noted that Sanders says on his Web site that he supports mandatory minimum sentences for repeat sex offenders. Sanders' camp said there is no inconsistency. Congress often passes mandatory minimum sentences for various crimes, but Sanders believed the sentencing provisions in the Amber Alert bill restricted sentencing in a much broader way, Weaver said.” [Associated Press, 9/21/06] Sanders Campaign Manager Noted That Sanders Secured Federal Funding For Local Police Departments To Purchase Technology To Help When Children Were Reported Missing. “Weaver countered that Sanders voted against the Amber alert bill because it included provisions usurping the role of an independent sentencing commission, provisions Sanders considered unconstitutional. Weaver noted Sanders has a record of support for the Amber Alert program and secured $130,000 for local police departments to acquire new technology to help them when children are reported missing.” [Burlington Free Press, 8/22/06] Sanders Noted That “Provisions Of The Bill” Were Ruled Unconstitutional. “Sanders has begun his own ad in response. He told Channel 3, "It turns out there were provisions in this bill (the Amber Alert legislation) that the United States Supreme court has since ruled unconstitutional. Why would any member of the United State Congress vote for provisions that are unconstitutional? Of course, I support Amber Alert, of course, I support very strong sentencing for anybody who would do anything terrible to a child. Who wouldn't?" [WCAX, 8/23/06] At The Time, The 11th Circuit Court Of Appeals Had Ruled That “Anti-Pandering” Portions Of The Bill Were Unconstitutionally Broad. “Williams challenged the constitutionality of the anti-pandering law, saying it was too broad and could affect the marketing of movies that depict — but do not truly show — children engaged in sex, such as Lolita, the tale of a middle-aged man obsessed with a young girl. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit agreed that the law could sweep too broadly. It said the law could also cover an e-mail sent by a grandparent that said, "Good pics of kids in bed," attached to innocent pictures of children in pajamas.” [USA Today, 5/19/08; United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, US v Williams, 4/6/06] In 2008, The Supreme Court Reversed The 11th Circuit Decision, Ruling That The Provisions Did Not Violate The First Amendment. “By a 7-2 vote, the court rejected arguments that the law was written so broadly that it could be used against the marketing of legitimate films such as the classic Lolita. The court had struck down previous laws targeting pornographic images on the Internet, saying the provisions could have affected images protected by the First Amendment. […] In reversing the 11th Circuit, Scalia emphasized that child pornography is not covered by the First Amendment — which does protect sexually explicit materials involving adults. Scalia stressed that the law aimed at the marketing of child porn contained safeguards to ensure that it not be used to prosecute hapless grandparents or promoters of movies that include faked child sex.” [USA Today, 5/19/08] Sanders Criticized Tarrant For Claiming That Sanders Insufficiently Fought Child Pornography. “Rich Tarrant is once again distorting Bernie Sanders' strong record of protecting children and cracking down on child pornography. The truth is that Bernie voted against provisions that were supported by John Ashcroft- and already ruled as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Not only that, but Bernie Sanders has voted to double federal funding to fight child pornography. [Vote #215, 5/25/06, H.R.5441, passed 348-74, Sanders: Y] So what is Republican Rich Tarrant talking about? Republican Rich Tarrant is trying to distort Bernie's record and create a reality that is just not true.” [Bernie.org via Archive.org, accessed 8/26/15] Sanders Campaign Criticized Republicans For Holding Vote On Child Pornography Prevention Law That Supreme Court Struck Down As Unconstitutional. “In 2002, the United States Supreme Court struck down the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, because it was too broad and could subject filmmakers who might make a film based on Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. Since Shakespeare's Juliet was only 13 years old, Justice Kennedy said , modern productions of 'Romeo and Juliet' could theoretically be vulnerable under the law , along with such Academy Award-winning films as 'Traffic' and 'American Beauty,' which depict teenagers in explicit sexual situations." [ New York Times , 4/17/02] Once the Supreme Court struck down the law, Congress had three choices. Do nothing. Obviously -- an unacceptable choice. Or they could pass a bill that would pass Supreme Court scrutiny or they could choose to play politics with this critically important issue. Instead of redrafting the law so that it could pass Constitutional muster, the Republican leadership in the House choose to pass almost exactly the same language that the Supreme Court had just struck down.” [Bernie.org via Archive.org, accessed 8/26/15] Sanders Campaign Claimed That Tarrant Dishonestly Attacked Sanders As Opposing The Amber Alert. “Like his other dishonest attacks, Republican Rich Tarrant's desperate attempt to disparage Congressman Bernie Sanders' strong record of fighting for Vermont's children just won't work in Vermont. Tarrant accuses Bernie of voting against Amber Alert. The truth is that Bernie supports Amber Alert but Republicans would not offer a clean vote on the Amber Alert program-in a cheap stunt to score political points. Bernie voted against unconstitutional provisions within the bill. And that's not just Bernie's opinion. The entire sentencing scheme that these provisions were part of has been thrown out as unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court.” [Bernie.org via Archive.org, accessed 8/25/15] Sanders Secured $130,000 for the State of Vermont 's “A Child is Missing Program.” In 2005, Sanders secured funding for “ A Child is Missing,” which is instrumental in the search and early recovery procedures for missing children, elderly and mentally/physically challenged individuals during the first crucial hours of disappearance. The program provides statewide training sessions and materials not only for all Vermont policemen but for any employee of an association that deals with children, Alzheimer's patients, the elderly and the disabled. These funds would also be used to pay for the phone bills accrued by this service and the salaries of the phone technicians who staff the program 24 hours a day, 365 days a year . [H.R.2862, 109 th Congress, Vote #581, 11/9/05, H.R.2862, passed 397-19, Sanders: Y; Became Public Law No: 109-108, 11/22/05] Bernie Sanders Supports Full Funding for Amber Alert. Sanders is on the side of protecting children and supported fully funding for the AMBER alert. In 2004, he signed on to a Congressional letter that supported funding the AMBER alert program to ensure that state and local law enforcement could work effectively. [Congressional Letter to Frank Wolf and Jose Serrano, March 29, 2004] Bernie Sanders Voted to Double the Funding to Fight Child Pornography on the Internet. In May 2006, Sanders vote was for an amendment to the FY 07 Homeland Security appropriations bill to increase funding for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Cyber Crimes Unit by $5 million. This would double the budget of the unit which battles child pornography and exploitation on the internet. In 2003, ICE launched Operation PREDATOR, which is administered through the Cyber Crimes Center . Since 2003, Operation PREDATOR has arrested more than 7,500 child predators. [Vote #215, 5/25/06, H.R.5441, passed 348-74, Sanders: Y] Voted for Mandatory Life Sentences for Repeat Child Sex Offenders. [Vote #64, 3/14/02, H.R.2146, passed 382-34, Sanders: Y] Voted for Expansion of Wiretaps to Investigate Crimes Against Children. [Vote #175, 5/21/02, H.R.1877, passed 396-11, Sanders: Y] Voted to Include Sexual Abuse in Definition of Child Abuse . [Vote #477, 10/5/99, H.R.764, passed 424-0, Sanders: Y] Voted for Increased Funding for Child Abuse Prevention Programs to $20 Million . [Vote #4, 2/1/00, H.R.764, passed 410-2, Sanders: Y; became Public Law No: 106-177] Voted for Tougher Federal Sentencing Penalties for Violent Crimes Against Children . [Vote #214, 6/16/99, H.R.1501, passed 401-27, Sanders: Y] Voted for Zero Tolerance for Possession of Child Pornography and Increased Penalties for Internet Sexual Predators . [Vote #521, 10/12/98, H.R.3494, passed 400-0, Sanders: Y; Became Public Law No: 105-314] Voted for Increased Federal Penalties for Crimes Against Children and the Elderly. [Vote #148, 5/7/96, H.R.2974, passed 414-4, Sanders: Y] Voted for Tougher Federal Penalties for Child Sex Crimes. [Vote #283, 4/4/95, H.R.1240, passed 417-0, Sanders: Y; Became Public Law No: 104-71] Voted for Youth Offenders Alternative Punishment Bill. [Vote #590, 11/19/93, H.R.3351, passed 336-82, Sanders: Y] Voted for $500 Million for Youth Crime Prevention. [Vote #128, 2/14/95, H.R.728, failed 184247, Sanders: Y] Voted for Creation of Sex Offender Database. [Vote #43, 9/26/96, passed 423-1, H.R.3456, Sanders: Y; Senate version of bill passed by unanimous consent and became Public Law No: 104-236] Voted for $100 Million in Anti-Juvenile Gangs and Drug Trafficking Grants . [Vote #542, 11/3/93, H.R.3353, passed 413-12, Sanders: Y] Voted for $497 Million for Juvenile Justice Programs. [Vote #344, 7/23/96, H.R.3814, failed 99-326, Sanders: Y] Voted for $259 for Juvenile Crime Prevention Programs. [Vote #444, 9/25/97, H.R.2267, failed 129-291, Sanders: Y] COMMUNITIES OF COLOR Sanders Was “Less Comfortable Discussing Identity Politics” Sanders Advisor Admitted That He Is “Less Comfortable Discussing Identity Politics.” “One Sanders adviser has acknowledged that the senator, 73, is of an older generation — one a bit less comfortable discussing identity politics than the younger segments of the progressive base. But it’s also true that the senator’s frame of reference is limited — he represents Vermont, one of the whitest states in the country, and also a rural state with relatively few immigrants.” [Politico, 6/12/15] Seven Days: Sanders Was Generally Silent On Race Issues As Mayor, U.S. Representative And Senator. “Sanders' tiny degree of support in minority communities reflects his scant name recognition there in contrast with Clinton's. But it also stems from Sanders' general silence on race issues during his eight years as Burlington mayor, 16 years as a U.S. House member and nine years in the U.S. Senate. The 73-year-old socialist has focused on class inequities throughout his career, and that emphasis encompasses many of the fundamental concerns of African Americans and Latinos. But Vermont's 95 percent white makeup means "he hasn't been forced to look at these issues through the lens of color," says Hal Colston, the African American director of Partnership for Change, a Burlington-area group advocating greater inclusiveness in public education.” [Seven Days, 7/1/15] Despite His History Of Civil Rights Activism, Sanders Had “Little Direct Experience With Black Voters As A Politician.” “Even his own campaign advisers acknowledge that Mr. Sanders is virtually unknown to many African-Americans, an enormously important Democratic constituency. Though he led sit-ins as a civil rights activist in the 1960s, helped the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson Sr. pull off a surprising campaign victory in Vermont in 1988, and espouses liberal policy ideas broadly popular with many Democrats, Mr. Sanders has had little direct experience with black voters as a politician in a state that is 95 percent white. And they have been largely absent from his campaign events so far.” [New York Times, 6/24/15] Bernie Sanders: "We Are The Whitest State In America." "'We are the whitest state in America [1,139 blacks at last count],' said Burlington Mayor Bernard Sanders, who had endorsed Jackson. 'I think it's an extraordinary showing.'" [AP, 3/1/88] Vox: “Sanders Has Never Had To Win An Election By Working To Appeal To White, Black, And Latino Voters All At Once.” “But Sanders has only been able to build a career on talking about his own political principles, and assuming voters will respond, because he's in an unusual position for a Democratic (or Democratic-affiliated) politician. Sanders's Vermont is pretty homogeneous: 94 percent white, 96 percent American-born, relatively well-educated. Sanders has never had to win an election by working to appeal to white, black, and Latino voters all at once — he's won election after election by successfully representing the concerns of a single constituency. Most Democratic politicians at the statewide level don't have that option.” [Vox, 5/27/15] June 2015: Sanders “Has Yet To Take The Subject [Race Relations] On In A Forceful Way.” “And Mrs. Clinton is hardly sitting still: She has spoken out assertively on race relations and gun control over the past week, and she visited a black church on Tuesday near Ferguson, Mo., where the killing of an unarmed black man by a white police officer in August ignited protests. Mr. Sanders has lamented “the ugly stain of racism that still taints our nation,” but he has yet to take the subject on in a forceful way.” [New York Times, 6/24/15] At His Presidential Announcement Event, Sanders’ Speakers Were Nearly All White And His Speech “Made No Mention Of Problems Of Deep Concern To Many AfricanAmericans.” “The challenge facing Mr. Sanders as a Ben & Jerry’s candidate seeking the nomination of President Obama’s party was on vivid display last month in Burlington, Vt., at his first campaign rally. Nearly all the speakers who preceded him — including the two ice cream entrepreneurs — were white, as were nearly all the supporters, many of them in tie-dyed clothes, who thronged a park on the shores of Lake Champlain. His jeremiads about campaign-finance overhaul and climate change inspired cheers and ovations. But he made no mention of problems of deep concern to many African-Americans, like policing, gun control, racial inequities or the high numbers of black men in prison.” [New York Times, 6/24/15] Huffington Post Column: “Sanders Has Never Been At The Forefront Of The Debate Around Issues Like Police Reform And Immigration.” “Sanders has never been at the forefront of the debate around issues like police reform and immigration. He's spent years in the Senate railing against the influence of Democratic bogeymen and billionaire oil barons Charles and David Koch. Moreover, his 2016 bid is widely viewed as a means to pressure the relatively centrist Hillary Clinton firmly into the progressive camp, especially on taxes and Wall Street reform.” [Huffington Post, 5/27/15] Vermont Partnership For Fairness And Diversity Executive Director: Bernie Sanders’s Message Is “Remarkably Consistent In That It Is Devoid Of Any Conversation About Race.” “But absent from his announcement were people like Curtiss Reed, the executive director for Vermont Partnership for Fairness and Diversity, who skipped the event because of Sanders' one-note emphasis on class. "His message is remarkably consistent in that it is devoid of any conversation around race.” [CNN, 7/19/15] Vermont Partnership For Fairness And Diversity Executive Director: Bernie Sanders Is “Colorblind To An Extent That It Seems That Race Is Something That Is Uncomfortable For Him To Talk About.” “‘He is colorblind to an extent that it seems that race is something that is uncomfortable for him to talk about. He is like a lot of Vermonters,’ Reed said. ‘It’s easy to rattle off statistics, but that’s not engaging people of color.’” [CNN, 7/19/15] Sanders: “What You Got Is An African-American President, And The African-American Community Is Very, Very Proud That This Country Has Overcome Racism And Voted For Him For President. And That's Kind Of Natural.” “Well, here's what you got. What you got is an African-American president, and the African-American community is very, very proud that this country has overcome racism and voted for him for president. And that's kind of natural. You've got a situation where the Republican Party has been strongly anti-immigration, and you've got a Hispanic community which is looking to the Democrats for help. But that's not important. You should not be basing your politics based on your color. What you should be basing your politics on is, how is your family doing? ... In the last election, in state after state, you had an abysmally low vote for the Democrats among white, working-class people. And I think the reason for that is that the Democrats have not made it clear that they are prepared to stand with the working-class people of this country, take on the big money interests. I think the key issue that we have to focus on, and I know people are uncomfortable about talking about it, is the role of the billionaire class in American society.” [NPR, 11/19/14] Washington Post’s Paul Waldman: “However Good His Intentions, Bernie Sanders Is A Longtime Democratic Politician Who Has Never Really Needed The Support Of The Single Most Important Democratic Constituency, African-Americans.” “I say that not because Sanders has a strong record on civil rights, though he does. And if the complaint is that Sanders isn’t talking about race as much as he could, well that’s true, too. The truth is that however good his intentions, Bernie Sanders is a longtime Democratic politician who has never really needed the support of the single most important Democratic constituency, African-Americans. He represents the whitest state in the union — only one percent of Vermonters are black. So he may not have the instinctive feel for what African-Americans care about that another politician who had of necessity spent years courting them and working with them would have developed.” [Washington Post, Plum Line, 7/20/15] Bernie Sanders Achieved Success In Reaching Out To Working Class Republicans And Libertarians In Vermont. “Sanders fits snugly into this maverick’s pantheon. But Leahy says his fellow senator appeals to an antiestablishment strain in Vermont that is not necessary liberal. Leahy notes that he himself is the only Democrat the state’s voters have ever elected to the Senate. Before 1992, only one Democratic presidential candidate carried Vermont -- Lyndon Johnson in 1964. ‘A lot of the lower-income parts of our state are Republican,’ Leahy says, adding that many of them are populated by rural libertarians who are greatly suspicious of government intrusion into individual rights. ‘I saw Bernie signs all over those parts of the state.’” [New York Times Magazine, 1/21/07] Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean: “The Only Electorate Bernie’s Not Been Tried Against Is The Electorate Of Color.” “Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean faced similar questions during his bid for the Democratic nomination in the 2004 election. Sanders’ bigger challenge will be showing he can connect with African American and Latino voters, Dean said. ‘Bernie’s coalition is very broad. It is the Ben and Jerry set, but it’s also white, working-class voters who feel nobody speaks for them,’ Dean said. ‘The only electorate Bernie’s not been tried against is the electorate of color.’” [Los Angeles Times, 7/6/15] Sanders Recognized That Vermont Was “Almost An All-White State” And Posed Challenges For Jesse Jackson, But Was Encouraged By His Showing In Iowa, “Also A Very White State.” “On March 1, in Vermont's presidential primary, Vermonters can play an enormously important role in the fight for social change. It is no secret that Vermont is almost an all-white state, and that many of the national "experts" believe that Jackson cannot win significant numbers of white voters. In Iowa, also a very white state, he did well in receiving 11% of the vote, five times more than he received in 1984. If Jackson can win Vermont, and some of us think that he can, it would tell the entire nation that a candidate who has put his life on the line fighting for the rights of all working people, regardless of race, can gain white support and be a viable national candidate.” [Sanders, “What President Jesse Jackson Could Mean for Vermont,” 1988] Sanders Planned Minority Outreach; Added Discussion Of Race, Civil Rights To Stump Speech Sanders’ Worked To Make Overcoming Racial Division A Staple Of His Agenda, A Sign He Wanted To Diversify His Support. “His message has focused heavily on middle-class economics, climate change and creating a single-payer health care system. But in a sign that he wants to diversify his support, Sanders has held events with black and Hispanic groups and made clear during appearances in Iowa that overcoming racial divisions would be a staple of his agenda.” [Associated Press, 8/16/15] HEADLINE: “Bernie Sanders Adds Race, Civil Rights To His Stump Speech” [CNN, 7/3/15] Sanders Said That Black And White Americans “Stood Up For Justice” And That “Change Came About, Not As Much As We Would Want.” “Bernie Sanders, the Vermont senator currently rising in polls against Hillary Clinton as they vie for the Democratic presidential nomination, responded to critics who say he hasn't done enough to appeal to non-white voters during his raucous rally in Madison, Wisconsin, on Wednesday. "All of you are aware of the tragic history of racism in America," Sanders said to a predominantly white audience on around 10,000 people. "But for a very long time, African-Americans and their white allies came together and they struggled and they stood up for justice and they stood up to lynching and they stood up to segregation and the stood up to a nation where African-Americans couldn't even vote in America." Sanders added, "And change came about, not as much as we would want."” [CNN, 7/3/15] CNN: Sanders’ New Focus On Race Relations In His Stump Speech Came During The Section Where “The Senator Speaks At Length About The Slow Process Of Change.” “The new refrain came during a portion of Sanders' stump speech where the senator speaks at length about the slow process of change. "All of you who are here this evening, I think, have an understanding about how real change takes place in our country and has historically taken place," Sanders said. "You are aware that change takes place from the bottom on up. It is never from the top on down. People on top are usually the last to know." The new focus on race relations comes at a time when the country as a whole has turned it's attention to such issues, in the wake of the Charleston massacre and a series of police-related deaths of African-Americans. Sanders also turned his comments on race and the fight for civil rights into a case for more economic equality.” [CNN, 7/3/15] MSNBC: Sanders’ Rally In Madison “Skewed Heavily White.” “Sanders has been attracting outsize crowds wherever he takes his unlikely presidential campaign. Five thousand came out for his kickoff rally in his hometown of Burlington, Vermont. Another 5,000 turned out in Denver, Colorado. In Minneapolis, a thousand listened from outside after the basketball arena where Sanders was speaking filled to capacity. But Madison was different. […] Supporters here are hopeful he can beat Clinton, but most said they would vote for Clinton if she were the Democratic Party’s nominee next year. The sea of faces skewed heavily white. Sanders, who hails from a state with a population that is 95% white, has acknowledged that most Democrats of color are unfamiliar with his message and vowed to address it.” [MSNBC, 7/1/15] Sanders Pledged “A Major Outreach Effort” To African-Americans And Hispanics To Educate People On His Background And Record. “But to be honest with you, given the disparity that we're seeing in income and wealth in this country, it applies even more to the African-American community and to the Hispanic community. And what we are going to do is make a major outreach effort to those communities, let people know my background, let people know my record, and I think we're going to do just fine in those communities.” [Transcript, ABC News, “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” 6/28/15] Sanders’ Campaign Strategist Tad Devine Said That Sanders Would Build On Its Hispanic Outreach In The Coming Months. “Tad Devine, Sanders' campaign strategist, said the candidate would be talking more to Latinos in the coming months, highlighting his record in Congress on immigration issues. The campaign is also hiring people to focus on Latino outreach and communications.” [Los Angeles Times, 6/21/15] HEADLINE: “Sanders’ Agenda For America Helps Minorities” [Press Release, Bernie 2016, 6/28/15] HEADLINE: “Sanders Says He Will Significantly Step Up His Outreach To Minority Voters” [Washington Post, 6/27/15] Sanders Said That The Economic Issues He Supported, Including Youth Unemployment, Tuition Free Public College, Raising The Minimum Wage And Infrastructure, Were Issues That Could Appeal To Black Voters. “SANDERS: Well, I'll tell you how you do that, George. You know, as somebody who has been involved in the civil rights movement for my entire adult life. I was arrested when I was a student protesting segregation of schools in Chicago, fought against segregated housing in Chicago, marched with Martin Luther King Jr. in the great march on Washington. I have a long history in fighting for civil rights. I understand that many people in the African-American community may not understand that. But I think the issues that we are dealing with, combating 51 percent African-American youth unemployment, talking about the need that public colleges and universities should be tuition free, raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, creating millions of jobs by rebuilding our infrastructure. These are issues that should apply to every American.” [Transcript, ABC News, “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” 6/28/15] Black Progressives Black Lives Matter Bernie Sanders Said That “Black Lives Matter – On The Streets, And On The Job Too.” “We must not condemn young people, especially in our minority communities, to lives that are even harsher than those of their parents. It is time to declare once and for all: Black lives matter—on     the streets, and on the job too.” [Bernie Sanders in “Youth Unemployment and Dr. King’s Dream” Medium Article, 6/11/15] Sanders Said That He Had No Problem Using The Phrase “Black Lives Matter,” Said “Black Lives Matter, White Lives Matter, Hispanic Lives Matter.” “GREENE: But if I may return to my question, we had the voice of a woman on our air who protested in Ferguson, she said she needs to hear her president say the lives of my children matter, my little black children matter. I mean, are you ready to go to Ferguson and say “black lives matter”? […] GREENE: It sounds like you wouldn’t have been ready to use that phrase if you were there. SANDERS: [Sigh] Phraseology, of course I’ll use that phrase. Black lives matter, white lives matter, Hispanic lives matter. But these are also not only police matters, they’re not only gun control matters, they are significantly economic matters.” [NPR, 6/25/15] Dismissive Of Obama Coalition Bernie Sanders Chief Of Staff: Obama Coalition Of Women And Minorities Wins You An Election But “Doesn’t Build A Lasting Coalition.” “Hearing this focus on white voters from a left-winger sounds odd in 2014. Over the past two presidential-election cycles, Barack Obama has cobbled together a coalition of outsiders—women, minorities, yuppies, and young people. In 2012, he won the lowest percentage of white voters for a Democratic candidate in 20 years. Especially with the country’s Hispanic population increasing, many Democrats view the Obama coalition as one that will only grow stronger with time. But Sanders, and those around him, are not impressed. ‘The Obama way,’ says the senator’s former chief of staff, Huck Gutman, now an English professor at the University of Vermont, ‘doesn’t build a lasting coalition. It wins you an election. Obama wins the election and then he runs into all this resistance. He does not have the country behind him.’ (Yes, Sanders’s former chief of staff teaches 19th-century American poetry.)” [National Journal Magazine, 6/21/14] Bernie Sanders: “You Should Not Be Basing Your Politics Based On Your Color. What You Should Be Basing Your Politics On Is, How Is Your Family Doing?” “BERNIE SANDERS: What you got is an African-American president. And the African-American community is very, very proud that this country has overcome racism and voted for him for president. And that's kind of natural. You got a situation where the Republican Party has been strongly anti-immigration. And you've got a Hispanic community, which is looking to the Democrats for help. But that's not important. You should not be basing your politics based on your color. What you should be basing your politics on is, how is your family doing? And your point is well taken.” [NPR, 11/19/14] Tied Ferguson and Baltimore To Youth Unemployment Sanders Said Black Youth Unemployment Was “A Greater Tragedy” Than Ferguson Shooting. “I think everybody is appalled by the apparent shooting of an unarmed young black man. And this is just an issue we’ve got to deal with all over the country. I’ve asked for the Department of Justice to investigate the situation, and we can’t have a situation in this country where young African American males walk down streets and worry about their lives. But there’s a point in the midst of all of the focus on this incident that I think has not been made. And that is as tragic as this particular incident is, there’s even a greater tragedy out there, and that is that youth unemployment in the African American community is somewhere between 30 and 40%.” [Brunch with Bernie, 8/15/14] Sanders Said That Youth Unemployment And Combating Institutional Racism Were “Twin Issues.” “As a presidential candidate, Sanders has focused largely on a related issue — income inequality — but during the last two weeks he’s spoken out specifically on racial justice during visits to Houston and Baton Rouge, La., where he addressed the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Sanders told USA TODAY on Wednesday that police reforms are needed to control the use of force and to curb high incarceration rates that disproportionately affect people of color. And he said politicians must address unemployment among young African Americans. “Those are twin issues,” Sanders said. “Combating institutional racism but dealing with economic justice issues so that our kids have jobs rather than ending up in jail. That’s a message I’m bringing all over the country.”” [USA Today, 7/31/15] Sanders Asked How It Was Possible To Discuss Ferguson Or Baltimore Without Addressing Youth Unemployment. “The other thing, to be frank, that does trouble me is that there is so little discussion about African-American youth unemployment. How do you discuss Ferguson and not know that, in that particular community, unemployment is off the charts? How do you discuss Baltimore and not know that, in that particular community, unemployment is off the charts? African-American youth unemployment in this country is 50 percent, and one out of three African-American males born today stands the possibility of ending up in jail if present trends continue. This is a disaster. So, of course, we’ve got to talk about police brutality; of course, we’ve got to talk about reforming our criminal-justice system; of course, we’ve got to make sure that we are educating our kids and giving them job training and not sending them to jail. But I get a little distressed that people are not talking about what I consider to be a huge problem: How do you not talk about African-American youth unemployment at 50 percent?” [The Nation, 7/6/15] Sanders Said African American And Latino Voters Would Take Not Of His Youth Jobs Plan. “ALBERT HUNT: Some analysts say, you know, yes you`re going to do well in some of those early states we just mentioned, they have a lot of very issue-oriented white liberals, but when it moves to states that have a lot of African-Americans and Latinos, you will get clobbered by Hillary Clinton. BERNIE SANDERS: Well, I don`t think so. You know, in truth, I come from a state which has a small AfricanAmerican population and a very small Latino population. That`s simply the truth. But I think the message that we have, whether it is the need to create millions of decent paying jobs -- look I was on the floor literally yesterday talking about a horrendous national tragedy which almost nobody is talking about and that is real unemployment for young African-Americans in this country. Do you know what it is? Including those people who have given up looking for work and people who`re working part time and they want to work full time -- it`s over 50 percent -- Al. A black male baby born today if we do not change the system, stands a one in three chance ending up in jail. This is a tragedy unspeakable -- unspeakable tragedy. These are the issues that I`m talking about. John Conyers and I have introduced a massive jobs program for young people around this country. I think the Hispanic and African-American community will take note of what we`ve done over the years and what we will propose during this campaign.” [Charlie Rose, 6/11/14] Politifact Mostly True: Bernie Sanders Says A Black Male Baby Born Today Has 1-In-3 Chance Of Prison [Politifact, 6/15/15] Sanders Said We Must Address The Crippling Poverty Facing One Out Of Four Latinos In This Country, Especially Those Working Low-Wage Jobs. “But to truly empower our communities, we must address the crippling poverty that affects tens of millions of people in this country. Today, shamefully, we have more than 12 million Latinos living in poverty. That’s nearly one out of every four Latinos in this country. If you are a Latino child, there is nearly a one in three chance (32 percent) that you are growing up in poverty. Many of those in poverty are working at low-wage jobs. These are the people who struggle every day to find the money to feed their kids, to pay their electric bills and to put gas in the car to get to work.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, National Association of Latino Elected Officials, 6/19/15] Sanders Said That Solving Social Issues Through Economic Solutions Was One Important Way To Solve Them, Specifically Citing Hispanic Youth Unemployment And Hispanic Uninsured And Underinsurance Statistics. “JAVIER PALOMAREZ: I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but if I can capture the essence of the response, you would solve social issues and challenges through economic solutions. SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Well that’s an important way. I mean, one cannot turn one’s back on the fact that 36% of Hispanic youth are unemployed, or that millions of Hispanics don’t have any health insurance, or can’t afford health insurance. Those are issues that have to be dealt with.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, 7/30/15] Sanders Said Reform Bill Would Have Allowed For Low Wage Workers To Enter The Country Who Would “Be Competing Against Kids In This Country Who Desperately Need Jobs.” “BERNIE SANDERS: Because this bill has two major components. Number one, the good thing it has, it says that we're gonna take 11 million people out of the shadows and give them dignity and give them a path to citizenship. JOSE ANTONIO VARGAS: Yes, yes, yes. BERNIE SANDERS: That's the good part. JOSE ANTONIO VARGAS: That's the good part, yes. BERNIE SANDERS: And that's what I strongly support. You know what the not so good part is? That at a time when we have millions of kids in this country who can't find a job what the Chamber of Commerce, the big money interests, want is to be able to bring into this country are guest worker program's, low wage workers, who will be competing against kids in this country who desperately need jobs. They're gonna bring H-1B professional workers into this country to lower wages for our high tech workers. Frankly, I don't think that's a good idea.” [Netroots Nation 2015, Netroots Nation YouTube, uploaded 7/18/15] “It’s Not Just A Jobs Thing” When Asked About Racial Justice, Sanders “Typically Pivots To His Core Message” Of Economic Inequality. “When asked about racial justice, he often addresses the problem head-on but typically pivots to his core message; namely, that economic policies favored by corporate interests sell out working people, many of whom are inner-city minorities. In an MSNBC interview during the Baltimore protests, Sanders called for body cameras for police and said he would address police brutality. “But the underlying issue,” he continued, “in terms of Freddie Gray’s community, as I understand it — do you know what the unemployment rate there is?”” [Politico, 6/12/15] Sanders Said That “It’s Too Easy For Quote-Unquote Liberals” To Say “Black Lives Matter” While Issues Like Youth Unemployment Were Ignored. “GREENE: But if I may return to my question, we had the voice of a woman on our air who protested in Ferguson, she said she needs to hear her president say the lives of my children matter, my little black children matter. I mean, are you ready to go to Ferguson and say “black lives matter”? [...] GREENE: It sounds like you wouldn’t have been ready to use that phrase if you were there. SANDERS: Phraseology, of course I’ll use that phrase. Black lives matter, white lives matter, Hispanic lives matter. But these are also not only police matters, they’re not only gun control matters, they are significantly economic matters. […] SANDERS: Because it’s too easy for quote-unquote liberals to be saying “Well, let’s use this phrase.” But what are we gonna do about 51% of young African-Americans unemployed?” [NPR, 6/25/15] Bernie Sanders: “The Real Issue In This Country Is Class.” “The real issue in this country is class. And the ruling class and the big money people do not want to see workers wake up. They do not want to see workers voting.” [Bernie Sanders, CSPAN, 1/20/88] Even As A Student, Sanders Thought The Class Struggle Was More Important Than Race Or Imperialism. “Even as a student at the University of Chicago in the 1960s, influenced by the hours he spent in the library stacks reading famous philosophers, (Sanders) became frustrated with his fellow student activists, who were more interested in race or imperialism than the class struggle. They couldn’t see that everything they protested, he later said, was rooted in “an economic system in which the rich controls, to a large degree, the political and economic life of the country.” [Vox, 4/30/15] Sanders Said That Solving Social Issues Through Economic Solutions Was One Important Way To Solve Them, Specifically Citing Hispanic Youth Unemployment And Hispanic Uninsured And Underinsurance Statistics. “JAVIER PALOMAREZ: I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but if I can capture the essence of the response, you would solve social issues and challenges through economic solutions. SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Well that’s an important way. I mean, one cannot turn one’s back on the fact that 36% of Hispanic youth are unemployed, or that millions of Hispanics don’t have any health insurance, or can’t afford health insurance. Those are issues that have to be dealt with.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, 7/30/15] Van Jones: Economic Populists Like Sanders Often Favored “Trickle-Down Justice” Policies That Downplayed The Need For Policies That Specifically Addressed The Black Community. “I love and admire Sanders. But until the Black Lives Matters activists started snatching away their microphones, economic populists like him rarely spotlighted the specific pain that has been building in the African-American community. [...] Over the years, many black leaders have asked the populists to include specific remedies for our specific ills. We have done this politely and behind closed doors. Often we would hear that their "progressive economic policies" would disproportionately help black folks, so we should be fine with our community's needs never being addressed by name. It was infuriating. Sometimes, it seemed some Democratic politicians were happy to publicly name and embrace every part of the Democratic coalition -- immigrants rights defenders, womens' rights advocates, environmentalists and champions of LBGT equality. But not black people. At least, not explicitly -- and certainly not comfortably. We were just supposed to sit there and hope that race-neutral rhetoric and raceneutral proposals might somehow fix our race-specific problems. I starting calling this dubious strategy "trickle-down justice."” [Van Jones, CNN, 8/12/15] #BernieSoBlack Creator: Hashtag Underscored A “Serious Concern” That Sanders Pivoted To The Economy “Every Time Race [Was] Brought Up” – “It’s Not Just A Jobs Thing.” “[Roderick] Morrow, who goes by @rodimusprime on Twitter and has more than 11,000 followers, said he was surprised his impromptu hashtag [#BernieSoBlack] suddenly took off. ‘I just thought it was a funny joke!’ he told The Daily Beast. But he added that his lighthearted jab was rooted in a serious concern about Sanders’s candidacy. ‘Every time race is brought up, he pivots to the economy, which obviously a lot of racial disparity comes via economic means, but some of it is just flat out racism and discrimination,’ Morrow said. Sanders’s view that ‘if we had more jobs in Ferguson, this wouldn’t have happened, I’m not sure that is valid. I mean, Mike Brown was on his way to college. It’s not just a jobs thing.’” [Daily Beast, 7/19/15] Moveon.Org Civic Action Executive Director: Bernie Sanders’s “Portrayals Of Racial Injustice As Merely An Offshoot Of Economic Injustice […] Represent A Fundamental Misunderstanding Of How Race Operates In Our Country.” “Yet some liberal groups panned the appearances. Anna Galland, the executive director of MoveOn.org Civic Action, said the responses showed that all Democratic candidates have work to do to understand the black lives movement. ‘Saying that `all lives matter’ or `white lives matter’ immediately after saying `black lives matter’ minimizes and draws attention away from the specific, distinct ways in which black lives have been devalued by our society,’ Galland said. She added that while issues of economic and racial justice intersect, ‘portrayals of racial injustice as merely an offshoot of economic injustice or the implication that solutions to economic inequality will take care of racism represent a fundamental misunderstanding of how race operates in our country.’” [AP, 7/18/15] Bernie Sanders Expert: Sanders Feels That Anything That Takes Him Away From His Economic Message Is “A Distraction.” “Sanders, who has narrowed Clinton’s lead in states like Iowa and New Hampshire, is trying to broaden his reach, but his stumble at Netroots suggests that, for Sanders, expanding beyond class to matters of race will be a challenge. ‘He is not a rainbow coalition guy or at least he hasn’t been,’ said Greg Guma, author of ‘The People’s Republic: Vermont and the Sanders Revolution,’ who has known Sanders since the 1970s. ‘He feels like he knows what the problem is and it’s monopoly capitalism. Anything that takes him away from that message is a distraction.’” [CNN, 7/19/15] Said Black Leaders Gained Traction By Addressing Economic, Not Racial, Inequality Sanders Suggested MLK Was Threatened When He Began To Address Economic Inequality, Not Just Racial Inequality. “And I want those people, who are as old as I am to remember Martin Luther King Jr.’s last years. Everybody today, all the editorial pages say, “oh, wasn’t Martin Luther King a great guy. He fought for racial justice – a great hero." Remember that a year before King died when King spoke out against the war in Vietnam and when King said we need billions of dollars to provide decent jobs not only for black people but for white people, and when King said, I am going to organize a poor people’s march to go to Washington of blacks and whites and yellows but of poor people to demand justice – suddenly when Martin Luther King began talking that language and taking on the system, my goodness the FBI was investigating him and tapping his phone the president of the United States wasn’t talking to him. The real issue in this country is class. And the ruling class and the big money people do not want to see workers wake up. They do not want to see workers voting.” [Bernie Sanders, CSPAN, 1/20/88] Sanders Said That After King Was Memorialized With A National Holiday, People Began To Omit King’s Legacy Of Activism On Addressing America’s Societal Issues. “This is the type of langauge used more and more since Dr. King has been honored by a national holiday. What is going on, in reality, is that a certain view of Dr. King is being institutionalized and perpetuated, that of a man who fought for equal opportunity, who desegrated the busses and lunch counters and voting booths, That is quite true, but it omits much of what is important about Dr, King's life and work. The United States that is honoring him with a national holiday behaved quite differently when Dr. King was alive and becoming more and more vocal about the problems in our society.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, 1/19/88] Sanders Noted That When King Denounced The “Triple Evils” Of Racism, Materialism And Militarism, President Johnson Responded Very Negatively. “In early 1967 Martin Luther King spoke out against the war; he called the U.S. government the "greatest purveyor of violence in the world today;" he said the poor of America were victims of the Vietnam War as well as the peasants of Southeast Asia. He said that the "triple evils" of racism, materialism, and militarism were threatening to consume American society. It was not what the powerful people in this country wanted to hear. The government that now honors him responded by turning its back on Dr. King. In the last year of his life, president Lyndon Johnson would not have anything to do with him.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, 1/19/88] Sanders Said Jessie Jackson Was Confronted Not By The Fact He Was Black But That He Represented The Poor And Working Class. “Let me talk a little bit about [Jesse Jackson]. What Jackson has got going against him – in my view – is not primarily that he’s black. [...] I think the issue is not a racial issue. I think It’s a class issue. I think if you had a conservative black person – somebody, say, like Mayor Goode of Philadelphia running – I think the business community would put money into his campaign and would say, boy! It’s time for a black President. The real issue is not whether you’re black or white, whether you’re a woman or a man. In my view a woman could be elected President of the United States. The real issue is whose side are you on? Are you on the side of workers and poor people or are you on the side of big money and the corporations? Jackson is on the side of poor people and working people.” [CSPAN, 1/20/88] Sanders Said That King Was Primarily Remembered For Fighting For Racial Equality. “For example, King, today, is primarily remembered as a fighter against racial segregation in the South - the man who stood in front of the Lincoln Monument in Washington in 1963 before a quarter of a million demonstrators and talked passionately about a dream that he had - a dream of racial equality in which all citizens, black and white, could enjoy the full benefits of democracy in our country - a speech which, in fact, is one of the great and moving speeches in modern American history.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, likely 1989] … But That It Was Not Widely Remembered That King Was Widely Despised Because Of His Opposition To The Vietnam War. “Through Oates, we get a full view of King - both from a personal and philosophical point of view. It is not for example, widely remembered now, or widely discussed, that by the end of his life (he was murdered in 1968) King was largely an outcast in the white media and in white liberal circles because of his strong opposition to the war in Vietnam. Acting courageously, and against the advise of many of his associates, King realized that real freedom for black people meant economic freedom as well as racial integration and that economic freedom for blacks and for all poor Americans would not occur if the United States government were spending billions of dollars on war rather than on economic development projects, housing, education and health care at home. Further, as the nation's most significant apostle of non-violence, King felt that it would be hypocritical not to speak out against the carnage talking place in Vietnam and hte United States government's attitude toward the third world, an attitude which, in truth, has not changed much since King’s death.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, likely 1989] Sanders Said That After King Was Memorialized With A National Holiday, People Began To Omit King’s Legacy Of Activism On Addressing America’s Societal Issues. “This is the type of langauge used more and more since Dr. King has been honored by a national holiday. What is going on, in reality, is that a certain view of Dr. King is being institutionalized and perpetuated, that of a man who fought for equal opportunity, who desegrated the busses and lunch counters and voting booths, That is quite true, but it omits much of what is important about Dr, King's life and work. The United States that is honoring him with a national holiday behaved quite differently when Dr. King was alive and becoming more and more vocal about the problems in our society.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, 1/19/88] Sanders Said That People Treated King Very Differently When He Was Alive Than In The Late 1980s. “This is the type of langauge used more and more since Dr. King has been honored by a national holiday. What is going on, in reality, is that a certain view of Dr. King is being institutionalized and perpetuated, that of a man who fought for equal opportunity, who desegrated the busses and lunch counters and voting booths, That is quite true, but it omits much of what is important about Dr, King's life and work. The United States that is honoring him with a national holiday behaved quite differently when Dr. King was alive and becoming more and more vocal about the problems in our society.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, 1/19/88] Sanders Noted That When King Denounced The “Triple Evils” Of Racism, Materialism And Militarism, President Johnson Responded Very Negatively. “In early 1967 Martin Luther King spoke out against the war; he called the U.S. government the "greatest purveyor of violence in the world today;" he said the poor of America were victims of the Vietnam War as well as the peasants of Southeast Asia. He said that the "triple evils" of racism, materialism, and militarism were threatening to consume American society. It was not what the powerful people in this country wanted to hear. The government that now honors him responded by turning its back on Dr. King. In the last year of his life, president Lyndon Johnson would not have anything to do with him.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, 1/19/88] Sanders Quoted A Burlington Free Press Editorial From 1967: “Martin Luther King Swallowed The Communist Line About Vietnam This Week, And In Doing So He Shamed His Race, His Country, And The Centuries-Old Struggle For Human Liberty.” “The Burlington Free Press--after Dr. King challenged the U.S. policy of War in Vietnam in 1967--said, and I quote: "Martin Luther King swallowed the Communist line about Vietnam this week, and in doing so he shamed his race, his country, and the centuries-old struggle for human liberty." "Has King no sense of decency, no understanding of the brutal mischief he promotes, no realization of how he is being taken in by the enemies of our country…?"” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, 1/19/88] Sanders Wanted To Build A “White Working Class Progressive Movement” Sanders: Bring “White Working Class People” Back Into The Liberal Fold And You’ve Got A Revolution. “Not long after the showdown with Vitter, I sit with Sanders on a couch in Harry Reid’s foyer outside the Senate floor to discuss his highly specific vision for the Left. In recent months, Sanders has indicated he’s willing to use his fire-and-brimstone act not simply to influence a presidential election, but also to lay the groundwork for something of a ‘political revolution.’ ‘Let me ask you,’ he says, his gangly frame struggling to contain itself to our couch, ‘what is the largest voting bloc in America? Is it gay people? No. Is it African-Americans? No. Hispanics? No. What?’ Answer: ‘White working-class people.’ Bring them back into the liberal fold, he figures, and you’ve got your revolution.” [National Journal Magazine, 6/21/14] Sanders, Told His Vision Of A White Working Class Progressive Movement Ran Counter To “Conventional Wisdom,” Retorted “Your Analysis Is Incorrect. And I’m Right And Everybody Else Is Wrong.” “I suggest to Sanders that his vision for a new progressive base of old white guys runs somewhat counter to the conventional wisdom, but he cuts me off. ‘Who told you that?’ he scoffs. ‘I’m talking from a little bit of experience. I did get 71 percent of the vote in my state. And despite popular conception—with all due respect to my friends in California, Northern California, where you have wealthy liberals who support me and I appreciate that—Vermont is a working-class state. So I’m glad you raised that, because your analysis is incorrect. And I’m right and everybody else is wrong. Clear about that?’” [National Journal Magazine, 6/21/14] Sanders Said Democrats Are Losing Too Much Of The White Working Class Vote. “STEVE INSKEEP: Here's why I ask about the white working class. Of course, President Obama has assembled a coalition that depends heavily on minority voters. You have argued in the past that Democrats are losing too much of the white vote. There were states in Senate races in November where Democrats couldn't even get 25 percent of the white vote. BERNIE SANDERS: That's correct. […] In the last election, in state after state, you had an abysmally low vote for the Democrats among white, working-class people. And I think the reason for that is that the Democrats have not made it clear that they are prepared to stand with the working people of this country, take on the big money interest.” [NPR, 11/19/14] Sanders Said Americans Were “Dismayed” By Lack Of Black Suffrage In Apartheid South Africa, Yet Were Not Aware Of Low Voter Turnout Among America’s Poor. “To me, the major crisis that we face is that in this last election, as you know, about 60 percent of the people when given the choice of the Democratic and Republican Parties in Congress, didn’t vote a all. You know, all of us are dismayed that in South Africa, for example, black people can’t vote. How many of us know that in this country, poor people don’t vote anymore? In the last election, the Presidential election in 1988, you had 50 percent of the people not choosing to vote for the caucus, or Bush. You have a situation in this era of anti-incumbency-throw the bums out--96 percent of these guys got re-elected. So the basic issue is how to re-invigorate democracy. How to make the average working person, the elderly person, the poor person say, ‘you know what? This is my government. Those people in Washington need to listen to me, they’re representing my interest, and they’re not just standing with the rich and the powerful, against me.’” [Sanders’s Remarks, CSPAN, 12/5/90] Sanders Told USHCC "If We Stand Together And Not Let Folks Out There Divide Us" By Race Or Gender Or Sexual Orientation, We Can Fight For Free College Tuition, Health Care, Campaign Finance Reform And Combat Climate Change. "But I think that today this country faces some huge problems having to do with income and wealth inequality and a disappearing middle class. But I have absolute confidence that if we stand together and not let folks out there divide us. Your family came from Mexico and my family came from Poland. Not divide us because she’s a woman and he’s a man. And you’re black and you’re white and he’s gay and you’re heterosexual. If we prevent them from dividing us up on those basis and we stand together to say, you know what, all of our kids deserve the right to go to college regardless of their income, all of us deserve health care, we are going to combat climate change, no, we’re not going to have a campaign finance system that allows billionaires to buy elections, etc. When we stand together, the future of this country is bright. If we allow them to divide us, I worry very much about our future." [Bernie Sanders Remarks, U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, 7/30/15] Hispanic Community Asked About His Track Record On Issues Important To Hispanics, Sanders Noted That He Represented Vermont In Congress, Which Was 95 Percent White. “JAVIER PALOMAREZ: Now some candidates have been accused of what I call “Hispandering.” What’s your, specifically, do you have a track record regarding issues that you think are important to the Hispanic community? SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Above and beyond the economic agenda? Well, I’ll give you an example of something. And I have to be honest with you and tell you that I come from a state which is 95% white. That’s the reality, and that’s the state that I’m very proud to represent. We’re a beautiful state.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, 7/30/15] Sanders Said That His Efforts Investigation And Advocating For Immokalee Workers Directly Led To Them Receiving Improved Wages And An Improved Standard Of Living. “And if you can believe it, coincidentally, on the day that I was in Immokalee, front-page story on the local paper is that a local contractor there was charged––you know what the crime he was charged with by the U.S. Attorney? Slavery. Slavery, in the year 2007, because he was holding workers involuntarily, and forcing them to work. That is how bad the situation was. People were getting horrendously low wages. I went to the homes there––terrible; overcrowded, like shacks. Working conditions––abysmal. What we did, Javier, after I was there, we worked with some of the people who were supporting these workers. We held a hearing on my committee, Health Education and Labor, which was then chaired by the late Ted Kennedy, a great friend of mine. And to make a long story short, the impact of that was, along with a lot of other effort, to improve the wages and standard of living for these workers.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, 7/30/15] Regarding His Advocacy For Immokalee Workers, Sanders Said “I’m A Senator From Vermont, I Did Not Have To Do That. It Didn’t Get Me Any Votes Back Home. But I Did It Because It Was The Right Thing To Do.” “And to make a long story short, the impact of that was, along with a lot of other effort, to improve the wages and standard of living for these workers. Okay? I’m a Senator from Vermont, I did not have to do that. It didn’t get me any votes back home. But I did it because it was the right thing to do. Because when undocumented workers get (inaudible), it’s not only they who suffer, but it’s every worker in America.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, 7/30/15] Affirmative Action Sanders Expressed Support For Affirmative Action. “I believe in affirmative action. I believe in affirmative action and I think given the history of our country affirmative action not only for minorities but for women is appropriate.” [C-SPAN, 5/21/03, 27:00] Reparations Sanders Did Not Co-Sponsor The Commission To Study Reparation Proposals For African Americans Act. During his time in the House of Representatives, Sanders never co-sponsored Rep. Conyers’ Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African Americans Act. [HR 40, accessed 8/18/15] NAACP Sanders Consistently Scored Above 90% On NAACP Scorecards. [NAACP Legislative Report Cards, accessed 8/18/15] Congress 102nd Congress 103rd Congress 104th Congress 105th Congress 106th Congress 107th Congress 108th Congress 109th Congress 110th Congress 111th Congress 112th Congress – First Session 112th Congress – Second Session 113th Congress – First Session 113th Congress – Second Session Score 85%* n/a^ 91% n/a^ 100% n/a^ 90% 97% 100% 100% 100% n/a^ 100% n/a^ [NAACP Legislative Report Cards, accessed 8/18/15] ^ Scorecard was not available on the NAACP website * This scorecard erroneously states that Sanders missed three of the ten votes scored by the NAACP. On two of the votes, the Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment (HJ Res 290) and the Family Medical Leave Act (S 5), Sanders voted with the NAACP position. On the remaining vote, the Brady bill, Sanders voted against the NAACP position. Given this information, Sanders score should have been a 90%. Votes Against The NAACP Position Sanders Voted Against The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #83, 5/8/1991] Sanders Voted For Deduction of Health Insurance Costs for the Self-Employed That Eliminated Tax Break For Companies That Sell TV Equipment To Minority Investors. According to the NAACP, “Passage of the bill to make permanent the 25 percent tax deduction for health insurance premiums for the self-employed and to offset the costs by eliminating the tax break for companies that sell broadcast facilities and cable TV systems to minority investors. […] A “nay” vote was in support of the NAACP’s position.” The bill passed 381-44. [HR 831, Vote #150, 2/21/95; NAACP Scorecard, 1995-1996] Sanders Voted For Passage Of 2003 Version Of Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #124, 4/9/2003] Sanders Voted For Passage Of 2005 Version Of Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. [S 397, Vote #534, 10/20/05] 1960s: Involved In The Civil Rights Movement Sanders Said That He Was Very Active In Civil Rights Activism And Worked With CORE And SNCC. “The Nation: That focus on employment goes back to the historic message of the civil-rights movement. Civil-rights organizing was one of the ways into political activism for you, wasn’t it?Sanders: Civil rights was a very important part of it. I was very active in the Congress of Racial Equality at the University of Chicago. I got arrested in trying to desegregate Chicago’s school system. I was very active in demanding that the University of Chicago not run segregated housing, which it was doing at that time. We were active in working with our brothers and sisters in SNCC [the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee]… at that point helping them with some very modest financial help. So, yes, I was active. And I do not separate the civil-rights issue from the fact that 50 percent of African-American young people are either unemployed or underemployed. Remember the March on Washington—what was it about? “Jobs and Freedom.” The issue that Dr. King raised all the time was: This is great if we want to desegregate restaurants or hotels, but what does it matter if people can’t afford to go to them? That’s still the issue today.” [The Nation, 7/6/15] Sanders Said “I Have A Long History In Fighting For Civil Rights. I Understand That Many People In The African-American Community May Not Understand That.” “SANDERS: Well, I'll tell you how you do that, George. You know, as somebody who has been involved in the civil rights movement for my entire adult life. I was arrested when I was a student protesting segregation of schools in Chicago, fought against segregated housing in Chicago, marched with Martin Luther King Jr. in the great march on Washington. I have a long history in fighting for civil rights. I understand that many people in the AfricanAmerican community may not understand that. But I think the issues that we are dealing with, combating 51 percent African-American youth unemployment, talking about the need that public colleges and universities should be tuition free, raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, creating millions of jobs by rebuilding our infrastructure. These are issues that should apply to every American.” [Transcript, ABC News, “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” 6/28/15] Sanders Fully Immersed Himself In Civil Rights Movement And Was Arrested While Demonstrating For Desegregation. “‘The civil rights movement also became a home for him. He became leaders of an NAACP ally called the Congress of Racial Equality at a time when most civil rights activists were black. He was arrested while demonstrating for desegregated public schools in Chicago. (No big deal, says Sanders: “You can go outside and get arrested, too!’ he jokes. ‘It’s not that hard if you put your mind to it.’)” [Time, 5/26/15] Bernie Sanders Said “We Are Not Making The Progress That Dr. King Called Us To Achieve In The 1960s.” “We are not making the progress that Dr. King called us to achieve in the 1960s. More than one in four African Americans live in poverty, while that figure is less than one in ten for whites. The median income for African-American households is less than 60 percent that of white households. And a recent study from Brandeis University shows that the wealth gap between black and white families has nearly tripled over the last twenty-five years.” [Bernie Sanders in “Youth Unemployment and Dr. King’s Dream” Medium Article, 6/11/15] 1962: Sanders Led Chicago’s First Civil Rights Sit-In Protesting University Of Chicago’s “Intolerable” Housing Segregation Policy. “In his second year at college, Sanders made national news. On a frigid Tuesday afternoon in January, 1962 the 20-year-old from Brooklyn stood on the steps of University of Chicago administration building and railed in the wind against the college’s housing segregation policy. ‘We feel it is an intolerable situation, when Negro and white students of the university cannot live together in university owned apartments,’ the young bespectacled student told the few-dozen classmates gathered there. Then he led them into the building in protest, and camped the night outside the president’s office. It was Chicago’s first civil rights sit-in.” [Time, 5/26/15] Sanders Coordinated A Sit-In Against Segregated Housing And Attended The 1963 March On Washington. “What Sanders did share with the young radicals and hippies flocking to Vermont was a smoldering idealism forged during his college years as a civil rights activist—he coordinated a sit-in against segregated housing and attended the 1963 March on Washington—but only a fuzzy sense of how to act on it.” [Mother Jones, 5/26/15] Sanders Helped Organize A Sit In To Protest Systematic Housing Discrimination At University Of Chicago. “During his first year in Chicago, a campus scandal erupted when an interracial group of students looking for a place to rent uncovered systematic housing discrimination in university-owned apartment buildings. […] The campus chapter of the Congress of Racial Equality, the national civil rights group that organized the Freedom Rides, decided to take action. And Sanders helped organize a sit-in at the office of the university's president, aimed at making him reverse the school's discriminatory policy. The sit-in lasted for 15 days, as CORE worked out a compromise with the administration—it would vacate the premises if the university included representatives from CORE in a new commission that would study the housing issue.” [Mother Jones, 5/29/15] Sanders Was President Of University Of Chicago Chapter Of Congress Of Racial Equality. “During his junior year, Sanders, by then president of the university's CORE chapter, led a picket of a Howard Johnson's restaurant in Chicago, part of a coordinated nationwide protest against the motel and restaurant chain's racially discriminatory policies. Sanders eventually resigned his post at CORE, citing a heavy workload and took some time off from school.” [Mother Jones, 5/29/15] Bernie Sanders Said That He Attended The “March On Washington” With Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. “Many years ago I was honored to be among those who marched on Washington with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. I was there for his famous ‘I Have a Dream’ speech, and I heard him say that AfricanAmericans live ‘on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity.’” [Bernie Sanders in “Youth Unemployment and Dr. King’s Dream” Medium Article, 6/11/15] Activists Were Unhappy With Answers About Past Actions Vermont NAACP President: It Is Not Enough For Bernie Sanders To Say That He Fought For Civil Rights In The 1960s, Because “Not Too Many People Are Thinking About The ‘60s.” “‘I’m happy to know that he was rallying in the 1960s. That tells me he was on the path when I was a child, but not too many people are thinking about the 60s’ said Mary Brown-Guillory, president of the Vermont chapter of the NAACP. ‘What is he doing today about police brutality and the right to vote and equality? He has to be more than just Vermont.’” [CNN, 7/19/15] #BernieSoBlack Creator: If Bernie Wanted To Connect With Black Voters, He Needed To Have A Plan For The Future And Focus Less On What He’s “Done In The Past.” “Not to disrespect what he did with Martin Luther King,” Morrow said. “But if you want to connect with black voters, they need to know what you are going to do now and going forward, not what you’ve done in the past.” [Daily Beast, 7/19/15] Vox: To Sanders’s Critics The Response That He Participated In The Civil Rights Movement “Isn’t Just Irrelevant, It’s Insulting.” “To Sanders's critics, the "but the civil rights movement!" response isn't just irrelevant, it's insulting. "It's like they're almost trying to outblack us," says Morrow. "'Oh, you're a black person, what could you possibly understand about our candidate? He was marching before you were even born!' That's cool, but you gotta stay on top of it."” [Vox, 7/20/15] 1970s: Spoke Against Systemic Racism 1972: Sanders Blasted U.S.’s Spending Of Billions On Space And Military Programs While “Black Infants Die[d] At A Rate Beyond Belief.” “In the Northern ghettos of this country black infants die at a rate beyond belief. According to Jonathan Kozol, the author, "There are a number of Northern ghetto census tracts in which the infant death rate now exceeds 100 children dead for every 1000 live births." This is the year 1972 in the United States of America. This is the year of the 5.5 billion dollar "space shuttle", the year of another flight to the moon, and the year in which we continue to spend tens of billions of dollars on "defense." And it is the year in which children of the ghetto continue to die from simple neglect.” [Movement, Vol.1, No.5, Early August, 1972] 1972: Sanders Lamented The Plight Of Black Youth, Who Were “Victims Of The System” And Committed Crimes To “Stay Alive.” “A black kid in Detroit has got no place to go. He's got no money, school is taking him nowhere, and there are no jobs to be had. There is no future.It doesn’t matter anymore. So he joins his friends on heroin and becomes one of the tens of thousands of black kids in that city who are killing themselves. To stay alive, and to support his habit, he robs and mugs his neighbors who are trying to keep themselves (barely) alive. Around and around it goes. The victim of the system, out of desperation, turns on the other victims of the system – while the real criminals, those who own and control the whole show and are responsible for the situation, get off scot free.” [Movement, Vol.1, No.5, Early August, 1972] Sanders: Politicians Complaining About Street Crime Sounded Like “The Slave Owner Who Whips His Slave” And Then Talked About “The ‘Problem’ Of Cuts And Bruises On The Slave’s Back.” “And then we sit down and watch T.V. and hear the politicians, who are responsible for the horror, talk about, the ‘problem’ of crime in the streets -- like they weren’t responsible for it. All of which sounds like the slave owner who whips his slave and talks about the ‘problem’ of the cuts and bruises on the slave's back.” [Movement, Vol.1, No.5, Early August, 1972] 2015 Charleston Shooting Acknowledged Racist Acts Bernie Sanders Said The “Senseless Violence” Of The Charleston Church Shootings “Are A Tragic Reminders Of The Ugly Stain Of Racism That Still Taints Our Nation.” “The Charleston church killings are a tragic reminder of the ugly stain of racism that still taints our nation. This senseless violence fills me with outrage, disgust and a deep, deep sadness. The hateful killing of nine people praying inside a church is a horrific reminder that, while we have made significant progress in advancing civil rights in this country, we are far from eradicating racism. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families and their congregation.” [Senator Sanders Press Release, 6/18/15] Sanders Consultant Retweeted That Charleston Shooter Murdered Because He Hated Black People, But That The Media Ignored This Fact. “This. Queen Mikayla @mikaylaesthetic: Media: lol we don't know why he did it Dylann Roof: I did it because I hate black people Media: lol we don't know why he did it” [Twitter, DeRay McKesson, 6/18/15; Twitter, Arun Chaudry (Revolution Messaging), 6/18/15] Bernie Sanders Directed Supporters To Donate To The Emanuel AME Church, The Location Of The Shootings, In An E-Mail. “Our thoughts and prayers are with the families and their congregation. But we can add our actions to our prayers. The families and the community that have been hurt so very badly by this brutality need our help. Let us stand with them in their time of mourning. You can help by making a donation to the Emanuel AME Church community today.” [Bernie Sanders for President E-Mail, 6/18/15] Did Not Call For Gun Control Sanders Said Charleston Shooting Was About Guns, As Well As Racism And Mental Illness. “Well, if this person who shot in a church, unbelievably, nine people used a gun, it is about guns. [...] But it is not just about guns. It is in this case, I believe, we’ll see as the evidence comes out, I suspect from what I hear, it is about racism. It is about mental illness. I will tell you that I get calls and I suspect every other Senator gets calls, all of the time, from people who say, ‘you know what, my brother, my husband, I’m really worried what he may do to himself or someone else, we need mental health counseling. We can’t find affordable mental health counseling.’ And then about guns. So all of those issues but it is about guns.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, “Ralston Live,” PBS, 6/22/15] New York Times: Sanders Mixed Record On Gun Control Inhibited His Ability To Speak Out On The Charleston Shooting. “Complicating matters for Mr. Sanders, the one issue on which he is not unambiguously to the left of Mrs. Clinton — gun control — is emerging as a critical litmus test. Representing a rural state with a rich hunting tradition, Mr. Sanders has a mixed record on guns. He first won a House seat in part because the incumbent Republican he defeated had supported an assaultweapons ban. (Mr. Sanders also supported the ban but opposed the Brady bill, which President Bill Clinton signed into law.) By contrast, Mrs. Clinton has moved aggressively to emphasize her support for gun restrictions since the Charleston shootings, saying in an interview last week, “Let’s just cut to the chase: It’s guns.”” [New York Times, 6/24/15] Bernie Sanders Called The Charleston Church Shootings “An Act Of Terror” And A “Hateful Killing” That Was A Reminder Of The Fact That “We Are Far From Eradicating Racism.” “What transpired in Charleston, South Carolina last night was not just a tragedy, it was an act of terror. Nine of our fellow Americans were murdered while praying in a historic church because of the color of their skin. This senseless violence fills me with outrage, disgust, and a deep, deep sadness. This hateful killing is a horrific reminder that, while we have made important progress in civil rights for all of our people, we are far from eradicating racism.” [Bernie Sanders for President E-Mail, 6/18/15] An ABC Reporter Noted Bernie Sanders Didn’t Mention Guns In His Statement On The Charleston Church Shootings. “Sanders statement on Charleston calls it ‘tragic reminder of the ugly stain of racism.’ no mention of guns, FWIW” [Rick Klein, @RickKlein, 6/18/18] Held Press Conference Next To Vigil HEADLINE: Bernie Sanders Slammed For Holding Loud Rally Near Charleston Prayer Vigil. [Mashable, 6/18/15] HEADLINE: Bernie Sanders Held A Loud Rally Thursday, Right Next To A Solemn Vigil For Charleston. [Washington Post, 6/18/15] Bernie Sanders Held A Rally For Pensions, “With Chants From The Event At Times Overpowering Speakers At The Prayer Circle” Recognizing The Charleston Shooting. “Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who is running was president, held a rally for bolstering retiree pensions nearby at the same time of Scott's event, with chants from the event at times overpowering speakers at the prayer circle.” [The Hill, 6/18/15] June 18, 2015: Sen. Tim Scott Organized A Prayer Circle For The Victims Of The Charleston Church Shootings. “More than a dozen lawmakers gathered on the Capitol lawn Thursday to pray for victims of a South Carolina shooting that left nine people dead. ‘A church should be one of the safest places on the planet,’ Senate Chaplain Barry Black told lawmakers, congressional staffers and dozens of others who gathered for the event, which was organized by South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott's (R) office. […] ‘God is near to the broken-hearted, and that would match South Carolina and all of us today,’ Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) said before leading the event in prayer. Other lawmakers at the event included Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Johnny Isakson (RGa.), as well as Reps. Trey Gowdy (R), who is from South Carolina, and John Lewis (D-Ga.).” [The Hill, 6/18/15] Reporter: Bernie Sanders Was “Tone Deaf” For Holding A “Loud Pension Rally” “Yards Away” From Where A Prayer Circle For The Charleston Church Shooting Was To Take Place. “Tone deaf: Bernie Sanders holding loud pension rally yards away from #CharlestonShooting prayer circle that starts at noon” [Matt Laslo Twitter, @MattLaslo, 6/18/15] Bernie Sanders “Drew Criticism” For Holding A Rally Near A Prayer Vigil For Victims Of The Charleston Church Shootings. “Presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders drew criticism on Thursday after holding a rally about pensions just feet from a prayer vigil for the Charleston shooting victims in South Carolina.” [Mashable, 6/18/15] The Sanders Rally Was Within Shouting Distance Of The Prayer Vigil, “And There Was Shouting.” “At the same time a prayer service for victims of the shooting in Charleston, S.C., was held Thursday on the Capitol lawn, Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders held a rally -- within shouting distance. And there was shouting.” [Washington Post, 6/18/15] Sanders’ Senate Office Said The Pension Event Was A Press Conference, Not A Rally. “i asked @SenSanders office about pension event @MattLaslo reported on today (https://twitter.com/EvanMcSan/status/611565882662330368 …). Response: “It was a news conference not a rally. It had been scheduled for days in the space reserved. It began at 11:30 am and ended a few minutes past noon.” [Twitter, Evan McMorris-Santoro (BuzzFeed), 6/18/15] Confederate Flag Sanders Supported Taking Down The Confederate Flag From The South Carolina Capitol Grounds. “The confederate flag is a relic of our nation’s stained racial history. It should come down. [Twitter, Bernie Sanders, 6/22/15] Sanders Tweeted That The Confederate Flag “Belongs In A Museum.” “The [Confederate] flag belongs in a museum.” [Twitter, Bernie Sanders, 7/10/15] Sanders Supported Efforts To Take Down Confederate Flag After Charleston Shooting. “Obviously today there are at least on funeral in Charleston with regard to that horrendous tragedy, unbelievable, of a guy walking into a bible study class and after praying or discussing the bible for an hour taking out a gun and shooting down nine innocent people, unspeakable. And the good news is that in the South and elsewhere there is an understanding that that confederate flag is for many people, tragically, a symbol of a racist past being used by a lot of extreme right wing hate groups and I think we’re making progress in getting that symbol of, that confederate flag, that symbol of racism taken down.” [Brunch With Bernie, 6/26/15] DEFENSE AND FOREIGN POLICY Supported Drastic Cuts To The Military… 2015: Sanders Supported Cutting The Military Budget, But Refused To Say By How Much. “NIEDELMAN: What kind of number does "judicious cuts" amount to in a $600 billion defense budget? SANDERS: Well, this is what I would say. No one denies that there is massive amounts of waste within the Department of Defense. They cannot deal with an independent audit that doesn't happen, that there are cost overruns into the tunes of tens and tens of billions of dollars. That's one issue. The second issue really has to do with how the defense policy echoes our foreign policy. […] NIEDELMAN: Can you put a number on the cuts? SANDERS: No I can't, not right now. It's something, you need to bring your military people around.” [My Champlain Valley, 5/31/15] 2014: Sanders Opposed Spending More Money On Military “Even If It [Did] Create Jobs.” “We need a strong military, I am an especially strong supporter of the National Guard program, the Reserve program, which A) defends us, but also provides for domestic needs in terms of floods and hurricanes and so forth. But I do not believe that we should just be spending money on the military just for the sake of spending that money, even if it does create jobs. I would much rather create jobs in rebuilding our infrastructure in terms of teachers, in terms of creating sustainable energy and energy efficiency, social goals which I think we should be striving for.” [Brunch With Bernie, 3/28/14, 20:04] 2012: Sanders Supported “Judicious, Intelligent Cuts” To Defense Spending. “I just voted against a few minutes ago, the D.O.D. Department of Defense Authorization Bill, I think we got to make judicious, intelligent cuts in defense spending. We can do this deficit reduction in a way that is fair, we can come up with enough money to rebuild our infrastructure, transforming our energy system, and creating millions of jobs.” [Brunch with Bernie, 12/21/12] 2012: Sanders: “We Can Look At Defense” For Savings. “I think we should be taking a hard look at military spending. We are now spending three times in terms of defense of what we spent in 1997, we are now spending almost as much money as the rest of the world combined, and I think we can look at defense and other government agencies for savings as well.” [Brunch with Bernie, 11/16/12] 2009: Sanders: “We’ve Got To Look Everywhere” For Cuts, Including Weapons Cuts. “Sanders said that Congress should be willing to set aside arguments that weapons cuts would hurt the country's industrial base. "That's called the military-industrial complex," he said. "They're very powerful. They have a whole lot of lobbyists, but if we're serious about getting a handle on this huge deficit and this huge national debt, we've got to look everywhere." [National Journal, 4/9/09] 2008: Sanders: “…The Time Is Long Overdue For Congress To Stop Rubber-Stamping White House Requests For Military Spending...” “At a time when this country has a $9.3 trillion national debt, a declining economy and enormous unmet needs, the time is long overdue for Congress to stop rubberstamping White House requests for military spending and to address the Pentagon's needs within the context of our overall national priorities.” [Sanders Op-Ed, Brattleboro Reformer, 5/24/08] 1995: Sanders Supported Cutting Pentagon Budget. “The sixth bill in the Progressive Promise is The National Economic Security Act, which cuts the Pentagon and CIA budgets and star wars spending in favor of shifting limited resources to meet domestic social needs and investments to strengthen the U.S. national economy.” [Rep. Bernard Sanders, Congressional Record, 1/26/95] Proposed Amendment To Offset OCO Funding Sanders Proposed Amendment That Would Require Congress To Offset Spending Funds In The Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) Budget. “Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) wants to require Congress to pay for any spending in the Pentagon's war fund. Sanders, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, is offering an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would require that lawmakers offset spending in the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) fund by raising new revenues.” [The Hill, 6/11/15]  Congress Was Not Required To Offset Spending OCO Funds. “Congress isn't currently required to pay for any spending through OCO. The war fund also isn't subjected to the congressionally mandated budget caps under the sequester.” [The Hill, 6/11/15]  The Hill: Sanders’ Amendment Was Unlikely To Pass. “Sanders faces an uphill path to getting his amendment approved as part of the defense policy bill. Though Democrats have taken aim at an additional $38 billion in war funding included in the defense policy bill, they failed to gain enough support to fence off the money until Congress reaches a deal on the budget caps under the sequester.” [The Hill, 6/11/15] 1990: Sanders Endorsed Plan To Cut Defense Spending In Half 1990: Sanders Supported Cutting The Defense Budget By More Than Half. “Tie-less, but sporting a Navy blue blazer, Vermont socialist Bernard Sanders took his quest for Congress to Washington this week, throwing his support behind a national proposal to cut the defense budget by more than half. [...] Sanders endorses a plan by the National Commission for Economic Conversion and Disarmament to cut $165 billion from the defense budget.” [States News Service, 5/4/90] Sanders’ Plan Would Cut Military Spending By At Least 50 Percent Over Five Years. “Sanders' ideal revolution would cut military spending at least by 50 percent over the next five years, raise the taxes of the rich, institute a national health-care system, develop a third political party that represents the poor and middle-class, overhaul campaign financing and improve protection of the environment.” [Chicago Tribune, 7/29/90] Sanders Was Praised As A Leader In Developing Plan To Cut Defense Budget By More Than Half. “Sanders was invited to participate when the commission began planning the event three months ago, said Robert Krinsky, the group's program director. "Sander's name was right up front and center," he said. "Bernie has a track record of being responsive to new political ideas." Sander's appearance here this week raised expectations that the Independent candidate and his Republican opponent will continue to wrestle over who is most concerned about the size of the military budget given political changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.” [States News Service, 5/4/90] Sanders’ Plan Called For A $40 Billion Defense Budget Cut In The First Year. “"In this election, Smith has no place to go but to the left, and frankly, I don't think he's been successful," said Sanders. He said he believes the military budget can be trimmed by $40 billion in the first year of cuts.” [States News Service, 5/4/90] Sanders Criticized Rep. Smith As Insufficiently Willing To Cut The Defense Budget. “But Sander's challenged this stance and said he would not allow Smith to steal the issue away from him. "Mr. Smith had the opportunity to vote for a peace dividend today and he and the entire Republican party voted against it," said Sanders, referring to the Wednesday's House vote on the 1991 budget. The House version, which passed, asks for $24 billion less in military spending than requested by President Bush.” [States News Service, 5/4/90] Funding From Defense Budget Cuts Would Go Towards Social And Public Works Programs, Including A “Major Electrified Rail System.” “This annual "peace dividend" would be funneled into social and public works programs, including construction of a "major electrified rail system," said commission Chairman Seymour Melman. Ten percent of the military savings would go toward reducing the national deficit," Melman said.” [States News Service, 5/4/90] Plan Would Guarantee “Additional Benefits For Employees Laid Off As A Result Of Defense Cutbacks” And “Would Require Contractors To Sit Down With Community Leaders And Draw Up "Contingency Plans" For Future Cutbacks.” “Supporters of the plan also endorsed a bill by Rep. Ted Weiss (D-N.Y.) guaranteeing additional benefits for employees laid off as a result of defense cutbacks. The measure would require contractors to sit down with community leaders and draw up "contingency plans" for future cutbacks.” [States News Service, 5/4/90] Smith Responded That He Voted Against The House Defense Budget Because There Were Insufficient Cuts. “"Mr. Smith had the opportunity to vote for a peace dividend today and he and the entire Republican party voted against it," said Sanders, referring to theWednesday's House vote on the 1991 budget. The House version, which passed, asks for $24 billion less in military spending than requested by President Bush. Smith voted against the House plan because he felt the defense cuts were "not enough," said his spokeswoman Liz Nicholson. Republicans chose not to vote for the plan, which was rushed through the House in hopes that negotiations could begin between congressional leaders and the White House, she said. In letters following Smith's forum on the peace dividend, Vermonters have said they would like to see any savings from the military budget split between the deficit and assistance for low-income households, she said.” [States News Service, 5/4/90] Sanders Called War A “Human Abomination.” “Well I don’t think that most people, including myself, consider the United Nations to be a superstate in which decisions of the United Nations preempt the individual rights of the particular country--the United States or any other country. Clearly the function of the United Nations, and it’s an enormously important body, and I hope in fact it gains more and more strength, we have got to, finally, as we enter the 21st century, begin to understand that war is a human abomination. And that if nations have conflicts there have got to be other ways to solve those conflicts, especially in the era of nuclear weapons and chemical weapons, other than killing other. That means there has to be serious discussion. That means there has to be impartial bodies that resolve disputes.” [Sanders’s Remarks, C-SPAN, 12/5/90] 1980s: Supported “Drastic” Cuts To The Military Sanders Supported Cutting $30 Billion, Or Ten Percent, From The Military Budget. “3. Reducing the military budget by 10%, a savings of approximately $ 30 billion.” [Press Release, Sanders for Congress, 8/17/88] Sanders: “I Favor Drastic Cuts In The Military.” “I favor drastic cuts in the military and spending money on human enterprises, rebuilding cities, schools and hospitals,” he said. “The real issue is who controls the wealth of this country and how the money is spent.” [Burlington Free Press, 2/10/85] 1984: Sanders Called Level Of Defense Spending “Absurd… Stupid, Wrong.” “Sanders called the spending of $250 billion a year by this country on defense “absurd… stupid, wrong,” adding that some of the money “could provide decent, dignified jobs for the people of Vermont. Sanders said defense spending was not dedicated to defending the people but to defending U.S. corporate interests around the world. “People are entitled to live in a society that is not militaristic,” Sanders said.” [Rutland Herald, 1/14/84] 1982: Sanders Decried The United States “Bloated Military Budget,” And Called For That Money To Be Instead Invested In Local Communities.” "The major issue facing this country and facing the cities and towns of this country as well as Vermont, is that we cannot continue to pump tens of billions of dollars into erroneous foreign policy and a bloated military budget," Sanders said. "That money must come home to repair the. streets, pay teachers a decent wage, pay the police and fire departments and lower the property tax," Sanders said. "We need people in Washington who…” [unknown, 10/28/82] Liberty Union Called For A “Return” To Local Citizen Militias And Coast Guard To Protect Americans From “Imperialist Impulses Of Our Leaders.” “Liberty Union calls for a reduction of the U.S. military. No peaceful nation needs a force the size of the present military 'peacetime'. A return to the system of local citizen militias and Coast Guard would provide our nation with ample protection and also protect us from the imperialist impulses of our leaders.” [Liberty Union Principles, II: The Draft, 4/22/71] Sanders Said That World Peace Was A “Local Issue” Because Nations Were Spending Billions On The Military While People Struggled For Food, Housing, Education And Health Care. “Again in 1987, the most important issue facing all of humanity, and the people of Burlington, is the issue of world peace and the need for better communication between nations. World peace is a very "local issue" for Burlington and for every other community on this planet. We live in a time when the nations of the world are spending close to $1 trillion dollars a year on military expenditures while people starve, lack adaquate [sic] housing, education and health care. Only a massive international grassroots effort can force the national governments of the Soviet Union, the United States and the other major military powers to resolve their differences by talking with each other, not killing each other.” [Bernie Sanders, Burlington Free Press, 12/30/87] 1972: Bernie Sanders Said The U.S. Wasted Money On The Military. “I say that these men have got to talk out if they are going to represent the people of the state of Vermont, because that’s Vermont’s tax money. you can’t ignore that. You’ve got to tell us what you think about the war in Vietnam, what you think about America supporting military dictatorships, throughout the world. How you feel about the Federal tax structure which allows gross inequalities. If we didn’t waste money on the military, we could lower property taxes at home. Money could stay here to build schools and so forth and so on. That’s the first issue that seems to me to be terribly relevant about which I would like to hear these gentlemen’s comments.” [Seven Days Vermont, 10/1/72] … But Supported Controversial Weapons Programs That Created Jobs In Vermont But Once In Congress, Considered Voting For V-22 Osprey That Benefitted Vermont Companies 1991: After Supporting A 50 Percent Military Reduction As A Candidate, Sanders Considered Supporting Osprey Project That Would Benefit Vermont. “But when it comes to certain projects within that budget, Vermont’s delegation suddenly charges course, arguing on behalf of projects that not even the Pentagon wants to build. Take the V-22 Osprey […] And even freshman Rep. Bernie Sanders -- who called for a 50 percent reduction in the military budget -- is considering voting for the Osprey. It’s a stance that has Vermont liberals shaking their heads [...] Doug Boucher, Sanders’ staff chief in Washington, said his boss may vote in favor of the Osprey even though he has called for a 50 percent cut in Pentagon spending over the next five years.” [Vermont Times, 6/20/91] Two Vermont Companies Had Contracts To Build Osprey. “The key difference between the Osprey and the other Pentagon programs Vermont’s congressmen have called wasteful appears to be that two Vermont companies – Simmonds Precision and Arrowsmith – have contracts to build pieces of the Osprey. While acknowledging that Vermont’s piece of the action is a consideration, Leahy, Sanders and Jeffords reject the implication that they are pursuing porkbarrel politics, saying the situation isn’t so simple.” [Vermont Times, 6/20/91] Sanders Voted Against FY1992 Defense Appropriation That Included Osprey Funding. “In another defeat for Pentagon officials who've failed to kill the V-22 Osprey the past three years, the House approved $990 million Friday toward completing research and development of the aircraft. The funding is part of the fiscal 1992 defense appropriations bill, which the House passed in a 273-105 vote.” [States News Service, 6/7/91; HR 2521, Vote #145, 6/7/91] Sanders And Other Members Of Vermont’s Delegation Critical Of Military Spending Supported Projects Pentagon Did Not Want To Build. According to the Vermont Times, “Vermont’s three congressmen are not shy about saying they’d like to cut the defense budget. Denouncing the $300 billion Pentagon spending plan as fraught with waste and needless weapons has become a staple of Vermont political life. But when it comes to certain projects within that budget, Vermont’s delegation suddenly changes course, arguing on behalf of projects that not even the Pentagon wants to build. [Vermont Times, 6/20/91] And Supported Controversial F-35 Program That Benefitted Vermont Sanders Endorsed Decision To Bring F-35 Aircraft Bases To Vermont. “An avowed opponent of larger defense spending, he nonetheless endorsed the decision to bring F-35 aircraft bases to Vermont…” [Time, 5/25/15] Sanders Showed A Willingness To Compromise By Supporting F-35, Called A “Vermont Exceptionalist.” “At times, Sanders has even showed a willingness to compromise that's disappointed longtime ideological allies. He has supported the F-35, Lockheed Martin's problemplagued fighter jet that has led to hundreds of billions of dollars in cost overruns, which just so happens to be manufactured in Vermont. "He became what we call up here a 'Vermont Exceptionalist,'" Guma says, of the candidate's pragmatic streak.” [Mother Jones, 5/28/15] 2009: Bernie Sanders Praised News That Vermont Was Among Candidates to Base F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. “The Air Force conducted a system-wide review of more than 200 locations before selecting Burlington and nine other bases as finalists for either the training or primary operations of the F35. […] Sanders said, ‘This is a tribute to the Vermont National Guard.’ The 10 final candidate bases will now each undergo a further review that will include an environmental analysis, site surveys and public meetings.” [Congressional Documents and Publications, 10/29/09] F-35’s Would Be Primary Replacement for F-16s and A-10s. “The Air Force version of the F35 will serve multiple roles and will be the primary replacement aircraft for the F-16s and A-10s.” [Congressional Documents and Publications, 10/29/09] 2010: Vermont Air Guard Flew F-16’s. “The F-35 is designed to replace, among other aircraft, the F-16, which the Vermont Air Guard currently flies.” [Brattleboro Reformer, 1/25/10] Vermont Air Guard Base Would Become Home to 24 F-35’s If Selected. “The Vermont unit was selected last fall as one of ten finalists to become home to 24 of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The new multipurpose aircraft will be used by the Air Force, Navy and Marines.” [Brattleboro Reformer, 1/25/10] 2010: Vermont Air National Guard Selected to Get F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Pending Environmental Review. “Lt. Governor Brian Dubie today praised the decision by the Secretary of the Air Force to designate the Vermont Air National Guard in Burlington as the first Air Guard unit to get the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, pending environmental review.” [Press Release, Office of Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie, 7/29/10] 2010: Vermont Lt. Gov. Thanked Bernie Sanders for Supporting Basing F-35 Program in Vermont. “[Lt. Gov. Brian] Dubie continued, I commend the men and women of the Vermont Air National Guard whose high standards of excellence and performance have put our base at the top of the list time and again. I thank Sen. Patrick Leahy for his leadership of the Senate National Guard Caucus, along with Sen. Bernie Sanders, and Congressman Peter Welch for putting their support behind the F-35 program and basing it here in Vermont.” [Press Release, Office of Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie, 7/29/10] 2010: Sanders: Selection of Vermont as F-35 Base a “Sign of Great National Respect and Admiration.” “The office of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., issued the following news release: Sens. Patrick Leahy (D) and Bernie Sanders (I) and Rep. Peter Welch (D) announced today that the Secretary of the Air Force has selected the Vermont National Guard to be the first Air Guard unit to base the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The Air Force announced that Burlington is one of two preferred choices for F-35 operations, along with Hill Air Force Base in northern Utah, and that Luke Air Force Base in Arizona is the top pick for training. […] Sanders said, ‘It is a sign of the great national respect and admiration for the Vermont National Guard that it was selected by the Air Force in a very competitive process.’” [Press Release, Office of Sen. Sanders, 7/29/10] Vermont Selection for F-35 Base Contingent Upon Environmental Review. “Burlington and the other locations selected to base the F-35 will now move forward with a final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).” [Press Release, Office of Sen. Sanders, 7/29/10] Sanders Said The Future Of The Vermont National Guard Depended On Getting The F-35. “The F35 has had both mechanical and cost overruns. The issue is right now that that decision has already been made. If you speak to the Department of Defense, the F-35 is the plane, as I said earlier, of the air force, the marines, the navy, and not only that, it is the plane of record now for NATO. And the simple reality is, that if the F-16 is phased out, and if the F-35 comes about to an air guard base, if Vermont doesn’t get it, we will lose many, many hundreds of jobs. I worry about the future of the Vermont National Guard, and of the men and women who are serving in the guard, and the educational opportunities that go with that service, and the impact on our economy, for the Vermont National Guard. Those planes will simply go to South Carolina or Florida, who very much want them. [Vermont Senate Debate, 10/25/12, 29:15] Sanders Said That If F-35’s Were Going to be Built, He Preferred That Vermonters Built Them. “Despite Sanders’ recent condemnation of the defense industry in general and Lockheed in particular, Vermont’s congressional delegation welcomed last summer’s F-35 announcement with great enthusiasm. In a joint press release, Sen. Patrick Leahy, Sanders and Rep. Peter Welch all characterized the selection of Burlington for the F-35s as a feather in Vermont’s cap. As Sanders put it, if the F-35s are going to be built and deployed, he’d prefer to see that work done by Vermonters.” [Seven Days Vermont, 2/9/11] Sanders Said the Majority of Opposition to F-35 Base in Vermont Was Because of Noise Concerns. “Spokesmen for Leahy, Sanders and Welch issued a joint statement late Wednesday saying the delegation's offices had heard from about 200 constituents on the F-35 issue and that ‘the majority have been in opposition because of concerns about noise.’ ‘The Air Force has received a petition in support signed by about 1600 Vermonters,’ the statement from the delegation also said.” [Burlington Free Press, 7/19/12] Seven Days: Despite Condemning Defense Industry, Sanders Welcomed F-35’s in Vermont. “Despite Sanders' recent condemnation of the defense industry in general and Lockheed in particular, Vermont's congressional delegation welcomed last summer's F-35 announcement with great enthusiasm. In a joint press release, Sen. Patrick Leahy, Sanders and Rep. Peter Welch all characterized the selection of Burlington for the F-35s as a feather in Vermont's cap.” [Seven Days Vermont, 2/9/11] Burlington Free Press: Sanders Must Take Lead in Public Debate Over F-35 Program in Vermont. “For the delegation, ignoring the voices of those who don't want to see the F-35s based in Burlington carries political risks dangerous to ignore. The issue is about difficult trade-offs - jobs vs. homes; national defense vs. peace. There's no sitting on the fence on this one. When Leahy, Sanders and Welch claim credit for the victories - whatever that might look like - they must also take responsibility for any potential losses. This is a time for engaged leadership from the people Vermonters elect to give them a voice in Washington.” [Editorial, Burlington Free Press, 7/22/12] Sanders Did Not Hold Public Hearings Regarding F-35s. “On June 3, following a "citizens' hearing" the previous week that drew about 400 opponents of the F-35 to the Unitarian Universalist Church in Burlington, the Burlington Free Press sent a series of questions about the F-35 to Sens. Patrick Leahy and Bernie Sanders, Rep. Peter Welch, and Shumlin and Weinberger, who have not mounted public hearings themselves regarding the plane.” [Burlington Free Press, 6/12/13] Burlington Free Press: Sanders Under Fire for Supporting F-35 Base in Vermont. “…Leahy, Sanders and Welch, who are used to broad, populist support from Vermonters, find themselves under fire for their support of a weapons system. The challenge is an usual one for a delegation widely considered to be among the most liberal members of Congress. The bid to base the F-35s in Vermont has run into opposition from the expected quarters - those opposed to war and the military build-up. The political leaders had to expect this opposition because they hail, in part, from the same critical base. A much broader protest has centered on concerns about increased noise from the jets which could render larger parts of South Burlington and Williston, as well as much of Winooski undesirable for residential use.” [Editorial, Burlington Free Press, 7/22/12] Sanders Staffer David Weinstein Did Not Dispute That Noise from F-35s Would Increase Number of Citizens Negatively Impacted by F-35 Noise. “Monday, Greco provided the council with a description of a closed meeting about the F-35A basing she and City Manager Sandy Miller had last week with John Tracy from U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy's office, Sen. Bernie Sanders' staffer David Weinstein and Jon Copans, representing Rep. Peter Welch. […] The congressional aides didn't dispute that the F-35A noise would lead to an increase under one basing scenario of 6,675 individuals added to the area the Federal Aviation Administration considers unsuitable for residential use.” [Burlington Free Press, 8/28/12] Sanders Called Vermonters F-35 Noise Concerns “Legitimate.” “Opponents say the planes, which are noisier than the F-16s they will replace, could drive down property values and erode the quality of life of people who live along the flight path. Sanders said the neighbors had legitimate concerns about the noise and that he and other members of the delegation would do all they could to minimize the problem, should the Air Force decide to base the planes in Vermont.” [Associated Press, 10/18/12] Sanders Said “Whether One May Like It Or Not” The F-35 Was The Plane Of Choice And He Preferred That It Be Located In Vermont. “Sanders said he was proud of the Vermont Air National Guard. ‘The F-35, whether one may like it or not, is the plane of choice not only for the U.S. Air Force, but for the Navy, Marines and much of NATO,’ Sanders said in a statement issued by his Washington office. ‘If the F-35 ends up not being located here, it will end up at a National Guard base in Florida or South Carolina. I would rather it be here.’” [Associated Press, 10/18/12] Sanders Said He Worked with the National Air Guard on F-35 Noise Concerns. “Sanders spokesman Michael Briggs said Sanders working with the Guard on noise concerns and is confident the Guard will be responsive.” [Burlington Free Press, 12/07/12] Boston Globe: Air Force Relied on Inaccurate Estimates of the Impact of Jet Noise on Local Population. “Projected sound levels around the airport are so high with the F-35s that local officials predict several thousand nearby homes would fall within a zone designated ‘incompatible for residential use,’ negatively affecting the lives and property values of as many as 7,000 citizens. A Globe examination of records, and interviews with Pentagon officials directly involved with the review, show the Air Force -- in selecting Vermont over competing locations -- relied on inaccurate, excessively low estimates of the impact of the jet blast on the local population. […] Pentagon officials said the first set of sound projections, provided by Burlington International Airport and Vermont National Guard in 2008 to the Federal Aviation Administration, caused the Air Force to underestimate the number of homes that would be affected by replacing the Vermont Guard's current squadron of F-16s with up to 24 of the more sophisticated, but louder, F-35s.” [Boston Globe, 4/14/13] Pentagon Official: F-35 Base Selection Process Purposely “Fudged” So Vermont Would Win. “One of the Pentagon officials said in an interview that the lengthy base-selection process was deliberately ‘fudged’ by military brass so that Leahy's home state would win. ‘Unfortunately Burlington was selected even before the scoring process began,’ said the official, who asked that he not to be identified for fear of reprisals from his superiors. ‘I wish it wasn't true, but unfortunately that is the way it is. The numbers were fudged for Burlington to come out on top. If the scoring had been done correctly Burlington would not have been rated higher.” […] The Air Force denied the fix was in for Vermont, even though it now says it is reassessing residential impacts and other factors using updated information -- a review that could end in a reversal of its preliminary decision.” [Boston Globe, 4/14/13] Sanders Said He Took Seriously Allegations that Selection Process Was Flawed. “Leahy's senate colleague Sanders, too, says he wants more information about how the selection of Burlington was made. ‘I take seriously allegations that the scoring process may have been flawed,’ he told the Globe in a statement Friday, adding that the Air Force should release all of its documentation. ‘I do believe the process must be transparent and fair.’” [Boston Globe, 4/14/13] After Revised Impact Statement Showed More Residents Would Be Negatively Impacted by F-35 Basing, Sanders Reiterated His Support for the Program. “We continue to believe basing the plane in South Burlington will be good for the future of the Vermont Air Guard and for the state's economy. We also believe the decision making process must be open and transparent and that the Air Force must take into consideration the community's concerns. We encourage all interested Vermonters to communicate their views during the comment period and encourage the Air Force to make practical adjustments to the plan that will address the valid concerns of residents and businesses.” [Joint Statement of Sen. Leahy, Sen. Sanders, Rep. Peter Welch and Gov. Shumlin, 5/31/13] Revised Impact Statement Showed 2,000 More People Would Be Affected by High Noise Levels From F-35s. “[…] New data shows that 2,000 more people in Chittenden County would be affected by high noise levels from the F-35 than originally projected -- should the Air Force decide to base the fighter jet in Burlington. About 1,000 more households would be impacted. […] Noise levels from the F-35 are anticipated to affect a wider swath of Chittenden County, including larger portions of the towns Winooski and Williston, than the F-16s that are now based at Burlington International Airport. The 65 decibel zone detailed in a map provided by the Air Force hasn't changed officials say, since the last EIS draft was released. Population levels in the zone, however, have become denser.” [Vermont Business Magazine, 6/03/13] Vermont Business Magazine: Sanders Backed F-35 Base Despite Growing Opposition. “Vermont's congressional delegation, Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., have backed the basing of the F-35 in Burlington, despite growing grassroots opposition to the jets in Winooski and South Burlington.” [Vermont Business Magazine, 6/03/13] Sanders District Office Protested, Vermont Delegation Booed by Opponents of F-35 Base in Vermont. “The rally began with a collective booing of Vermont's congressional delegation, Burlington's mayor and the South Burlington City Council, who have all voiced support for the basing of the F-35 at Burlington International Airport. When a woman in the crowd shouted out, ‘And Shumlin!’ the protesters proceeded to also boo Gov. Peter Shumlin. […] After rallying, the protesters marched on the offices of Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., and Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. They also marched down Church Street.” [Burlington Free Press, 7/14/13] Sanders Praised Air Force’s Final Decision to Base F-35 At Vermont National Guard; Said Decision Would Protect Hundreds of Jobs and Educational Opportunities. “The Air Force decision to base its newest generation of planes in Burlington is a tribute to the Vermont Air National Guard, which is the finest in the nation. It reflects the Guard's dedication to its mission and long record of outstanding performance. The Air Force has made clear that this aircraft, which will anchor our national air defenses, is the Air Force's future. Now the men and women of Vermont's Air National Guard have been chosen for a vital role in that future. The decision ensures the Vermont Air Guard's continuing mission and protects hundreds of jobs and educational opportunities for Vermonters while securing its significant contribution to the local economy. We appreciate the Guard's commitment to continue working with its airport neighbors to address legitimate concerns about noise and other environmental concerns.”[Joint Statement of Sen. Leahy, Sen. Sanders, Rep. Welch, Gov. Shumlin, 12/03/13] Winooksi City Council Voted Unanimously Against F-35 Base in Burlington. “The rally began with a collective booing of Vermont's congressional delegation, Burlington's mayor and the South Burlington City Council, who have all voiced support for the basing of the F-35 at Burlington International Airport. When a woman in the crowd shouted out, "And Shumlin!" the protesters proceeded to also boo Gov. Peter Shumlin. They also cheered for the Winooski City Council, which voted unanimously Friday to ask the Air Force to remove the South Burlington airport from a first-round list of basing options for a fleet of F-35s. The planes would replace the Vermont Air Guard's fleet of F-16s.” [Burlington Free Press, 7/14/13] Vermont National Resources Council Opposed F-35 Base in Vermont, Saying It Would “Endanger Housing and Community Growth.” “The Vermont Natural Resources Council says a proposal to base F-35 fighter jets at the Burlington International Airport will endanger housing and community growth. The council has sent a letter to Burlington's mayor and City Council opposing the plan. It says the supply of homes would diminish in the area if residents had to be relocated due to increased noise or safety concerns. It also says basing the F-35s at the airport would create less affordable housing.” [WPTZ, 8/22/13] Sanders: “For Better or Worse” the F-35 is The Plane of Record. “’For better or worse, [the F-35] is the plane of record right now’ Sanders told a local reporter after the runway fire last year, ‘and it is not gonna be discarded. That's the reality.’” [Yerepouni Daily News, 12/29/14] Sanders Opposed Cutting F-35 Spending Despite Calling it “Incredibly Wasteful.” “Me [Carl Gibson]: ‘You mentioned wasteful military spending. The other day ... I’m sure you’ve heard about the F35 catching fire on the runway. The estimated lifetime expense of the F-35 is $1.2 trillion. When you talk about cutting wasteful military spending, does that include the F-35 program?’ Bernie Sanders: ‘No, and I’ll tell you why – it is essentially built. It is the airplane of the United States Air Force, Navy, and of NATO. It was a very controversial issue in Vermont. And my view was that given the fact that the F-35, which, by the way, has been incredibly wasteful, that’s a good question. But for better or worse, that is the plane of record right now, and it is not gonna be discarded. That’s the reality.’” [Reader Supported News, 6/03/14] VOTES ON F-35S Sanders Voted To Withhold 10 Percent Of Funding For F-35 Joint Strike Program Unless Sufficient Money Was Made Available For Development Of Alternative Engine. “The Senate rejected, 38-59, a competing amendment by Evan Bayh, D-Ind., that would have withheld 10 percent of the funding for the F-35 unless sufficient money was made available to continue development of a second engine. Bayh’s amendment would have paid for the engine by cutting $439 million form the authorization for C-130 transport planes for special operations forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bayh said the planes were already funded by the supplemental spending law.” [Congress and the Nation 2009-2012, 9/8/14; S Amdt 1767 to S 1390, Vote #240, 7/23/09] Bayh Amendment “Would Have Maintained The Second Engine Money.” “The Senate defeated, 38-59, an amendment offered by Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) that would have maintained the second engine money.” [Congress Now, 7/23/09] Bayh Amendment Was An “Unsuccessful Attempt To Keep Funding For The Engine Program.” “Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., made an unsuccessful attempt to keep funding for the engine program in the Senate's version of the defense bill. His move to cut funding for specialmission planes instead was defeated 59-38.” [Gannett News Service, 7/23/09] Sanders Voted For An Amendment To Cancel $1.75 Billion In Appropriations Intended To Purchase Additional F-22s. “In a 58 to 40 vote, the Senate approved an amendment to cancel $1.75 billion that had been set aside by lawmakers to purchase seven additional F-22s in the 2010 Defense Department budget. Mr. Gates is adamantly opposed to buying more of the highly sophisticated fighters, which he says have little relevance to today's conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.” [Wall Street Journal, 7/22/09; S Amdt 1469 to S 1390, Vote #235, 7/21/2009] Sanders Voted For Conference Report Of The FY 2010 Defense Authorization Bill. On October 22, 2009, Bernie Sanders voted yes on Senate Vote #327. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the conference report on the bill that would authorize $680.2 billion in discretionary spending for defense programs in fiscal 2010, including approximately $130 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and other operations. [CQ Floor Votes; HR 2647, Senate Vote #327, 10/22/2009] FY 2010 Defense Authorization Included $6 Billion For F-35s, And An Additional $560 Million For Development Of An Alternative Engine. “Following are major provisions of the fiscal 2010 defense authorization: […] Conferees authorized $560 million to continue development of the alternative engine for F-35 Joint Strike Fighters. But instead of taking the funding out of the money authorized for the plane itself, as the House had done, negotiators agreed to authorize the full $6 billion requested for thirty F-35s, plus another $560 million for the competitive engine program.” [Congress and the Nation 2009-2012, 9/8/14] Sanders Voted Against Eliminating Funding for the F-35 Alternative Engine Program. On March 9, 2011, Bernie Sanders voted no on Senate Vote #36. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would provide continuing appropriations through fiscal 2011 for all government agencies, except the Defense Department, which would receive $515.8 billion in base funding. Most other programs would be funded at fiscal 2010 levels, less eliminations, reductions and rescissions totaling roughly $61.5 billion. The bill does not include earmarks and eliminates all previous fiscal 2010 earmark funding from continuing appropriations. The bill would eliminate funding for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter alternative engine program and prohibit any funding from being made available to Planned Parenthood and its affiliates. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #36, 3/9/2011] Bernie Sanders Voted Against The Conference Report Of The FY 2012 Defense Authorization Bill. “The Senate cleared a compromise defense policy bill Thursday that would authorize well over a halftrillion dollars for national security spending, sending the sweeping measure to President Obama for his signature. Senators voted 86-13 to adopt the conference report on the $662.4 billion bill (HR 1540 -- H Rept 112-329). […] The measure would authorize more than $6 billion for 31 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters but no funds for an alternative engine, which is opposed by the administration. The agreement requires the contractor building the F-35 to pay more for future cost overruns.” [CQ Today, 12/15/11; HR 1540, Vote #230, 12/15/11] FY 2012 Defense Authorization Included $6.2 Billion For F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. “Following are the main provisions of the fiscal 2012 defense authorization: […] The military’s tactical aircraft included three major programs – the F-18 Super Hornet, the primary strike aircraft of both the Navy and the Marine Corps; the Air Force’s F-22A Raptor, with had ended production; and the joint service F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which had just entered initial production. The authorization included: $6.2 billion to produce thirty-one F-35s, one aircraft fewer than requested. The measure authorized no funds for an alternative engine, which was opposed by the administration.” [Congress and the Nation 2009-2012, 9/8/14] Sanders Voted Against The Conference Report Of The FY 2013 Defense Authorization Bill. On December 21, 2012, Bernie Sanders voted no on Senate Vote #229. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the conference report on the bill that would authorize $648.7 billion for defense programs in fiscal 2013, including $85.5 billion for overseas military operations. [CQ Floor Votes; HR 4310, Vote #229, 12/21/12] FY 2013 Defense Authorization Included $5.4 Billion For Procurement And $2.7 For R&D For F-35 Program. “Despite the debate over the second engine and repeated cost overruns, Congress consistently supported the main F-35 project, which was the Pentagon’s largest single procurement program with a planned total of 2,456 planes: the F-35A for the Air Force, the F-35 B for the Marine Corps, and the F-35C for the Navy. For example, the fiscal 2013 defense authorization bill (PL 112-329) included $5.4 billion for procurement ($1 billion below the president’s request) and $2.7 billion for research and development on the plane.” [Congress and the Nation 2009-2012, 9/8/14] Sanders Voted Against FY 2014 Defense Authorization. “Reid, D-Nev., motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill that would authorize $625.1 billion for discretionary defense programs in fiscal 2014. Of that, $526.8 billion would be authorized in base Defense Department spending, $80.7 billion for overseas contingency operations and $17.6 billion for national security programs at the Energy Department. It would provide a 1 percent pay raise for troops and would authorize 1.36 million active-duty personnel. It would continue an existing prohibition on transferring detainees from the Guantanamo Bay military facilities to the United States but would ease rules on transferring them to foreign countries. It also would make a series of changes to how the military handles sexual assault cases. Motion agreed to 84-15.” [CQ Vote Report; HR 3304, Vote #284, 12/19/13] FY2014 Defense Authorization Funded $5.4 Billion For F-35 Procurement. "The FY2014 defense authorization bill funded F-35 procurement at $5.4 billion for 29 aircraft (19 F-35As, 6 F35Bs, and 4 F-35Cs, as requested), plus $561.7 million in advance procurement. The conference report accompanying the bill included language repealing some previously enacted reporting requirements for the F-35 program, and mandated a review of F-35 software development." [CRS, 4/29/14] FY2014 Defense Authorization Included Funding For P-8, F-15, F-16, F-18, C-130J, C-5 And C-17 Programs. [HR 3304, Became Public Law 113-66] GENERAL CRITICISM OF F-35 JOINT STRIKE PROGRAM The Atlantic: U.S. Would Spend $1 Trillion For F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Planes. “Washington intends to buy 2,443, at a price tag of $382 billion. Add in the $650 billion that the Government Accountability Office estimates is needed to operate and maintain the aircraft, and the total cost reaches a staggering $1 trillion. In other words, we're spending more on this plane than Australia's entire GDP ($924 billion).” [The Atlantic, 3/15/11] The Atlantic: F-35 Program the “Most Expensive Defense Program in History,” Rife with Cost Overruns. “The F-35 is the most expensive defense program in history, and reveals massive cost overruns, a lack of clear strategic thought, and a culture in Washington that encourages incredible waste. Money is pouring into the F-35 vortex. In 2010, Pentagon officials found that the cost of each plane had soared by over 50 percent above the original projections. The program has fallen years behind schedule, causing billions of dollars of additional expense, and won't be ready until 2016. An internal Pentagon report concluded that: ‘affordability is no longer embraced as a core pillar.’” [The Atlantic, 3/15/11] The Hill: Cost of F-35 Fighter Increased 65 Percent From 2002 Projected Costs. “The F-35 is meant to replace older aircraft for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps as well as international militaries. The cost of the program has risen to $382.4 billion, a 65 percent increase from the projected costs in 2002.” [The Hill, 9/16/10] The Atlantic: The F-35 “a Symbol of Everything That’s Wrong With Defense Spending in America.” “The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is an impressive aircraft: a fifth generation multirole fighter plane with stealth technology. It's also a symbol of everything that's wrong with defense spending in America.” The Hill: Senate Appropriators Criticized F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. “Senate appropriators are blasting the Pentagon’s highest profile program, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, calling it ‘disturbing.’ The Senate Appropriations panel on Thursday approved a fiscal 2011 Pentagon spending bill that significantly cuts the funding for the production of the new F-35 jets. The Senate appropriators decided to fund only 32 of the 42 jets requested by the Pentagon. In report language accompanying the bill, the committee said that the importance of the F-35 program and the urgent need to replace ageing fighter jets ‘is the only reason why the Committee is scaling back production and not recommending eliminating all funding for this program for fiscal year 2011.’” [The Hill, 9/16/10] The Atlantic’s James Fallows: F-35 Program’s Losses Through Overruns and Fraud Are Nearly 100 Times That of Solyndra. “One measure of the gap in coverage: Total taxpayer losses in the failed Solyndra solar-energy program might come, at their most dire estimate, to some $800 million. Total cost overruns, losses through fraud, and other damage to the taxpayer from the F-35 project are perhaps 100 times that great, yet the "Solyndra scandal" is known to probably 100 times as many people as the travails of the F-35. Here’s another yardstick: the all-in costs of this airplane are now estimated to be as much as $1.5 trillion, or a low-end estimate of the entire Iraq War.” [James Fallows, The Atlantic Magazine, Jan/Feb. 2015 Issue] Mother Jones: Production of the F-35 Led to “Hundreds of Billions” in Cost Overruns. “Lockheed Martin's problem-plagued fighter jet that has led to hundreds of billions of dollars in cost overruns, which just so happens to be manufactured in Vermont.” [Mother Jones, 5/26/15] Sanders Voted Against Many Defense Authorizations Sanders Voted Against Many Defense Authorizations In The House Bernie Sanders Voted Against House Passage Of Fiscal 1992 Defense Authorization. On May 22, 1991, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #110. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill to authorize appropriations of $291 billion for the Defense Department and defenserelated programs for fiscal 1992. The bill would terminate new production of the B-2 Stealth bomber and funding for early deployment of SDI programs as well as remove the prohibition against women flying combat missions. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #110, 5/22/1991] Bernie Sanders Voted Against Conference Report Of Fiscal 1992 Defense Authorization. On November 18, 1991, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #400. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the conference report to authorize $290.8 billion for defense programs in fiscal 1992. The measure authorizes $4.36 billion for the B-2 bomber but halts new production of the bomber at the 15 planes already authorized and authorizes $4.15 billion for the Strategic Defense Initiative. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #400, 11/18/1991] Bernie Sanders Voted For House Passage Of Fiscal 1993 Defense Authorization. On June 5, 1992, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #172. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill to authorize $270 billion for defense programs in fiscal 1993, including $4.3 billion for the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) and $4 billion for the B-2 bomber. The bill provides an authorization level $11 billion less than the administration's proposal, $20.4 billion less than appropriated in fiscal 1992, $18.4 billion less than the level set in the 1990 Budget Enforcement Act and $7 billion less than the level set in the 1993 budget resolution. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #172, 6/5/1992] Bernie Sanders Voted Against Conference Report Of Fiscal 1993 Defense Authorization. On October 3, 1992, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #461. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the conference report to authorize $273.9 billion for defense programs in fiscal 1993, including $4.1 billion for the Strategic Defense Initiative and $2.7 billion to complete the B-2 bomber fleet at 20 planes. The bill provides an authorization level less than the administration's proposal by $7 billion and the fiscal 1992 appropriated level by $16.4 billion. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #461, 10/3/1992] Bernie Sanders Voted Against House Passage Of Fiscal 1994 Defense Authorization. On September 29, 1993, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #474. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill to authorize about $263 billion in fiscal 1994 for the military activities of the Defense Department. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #474, 9/29/1993] Bernie Sanders Did Not Vote On Conference Report Of Fiscal 1994 Defense Authorization. On November 15, 1993, Bernie Sanders did not vote on House Vote #565. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the conference report to authorize $261 billion for defense programs in fiscal 1994. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #565, 11/15/1993] Bernie Sanders Voted Against House Passage Of Fiscal 1995 Defense Authorization. On June 9, 1994, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #226. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill to authorize $263.3 billion in fiscal 1995 for defense programs. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #226, 6/9/1994] Bernie Sanders Voted Against Conference Report Of Fiscal 1995 Defense Authorization. On August 17, 1994, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #404. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the conference report to authorize $263.7 billion in fiscal 1995 for the programs of the Department of Defense. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #404, 8/17/1994] Bernie Sanders Voted Against House Passage Of Fiscal 1996 Defense Authorization. On June 15, 1995, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #385. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill to authorize $267.3 billion for defense programs in fiscal 1996, or $9.4 billion more than the administration requested. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #385, 6/15/1995] Bernie Sanders Voted No On 1996 House Vote # 174 (Fiscal 1997 Defense Authorization Passage ). On May 15, 1996, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #174. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill to authorize $266.7 billion for Defense Department activities in fiscal 1997, an increase of $12.4 billion over the president's request. The bill also requires the discharge of certain service personnel infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS; prohibits the service of homosexuals in the military; and provides a 3 percent pay increase for military personnel in fiscal 1997. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #174, 5/15/1996] Bernie Sanders Voted Against House Passage Of Fiscal 1998 Defense Authorization. On June 25, 1997, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #236. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill to authorize $268.2 billion for defense programs in fiscal 1998, $2.6 billion more than the president requested. The bill also prohibits funding for U.S. ground troops in Bosnia after June 30, 1998, and effectively prohibits private contractors from performing maintenance work at Air Force maintenance depots in San Antonio and Sacramento, Calif. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #236, 6/25/1997] Bernie Sanders Voted Against House Passage Of Fiscal 1999 Defense Authorization. On May 21, 1998, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #183. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill to authorize $270.4 billion for defense programs, including $49.1 billion for weapons procurement, $36.2 billion for research and development, $94.5 billion for operations and maintenance, $8.2 billion for military construction, and $11.9 billion for defense-related activities of the Department of Energy. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #183, 5/21/1998] Bernie Sanders Voted No On 1999 House Vote # 191 (Defense Authorization - Passage ). On June 10, 1999, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #191. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill to provide $288.8 billion in new budget authority for defense activities in Fiscal 2000 including $74 billion for military personnel; $106.5 billion for operations and maintenance; $55.6 billion for weapons procurement; $35.8 for research and development; $8.6 billion for military construction and family housing; and $12.3 billion for defense-related programs at the Department of Energy; and a 4.8 percent military pay raise and increased retirement benefits. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #191, 6/10/1999] Bernie Sanders Voted Against House Passage Of Fiscal 2000 Defense Authorization - Conference Report. On September 15, 1999, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #424. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the conference report on the bill to authorize $288.8 billion in funds for the Department of Defense. The conference report includes a reorganization of the Energy Department's security program for its nuclear laboratories. The conference report would establish the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a semi-autonomous agency within the Energy Department that would be responsible for nuclear weapons development, naval nuclear propulsion, defense nuclear nonproliferation and fissile material disposition and would establish security, intelligence and counterintellegence offices. The conference report also includes $1.6 billion for six F-22 fighters. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #424, 9/15/1999] Bernie Sanders Voted Against House Passage Of Fiscal 2001 Defense Authorization. On May 18, 2000, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #208. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would authorize $309.9 billion for defense programs, 7 percent more than the current total amount appropriated. It would provide $62.3 billion for weapons procurement, $39.3 billion for research and development, $111.3 billion for operations and maintenance, $8.4 billion for military construction and family housing and $12.8 billion for the Energy Department. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #208, 5/18/2000] Bernie Sanders Voted Against House Passage Of Fiscal 2003 Defense Authorization. On May 10, 2002, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #158. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would authorize $383.4 billion for defense programs for fiscal 2003. It would include the president's request of $7.8 billion for missile defense systems and $7.3 billion for counterterrorism programs. It would provide $475 million for the Crusader artillery system. The bill also would exempt military activities from certain environmental regulations and include an average 4.7 percent pay increase for military personnel. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #158, 5/10/2002] Bernie Sanders Voted Against House Passage Of Fiscal 2004 Defense Authorization. On May 22, 2003, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #221. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would authorize $400.5 billion for defense programs for fiscal 2004. It would include $9.1 billion for the administration's anti-missile defense system program and $1.7 billion to develop the Future Combat Systems program, a family of lightweight fighting vehicles and robots. The bill would authorize research funding for two new types of nuclear weapons and would give the Pentagon greater flexibility over civilian personnel issues. The bill also would give the military more leeway in complying with environmental regulations including the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The bill would allow the Pentagon to purchase more goods and services on a fixed-price basis rather than going through open, competitive bidding and would exempt half of the nation's military bases from closure. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #221, 5/22/2003] Bernie Sanders Voted Against Conference Report Of Fiscal 2004 Defense Authorization. On November 7, 2003, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #617. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the conference report on the bill that would authorize $401.3 billion for defense and national security in fiscal 2004. It would allow certain disabled military retirees to receive both their retirement and disability benefits simultaneously and would extend the military's Tricare health coverage to National Guard and reservists and their families if servicemembers have been called to active duty. The Air Force would be authorized immediately to lease up to 20 Boeing 767 aerial refueling tanker planes and buy up to 80 more. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #617, 11/7/2003] …But Voted For Defense Authorizations Immediately After 9/11 Bernie Sanders Voted For House Passage Fiscal 2002 Defense Authorization. On September 25, 2001, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #359. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would authorize $343.2 billion for defense programs, 10 percent more than the current level. It would provide $125 billion for operations and maintenance, $82.3 billion for military personnel, $62 billion for weapons procurement, $47.7 billion for research and development, $13.4 billion for the Energy Department, and $10.3 billion for military construction and family housing. The bill also would authorize $8.2 billion for national missile defense programs. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #359, 9/25/2001] Bernie Sanders Voted For Conference Report Of Fiscal 2002 Defense Authorization. On December 13, 2001, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #496. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the conference report on the bill that would authorize $343.2 billion for defense programs, 10 percent more than the current level. It would provide $125 billion for operations and maintenance, $82.3 billion for military personnel, $62 billion for weapons procurement, $47.8 billion for research and development, $14.4 billion for the Energy Department, and $10.5 billion for military construction and family housing. The agreement also would authorize $8.3 billion for national missile defense programs and allow an additional round of base realignment and closures in 2005. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #496, 12/13/2001] And Voted For Defense Authorizations As He Approached His Senate Run Bernie Sanders Voted For House Passage Of Fiscal 2005 Defense Authorization. On May 20, 2004, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #206. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would authorize $447.2 billion for defense programs, including $25 billion for operations in Iraq, for fiscal 2005. It would authorize up to $10.2 billion for missile defense, fund research for new nuclear, earth-penetrating weapons and delay the next scheduled round of base closures from 2005 to 2007. It also would require the Defense department to increase the number of active-duty Army service members by 30,000, boost Marine Corps active-duty levels by 9,000 and provide for a 3.5 percent pay hike for military personnel. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #206, 5/20/2004] Bernie Sanders Voted For Conference Report Of Fiscal 2005 Defense Authorization - Conference Report. On October 9, 2004, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #528. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the conference report on the bill that would authorize $445.6 billion for the Defense Department and Energy Department's national security programs. It would authorize $25 billion in additional funds for operations in Iraq and provide more than $2 billion for increased protection of U.S. troops there. It would maintain the 2005 schedule for military base closings and require the Army and Marine Corps to increase their numbers by 20,000 and 3,000, respectively, in fiscal 2005. It also would direct the Air Force to purchase up to 100 refueling tanker planes under competitive bidding and provide for a 3.5 percent pay increase for military personnel. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #528, 10/9/2004] Bernie Sanders Voted For House Passage Of Fiscal 2006 Defense Authorization. On May 25, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #222. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would authorize $441.6 billion for defense programs and $49.1 billion in emergency supplemental spending for fiscal 2006. The bill would authorize $79.1 billion for weapons procurement, $124.3 billion for operations and maintenance, $108.8 billion for personnel, $12.2 billion for military construction and family housing and $17 billion for weapons-related and environmental-cleanup activities of the Energy Department. It also would authorize $7.9 billion for ballistic-missile defense programs. The Pentagon would be required to notify Congress within 60 consecutive legislative days if it intends to open to women military jobs closed under a 1994 policy which restricts women from serving in units that are sent into direct ground combat, such as infantry, armor and special forces. It also would require the Defense Department to evaluate and continually monitor changes to initial cost estimates for major defense acquisition programs. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #222, 5/25/2005] Bernie Sanders Voted For Conference Report Of Fiscal 2006 Defense Authorization. On December 19, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #665. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the conference report on the bill that would authorize $441.5 billion for defense programs and $50 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would authorize $77 billion for weapons procurement, $108.9 billion for personnel and $12.2 billion for military construction and family housing. It also would authorize $6.6 billion for Hurricane Katrina relief, $130 million for flu preparedness and $40 million for Pakistan earthquake relief. It would establish prohibit cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of any prisoner detained by the U.S. government. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #665, 12/19/2005] Bernie Sanders Voted For House Passage Of Fiscal 2007 Defense Authorization. On May 11, 2006, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #145. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would authorize $512.9 billion for defense programs in fiscal 2007, including $50 billion in emergency spending for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill would authorize $85.9 billion for weapons procurement, $129.8 billion for operations and maintenance, $109.8 billion for personnel, $16.8 billion for military construction and family housing and $16.5 billion for weapons-related and environmental-cleanup activities of the Energy Department. It also would authorize $9.1 billion for the Missile Defense Agency. The bill, as amended, would authorize the Defense secretary to assign military personnel to assist the Homeland Security Department with border security under certain circumstances such as a threat to national security. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #145, 5/11/2006] Bernie Sanders Voted For Conference Report Fiscal 2007 Defense Authorization. On September 29, 2006, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #510. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the conference report on the bill that would authorize $532.8 billion for defense programs in fiscal 2007, including $70 billion in emergency spending for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill would authorize $84.2 billion for weapons procurement, $155.3 billion for operations and maintenance, $110.1 billion for personnel, $17.1 billion for military construction and family housing. It also would authorize $9.4 billion for ballistic-missile defense programs. It would allow for an average pay raise of 2.2 percent for military personnel. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #510, 9/29/2006] Sanders Voted Against Most Defense Authorizations In The Senate 2007: Sanders Voted For Supplemental Appropriations Bill That Included $3.1 Million In Additional Appropriations For BRAC. “Department of Defense Base Closure Account, 2005. For deposit into the Department of Defense Base Closure Account 2005, established by section 2906(a)(1) of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (10 U.S.C. 2687 note), $3,136,802,000, to remain available until expended.” [HR 1591, Vote #126, 3/29/07] 2008: Bernie Sanders Voted Against Conference Report Of FY2008 Defense Authorization. On January 22, 2008, Bernie Sanders voted no on Senate Vote #1. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would authorize $696.4 billion for defense programs in fiscal 2008, including $189.5 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would authorize $142.8 billion for operations and maintenance; $119.7 billion for military personnel; $23.7 billion for military construction and family housing; and $23.1 billion for the Defense Health Program. It would authorize a 3.5 percent pay increase for military personnel. It also would allow the president to waive certain liability provisions as they apply to Iraq. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #1, 1/22/2008] 2007: Sanders Voted For Senate Passage Of FY2008 Defense Authorization. On October 1, 2007, Bernie Sanders voted yes on Senate Vote #359. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would authorize approximately $672 billion for defense programs in fiscal 2008, including about $151 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill would authorize $143.5 billion for operations and maintenance; $109.9 billion for procurement; $122.9 billion for military personnel; $22.5 billion for military construction and family housing; $22.5 billion for defense health care programs; and $74.7 billion for research development, testing and evaluation. It would authorize a 3.5 percent pay increase for military personnel. As amended, the bill also includes $23.6 billion for the procurement of 15,200 additional mine-resistant ambushprotected vehicles. It also would make violent crimes that cause bodily harm based on the victim's race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability punishable by a fine and up to 10 years in prison, and punishable by a life sentence if the victim dies, is kidnapped or subjected to aggravated sexual abuse. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #359, 10/1/2007] 2008: Sanders Voted Against FY 2009 National Defense Authorization Act. “Passage of the bill that would authorize $612.5 billion for defense programs in fiscal 2009, including $70 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Excluding the war funding, it would authorize $154 billion for operations and maintenance; $103.9 billion for procurement; $128.4 billion for military personnel; $24.8 billion for military construction, family housing and base closure; $79.7 billion for research development, testing and evaluation; and $24.8 billion for the Defense Health Program. It would authorize a 3.9 percent pay increase for military personnel. It would extend from three years to five years the statute of limitations on contractor fraud in theaters of war, including undeclared wars.” The bill passed 88-8. [CQ Vote Report; S 3001, Vote #201, 9/17/08] Sanders Proposed Amendment To FY 2009 Defense Authorization To Deal With Wasteful Spending By Military. “The Senate turned Tuesday to the defense authorization bill as its first order of business since returning from an August break. Senate leaders hoped to begin debate on amendments. One proposed by Senator Bernie Sanders would address one of the most egregious examples of wasteful spending in the federal government: the billions of dollars worth of unneeded spare parts in Army, Navy, and Air Force warehouses.” [Sanders press release, 9/9/08] 2009: Bernie Sanders Voted Against Senate Passage Of FY 2010 Defense Authorization. On July 23, 2009, Bernie Sanders voted no on Senate Vote #242. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would authorize $680 billion for defense programs in fiscal 2010, including $129.3 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Excluding the war funding, it would authorize $155.6 billion for operations and maintenance; $107.2 billion for procurement; $135.6 billion for military personnel; $22.8 billion for military construction, family housing and base closure; $79.9 billion for research development, testing and evaluation; and $27.9 billion for the Defense Health Program. The bill would authorize a 3.4 percent pay increase for military personnel and authorize the Defense Department to increase the activeduty end strength for the Army by 30,000 above the 2010 baseline for fiscal 2010 through 2012. It would expand federal hate crimes law to cover those based on sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #242, 7/23/2009] 2009: Bernie Sanders For The Conference Report Of FY 2010 Defense Authorization. On October 22, 2009, Bernie Sanders voted yes on Senate Vote #327. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the conference report on the bill that would authorize $680.2 billion in discretionary spending for defense programs in fiscal 2010, including approximately $130 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and other operations. It would authorize $244.4 billion for operations and maintenance; $150.2 billion for military personnel; $24.6 billion for military construction, family housing, and base closings; and $29.3 billion for the Defense Health Program. It would authorize a 3.4 percent pay raise for military personnel. It would prohibit detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, from being transferred to U.S. soil until the president submits a plan to Congress and consults with the governors of affected states. It would extend, through 2010, bonus and special pay for military members, and make disabled retirees eligible for one year of concurrent military retirement and veterans disability payments. It would extend federal hate crimes laws to cover offenses motivated by a victim's gender identity, sexual orientation or disability, and would prohibit attacks on military personnel based on their military service. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #327, 10/22/2009] 2011: Bernie Sanders Voted Against FY 2012 Defense Authorization. On December 1, 2011, Bernie Sanders voted no on Senate Vote #218. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would authorize $662 billion for defense programs in fiscal 2012. It would authorize $87.8 billion for procurement, $10.2 billion for military personnel, $32.2 billion for the Defense Health Program and $323.5 million for base realignment and closure. It also would authorize a 1.6 percent pay increase for military personnel. The bill would require members of al Qaeda and its affiliates to be held in military rather than civilian custody, unless the administration exercises a waiver due to national security concerns. The bill would specify that certain detainee provisions do not affect current law on the question of holding citizens in military detention if individuals are taken into custody within the United States. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #218, 12/1/2011] Sanders Voted Against The National Defense Authorization Act Because It Allowed The Indefinite Detainment of American Citizens. “I voted against the National Defense Authorization Act, and I voted against it for two reasons. Number one, as you indicate, the civil liberties aspects, the possibility of indefinite detainment of American citizens and that was obviously a good enough reason to vote against it.” [Thom Hartmann Program, 1/20/12] 2012: Bernie Sanders Voted For Senate Passage Of FY 2013 Defense Authorization. On December 4, 2012, Bernie Sanders voted yes on Senate Vote #221. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would authorize $631.4 billion for defense programs in fiscal 2013, including $88.2 billion for overseas contingency operations. Excluding the war funding, it would authorize $174.8 billion for operations and maintenance; $97 billion for procurement; $135.1 billion for military personnel; $10.6 billion for military construction, family housing and base closure; $69.3 billion for research, development, testing and evaluation; $9.7 billion for missile defense and $32.9 billion for the Defense Health Program. The bill would authorize a 1.7 percent pay increase for military personnel. As amended, it would bar all transactions with Iran's energy, shipping and shipbuilding sectors and its ports. It also would make it unlawful to detain a U.S. citizen or a permanent resident apprehended in the United States without charge or trial and would prohibit the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo Bay military facilities to the United States. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #221, 12/4/2012] 2012: Sanders Voted Against Conference Report Of FY 2013 Defense Authorization. On December 21, 2012, Bernie Sanders voted no on Senate Vote #229. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the conference report on the bill that would authorize $648.7 billion for defense programs in fiscal 2013, including $85.5 billion for overseas military operations. It would authorize $237.7 billion for operations and maintenance and $149.8 billion for military personnel. It would authorize $10.8 billion for military construction and family housing projects but prohibit funds to start another round of base closures. It would authorize $33.6 billion for the Defense Health Program as well as a 1.7 percent pay raise for military personnel. The measure would block the use of Defense Department funds for one year to transfer or release prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba detention center into the United States and its territories or possessions. It also would clarify that suspected U.S. terrorists detained inside the United States be tried only in federal civilian courts. It would authorize the use of Defense Department funds for abortion for military personnel in cases of rape or incest. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #229, 12/21/2012] 2013: Sanders Voted Against Conference Report Of FY 2014 Defense Authorization. “Reid, D-Nev., motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill that would authorize $625.1 billion for discretionary defense programs in fiscal 2014. Of that, $526.8 billion would be authorized in base Defense Department spending, $80.7 billion for overseas contingency operations and $17.6 billion for national security programs at the Energy Department. It would provide a 1 percent pay raise for troops and would authorize 1.36 million active-duty personnel. It would continue an existing prohibition on transferring detainees from the Guantanamo Bay military facilities to the United States but would ease rules on transferring them to foreign countries. It also would make a series of changes to how the military handles sexual assault cases. Motion agreed to 84-15.” [CQ Vote Report; HR 3304, Senate Vote #284, 12/19/13] 2014: Sanders Voted Against Final Passage Of The FY 2015 Defense Authorization Bill That Prohibited Another Round Of BRAC In 2015. “The bill to fund the military (in the amount of $585 billion) now goes to the Senate where it has bipartisan support. In an emailed statement, majority leader Kevin McCarthy (R- Calif.) summarized its key provisions: “The bill funds troop readiness and also supports our military operations against ISIL in Iraq and Syria, while ensuring increased Congressional oversight on these activities. It also explicitly prohibits the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the United States and denies funding for any terrorist detention facilities on American soil. Notably, the bill also prohibits another round of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process from being carried out in 2015.”” [HR 3979, Vote #325, 12/12/14; Washington Post, 12/4/14] FY2015 Defense Authorization Bill Included Funding For Upgrades To Pease Air National Guard Base And Energy Conservation Projects At Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. “U.S. Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), both members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, announced today that the negotiated version of the fiscal year (FY) 2015 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) includes provisions championed by the senators that will strengthen Portsmouth Naval Shipyard and Pease Air National Guard Base. The annual defense bill includes provisions Shaheen and Ayotte fought for that authorize funding for the KC46A aerial refueling tankers, the procurement of two Virginia Class submarines, as well as modernization and upgrades to the Pease Air National Guard Base and energy conservation projects at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.” [Ayotte press release, 12/8/14] Sanders Voted Against FY 2015 Defense Authorization Due To Concerns About Bloated Military Budget And Fiscal Mismanagement At Pentagon. “I am voting no because I have very serious concerns about our nation's bloated military budget and the misplaced national priorities this bill reflects. At a time when our national debt is more than $18 trillion and we spend nearly as much on defense as the rest of the world combined, the time is long overdue to end the waste and financial mismanagement that have plagued the Pentagon for years. The situation is so absurd that the military is unable to even account for how it spends all of its money. […] I support a strong defense system for our country and a robust National Guard and Reserve that can meet our domestic and foreign challenges. At a time when the country is struggling with huge unmet needs, however, it is unacceptable that the Defense Department continues to waste massive amounts of money.” [Sanders press release, 12/11/14] 2015: Bernie Sanders Voted Against Senate Passage Of The National Defense Authorization Act. “Democratic Sens. Tammy Baldwin (Wis.), Cory Booker (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Ben Cardin (Md.), Dick Durbin (Ill.), Al Franken (Minn.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Mazie Hirono (Hawaii), Patrick Leahy (Vt.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Ed Markey (Mass.), Robert Menendez (N.J.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.), Barbara Mikulski (Md.), Bill Nelson (Fla.), Harry Reid (Nev.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.) and Ron Wyden (Ore.), as well as Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) voted against the legislation.” [The Hill, 6/18/15; H.R. 1735, Vote #215, 6/18/15] Senate Version Of NDAA Included Extra Pentagon Funding That Brought A Veto Threat From The White House. “The Senate passed an annual $612 billion defense policy bill Thursday, including extra war funding for the Pentagon that brought a veto threat from the White House. Senators voted 71-25 on the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which lays out broad policy requirements for the Defense Department.” [The Hill, 6/18/15] Bernie Sanders Voted Against Cloture On The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). “The Senate voted 84-14 to end debate on a House-passed shell bill being used as a vehicle for the Senate's National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). It also agreed by a voice vote comprised of only a handful of senators to attach the defense policy bill to the shell. […] Senate Democratic leadership has criticized the defense policy bill because it includes an extra $38 billion in the Pentagon's war fund. But a majority of Democrats have backed the legislation on the procedural votes so far” [The Hill, 6/17/15; H.R. 1735, Vote #214, 6/17/15] 2015: Bernie Sanders, Joining Senate Democrats, Voted To Block The Pentagon Spending Bill. “Senate Democrats on Thursday blocked spending legislation for the Pentagon, part of a broader strategy aimed at forcing Republicans to the table for budget negotiations. Senators voted 50-45 to end debate on a motion to proceed to the legislation, short of the 60 votes needed to move forward. Sen. Joe Donnelly (Ind.) was the only Democrat to vote yes. Democratic leaders were open about their intention to block the bill, having made the threat repeatedly in the days before the vote.” [The Hill, 6/18/15; H.R. 2685, Vote #216, 6/18/15] The President Threatened To Veto That Same Bill. “President Obama also weighed in ahead of the vote, threatening to veto the bill over an extra $38 billion in Pentagon spending that would be channeled through the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) fund. That ‘war fund’ was set up after the 9/11 attacks to pay for the military action in Iraq and Afghanistan.” [The Hill, 6/18/15] Supported Look At Overseas Bases As A Way To Cut Military Spending… 2011: Sanders Said That Congress Needs To Take “A Hard Look At Overseas Bases” And Cut Military Spending. “I do not know why we have 55,000 troops in Germany. In many ways Germany is now a wealthier country than we are. If we are serious about deficit reduction, one way you have to move is by cutting military spending. One of the reasons I voted against the defense authorization bill, one of the reasons is we continue to spend more money than the rest of the world combined on defense. And I think taking a hard look at overseas bases is one way we can cut spending.” [Brunch with Bernie, 12/22/11, 25:30] … But Supported Continued Use Of Drones Despite Concerns Sanders Said, If He Were President, Drone Strikes Would Continue “In A Very Selective Way.” “ED SCHULTZ: You say you support air strikes. What about the use of drones and the way they've been handled in the Obama administration? Would you continue that? SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Well, I don't think it's a yes or no. Clearly it has been counterproductive when we kill innocent people including Americans. But, they are one tool that I think is in the arsenal but clearly in many instances, they have backfired on us. ED SCHULTZ: So, drone strikes would continue then, if you were president? SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: In a very selective way.” [The Ed Show, MSNBC, 5/6/15] Sanders Said That The Drone Program Had Successes And Failures And That The Program Needed A Reevaluation. “ED SCHULTZ: Would the policy change, would there be a different vetting process on how to get to that? SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Look, we have had some success with drones, we have had a lot of failures with drones. I think we have to reanalyze what we're doing there.” [The Ed Show, MSNBC, 5/6/15] Sanders Said That Drones Sometimes Helped The U.S. And Sometimes “Ended Up Doing Us A Lot More Harm Than Good.” “Henderson: There are democrats and libertarians who have concerns about the use of drones as part of military operations. What is your view? Sanders: I am concerned. I think we have seen situations where drone attacks have ended up doing us a lot more harm than good. I don't think you outlaw the policy at all, but when they can be effective that's good, but I think when they are killing, as they have done, innocent people, we're seeing women and children being killed, that is not a good thing and it turns people against the United States. I think you've got to be very selective in that area.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, IPTV, 9/4/15] Sanders Said Drones Should Be Used “Very, Very Selectively And Effectively,” Which Had Not Always Been The Case With The Drone Program. “SANDERS: I think what you -- Martha, what you can argue is that there are times and places where drone attacks have been effective, there are times and places where they have been absolutely countereffective and have caused more problems when they have solved. When you kill innocent people, what the end result is that people in the region become antiAmerican who otherwise would not have been. So, I think we have to use drones very, very selectively and effectively. That has not always been the case.” [This Week, ABC, 8/30/15] Sanders Voted Against Confirming CIA Director John Brennan, Said That CIA’s Drone Policy Was Inadequately Sensitive To Civil Liberty And Constitutional Concerns. “Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today issued the following statement on his vote not to confirm John Brennan to be the director of the Central Intelligence Agency: “While we must aggressively pursue international terrorists and all of those who would do us harm, we must do it in a way that protects the Constitution and the civil liberties which make us proud to be Americans. With regard to the use of drones and other methods employed by the Central Intelligence Agency, I am not convinced that Mr. Brennan is adequately sensitive to the important balancing act required to make protecting our civil liberties an integral part of ensuring our national security.”” [Press Release, Sen. Bernie Sanders, 3/7/13] Sanders Said That Drones Were A Tool That The U.S. Could Use, But That They Also Had Backfired “In Many Instances.” “ED SCHULTZ: You say you support air strikes. What about the use of drones and the way they've been handled in the Obama administration? Would you continue that? SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Well, I don't think it's a yes or no. Clearly it has been counterproductive when we kill innocent people including Americans. But, they are one tool that I think is in the arsenal but clearly in many instances, they have backfired on us.” [The Ed Show, MSNBC, 5/6/15] After Refusing To Answer Questions About Sen. Paul’s Filibuster On The President’s Drone Policy, Sanders Spokesperson Said That He Did Not Believe That Obama Would Attack San Francisco With Drones. “Asked later in the press conference what he thought about Sen. Paul's 13-hour filibuster last week, Sanders sounded unimpressed - even though it outlasted Sanders' own 8.5-hour diatribe in December 2011 against tax breaks for the wealthy. "Obviously I disagree with Sen. Paul. He's an extraordinarily conservative guy," the Vermont independent said, before quickly segueing to the need for filibuster reform. Paul's speech, of course, focused on his hyperbolic concern that the Obama administration might be willing to kill American terrorism suspects in domestic drone strikes, as it has abroad. Sanders himself cited the administration's drone program in his justification last Thursday for changing his mind at the last minute and opposing Obama's CIA director nominee. [...] In a follow-up email, chief spokesman Michael briggs clarified that Sanders believes Paul "is an extremely conservative senator who often panders to his right-wing base." Mirror, mirror, on the wall? Helpfully, Briggs added, "No, Bernie does not agree with Sen. Paul that President Obama is going to attack San Francisco with drones."” [Seven Days, 3/13/13] Sanders Voted Against War In Iraq And First Gulf War Sanders Said He Voted Against First Gulf War And War In Iraq And Understood What The Cost Of War Really Was. “SANDERS: Well, Bernie Sanders would have learned the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan. Bernie Sanders voted against the first Gulf War. Bernie Sanders voted against the war in Iraq and helped lead the opposition to that war. And as the former chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee, Bernie understands what the cost of war really is - and not only 6,700 brave men and women killed but hundreds of thousands coming back with PTSD and TBI. And Bernie Sanders gets very, very nervous when he hears Republicans who apparently just can't get enough of war, whether it's going to war in Syria or going to war Iraq, or going to war in Iran, going to war with Russia. So obviously, these are very difficult issues. If I had a magic solution, you'd be the first to hear it. I don't have a magic solution.” [NPR, 6/24/15] …But Supported Increasing Efforts To Bring Saddam Hussein To Trail For War Crimes Bernie Sanders Voted To Increase Efforts To Bring Hussein To Trail For War Crimes. On June 19, 1991, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #172. CQ reported the vote as: Kasich, R-Ohio, amendment to express the belief of Congress that the United States should increase efforts to bring Saddam Hussein to trial for war crimes. Adopted 421-1: R 162-0; D 258-1 (ND 175-1, SD 83-0); I 1-0, June 19, 1991. (Before being adopted, the amendment was amended by a Hamilton, DInd., amendment to state that the United States should seek meetings with the United Nations to establish a means of trying Saddam). [CQ Floor Votes; HR 2508, House Vote #172, 6/19/1991] …And Voted For Regime Change In Iraq During The Clinton Years 1998: Sanders Voted To Reaffirm That The Policy Of The United States Towards Saddam Hussein Should Be Regime Change. On December 17, 1998, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #539. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the resolution to express congressional support for the troops in and around the Persian Gulf region and to reaffirm that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove Saddam Hussein's regime from power in Iraq and promote a democratic government to replace that regime. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #539, 12/17/1998] 1998: Sanders Voted To Authorize US Assistance To Iraqi Opposition Groups Engaged In Fighting Saddam Hussein’s Regime. On October 5, 1998, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #482. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Gilman, R-N.Y., motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill to authorize U.S. assistance to certain Iraqi opposition groups engaged in the fight against the regime of Saddam Hussein. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #482, 10/5/1998] 1997: Sanders Voted To Express The Sense That The President Should Work To Create An International War Crimes Tribunal To Prosecute Saddam Hussein And Members Of His Government For Crimes Against Humanity. . On November 13, 1997, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #637. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Gilman, R-N.Y., motion to suspend the rules and adopt the concurrent resolution to express the sense of Congress that the president should endorse and work towards the formation of an international war crimes tribunal to prosecute Saddam Hussein and other members of the Iraqi government for crimes against humanity. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #637, 11/13/1997] 1998: Sanders Voted To Find The Government Of Iraq In An “Unacceptable” Breach Of Its International Obligations For Hindering UN Efforts To Find And Destroy Iraq’s Weapons Of Mass Destruction. On August 3, 1998, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #378. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Gilman, R-N.Y., motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill that finds the government of Iraq in an "unacceptable" breach of its international obligations because of its repeated efforts to hamper the United Nations in finding and destroying Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #378, 8/3/1998] Sanders Strongly Supported Kosovo War Sanders Said He Was Strongly In Support Of NATO’s Goals In War Against Milosevic In Yugoslavia. “REP. SANDERS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing. And I want to thank Curt Weldon for his outstanding work over the years in helping to improve the relationship between the United States Congress and the Russian Duma. Let me begin by saying that everybody understands the situation in Yugoslavia is enormously complex. And we, as members of Congress, have got to do as good a job as we can in communicating our views with each other. Now, maybe I can say this easily as an independent, not a Democrat, not a Republican. But I hope very much that there are not Republicans who will constantly be critical of the efforts because Bill Clinton is the president and they hate Bill Clinton. And I hope there will not be Democrats who will instinctively say everything is going well because Bill Clinton is the president and they are Democrats. This is too complicated and too important an issue to be reacting in that way. Yesterday, as I think you have heard, all of us—six Republicans, four Democrats and myself—met with Secretary of State Albright. And I thought that the meeting was important and it was useful. The 11 members of Congress who are here with you today hold very different political philosophies, but we made it clear to the secretary of State that we are in strong support of NATO’s goals in the war. ” [Hearing Of The House International Relations Committee, 5/13/99] Sanders Said He Was Hopeful After Getting Russian Politicians To Agree With NATO’s Overall Aims In The War, Saying “And I Will Not Sit Quietly And Allow Fascism And Ethnic Cleansing To Be Re-Established.” “And let me reiterate that. I absolutely am in strong support of NATO’s goals in the war NATO position, in support of the NATO position, and that we were helpful in getting Russia to play a more active role in the peace process. That was an important achievement. We met with the secretary of State yesterday. And as I mentioned to her, in my view, Mr. Milosevic cannot be allowed to be victorious in re-establishing the fascist ideology of ethnic cleansing in Europe. There can be no debate about that. That’s what World War II is about. And I will not sit quietly and allow fascism and ethnic cleansing to be re-established. What the agreement that we reach with the Russians says very clearly is that all of the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo must be allowed to return to their homes. That is what NATO is saying. That’s what the president is saying. We said there must be a complete withdrawal of Serbian armed forces from Kosovo. That is consistent with what NATO is saying. How can you have the people of Kosovo return if the Serbian troops are still there? There is no disagreement with what NATO is saying.” [Hearing Of The House International Relations Committee, 5/13/99] But Warned About Civilian Casualties And Called On Working With Russia To Giving Serbia An Opportunity To Withdraw Sanders Warned About Mounting Civilian Casualties And Said Milosevic Needed To Be Given An Opportunity To Withdraw. “Meanwhile, while we keep saying this thing over and over again, world opinion is turning against us as we expand our bombing into civilian areas, something, by the way, that I very strongly disagree with, and as we commit horrible mistakes as the bombing of the Chinese embassy. The agreement which we reached with the Russians calls for simultaneously the stopping of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, the withdrawal of Serbian armed forces from Kosovo, and the cessation of the military activity of the KLA. Now, one of the problems that we have right now is that if, for whatever reason, Mr. Milosevic, who we do not trust, we do not believe, but if, for whatever reasons right now he wants to withdraw his troops from Kosovo, how does he do that?” [Hearing Of The House International Relations Committee, 5/13/99] Sanders Called For A Two Day Ceasefire To See If Milosevic Withdrew His Forces: “If You Do Not Live Up To Your Agreement, The Bombing Continues.” “The goal of the NATO forces now is to destroy the Serbian armed forces. He puts his troops on a road and takes them out. What’s going to happen? They’re going to be mowed down. It seems to me—and now I speak only for myself—that it would make tactical sense, in trying to reach NATO’s goals, call for a two-day—accept the United Nations request for a two-day cease-fire. Say to Milosevic—have an agreement worked out—’You withdraw 50 percent of your troops in those two days. If you do not live up to your agreement, the bombing continues.’ Give him that time. If he does live up to his agreement, he withdraws the rest of his troops.” [Hearing Of The House International Relations Committee, 5/13/99] Sanders Said He Was Proud To Involve Russia In His Efforts To End The Way In Yugoslavia. “REP. SANDERS: Mr. Chairman, if I could just—we are criticized for not negotiating every single detail and contacting every single relevant person in the world. And then on the other hand, we are criticized for having gone forward at all. In other words, there’s no way we could solve this problem. All that we did is improve our relations with the Russian Duma. I don’t know if anyone thinks that’s a bad idea in a time of great chaos and anti-Americanism in Russia. All that we did is for the first time get Russia, leaders in Russia, to sign on-board NATO’s goals. All we did was accelerate the process by which Russia became involved in the peace effort. That’s pretty good. We did not solve all of the problems of the world, but I think we made a good step forward.” [Hearing Of The House International Relations Committee, 5/13/99] Nuclear Weapons 1995: Introduced Bill To Terminate United States Nuclear Weapons Program 1995: Sanders Introduced Bill To Terminate The United States Nuclear Weapon Program. “Nuclear Freeze: Part II Act - Prohibits the United States from obligating, in FY 1996 and thereafter, any funds for certain nuclear weapons and atomic energy defense activities of the Department of Energy (DOE) under the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 1995, except as necessary to terminate such activities in an orderly manner.” [HR 1511, introduced 4/7/95] 2015: Supported SANE Act To Cut $100 Billion From Nuclear Weapons Budget Sanders Co-Sponsored The Smarter Approach To Nuclear Expenditures (SANE) Act, Which Reduced Number Of Nuclear Submarines, ICBMs, And Other Nuclear Programs. “The Smarter Approach to Nuclear Expenditures (SANE) Act will: Reduce nuclear submarines from 14 to 8 and reduce the purchase of replacement submarines from 12 to 8 saving $21 billion, Cancel nuclear weapon making facilities and missile defense programs saving $21 billion, Defer development of new ICBMs and cut warhead life extension programs saving $16 billion, Delay the new long range bomber and remove the nuclear mission from the F-35 saving more than $34 billion, Reduce the B61 gravity bomb life extension program and cancel the development of a new air-launched cruise missile saving $7 billion. The SANE Act is co-sponsored by Senators Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Al Franken (D-Minn.).” [State News Service, 3/23/15; S 831, introduced 3/23/15] SANE Act Would Cut $100 Billion From Bloated Nuclear Weapons Budget. “As Congressional Republicans remain deeply divided over funding for the Department of Defense, Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and Congressman Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) today introduced bicameral legislation that would cut $100 billion from the bloated nuclear weapons budget over the next decade. The Smarter Approach to Nuclear Expenditures (SANE) Act cuts specific nuclear weapons and related programs without harming national security. The United States spends more money on nuclear weapons than all other countries combined. In the past three years, the budget for simply maintaining nuclear warheads and production facilities has seen a 16 percent increase. [S 831, introduced 3/23/15] Supported Cuts To US Nuclear Program 2001: Sanders Voted For An Amendment “To Decrease Funding For The National Ignition Facility By $122.5 Million And Increase Funding For Nuclear Nonproliferation Activities By $66 Million.” “Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (H.R. 2311): The House on June 28 rejected an amendment by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, to decrease funding for the National Ignition Facility by $122.5 million and increase funding for nuclear nonproliferation activities by $66 million. The vote was 91 yeas to 331 nays. YEAS: Rep. Bernard Sanders I-VT (AL).” [States News Service, 6/29/01] Opposed Nuclear Weapons As Mayor Of Burlington Sanders Wanted To Eliminate Nuclear Stockpiles And End The Reasons Why Nations “Feel The Need To Fight Wars.” “That, I think, is the major challenge that you face. How do you get rid of the terrible weapons presently being stockpiled which can blow the planet up? How do you get to the underlying causes of war - both economic and psychological – so that nations will not feel the need to fight wars?” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Burlington High School Graduation speech, unknown date] Sanders Said The United States Should Stop Wasting Money On Nuclear Weapons And Move Defense Spending Toward Domestic Priorities. “The peace movement, and all of us who've been outraged by the Reagan and Bush administrations' war against the people of Nicaragua, know that it has been the progressive movement in Vermont and Burlington which has spoken out the loudest and demanded fundamental changes in our national priorities so that we stop wasting tens of billions of dollars on nuclear weapons and killing the people of Nicaragua, as opposed to spending that money back home for housing, education, health care, and environmental protection programs.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, dated 3/1/89] Sanders: “While Hundreds Of Millions Of People Face Starvation, The Nations Of The Earth Are Spending Close To $1 Trillion On Weapons Of Destruction”. “’We live in a world in which at present, at least six major wars are being fought and, while hundreds of millions of people face starvation, the nations of the Earth are spending close to $1 trillion on weapons of destruction, including nuclear weapons which, if used, will end life forever on this tiny planet,’ Sanders said. ‘I don’t know how to reverse this madness but together, as a progressive and sane community, I hope we will have the courage to try,’ he said”. [Burlington Free Press, 4/7/87] Burlington Made Multiple Attempts To Register Its Anti-Nuclear Activism, Including Establishing A Sister City Relationship With Nagasaki, Japan And Refusing To Prepare A Nuclear Evacuation Plan. “Burlington had several sister cities, including Nagasaki, Japan, a vessel for its anti-nuclear activism. (Burlington rejected a federal request to prepare an evacuation plan in the event of a nuclear war, on the grounds that to prepare for war made it more imaginable.)” [Politico, 7/31/15] Sanders Said That Nominating Ronald Reagan’s Nobel Peace Prize Nomination Brought Us Closer To An Orwellian Nightmare That “War Is Peace.” “Sanders said, "One doesn't know whether to laugh or to cry to the media report that Ronald Reagan is desirous of receiving a Nobel Peace Prize. Clearly, even to contemplate that thought brings us that much closer to the Orwellian nightmare in which "war is peace" and "freedom is slavery".” [Mayor Bernard Sanders Press Release, 9/28/87] Sanders Criticized Reagan For Expressing That War, Military Intervention And Nuclear Weapons Were Acceptable Forms Of International Behavior. “If there is one world figure in the last seven years who has forcefully expressed the view that war, military intervention, and the buildup of the nuclear arsenal is an acceptable form of international behavior--that person is Ronald Reagan.” [Mayor Bernard Sanders Press Release, 9/28/87] In Burlington, Sanders Opposed Planning For The Aftermath Of A Nuclear War Sanders: “The United States Is Spending $230 Billion Per Year On The Military, And In Many Ways Preparing For A Nuclear War That Cannot Be Won”. “At a time when the United States is spending $230 billion per year on the military, and in many ways preparing for a nuclear war that cannot be won, it seems to me absolutely imperative that a major change take place in our foreign policy and our attitudes toward war and peace. World War can no longer be looked upon as a viable option. As horrendous as World War I and World War II were, World War III will be qualitatively different as a result of nuclear arms. There will be no World War IV.” [Sanders Letter to Reagan, 10/26/82] Sanders: “The Idea Of Planning For A Nuclear War, Much Less Surviving It, Is Ludicrous”. “You will be interested to know that at our Board of Aldermen’s meeting last night, the crisis relocation plan for Burlington, Vermont was unanimously defeated. The Board, composed of 5 Republicans, 3 Democrats and 5 Independent/Citizens Party, passed a resolution denouncing the crisis relocation plan. I am in total agreement with you that the idea of planning for a nuclear war, much less surviving it, is ludicrous and from the outcome of last night's meeting, we are not the only ones who feel this way” [Sanders Letter To Brooke Pielli, 10/26/82] Sanders Warned Students That Time Was Running Out For Humanity To End War Before Nuclear War Ended Planet Earth. “Further, your generation – because of the gross insanity of the nuclear arms race – will determine whether or not war on this planet will be abolished, once and for all, and will be replaced by a somewhat more sensible method for resolving human conflicts. Because of the rapid rise of nuclear weapons and sophisticated war technology, time is running out for planet earth [sic] and either your generation will put an end to war, or war could put an end to your generation and all life on this planet.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Burlington High School Graduation speech, unknown date] Sanders: “We Believe It To Be Totally Irresponsible To Allow People The False Hope That They Could Survive A Nuclear War”. “It seems to me that the major point our City is making is that we believe it to be totally irresponsible to allow people the false hope that they could survive a nuclear war, or that a nuclear war could be ‘winable’. [Sanders Letter to Reagan, 10/26/82] Sanders Criticized The Military Industrial Complex Sanders Said That Peace Would Not Be Brought To Your By The People Who Own The Media Or The Wealthiest Two Or Three Percent Who Control Our Economic Life, But Only By A Grassroots Movement. “… in a voice reflecting the will of hundreds of millions of people say loud and clearly: “Stop the Wars. Stop the Lies. And let us build a World in which every man, woman and child can live in dignity.” The fundamental changes that we need in our society are not going to be brought to you by the people who own ABC, CBS, and NBC, and they're not going to be brought to you by the 2 or 3% of the population--the wealthiest people--who control our economic life. The only way change is going to come about is when people at the grass roots level come together and take control of their nation.” [Sanders statement, 9/29/87] Sanders Criticized The Revolving Door Between Military Contractors And The Military. “If the point is that military contractors have enormous power, you are absolutely right. We have seen among other things a revolving door in Washington where many generals and admirals leave the United States armed forces and end up working for some of these companies. They have a lot of power and they have a lot of money. And as I have said earlier, at a time where we’re spending three times as much as we did in 1997 on Defense, I think we can make judicious cuts in military spending and do it in a way that’s wise.” [Brunch With Bernie, 3/1/13, 31:00] Sanders Proposed “Slowing Down The Revolving Door That Allows High-Level Pentagon Bureaucrats And Military Officers To Go To Work For Major Defense Contractors.” According to an article coauthored by Senator Bernie Sanders and William D. Hartung, “The Pentagon’s procurement and budgeting processes are rife with problems. For example, the Government Accountability Office has identified $295 billion in cost overruns on 72 major weapons systems, even as the Pentagon can’t balance its books or keep track of its vast inventory. These problems can lead to bizarre results, such as the fact that the Pentagon has hundreds of millions of dollars in spare parts now on order that are already marked for disposal. Despite huge cost overruns, major contractors have received $8 billion in performance bonuses that have been paid out regardless of the results of their work. These abuses of the public trust and the public purse - are simply unacceptable. These are complex problems that will require multifaceted solutions. A good way to start would be by slowing down the revolving door that allows high-level Pentagon bureaucrats and military officers to go to work for major defense contractors.” [Politico, 6/24/08] Sen. Bernie Sanders Wanted To “Beef Up Revolving-Door Laws.” According to an article coauthored by Senator Bernie Sanders and William D. Hartung, “If we are ever going to get a handle on waste in Pentagon contracting, we need to beef up revolving-door laws - including new requirements for reporting post-government employment. At a minimum, we need to subject private contractors involved in basic Pentagon decision-making to the same standards that apply to government employees. Otherwise, the Pentagon will continue to misspend untold billions of dollars that could have been applied to urgent national priorities.” [Politico, 6/24/08] Sanders: “It Scares Me To Death” That Republicans Seem To Want Perpetual Warfare In The Middle East. “About the power of the military-industrial complex. That was back in 1960. That power has been magnified many, many times. These guys want more and more for defense. And I fear very much, Chris, that your point is right. You`ve got a lot of Republicans -- and it scares me to death -- who apparently feel good about perpetual warfare in the Middle East, who are trying to sabotage what the president is trying to do in terms of preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. That scares me very much, and I think it speaks to the power of the military-industrial complex.” [MSNBC, Hardball, 5/5/15] 1986: Sanders Said “Patriotism Does Not Mean Waiving Flags And Going Around And Invading Poor Countries Around The World.” “Love of country is respect for environment. Love of country is respect for the fact that we don’t want our poor people sleeping out on the streets, that we want women to be given an equal opportunity in life, that we want working people to earn decent wages and not be destabilized as the industrial base of this country is destroyed,” he said. “That is patriotism, and patriotism does not mean waving flags and going around and invading poor countries around the world,” he said.” [Rutland Herald, 4/3/86] Sanders Said That Democrats Supported Star Wars Program Because Of Campaign Contributions From Military Contractors. "NOVAK: Bernie, I want to get in on this. Tell me, Congressman Sanders, why you think the president changed his mind after years of -- it wasn't -- it wasn't passive opposition -- it was strenuous opposition? SANDERS: It's not only the president apparently. It's much of the Democratic Party. NOVAK: Why? SANDERS: Why? Because when the military-industrial complex speaks not only do they get a Star Wars program, they get $150 billion more in military spending over the next five years because those people make the campaign contributions, those people have the power." [CNN, Crossfire, 3/17/99] Sanders Said That Political Leadership Tried To Deny Contact With Other People Because They Stood To Profit From The Ever Expanding Arms Race. “Much of our political leadership seems bent on denying this very important kind of people-to-people contact. People who stand to profit from an ever expanding arms race, from moving our planet closer and closer to the brink of calculated or accidental nuclear war… these people lose when ordinary citizens of each country meet face to face and glimpse the reality of another culture. A true, peace-seeking administration would not be spending vast sums of money on star Wars; it would be spending money to open more doors, to sponsor more cultural exchanges, to create more understanding between our countries.” [Draft Statement, 1987] Sanders Said A True Peace Seeking Administration Would Spend Money On Cultural Exchanges Rather Than Weapons. “A true, peace-seeking administration would not be spending vast sums of money on star Wars; it would be spending money to open more doors, to sponsor more cultural exchanges, to create more understanding between our countries.” [Draft Statement, 1987] Sanders Said That Students Needed To Be Wary Of Allowing Politicians And Mass Media “Decide For You Whom You Are Supposed To Hate And, Perhaps Kill.” “I wish I could give you some simple answers to these questions and perhaps lead you in the right direction but I don’t know any simple answers and I don’t know if there are any. But there are a few thoughts that I would like to share with you. First, you have got to be very very [sic] careful about allowing other people, whether they are Presidents of the United States, members of Congress, heads of large corporations or [handwritten – unintelligible] newspapers or television stations – to decide for you whom you are supposed to hate and, perhaps kill. It’s a bad business to allow other people, who may have their own particular reasons – whether [handwritten – unintelligible] economic greed or political gain – to decide who your enemies are.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Burlington High School Graduation speech, unknown date] Criticized Spending On Military Over Domestic Priorities Sanders Criticized Spending $100 Billion On Missile Defense Program When Americans Could Not Afford Prescriptions Or College. "I don't know about your state, but nationally two-thirds of the American people don't even bother to vote anymore because they're saying we can't afford prescription drugs; we can't afford to send our kids to college; and these folks are spending $100 billion on Star Wars. Give me a break." [CNN, Crossfire, 3/17/99] Sanders: We Can’t Keep Pushing Economic Issues Aside And Getting Involved In More Wars. “We've got to put millions of decent paying jobs, rebuilding our infrastructure. We have to raise the living wage. We have to deal with climate change. We can't keep pushing these issues aside and getting involved in more and more wars.” [MSNBC, 5/19/15] Sanders: We Cannot Continue To Get Involved In Wars At The Expense Of Domestic Issues. “SANDERS: I think the public understands that we need to fundamentally reshape our priorities that we cannot, cannot, cannot, get involved in endless war in the Middle East which will cause us lives, which will cause us trillions more of taxpayer dollars, that we have got to address, Ed, the crisis facing a disappearing middle-class. And that`s where we`ve got to put our (inaudible). We got to create millions of decent paying jobs, rebuilding our infrastructure. We have to raise the minimum wage to a living wage. We have to make college affordable. We got to deal with student debt. We have to deal with climate change. SCHULTZ: Yeah. SANDERS: We can’t keep pushing these issues aside and get involved in more, more war.” [MSNBC, The Ed Show, 5/19/15] Criticized Fraud At The Pentagon Sanders Said That The US Military “Cannot Account” For Great Sums Of Money Because The Budget Was “So Huge.” “If we could only not account for $50 million in the military budget, I would be a very happy US Senator. The truth is that the military budget is so huge, they have so many private contractors, that I suspect that the amount of money that we cannot account for is much greater than that. And the fact that their computer systems are inadequate to give us a full understanding of where the money in the military is going. In terms of overseas bases, you’re quite right, we’re defending countries in Europe which provide healthcare to all of their people, which provide free college education to all of their people, which are spending half of what we are in terms of GDP on the military as we do. Maybe it’s a good idea that they defend themselves and we take care of our own people.” [Brunch With Bernie, 7/27/12, 19:00] Sanders Said That We Have Got To Pay Close Attention To Spending At The Pentagon. “The truth is when we speak about discretionary spending, the money is in the Defense Department. That is more than half of our discretionary spending and I think it's appropriate that the GAO has taken a hard look at defense spending, not to say that that is the only agency, but that's where a lot of money is. At a time when the U.S. spends more on the Pentagon than the next nine countries combined and when over half of our discretionary spending goes to the Pentagon, we have got to pay close attention to this issue.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Waste and Fraud in the Military Budget, 3/4/15] Sanders Said That Waste And Cost Overruns Accounted For A Substantial Amount Of Defense Spending. “As the chairman GAO has identified over 100 needed reforms at the Defense Department to increase the efficiency and reduce waste. How does it happen that almost a third of the Department of Defense's $1.5 trillion acquisition portfolio of $448 billion is attributable to cost overruns. That is real money. Just a few examples, since 1995 Lockheed Martin has been fined over $600 million for misconduct. Northrop Grumman has been fined more than $850 million dollars for misconduct. And Raytheon has been fined more than $479 million dollars for misconduct. This is an issue that needs serious discussion.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Waste and Fraud in the Military Budget, 3/4/15] Sanders Said That The Pentagon Must Be Able To Account For How It Spends Its Money. “The situation has become so absurd that the Pentagon is unable to even account for how it spends its money. Now, we can argue about whether you need this weapon system or that weapon system, or the size of the Pentagon, but I would hope there is no disagreement that at least we should have an understanding of how the Pentagon spends its money. Time and time again, the GAO has said that it is simply unable to audit the Pentagon. In fact, the GAO has reported that it has been unable to conduct a review of the Pentagon's financial records due to, and I quote, serious financial management problems at the Department of Defense that made its financial statements unauditable.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Waste and Fraud in the Military Budget, 3/4/15] Sanders Supported Finding And Cutting Waste From The Pentagon’s Budget, Including From Fraudulent Defense Contractors, Rather Than “Throwing Money” At The Pentagon. “Last point that I would make, maybe. You’ll keep hearing--I always say last point, it’s not really the last point, one of five last points, Defense spending. The Department of Defense is the on--to the best of my knowledge is the only agency in the United States of America cannot sustain an independent audit. So you call up the DOD and you say, ‘by the way, what percentage of your money is spent on private contractors as opposed to our own troops, blah, blah, blah.’ They’re not gonna give you definitive answers. The other thing you should know is that virtually every defense contractor who does business with the Department of Defense has either reached settlements with the United States government for alleged fraud or has in fact been convicted of fraud. So we, instead of just throwing money at the Department of Defense, we need to run a much more efficient operation and by the way we need to be focusing on terrorism, not continuing the war against the Soviet Union which is no longer terribly relevant.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Des Moines Register, 9/3/15] Sanders Offered An Amendment To The NDAA With The Goal Of Decreasing Fraud In DOD Contracting. “Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) wants top Pentagon officials to detail contracting fraud at the Department of Defense. Sanders, who is running for president, wants to include an amendment in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), an annual defense policy bill currently before the Senate, that would require Defense Secretary Ashton Carter to update Congress on fraud annually. The report would have to include the total value of the Pentagon's contracts with companies that have been convicted, indicted, fined or settled any charges from a federal department or agency related to contract fraud. The Vermont senator also wants recommendations from the DOD's inspector general, or another department official, on how to punish contractors that are repeatedly involved in fraud.” [The Hill, 6/15/15] Sanders Opposed Increasing Military Spending Without Increasing Transparency And Accountability Of The Pentagon. “Borg: Diplomacy though needs to be backed up, most view, it needs to be backed up by military strength. Is the U.S. sufficiently militarily strong in order to act that way in leading the world? Sanders: Well, I could tell you that the United States now is spending, I believe, more on our military than the next nine nations combined. Borg: Is it enough? That is, would you increase the strength of the U.S. military? Sanders: What I would do is change the priorities of the U.S. military. You're asking me is it enough. We have elderly people in this country living on $13,000 a year because they don't get enough in Social Security. We have young people who can't afford to go to college. We have people, veterans, sleeping out on the street. So as a nation we have got to determine our priorities. No, I am not in favor of just simply putting more and more money into the military, but this is what I am in favor of, right now you may or may not know that the Department of Defense is the only agency of government which cannot sustain an independent audit. You go there and say, well where are you spending your money? How many private contractors do you have? They don't know the answer. So before you throw a lot more money into the military, I think you need some accountability, which we do not at the present time have.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, IPTV, 9/4/15] Sanders Said the Defense Industry Had a “Well Documented History of Fraud.” “Sen. Sanders' February 2 press release on the defense industry's ‘well documented history of fraud’ references a Pentagon report that singles out Lockheed for 12 violations since 1995 of government contract fraud, for which it paid fines and settlements in excess of $68 million.” [Seven Days Vermont, 2/9/11] Opposed Military Contracting Sanders Introduced Bill Prohibiting Defense Contractors From Paying Any Individual More Than $200,000. “Prohibits the head of a defense agency from obligating funds to pay a defense contractor for individual compensation costs to the extent that the total compensation paid in a fiscal year to such individual exceeds $200,000.” [HR 3512, introduced 5/22/96] Sanders Introduced A Bill Prohibiting Federal Funds Under A Defense Contract To Go Toward Restructuring Costs Of The Boeing Company. “Boeing-McDonnell Douglas Corporate Welfare Elimination Act of 1997 - Prohibits the Secretary of Defense from treating as an allowable cost under a defense contract any restructuring costs of the Boeing Company arising from its acquisition of the McDonnell Douglas Corporation.” [HR 648, introduced 7/17/97] 2004: Sanders Denounced Bush Administration For Increasing Privatization Of The Military, Called Privatization A Giveaway To Business. “If the Bush Administration can move toward the privatization of the military, what institutions in our society will they not turn over to corporate America? Why should we provide quality education to all of our children, when money can be made by privatizing public education? Why should every senior in America be guaranteed a Social Security check each month, when Wall Street can make billions through the privatization of Social Security? Why should low income senior citizens receive quality health care through Medicare when insurance companies can expand their profits through the privatization of that public health insurance program? Check out Jim Hightower’s article about the implications of the privatization of the military. The same is true for virtually every other public institution.” [Newsletter via Archive.org, Bernie Buzz, Sen. Bernie Sanders, archived 6/23/04] Sanders Sponsored Bill To Ensure That Security On US Diplomatic Or Consular Missions Was Only Provided By Government Personnel. “Stop Outsourcing Security Act - Directs the Secretary of State to ensure that only government personnel provide security services at U.S. diplomatic or consular missions in Iraq. Requires the President to report to Congress on the status of planning for the use of Government and military personnel instead of private contractors for mission critical or emergency essential functions by January 1, 2009, in all conflict zones where Congress has authorized the use of force.” [S 2398, introduced 11/16/07] Hillary Clinton Co-Sponsored Sanders’ Stop Outsourcing Security Act. “Stop Outsourcing Security Act - Directs the Secretary of State to ensure that only government personnel provide security services at U.S. diplomatic or consular missions in Iraq. Requires the President to report to Congress on the status of planning for the use of Government and military personnel instead of private contractors for mission critical or emergency essential functions by January 1, 2009, in all conflict zones where Congress has authorized the use of force. Authorizes Congress access to contracts and task orders in excess of $5 million entered into by the Department of Defense (DOD), the Department of State, the Department of the Interior, and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) during the period beginning October 1, 2001, and ending on the last day of the month during which this Act is enacted for work to be performed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Requires certain reports to Congress regarding such contracts.” [S.2398, 11/16/07] Sanders Introduced Legislation Because Private Security Firms Like Blackwater Were Corrupting Iraqi Perceptions Of US Efforts And Eroding Morale Of American Troops, Who Earned Smaller Salaries. “Sen. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., announced Wednesday he’ll introduce legislation that would replace thousands of hired guns in Iraq with traditional military service members. The Vermont independent and other lawmakers argued that private security contractors like Blackwater USA is corrupting Iraqi perceptions of the U.S. effort there and eroding morale among American troops, who often earn a fraction of the salary of their private counterparts. ‘Every time a Blackwater employee kills an Iraqi citizen, every time a security contractor assaults Iraqi nationals, America’s standing with the people of Iraq dramatically worsens,’ Sanders said. ‘The use of private security contractors in Iraq has undermined our presence there.’ […] Military personnel would replace the contractors. Sanders said some contractors make as much as $1,000 a day.” [Brattleboro Reformer, 11/8/07] Sanders Said Paying Military Contractors Substantially More Than Members Of The Armed Forces For Doing The Same Kind Of Work Was “Particularly Offensive.” “I should tell you that I, just last week, Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, a member of Congress and I, reintroduced legislation dealing with privatization issues in the military, where it is particularly offensive because you have private contractors there, people who are working for private contractors, who are making substantially more money doing pretty much, in some cases, the same work that members of the United States Armed Forces are doing. And I think we waste a huge amount of money in that.” [Thom Hartmann Program, 8/5/11] … But Sanders Made Clear That He Would Be Willing To Use Military Force As President Sanders Spokesperson Said That While He Was A Pacifist In The 1960s, He Was No Longer A Pacifist. “Bernie Sanders applied for conscientious objector status during the Vietnam War, his campaign confirmed to ABC News. "As a college student in the 1960s he was a pacifist," Michael Briggs, campaign spokesman added in an email. "[He] isn't now."” [ABC News, 8/31/15] Sanders Said That The U.S.’s Military Posture Was Overly Oriented Towards Fighting Great Powers And Needed To Orient More Towards Fighting Terrorism. “Furthermore, I think to too large a degree the United States may still be fighting against the old Soviet Union. Our enemy now is terrorism, it is a very type, very different type of military conflict. So the answer is yes, we need the strongest military in the world. Second of all, I do not believe everything being equal we should do it alone, we should work with coalition. France is there, the UK is there, other countries are there. In the Middle East, by the way, people don't know this, Saudi Arabia, this will shock everybody, has the third largest military budget in the world, third largest. You know what, maybe they want to get their hands a little bit dirty in taking on ISIS with our support without us having to have our ground troops there in combat.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, IPTV, 9/4/15] Sanders Said That It Would Be A “Very Big Mistake” For Iran Or Russia To See His Reluctance To Use Force As A Weakness. “RADDATZ: Let me go back to the Iran agreement that you brought up and your support of that agreement. Can you imagine Iran or Russia signing some sort of agreement in the future given your record on your reluctance to use force, because there is always that threat of force, that they may look at you and say Bernie Sanders would do anything about this. SANDERS: Well, I think they would be making a very, very big mistake. I believe that the United States should have the strongest military in the world. We should be working with other countries in coalition. And when people threaten the United States or threaten our allies or commit genocide, the United States with other countries should be prepared to act militarily.” [This Week, ABC, 8/30/15] Sanders: “Our Government Should Do Everything That We Can To Resolve International Conflict In A Way That Does Not Require War.” “But let me be very clear, I am very concerned about a lot of the war talk that I am hearing from my Republican colleagues who apparently have forgotten the cost of war and the errors made in Afghanistan and Iraq. And what I believe, Chuck, very much is that the most powerful military on Earth, the United States of America, that our government should do everything that we can to resolve international conflict in a way that does not require war. Sometimes using military force is necessary. But I think it should be the last resort, not the first resort. So I would suggest that we do everything that we can to try to resolve these conflicts, which are not easy. We are living in a very crazy, difficult world without American troops getting into combat.” [Meet The Press, NBC, 9/14/15] Sanders Said He Supported Use Of Force In More Situations Than A Direct Attack On The United States. “RADDATZ: And is that only when we're attacked? Is that only when we're attacked? Because if you look at your record, you supported the invasion into Afghanistan after we were attacked. Is that the only time you would support it? SANDERS: No, not at all. You know, I think using our military is an option, obviously, that we will always have under certain circumstances, but it is the last option. And I applaud the president for trying to make certain that we stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, but we do it in a way that does not require war.” [This Week, ABC, 8/30/15] Sanders Said That Historically The United States Had Gone To War, Often Unilaterally, More Than It Should Have. “SANDERS: Yes. Good question, fair question. Look, I think historically in too many instances the United States has gone to war, often unilaterally, when we should not have. I think my vote against the first war in the Gulf region was the right vote. I think we could have gotten Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait in a way that did not require a war. And I think certainly my vote...” [This Week, ABC, 8/30/15] Sanders Said That War Was A Last Resort, Not A First Resort, But There Are Times When Force Was Necessary. “Look, I am supporting President Obama's effort to make certain that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon, but I get very nervous about my Republican friends who keep implying that the only way we could do that is through another war. War is the last resort, not the first resort. So, you are looking at a guy -- yeah, there are times when you have to use force, no question about it.” [This Week, ABC,8/30/15] Sanders Said That In Situations Where The World Was United Against A Leader Like Saddam Hussein, It Might Be Possible To Resolve Conflict With Sanctions And International Pressure Rather Than War. “RADDATZ: Even though he had invaded Kuwait? SANDERS: But the point was you had the whole world united against him, Martha. Do we need to go to war in every instances, or can we bring pressure of sanctions and international pressure to resolve these conflicts?” [This Week, ABC, 8/30/15] Sanders Said The United States Should Be Prepared To Act Militarily In Response To Threats Against Itself Or Allies And To Prevent Genocide. “SANDERS: Well, I think they would be making a very, very big mistake. I believe that the United States should have the strongest military in the world. We should be working with other countries in coalition. And when people threaten the United States or threaten our allies or commit genocide, the United States with other countries should be prepared to act militarily. So, yes, there are times when you have to use military force, no question about it. I am prepared to do that. But that is the last resort.” [This Week, ABC, 8/30/15] Sanders Said His Top “War And Peace Issue” Priority Was To Avoid “Another War That Doesn’t End.” “On the ‘war and peace issue,’ Sanders said. ‘My top priority is to make sure we are not involved in another war that doesn't end.’” [Union Leader, 6/6/15] Sanders Said He Would Defend The Nation “Responsibly” By Avoiding Wars That Are “Unwise And Unnecessary.” As everybody knows, we live in a difficult and dangerous world, and there are people out there who want to do us harm. As president, I will defend this nation – but I will do it responsibly. As a member of Congress I voted against the war in Iraq, and that was the right vote. I am vigorously opposed to an endless war in the Middle East – a war which is unwise and unnecessary.” [Sanders Remarks, 5/27/15] Sanders: There Can Be “Just Wars,” But The US Has Been Far Too Aggressive Militarily In The Last Many Years. “Yes I do believe that there can be just wars. But, you are talking to somebody who opposed Vietnam, who voted against the first Gulf War, who voted against the War in Iraq and who believes the United States has been far far too aggressive militarily in the last many years. We have got to work with the international community not only in trying to create peaceful resolutions to conflict, but to address the underlying causes of war.” [Reddit, 5/19/15] Sanders Said He Was Not A Pacifist, And That War Was Always An Option, But It Needed To Be The Last Option. “HALPERIN: Most people run for president say that war is the last resort, but you can’t take it off the table. SANDERS: I’m not a pacifist. Of course. HALPERIN: You would reserve that option, even though you put it far down the list? SANDERS: It’s always an option, but after the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan which cost us so much in human life and in human suffering, it is very much the last option.” [With All Due Respect, Bloomberg, 7/17/15] Sanders Said He Would Be “Conservative” On Sending U.S. Troops Abroad. “While Sanders said he would be ‘conservative’ about committing U.S. troops abroad, noting that he—unlike Clinton—voted against the use of force in Iraq, he said he's uncertain whether President Barack Obama made the right decision in announcing this week he would send 450 U.S. advisers to help that country stop the incursion of the Islamic State.” [BloombergPolitics, 6/11/15] Sanders Said He Would Not Necessarily Intervene Diplomatically And Militarily Less Than President Obama. “SANDERS: What it means is that the entire world community has got to come together. It is not just the United States. I don't want the United States to be fighting wars in four separate parts of the world. The United States has got to work with our European allies and allies throughout the world to come up with an intelligent, rational approach to deal with Russia, to deal with ISIS and deal with other national security threats. GREENE: Sounds like you would intervene less than this president has. SANDERS: No, I didn't say that. You've got to look at each particular case, obviously. But I am concerned about Russia. We're very concerned about ISIS. But once again, the United States cannot be the only country in the world intervening in so many countries. I think we've got to learn that lesson.” [NPR, 6/24/15] Sanders Said War Should Be A Last Resort, Decided On A Case By Case Basis. “BERNIE SANDERS: You know, I would hope that this country has learned a lesson from Afghanistan and Iraq. We were told these would be easy wars, our troops will come home. Wars have consequences that you cannot predict. So going to war against Russia, no, you’re going to do everything that you possibly can to prevent that. I support what the President is trying to do in Iraq. I get a little bit nervous, I must tell you Al, when I hear some of my Republican colleagues talking about sending troops here, sending troops there. You know, there comes a time when you learn a lesson that war is a last resort. What happened in Iraq is a total disaster, unintended consequences, massive destabilization. So if I hear even talk about going to war against Russia, it makes me very, very nervous. ALBERT HUNT: Or sending any kind of military assistance to those -- BERNIE SANDERS: You’ll take it case by case, but you know, I just talk of war is very dangerous, I don’t think like that.” [Charlie Rose, 6/11/14] Sanders Justified His Skepticism For War By Noting The Consequences Of War Injuries For Soldiers. “And I know the cost of war because I have talked to veterans from all wars, from World War II to Vietnam, to Iraq. And I know, many Americans don’t know, it’s not just that we lost 6700 brave men and women in Afghanistan and Iraq, 500,000 came home with PTSD and traumatic brain injury. Thousands, tens of thousands of families, not just the soldiers themselves lives have been shattered. Cost of war is real, not to mention putting us in the hole $3-6 trillion for those two wars. So I am not sympathetic to people who say, ‘Oh yeah, not a problem, we’re gonna go to war.’ War should be, in my view, the last resort of a great nation. We should explore every other option. And I know that opens up the political attacks, “Oh, you’re wimpy, you don’t want to go to war.’ Well, I don’t accept that. I’ve talked to too many people who came home without legs, without eyesight, with traumatic brain injury.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Des Moines Register, 9/3/15] Sanders Vowed To Be Tough On Terrorism Sanders After 9/11: “Mass Murder Can Not Go Unpunished.” “First, it’s imperative that we do all that we can to hunt down the people who committed this atrocious deed. Mass murder can not go unpunished. In the process, we must significantly improve our working relationships with countries throughout the world. International terrorism, which is what we are combating, can only be defeated by an international effort.” [Sanders Press Release, 9/18/01] Sanders Said He Was “Absolutely” Prepared To Support Force In Response To 9/11, But That Force Alone Would Not Solve The Complex Crisis. “While I am absolutely prepared to support the use of force against those who perpetrated this crime, we must recognize that force alone will not solve the horrific and complex crisis that we face.” [Sanders Press Release, 9/18/01] Sanders Supported Use Of Force In Response To 9/11 Terrorist Attacks, But Said Force Was Not Our Only Tool Against Terrorism. “I will vote for this resolution because I believe that the use of force is one tool that we have at our disposal to fight against the horror of terrorism and mass murder. One tool, but it is not our only tool, and it is something that must be used wisely… and with great discretion.” [Sanders Statement, House Floor, 9/17/01] After 9/11, Sanders Said We Needed To Root Out Terrorism, While Understanding That Indiscriminate Force Could Lead To More Anti-Americanism. “I believe that we must work with other nations to root out, capture and eliminate the terrorists who have caused such terrible suffering in our country and elsewhere. But we must also understand that widespread and indiscriminate force could lead to more violence and more anti-Americanism.” [Sanders Statement, House Floor, 9/17/01] Sanders Said Debate Over If Bush Could Use Force In Response To 9/11 Attacks Was “More Symbolic Than Legally Necessary.” “As you know, under the authority of the war powers act the president already has the legal right to use force when this country is attacked – as was the case on Tuesday, September 11, 2001, when some 5,000 Americans were killed or are missing in an unspeakable act of terrorism. So, in an important respect, this debate is more symbolic than legally necessary.” [Sanders Statement, House Floor, 9/17/01] After 9/11, Sanders Said Defeating Terrorism Would Require A Clearly Thought-Out Approach And International Cooperation. “In response to the President Bush's address to the nation on Thursday, Rep. Sanders said, “Bringing to justice the perpetrators of the horrendous September 11th attack and defeating international terrorism is not going to be easy. We are in a new type of war that will require a clearly thought-out approach, decisiveness, and international cooperation. My hope is that the President and Congress can accomplish these difficult goals, while maintaining international stability in a very volatile environment. My hopes and prayers are with the President.”” [Sanders Press Release, via archive.org, 9/20/01] Sanders Said We Must “Completely Re-evaluate And Improve Anti-Terrorist Security Measures” In Response To 9/11. “Secondly, we must completely re-evaluate and improve anti-terrorist security measures in this country, while protecting civil liberties. We must also make certain that Muslims and Arab-Americans are not discriminated against.” [Sanders Press Release, 9/18/01] After 9/11, Sanders Called For Americans “To Be Calm And Thoughtful And Determine The Most Effective Way That We Can Defeat Terrorism And Punish Those Who Perpetrated This Horrible Deed.” “As a nation we are horrified, we are furious and we are fearful. But the most important thing now is for us to be calm and thoughtful and determine the most effective way that we can defeat terrorism and punish those who perpetrated this horrible deed. Today, with my vote, Congress appropriated $40 billion to help the people of New York and the other victims, and to improve our national security. Further, we must go forward immediately to permanently improve safety at airports – including giving the FAA direct responsibility for airport security. We also have to take a new look at protecting other vulnerable targets.” [Sanders Press Release, 9/14/01] Sanders After 9/11: “We Pledge To Capture And Punish The Perpetrators Of This Despicable Deed, We Must Be Calm And Focused And Thinking Long-Term On How We Defeat This Terrible Evil.” “The goal of terrorism is to demoralize people and to create fear, uncertainty and instability in a nation. We must not succumb to that and give terrorists that victory. While we grieve for the terrible loss of life that we suffered yesterday, and while we pledge to capture and punish the perpetrators of this despicable deed, we must be calm and focused and thinking long-term on how we defeat this terrible evil. We must also be thinking about how we can work better and more effectively with law-abiding people throughout the world to accomplish this goal, remembering that terrorism is an international plague. I think that we should all be proud and reassured of how people in Vermont and throughout the country are coming together – giving blood, raising funds, and doing everything they can to support the victims and their families.” [Sanders Press Release, 9/12/01] 2006: Sanders Expressed Concern That Terrorist Could Be Coming In Through The Borders. “Much work in Congress remains to be done if we are to be successful in protecting our homeland and fighting terrorism. Sadly, many of the key recommendations outlined by the non-partisan 9/11 Commission have not yet been implemented by the Bush Administration and the Republican Congressional Leadership; and the Commission has given them very poor grades. Among many other areas where improvements must be made are: Our borders remain porous and people who may want to do us harm can easily slip into the United States. To address this concern we need, among other things, to substantially increase the number of Border Patrol agents and improve the security technology on our borders.” [Sanders for Senate, via archive.org, 9/11/06] Sanders Expressed Mixed Feelings About Obama Administration Decision To Order Killing Of Anwar al-Awlaki. “BLITZER: One final question before I let you go. Did President Obama do the right thing in ordering the killing of an American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki? SANDERS: That's a long discussion. Probably longer than the amount of time than we now have. BLITZER: Go ahead. Give me 30 seconds. SANDERS: Well, the answer is that I -- you know, I think that when you have an American citizen killed by the United States government, it raises some real questions. On the other hand, when you have somebody who's a terrorist and at war with the United States, that's the other side of that equation. BLITZER: Senator Sanders, thanks very much for coming in, as usual. SANDERS: Thank you.” [CNN, 10/6/11] Sanders: The Release of Sergeant Bergdahl Was “A Very Sensitive And Delicate Issue,” But We Must Ensure “These Terrorists Do Not Get Back Onto The Battlefield.” When asked by Bob Schieffer his opinion on the release of Sergeant Bergdahl, Sanders responded: “Look, I think it’s a very sensitive and delicate issue. I suspect that if you asked Senator Bergdahl’s feelings about what happened, they will feel very, very good. I think we need to have more information about the long-term consequences, and do everything that we can to make sure that these terrorists do not get back onto the battlefield.” [Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer, CBS, 6/1/14, 6:11] Sanders: “We’ve Got To Be Vigilant In Protecting” The US Against Terrorists. ““Where we are right now is in a very difficult world and I wish I could tell you otherwise but as all of you know, there are terrorists out there who want to do us harm,” he said, adding “we've got to be vigilant in protecting this country against them.”“ [Examiner, 5/13/15] Sanders: We Must Vigorously Combat Terrorism, But We Should Not Bear The Burden Alone. “We must be vigorous in combatting terrorism and defeating ISIS, but we should not have to bear that burden alone. We must be part of an international coalition, led by Muslim nations, that can not only defeat ISIS but begin the process of creating conditions for a lasting peace.” [Sanders Remarks, 5/27/15] Voted For Most Homeland Security Appropriations Sanders Voted For Passage Of Fiscal 2004 Homeland Security Appropriations. On June 24, 2003, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #310. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would provide a total of $30.4 billion, including $29.4 billion in discretionary spending, in fiscal 2004 for the Department of Homeland Security. It would cap the number of airport screeners employed by the Transportation Security Administration at 45,000. The bill would provide $890 million in fiscal 2004 and $4.7 billion in advance appropriations for Project Bioshield, an effort to accelerate development of drugs to combat biological and chemical weapons. It also would provide $4.4 billion in grants for "first responder" police, fire and emergency medical crews and $100 million in port security grants. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #310, 6/24/2003] Bernie Sanders Voted For The Conference Report Of Fiscal 2004 Homeland Security Appropriations. On September 24, 2003, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #515. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the conference report on the bill that would appropriate $30.4 billion in fiscal 2004 spending for the Homeland Security Department and related agencies, about $1 billion more than the administration's request. The measure includes $5.8 billion for customs and border protection, $3.7 billion for immigration enforcement, $4.6 billion for the Transportation Security Administration and $6.8 billion for the Coast Guard. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #515, 9/24/2003] Sanders Voted For Passage Of Fiscal 2005 Homeland Security Appropriation. On June 18, 2004, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #275. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would provide $33.1 billion in fiscal 2005 for the Department of Homeland Security, including $2.5 billion previously enacted for Project Bioshield. It would provide $20.6 billion for security, enforcement and investigation activities, such as the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Coast Guard and the Secret Service. It also would provide $5.1 billion for the Transportation and Security Administration. It also would provide $4.1 billion for the Office of State and Local Coordination and Preparedness, including $3.4 billion for state and local homeland security grant programs. The bill, as amended, would prohibit the use of funds to privatize or contract out services provided by the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #275, 6/18/2004] Sanders Voted For Conference Report Of Fiscal 2005 Homeland Security Appropriations. On October 9, 2004, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #530. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the conference report on the bill that would appropriate $33.1 billion in fiscal 2005 for the Department of Homeland Security and related agencies. The bill includes $6.3 billion for customs and border protection; $5.2 billion for the Transportation Security Administration; $7.4 billion for the Coast Guard; $1.2 billion for the Secret Service and $5.5 billion for emergency preparedness and response, including $3.1 billion for the state and local programs. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #530, 10/9/2004] Sanders Voted For Passage Of Fiscal 2006 Homeland Security Appropriations. On May 17, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #180. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would provide $31.9 billion in fiscal 2006 for the Homeland Security Department, including $22 billion for security, enforcement and investigation activities, such as the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Coast Guard and the Secret Service. It would provide $5.7 billion for the Transportation Security Administration and $3.6 billion for the state and local grant programs. It would withhold more than $310 million pending improvements in air cargo screening measures and deployment of more explosive-detection technologies at airports. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #180, 5/17/2005] Bernie Sanders Voted Against Conference Report Of Fiscal 2006 Homeland Security Appropriations. On October 6, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #512. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the conference report on the bill that would appropriate $31.9 billion in fiscal 2006 for the Homeland Security Department and related agencies. The bill includes $6 billion for customs and border protection; $5.9 billion for the Transportation Security Administration, including fees; $7.8 billion for the Coast Guard; $1.2 billion for the Secret Service and $2.6 billion for response and recovery efforts conducted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #512, 10/6/2005] Sanders Voted For Passage Of Fiscal 2007 Homeland Security Appropriations. On June 6, 2006, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #226. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would provide $33.1 billion in fiscal 2007 for the Homeland Security Department and related activities. The bill would include $7.7 billion for customs and border protection; $6.4 billion for the Transportation Security Administration, including fees; $8.1 billion for the Coast Guard; $1.3 billion for the Secret Service and $2.6 billion for response and recovery efforts conducted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. It would appropriate $3.4 billion for the state and local grant programs as well as change the formula-based grants distribution process to guarantee each state at least 0.75 percent of the total funding. The remaining funds would be distributed based on risk and need assessments. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #226, 6/6/2006] Sanders Voted For Conference Report Of Fiscal 2007 Homeland Security Appropriations. On September 29, 2006, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #509. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the conference report on the bill that would provide $34.8 billion in fiscal 2007 for the Department of Homeland Security and related activities. The bill would include $9.3 billion for customs and border protection, including fees; $6.4 billion for the Transportation Security Administration, including fees; $8.3 billion for the Coast Guard; $1.3 billion for the Secret Service and $2.5 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. It would appropriate $3.4 billion for the Office of Grants and Training, which deals with state and local grant programs, and change formula-based grants distribution to guarantee each state at least 0.75 percent of the total funding. The remaining funds would be distributed based on risk and need assessments. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #509, 9/29/2006] Sanders Voted For Passage Of Fiscal 2008 Homeland Security Appropriations. On July 26, 2007, Bernie Sanders voted yes on Senate Vote #282. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would provide $40.6 billion in fiscal 2008 for the Homeland Security Department, including $36.4 billion in discretionary spending. The bill would include $8.8 billion for customs and border protection; $6.5 billion for the Transportation Security Administration, including fees; $8.6 billion for the Coast Guard; $1.4 billion for the Secret Service and $6.9 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. It also would bar federal pre-emption of more stringent state and local chemical security regulations. As amended the bill includes $3 billion in emergency funding for border security. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #282, 7/26/2007] Sanders Voted For Passage Of Fiscal 2010 Homeland Security Appropriations. On July 9, 2009, Bernie Sanders voted yes on Senate Vote #229. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill would provide $44.3 billion in fiscal 2010 for the Homeland Security Department and related programs, including $42.9 billion in discretionary spending. The total would include $16 billion for Customs and Border Protection; $5.7 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement; $7.7 billion for the Transportation Security Administration, including fees; $10.2 billion for the Coast Guard, excluding mandatory spending; $1.5 billion for the Secret Service and $7.1 billion for FEMA. It also would prohibit funding after Jan. 4, 2010, for Loran-C, a land- based radio navigation system. As amended the bill would require the fence built along the U.S.-Mexican border to prevent pedestrian traffic and reach completion by Dec. 31, 2010. It would also permanently reauthorize the Homeland Security Department's E-Verify program and require federal contractors to check employee citizenship status in the E-Verify system. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #229, 7/9/2009] Sanders Voted For Conference Report Fiscal 2010 Homeland Security Appropriations. On October 20, 2009, Bernie Sanders voted yes on Senate Vote #323. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the conference report on the bill that would provide $44.1 billion in fiscal 2010, including $42.8 billion in discretionary funds, for the Homeland Security Department and related activities. It would provide $10.1 billion for Customs and Border Protection; $7.7 billion for the Transportation Security Administration, not including offsetting fees; $10.1 billion for the Coast Guard; $1.5 billion for the Secret Service and $7.1 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. It would prohibit the transfer of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States except for prosecution; place detainees on the "no-fly" list; and bar the use of funds to provide them benefits. It also would extend the authorization of the E-Verify program for three years. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #323, 10/20/2009] Voted Against Counterterrorism Funding As Part Of Defense Appropriations Sanders Voted Against FY 2004 Defense Budget, Which Would Have Increased Funding For Counterterrorism. On July 8, 2003, Bernie Sanders opposed passage of the bill that would provide $369.2 billion for fiscal 2004 for the Defense Department. The measure appropriated large increases for Defense Department counterterrorism activities and other programs to fight unconventional threats including $4.6 billion for special operations forces -- a 35% increase from previous spending. Passed 39919: R 222-1; D 177-17; I 0-1 A majority of House Democrats supported the proposal. [H R 2658, Vote #335, 7/8/03; CQ Floor Votes, 7/8/03; Congressional Quarterly's House Action Reports, 7/3/03; Congressional Quarterly's House Action Reports, 7/9/03] Sanders Voted Against FY 2004 Defense Budget, Which Increased Funding For Counterterrorism. On September 24, 2003, Bernie Sanders opposed adoption of the conference report on the bill that would appropriate $368.7 billion in fiscal 2004 for defense and national security. The measure appropriated large increases for Defense Department counterterrorism activities and other programs to fight unconventional threats including $4.5 billion for special operations forces -- a 47% increase from previous spending -- $1 billion for procurement and development of chemical and biological defenses. Adopted (thus sent to the Senate) 407-15: R 223-1; D 184-13; I 0-1. A majority of House Democrats supported the proposal. [H R 2658, Vote #513, 9/24/03; CQ Floor Votes, 9/24/03; Congressional Quarterly's House Action Reports, 9/26/03] FY2004 Defense Budget Dismantled Controversial “Total Information Awareness” Program. On September 24, 2003, Bernie Sanders opposed adoption of the conference report on the bill that would appropriate $368.7 billion in fiscal 2004 for defense and national security. The agreement dismantled a Defense Department program, the Terrorism Information Awareness (TIA) system and moved most of its functions to an unspecified office, but appeared to continue funding for the operations carried out by the TIA office -- to screen thousands of individuals for possible terrorist connections. The new focus of the program, according to the conferees, was only to be for "foreign activities." The controversial TIA system included a research project that attempted to create an online futures market designed to predict the likelihood for violence in the Middle East. The head of the program, former National Security Advisor Adm. John Poindexter, resigned soon after congressional criticism caused the Pentagon to end that project in July. The conferees also directed that the only research projects previously under the jurisdiction of the Information Awareness Office that may continue under Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency are the Bio-Event Advanced Leading Indicator Recognition Technology, Rapid Analytic Wargaming, Wargaming the Asymmetric Environment, and Automated Speech and Text Exploitation in Multiple Languages, including Babylon and Symphony. The conferees noted that the conference agreement did not restrict the National Foreign Intelligence Program from using processing, analysis and collaboration tools for counterterrorism foreign intelligence purposes. Adopted (thus sent to the Senate) 407-15: R 223-1; D 184-13; I 0-1. A majority of House Democrats supported the proposal. [HR 2658, Vote #513, 9/24/03; CQ Floor Votes, 9/24/03; Congressional Quarterly's House Action Reports, 9/26/03] Hillary Clinton Voted Against Amendment To Increase The Minimum Allocation For Homeland Security Grants, While Bernie Sanders Voted For. “The Leahy amendment would set the minimum guaranteed to states for federal homeland security grants at 0.75 percent. The substitute would implement remaining recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission and aviation security screening measures; and authorize more than $4 billion for rail and mass transit security, $3.1 billion for homeland security grant programs, and $3.3 billion for a new emergency grant program to improve communications among first-responders.” The amendment failed 49-50. [CQ Vote Report, S Amdt 333 to S Amdt 275 to S 4, Vote #63, 3/6/07] Hillary Clinton Voted Against Tabling A Motion To Require Consideration Of High Risk Qualifying Criteria In Allocating Funds Under the Homeland Security Grant Program, While Bernie Sanders Voted For. “Lieberman, I-Conn., motion to table (kill) the Obama, D-Ill., amendment no. 338 to the Reid, D-Nev., substitute amendment no. 275. The Obama amendment would reduce the minimum guaranteed to states for federal homeland security grants to 0.25 percent, with a guarantee of 0.45 percent to states with an international border or port. The substitute would implement remaining recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission and aviation security screening measures; and authorize more than $4 billion for rail and mass transit security, $3.1 billion for homeland security grant programs, and $3.3 billion for a new emergency grant program to improve communications among first-responders.” The motion passed 58-41. [CQ Vote Report, S Amdt 338 to S Amdt 275 to S 4, Vote #62, 3/6/07] Sanders Opposed Transferring Rural Anti-Terror Funds To High-Threat Urban Areas. On June 18, 2004, Bernie Sanders opposed a Rep. Sweeney, R-N.Y., amendment that would transfer $450 million from formula-based state and local homeland security programs to discretionary terrorism prevention programs for high-threat, high-density urban areas, such as New York City. According to the Associated Press, the “measure would have taken homeland security money away from rural areas and redirected it to the urban areas program, which currently distributes funds to 50 cities based on risk assessments by the Department of Homeland Security.” Rejected 171-237: R 70-147; D 101-89; I 0-1. A majority of House Democrats supported the proposal. [H R 4567, Vote #266, 6/18/04; CQ Floor Votes, 6/18/04; Associated Press, 6/18/04] Before 9/11, Sanders Advocated For Cuts To Intelligence Spending 1993: Sanders Proposed Cutting The Intelligence Budget By 10 Percent. On August 3, 1993, Bernie Sanders proposed amendment to reduce the bill's authorization to 10 percent below the fiscal 1993 level. "What I am here to tell you," Sanders said, "is that you have to tell us that your spy satellites are more important than feeding the hungry children, taking care of people sleeping out in the streets, not rebuilding our educational system (and) not rebuilding our infrastructure." Unlike Sanders, President Clinton opposed the measure. The majority of House Democrats opposed the proposal. [H R 2330, Vote #391, 8/3/93; CQ Almanac, 1993; CQ Floor Votes, 8/3/93; “House Votes To Freeze Funding But Keep Amount Secret,” CQ Weekly, 8/7/93] Sanders Sought To “Significantly Cut CIA Spending.” “Mr. Speaker, the Cold War is over. The Soviet Union no longer exists. Russia and other former enemies are now seeking admission to NATO. Given that context, given a $4 trillion national debt and enormous unmet social needs at home, I find it incredible that an intelligence authorization bill is making its way to the floor of the House-which maintains funding for the CIA and other intelligence agencies at about the same level as last year. Mr. Speaker, we must develop a rational sense of priorities in this country. We must significantly cut CIA spending and address the real needs of our people.” [Rep. Sanders floor remarks, 7/13/93] Rep. Bernie Sanders: “My Job Is Not To Go Through The Intelligence Budget. I Have Not Even Looked At It.” “So Madam Chairman, I urge my friends on the Intelligence Committee, you have made your point. We understand it. My job is not to go through the intelligence budget. I have not even looked at it.” [Rep. Sanders floor speech, 8/3/93] 1993: Sanders Opposed A Spending Freeze On Intelligence Activities. On August 4, 1993, Bernie Sanders opposed passage of the bill to authorize about $28 billion for intelligence agencies and operations in fiscal 1994. The amount represented a spending freeze. Passed 400-28: D 234-21 (ND 15417, SD 80-4); R 166-6; I 0-1. A majority of House Democrats supported the proposal. [H R 2330, Vote #398, 8/4/93; CQ Floor Votes, 8/4/93; “House Votes To Freeze Funding But Keep Amount Secret,” CQ Weekly, 8/7/93] 1993: Sanders Voted To Cut The Intelligence Budget By $500 Million. On August 4, 1993, Bernie Sanders supported a Rep. Frank, D-Mass., amendment to cut the bill's authorization by $500 million. Unlike Sanders, President Clinton opposed the measure. The majority of House Democrats opposed the proposal. [H R 2330, Vote #393, 8/4/93; CQ Almanac, 1993; CQ Floor Votes, 8/4/93] 1994: Sanders Proposed Cutting The Intelligence Budget By 10 Percent. On July 19, 1994, Bernie Sanders offered an amendment to cut the bill's authorization by 10 percent below the fiscal 1994 level. Rejected 106-315: R 8-163; D 97-152; I 1-0. A majority of House Democrats opposed the proposal. [H R 4299, Vote #333, 7/19/94; CQ Floor Votes, 7/19/94] Sanders Proposed A $2.8 Billion Budget Cut In Intelligence Spending And Suggested Allocating The Money Towards Domestic Issues Such As Fighting Crime. “The issue is to look at the intelligence budget within the context of other American needs. We proposed–Major Owens and I proposed–a ten percent cut in intelligence spending, that’s $2.8 billion. [...] What the American people have got to determine, is should we spend another $2.8 billion for another satellite and a half, now that the Cold War is over, or for that amount of money, should you purchase–help cities and communities all over America fight crime by hiring 40,000 more police officers?” [C-SPAN, 7/21/94, 8:31] Sanders: “Congress Made The Wrong Choice” In Prioritizing Intelligence Budget Over Education Programs. “Let me just point out that $2.8 billion would fund 200,000 more students in the President’s National Service program, and it would allow 700,000 more low-income kids to participate in the Head Start program. Those are the choices that we have to make, and I think the Congress made the wrong choice by virtually level-funding the intelligence budget the other day.” [C-SPAN, 7/21/94, 11:10] 1995: Sanders Proposed Cutting The National Foreign Intelligence Program By 10 Percent From FY 1995 Levels, Exempting The CIA Retirement And Disability System Fund. On September 7, 1995, Bernie Sanders offered an amendment to cut the National Foreign Intelligence Program with the exception of the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System Fund to 90 percent of the fiscal 1995 level. Rejected 93-325: R 13-216; D 79-109; I 1-0. A majority of House Democrats opposed the proposal. [H R 2126, Vote #643, 9/7/95; CQ Floor Votes, 9/7/95] Sanders Proposed Cutting “Funding For The National Foreign Intelligence Program By 10 Percent.” “Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk which is cosponsored by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens]. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple and should be supported, although I doubt that it will, by all deficit hawks and those of us who are concerned about a cost-effective government. It cuts funding for the national foreign intelligence program by 10 percent. That is a 10-percent cut in funding for the CIA, and it is a 10-percent cut to the intelligence activities and the Drug Enforcement Administration, the FBI, the National Reconnaissance Office, the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and other intelligence agencies.” [Rep. Sanders floor remarks, 9/7/95] Sanders: “Keeping The CIA Funded At Almost The Same Level As In The Cold War, That Is Waste.” “Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot about waste and bureaucracy. Let us talk about waste. Do Members know what waste is? $10 billion on the space station. Helping senior citizens heat their homes in Vermont in the winter time is not waste. Do you know what waste is? Corporate welfare and subsidies for large corporations and wealthy individuals, that is waste. Drug prevention programs for high schools and elementary schools in this country, that is not waste. That makes good sense. Do people really think it is waste to put money into the WIC program so we can provide decent nutrition for pregnant women and their children? Is that waste? That is not waste. Keeping the CIA funded at almost the same level as in the cold war, that is waste.” [Rep. Sanders floor remarks, 3/15/95] 1995: Sanders Supported Cutting CIA Budget. “The sixth bill in the Progressive Promise is The National Economic Security Act, which cuts the Pentagon and CIA budgets and star wars spending in favor of shifting limited resources to meet domestic social needs and investments to strengthen the U.S. national economy.” [Rep. Bernard Sanders, Congressional Record, 1/26/95] 1996: Sanders Proposed Cutting The Intelligence Budget By 10 Percent From FY 1996 Levels, Exempting The CIA Retirement And Disability System Fund. On May 22, 1996, Bernie Sanders offered an amendment to limit the total fiscal 1997 intelligence authorization level to no more than 90 percent of the total amount authorized for fiscal 1996, except for those amounts authorized for the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability Fund. Rejected 115-311: R 22-209; D 92-102; I 1-0. A majority of House Democrats opposed the proposal. [H R 3259,Vote #185, 5/22/96; CQ Floor Votes, 5/22/96] 1997: Sanders Voted To Cut The Intelligence Budget By 5 Percent From FY 1996 Levels, Exempting The CIA Retirement And Disability System Fund. On July 9, 1997, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #253. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Sanders, I-Vt., amendment to cut the bill's total authorization by 5 percent through an across-the-board cut, except for the CIA Retirement and Disability Fund. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #253, 7/9/1997] 1997: Sanders Voted Against FY1998 Intelligence Budget Authorization. On November 7, 1997, Rep. Bernie Sanders voted against authorizing the intelligence budget for fiscal year 1998. According to CQ Weekly, “President Clinton on Nov. 20 signed legislation authorizing funding for intelligence activities for fiscal 1998. The legislation (S858 -- Conference Report: H Rept 105-350), which covers the Central Intelligence Agency and other intelligence operations, was cleared by the House on Nov. 7. The funding totals in the bill are classified, but according to various sources the total for fiscal 1998 is estimated to be nearly $27 billion. (Weekly Report, p. 2782) Clinton had threatened to veto the measure if lawmakers included a provision in the Senate's version of the bill requiring the president to make clear to federal employees or contractors that they can reveal classified information to Congress if it shows evidence of wrongdoing. Administration officials said they thought the provision was unconstitutional. House and Senate intelligence conferees decided not to include it in the final version of the legislation, but the Senate committee may pursue the matter in 1998.” Following Senate passage, the House agreed to the conference report by a vote of 385 to 36. The president then signed the bill into law. [S. 858, 11/20/97; House Vote #607, 11/7/97; CQ Weekly, 11/22/97] Sanders Said Funding “An Already Bloated Intelligence Budget” Was About “Our Sense Of National Priorities.” “Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, this debate is about a number of key factors: No. 1, our sense of national priorities. Is it appropriate to increase funding for an already bloated intelligence budget at exactly the same time as we propose painful cuts for senior citizens in Medicare, for low-income people in Medicaid, for others in housing, for kids, for the environment? How appropriate is it to say that we will cut $1.5 billion in home health care for seniors but not cut $1.5 billion for an intelligence budget which, in my view and in the view of many, already has too much money.” [Sanders Remarks, House Floor, 7/9/97] Bill Required “The Directors Of Central Intelligence And The FBI To Report On China’s Intelligence Activities Against Or Affecting The United States.” “The bill, among other things, requires the directors of Central Intelligence and the FBI to report on China's intelligence activities directed against or affecting the United States.” [CQ Weekly, 11/22/97] Democratic Rep. Norm Dicks Noted That Bill Increased Spending By $27 Billion Over Previous Year. “The funding level in the intelligence bill is classified, but Director of Central Intelligence George J. Tenet ended years of secrecy on Oct. 15 by revealing that $26.6 billion was spent on intelligence in fiscal 1997. His disclosure was prompted by a lawsuit by the Federation of American Scientists. Tenet said that the decision to disclose spending totals in the future would be made on a case-by-case basis. However, Norm Dicks of Washington, ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said the conference report authorized 1.4 percent more, or nearly $27 billion, for fiscal 1998 than fiscal 1997.” [CQ Weekly, 11/8/97] Democratic Sen. Robert Torricelli Was Disappointed That Bill Did Not Require That The President Explicitly Note That Federal Employees Or Contractors Could Reveal Classified Information To Congress If There Was Evidence Of Wrongdoing. “Before the Senate approved the conference report, Sen. Robert G. Torricelli, D-N.J., expressed disappointment that Senate conferees were unable to retain a provision that would have required the president to make clear to federal employees or contractors that they can reveal classified information to Congress if such information shows evidence of wrongdoing.” [CQ Weekly, 11/8/97] 1997: White House Threatened To Veto Bill If Whistleblowing Provision Was Included. “Before the Senate approved the conference report, Sen. Robert G. Torricelli, D-N.J., expressed disappointment that Senate conferees were unable to retain a provision that would have required the president to make clear to federal employees or contractors that they can reveal classified information to Congress if such information shows evidence of wrongdoing. The White House threatened to veto the legislation if the provision was included. The Intelligence committees may pursue the issue through legislation next year.” [CQ Weekly, 11/8/97] Provision Added By The House Was Removed In Conference That Would Have Abolished The Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office. “The conferees also rejected a provision in the House bill that would have abolished the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office, created to coordinate airborne reconnaissance among the services. The conferees instead deferred to the defense authorization bill, which would scale back the agency.” [CQ Weekly, 11/8/97] Sanders’ 2006 Senate Opponent Criticized Sanders For Voting To Cut Intelligence Budgets. “A day after an alleged plot to blow up airplanes was foiled, U.S. Senate candidate Richard Tarrant on Friday stepped up his attacks on U.S. Rep. Bernard Sanders' national security record with a new television commercial. "For seven consecutive years and over President Clinton's objection, Congressman Sanders sponsored legislation to cut our intelligence budget," the ad says. It concludes, "We are grateful that our intelligence services and those of our allies remained vigilant despite his efforts." The Tarrant ad lists seven instances in the 1990s in which Sanders voted to cut intelligence budgets. In all seven, Sanders was on the losing side of the votes.” [Associated Press, 8/11/06] Sanders Said He Was Joined With Key Republicans On Some Of The Votes. “Sanders' campaign replied by saying he had been joined by key Republicans on some of those votes, citing a Washington Post report that former U.S. Rep. Porter Goss, R-Fla., had cosponsored a 1995 bill that would have cut the intelligence budget by $6 billion between 1995 and 2000. Goss went on to head the Central Intelligence Agency under Bush.” [Associated Press, 8/11/06] Sanders Accused His Opponent Of Politicizing 9/11. “Sanders' campaign struck back, accusing Tarrant of joining national Republicans in trying to stir fears of terrorism to score political points. Before Tarrant had unveiled the new ad at his news conference, the Sanders campaign sent out an e-mail headlined "Tarrant Brings Karl Rove's Game Plan for 2006 to Vermont: Use 9/11 Tragedy and Serious Issue of Terrorism as Political Ploy."” [Associated Press, 8/11/06] Sanders And Rep. Barney Frank Said They Worried The CIA And NSA Focused Too Heavily On The Soviet Union While Ignoring New Potential Threats. “But the criticism sorely lacks context, they say. The intelligence cuts were proposed by Democrat Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who complained that the CIA and National Security Agency focused too heavily on satellites and equipment to watch the old Soviet Union while ignoring the need for more agents to guard against potential new threats. They also were concerned that the National Reconnaissance Office had nearly $4 billion in unspent funding, more than entire Cabinet department budgets. It was difficult to account for other money, too, because most members of Congress were not even allowed to see spy agencies' budgets.” [Cleveland Plain Dealer, 7/22/06] Sanders Said He Had Been Concerned The Intelligence Agencies Were Still In A Cold War Mindset And Failing To Focus On Terrorist Threat. “Sanders defended his votes in the 1990s against intelligence funding increases. He said he and a group of like-minded Republican and Democratic members of Congress were concerned at the time that the intelligence community was still in a Cold War mind set and was failing to focus enough on the new terrorist threat. "We need all Americans and all political parties to stand together," Sanders said. "We don't need ugly TV ads."” [Burlington Free Press, 8/12/06] Sanders House Website Said He Strongly Opposed Increases In Spending For The Military And The CIA While Underfunding Domestic Priorities. “Bernie understands that the United States is a great nation, and that we have much to be proud of. But he strongly believes that Congress, in many instances, has its priorities backwards. Bernie has strongly opposed increases in spending for the military, Star Wars, the CIA, corporate welfare, the Space Station and other programs. He believes it is absurd that we spend hundreds of billions in these areas while, at the same time, inadequate federal spending denies millions of Americans the most basic necessities of life. While Bernie wants to cut spending on the military and corporate subsidies, he wants to increase federal funding for education, affordable housing, childcare, workers' rights, social justice, veterans' needs, environmental protection and other initiatives that improve the lives of ordinary Americans.” [bernie.house.gov, via archive.org, 7/6/06] 2002: Sanders Said Funding Was Not Responsible For Lack Of Cooperation Between Intelligence Departments, And We Need To Improve Intelligence Not Throw Money At Them. “Meub sought to lay some of the blame for security lapses before Sept. 11, 2001, at Sanders' feet, standing by his earlier charge that the incumbent "voted for vulnerability," by supporting cuts in intelligence agency budgets in the 1990s. Sanders replied that funding cuts were not responsible for poor communications and lack of cooperation between the Central Intelligence Agency, FBI and others. "These agencies have been well funded but not well run," he said. "We need to significantly improve our intelligence agencies and not simply throw money at them."” [Associated Press, 10/8/02] Before Joining Congress, Sanders Called For The CIA To Be Disbanded In 1974, Sanders Called For The CIA To Be Disbanded. “He also called for the CIA to be disbanded immediately, in the wake of eye-popping revelations about the agency's misdeeds.” [Mother Jones, 5/28/15] 1974: Bernie Sanders Said The CIA Might Be Able To Overthrow The U.S. Government If It Wanted To. “Sanders said that the purpose of U.S. foreign policy seems to be only to protect U.S. investments overseas, and to support foreign governments that foster those investments, even if they are ‘vicious, reactionary military dictatorships.’ Sanders repeatedly returned to the topic of the CIA support of such governments by quelling insurrection in the interest of big business. Sanders said that the CIA has overthrown many foreign governments unfriendly to the U.S. corporations and that they might even be able to overthrow the U.S. government if they chose to.” [Bennington Banner, 10/1/74] 1976: Bernie Sanders Charged That The CIA And Other Government Agencies Might Be Responsible For A Rash Of Domestic Terrorist Bombings. “Two members of the Liberty Union party today renewed their biennial assault on the establishment by announcing their candidacies for statewide office. They coupled the announcement with a disavowal of terrorist bombings and a charge that many such incidents may be instigated by government agencies to undermine legitimate efforts to bring about change. Bernard Sanders of Burlington, who helped found Liberty Union six years ago, said he will seek the gubernatorial nomination. […] Both Sanders and Franco denounced Monday’s wave of letter bombings aimed at large corporations. ‘We want to make it clear where we think that’s at,’ Franco said. ‘It’s criminal, insane, stupid and should be condemned.’ Both men said such terrorism is counterproductive to changing the ‘system,’ and charged that government agencies like the CIA may in fact be responsible. ‘Anybody that thinks change is going to come because of bombings or terrorist activity is either extremely stupid, crazy or an agent of the U.S. government,’ Sanders said.” [Bennington Banner, 6/16/76] 1974: Bernie Sanders Called For The “Immediate Disbanding Of The CIA.” “The audience of some 150 persons warmed to the topic of CIA operations, apparently alarmed by recent news reports of CIA cover accomplishments in Chile. Sanders was cheered at one point when he called for immediate disbanding of the CIA, and Mallary was coolly received when he said some CIA activity, although very little, was still necessary.” [Bennington Banner, 10/1/74] Sanders To Reagan: “I Urge You To Stop The CIA War Against The People Of Nicaragua”. “In the strongest possible terms, I urge you to stop the CIA war against the people Nicaragua and allow them to develop their independent nation as best they can after the horrors imposed upon them by the forty year Samosa dictatorship”. [Sanders Letter To Reagan, 10/17/83] 1974: Sanders Said The CIA “Has Got To Go” Because It Answered “To No One Except Right-Wing Lunatics Who Use It To Prop Up Fascist Dictatorships.” “Calling the CIA dangerous to the nation, Sanders said: ‘It has got to go.’ He contended that the organization is responsible ‘to no one except rightwing lunatics who use it to prop up fascist dictatorships.’” [Rutland Daily Herald, 9/28/74] In 1989, Sanders Decried The Role Of The CIA In Overthrowing Latin American Governments. “If you trace the history of the United States vis a vis Latin America and Central America, there has never been a time where a country made a revolution for the poor people where it was not overthrown by the CIA or the United States government, or the marines. Salvador Allende was democratically elected by the people of Chile. He made the mistake of believing that his job as president of that country was to represent the people of Chile. And he did his best. And he was overthrown by the CIA.” [Raw Story, 5/19/15] … But Voted For Intelligence Authorizations After 9/11 Bernie Sanders Voted For Conference Report Of Fiscal 2003 Intelligence Authorization. On November 15, 2002, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #483. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the conference report on the bill that would authorize classified amounts in fiscal 2003 for U.S. intelligence agencies and intelligence-related activities of the U.S. government, including the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the Defense Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the State Department and other agencies. The total funding level is classified, but the amount has been estimated to be between $35 billion and $40 billion. The agreement also would establish a National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States that would examine and report on the facts and circumstances relating to the Sept. 11 attacks. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #483, 11/15/2002] Bernie Sanders Voted For House Passage Of Fiscal 2004 Intelligence Authorization. On June 27, 2003, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #333. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would authorize classified amounts in fiscal 2004 for U.S. intelligence activities and agencies including the CIA, the National Security Agency, the National Imagery and Mapping Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency. It also would require the CIA director to file a report within one year of the bill's enactment on the intelligence lessons learned from the war in Iraq. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #333, 6/27/2003] Bernie Sanders Voted Against Conference Report Fiscal 2004 Intelligence Authorization. On November 20, 2003, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #649. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the conference report on the bill that would authorize a classified amount in fiscal 2004 spending for 14 U.S. intelligence agencies and intelligence-related activities of the U.S. government, including the CIA and the National Security Agency, as well as foreign intelligence activities of the Defense Department, FBI, State Department, Homeland Security Department, and other agencies. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #649, 11/20/2003] Bernie Sanders Voted For House Passage Of Fiscal 2005 Intelligence Authorization - Passage. On June 23, 2004, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #300. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would authorize classified amounts in fiscal 2005 for U.S. intelligence activities and agencies including the CIA, the National Security Agency, the National GeospatialIntelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency. The bill, as amended, would direct the CIA's inspector general to audit the evidence of the pre-Sept. 11, 2001, relationship between Saddam Hussein's regime and al Qaeda. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #300, 6/23/2004] Bernie Sanders Voted For House Passage Of Fiscal 2006 Intelligence Authorization. On June 21, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #290. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would authorize classified amounts in fiscal 2006 for U.S. intelligence activities and agencies including the CIA, the National Security Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #290, 6/21/2005] Bernie Sanders Voted For House Passage Of Fiscal 2007 Intelligence Authorization. On April 26, 2006, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #108. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would authorize classified amounts in fiscal 2007 for U.S. intelligence activities and agencies including the CIA, the National Security Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency. It also would require the director of National Intelligence to provide Congress with quarterly classified intelligence reports on insurgent forces in Iraq. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #108, 4/26/2006] Bernie Sanders Voted For Conference Report Of Fiscal 2008 Intelligence Authorization. On February 13, 2008, Bernie Sanders voted yes on Senate Vote #22. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the conference report on the bill that would authorize classified amounts in fiscal 2008 for 17 U.S. intelligence activities and agencies, including the CIA, the Office of the National Intelligence Director and the National Security Agency. It would authorize funds for the intelligence portion of the fiscal 2008 emergency supplemental for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would also authorize increased investment in U.S. human intelligence activities, including training, infrastructure and global capabilities. It would prohibit the use of any interrogation treatment not authorized by the U.S. Army Field Manual against any individual in the custody of the intelligence community. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #22, 2/13/2008] 2014: Said US Intelligence Agencies Were “Out Of Control” Sanders Said US Intelligence Agencies Were “Out Of Control.” “As you have heard from me, for years now, in my view, the intelligence agencies in this country, the NSA, CIA are out of control. We certainly need to know about the torture practiced under the Bush administration and the CIA has got to understand that they work for the American people and the U.S. Congress, they are not an independent entity that can do whatever they want to do.” [Brunch with Bernie, 3/14/14] Criticized For Focusing Too Much On Foreign Policy As Mayor 1986: Burlington Republican Party Chairman Said That If Sanders Continued To Attend To Foreign Policy Issues, He Should Run For Senate Or President. “Indeed it was. In the summer of 1986, Sanders attended a board of aldermen debate entitled, “Should Burlington Have a Foreign Policy?” One argument against the proposition, according to Conroy, came from the city’s Republican Party chairman, who argued that city official who couldn’t resist getting involved with foreign policy should move on to bigger things. A person like that should run for Senate, the chairman said. Or even for president.” [Politico, 7/31/15] Sanders Admitted That His Efforts At Foreign Policy As Mayor Of Burlington Were “More Symbolic Than Anything.” “Sanders was undeterred. To the young socialist mayor, all politics was global. “[H]ow many cities of 40,000 have a foreign policy? Well we did,” he wrote in his 1997 memoir, Outsider in the House. “I saw no magic line separating local, state, national and international issues.” The alderman’s meeting produced a vague plan for a donation to the Nicaraguan people, compensation for what Sanders called their suffering at the hands of the U.S.-backed contra rebels. (The tale is described in W.J. Conroy’s Challenging the Boundaries of Reform: Socialism in Burlington.) The result was, Sanders later conceded, “more symbolic than anything.” It often was. But that never stopped him.” [Politico, 7/31/15] Politico: Sanders Considered It Burlington’s Responsibility To Craft Foreign Policy In Opposition To The Reagan Administration’s. “In June 1986, the House of Representatives voted to send $100 million in U.S. military aid to Nicaragua’s contra rebels. It was a major victory for Ronald Reagan’s hardline anti-communist foreign policy. In Burlington, Vermont, Mayor Bernie Sanders sprang into action. Sanders quickly called an emergency board of aldermen meeting to discuss how the lakeside college town should respond. This was not a surprising or unprecedented move for the young socialist mayor, who considered it his small city’s responsibility to craft a foreign policy in opposition to the Reagan administration’s.” [Politico, 7/31/15] Burlington Free Press Criticized Sanders For Ignoring “Legitimate City Business” In Order To Debate Foreign Policy Issues. “But even in lefty Vermont, his foreign policy activism provoked eye rolling. The Grenada episode led the Burlington Free Press to complain that the city’s leaders were debating foreign issues “while legitimate city business was ignored.” Seven of the city’s 13 aldermen skipped the Nicaragua meeting, with many complaining that Sanders was, once again, wasting time on a far-flung cause.” [Politico, 7/31/15] Sanders: “I Saw No Magic Line Separating Local, State, National, And International Issues.” “Sanders was undeterred. To the young socialist mayor, all politics was global. ‘[H]ow many cities of 40,000 have a foreign policy? Well we did,’ he wrote in his 1997 memoir, Outsider in the House. ‘I saw no magic line separating local, state, national and international issues.’” [Politico, 7/31/15] Under Sanders, Burlington Did Some International Diplomacy Because “We All Live In One World.” “Sanders is proud of Burlington’s international diplomacy efforts. “Burlington had a foreign policy because, as progressives, we understood that we all live in one world,” he writes.” [MSNBC, 5/28/15] Citizen To Sanders: Take Care Of Burlington’s Problems Before Meddling In Foreign Affairs. “Regarding the status of Vermont as off limits to the Soviets, few regulations of the federal government have warmed my heart more than that – we don’t need anyone from Russia coming here to Vermont or to the University of Vermont in particular. […] Let Mayor Sanders and his friends start doing something about Burlington’s problems, and applying their energies to correcting them.” [Helen M. Mallow Editorial, Newspaper Unknown, 12/5/83] Free Press Headline: Sanders Defends Time Spent On World Policies [Burlington Free Press, 9/21/84] Sanders Sent Out Many Diplomatic Entreaties To Many Countries As Mayor. “The letters he sent to the Soviet Union, China, the UK and France, urging military disarmament in conjunction with the UN’s international disarmament week, was just one example of dozens of diplomatic initiatives from Sanders, who used his perch at city hall to influence issues as diverse as apartheid in South Africa and the US invasion of Grenada.” [The Guardian, 6/19/15] Sanders Wrote Pres. Brezhnev A Letter Urging Him To “Take A Bold And New Look At The Current Military Situation Facing Our Planet”. “Dear President Brezhnev, As the Mayor of a small city in the United States of America, I am writing to urge that you, and the leaders of the other major military and industrial countries of the world, take a bold and new look at the current military situation facing our planet”. [Sanders Letter To Brezhnev, 10/29/81] Sanders To World Leaders: “I Urge You, In The Strongest Possible Way, To Stop Doing ‘Business As Usual.’” “To conclude, I urge you, in the strongest possible way, to stop doing ‘business as usual.’ International conflict can no longer be solved by war. […] I urge you to discuss with other world leaders ways of resolving conflict over the negotiating table and not with arms and the threat of arms”. [Sanders Letter To Brezhnev, 10/29/81] Sanders Wrote Premier Zhao Ziyang A Letter Urging Him To “Take A Bold And New Look At The Current Military Situation Facing Our Planet”. “Dear Premier Zhiyang, As the Mayor of a small city in the United States of America, I am writing to urge that you, and the leaders of the other major military and industrial countries of the world, take a bold and new look at the current military situation facing our planet”. [Sanders Letter To Premier Zhiyang, 10/29/81] Sanders Wrote Party Chairman Hu Yaobang A Letter Urging Him To “Take A Bold And New Look At The Current Military Situation Facing Our Planet”. “Dear Party Chairman Yaobang, As the Mayor of a small city in the United States of America, I am writing to urge that you, and the leaders of the other major military and industrial countries of the world, take a bold and new look at the current military situation facing our planet”. [Sanders Letter To Chairman Yaobang, 10/29/81] Sanders Wrote Margaret Thatcher A Letter Urging Her To “Take A Bold And New Look At The Current Military Situation Facing Our Planet”. “Dear Prime Minister Thatcher, As the Mayor of a small city in the United States of America, I am writing to urge that you, and the leaders of the other major military and industrial countries of the world, take a bold and new look at the current military situation facing our planet”. [Sanders Letter To Thatcher, 10/28/81] Sanders Wrote Premier Francois Mitterand A Letter Urging Him To “Take A Bold And New Look At The Current Military Situation Facing Our Planet”. “Dear Premier Mitterand, As the Mayor of a small city in the United States of America, I am writing to urge that you, and the leaders of the other major military and industrial countries of the world, take a bold and new look at the current military situation facing our planet”. [Sanders Letter To Premier Mitterand, 10/28/81] Sanders Said He Stood By His International Approach As Mayor. "Sanders told the Guardian that he still stands by the international approach he took in Burlington, which was summed up in the mantra “think globally, act locally”. “What you want to do is use your capabilities, whether you’re a mayor, governor, senator or president – whatever it is – to make this world a better place,” he said. “During my time as mayor, the United States was involved in the support of the contras in Nicaragua, something that I thought was part of the long-term Latin America policy in support of rightwing oligarchies and against the needs of the poor people of the continent.”" [The Guardian, 6/19/15] In His Memoir, Sanders Bragged That Burlington Had A Foreign Policy While He Was Mayor. “Burlington was by no means the only American city to develop cultural and education exchanges in the Soviet Union as the cold war drew to a close. But Sanders’ broader embrace of international politics during his mayoral years was by his own admission unique, standing him apart from local elected officials elsewhere in the country. He even visited Cuba – a highly unusual journey for any American in the 80s – hoping to meet with Fidel Castro. The encounter did not take place, although he did meet Havana’s mayor at the time. “A number of cities have nice waterfronts, good streets, honest police departments, and even minor league baseball,” Sanders wrote in his memoir. “But how many cities of 10,000 have foreign policy? Well, we did.”” [The Guardian, 6/19/15] Friends Said Sanders Has Become Less Interested In International Affairs Over The Course Of His Career. "Today it is rare to find Sanders talk about the plight of people overseas. That, friends say, is perhaps the most significant change he has witnessed in the senator’s political career, as he has become less interested in international affairs. Sanders has gradually taken a less keen interest in foreign policy; his politics have become more parochial, focused on the needs of everyday Americans. Gutman described the senator’s evolution as becoming more aligned with the bread-and-butter interests of voters. “The way to succeed in politics is not to be excessively concerned about the people far away,” he said." [The Guardian, 6/19/15] …But As A Senator, Sanders Does Not Prioritize Foreign Policy New York Times: Sanders, In Contrast To Howard Dean’s Iraq War-Heavy 2004 Platform, “Can Speak For 60 Minutes Without Once Mentioning Foreign Policy.” “For Mr. Dean, a defining issue was his opposition to the war in Iraq as he seized on the overriding concern of many Democratic primary voters to distinguish himself from Mr. Edwards and Mr. Kerry. By contrast, Mr. Sanders can speak for 60 minutes without once mentioning foreign policy; his animating issues are economic inequality and the corrupting influence of money in politics.” [New York Times, 8/9/15] Referring To The International Relations Theory Of Realism, Sanders Said “I Don't Know What That Means. I Trust We're All Realists.” “Ezra Klein: I want to make a turn to foreign policy. Is there a particular foreign policy school of thought you ascribe to? Do you describe yourself as a realist or a democratic socialist? Bernie Sanders: I don't know what that means. I trust we're all realists. Ezra Klein: I want to make a turn to foreign policy. Is there a particular foreign policy school of thought you ascribe to? Do you describe yourself as a realist or a democratic socialist? Bernie Sanders: I don't know what that means. I trust we're all realists.” [Vox, 7/28/15] Salon: “Foreign Policy Items Go Completely Unmentioned In Sanders’ Speeches.” “Similarly, within two months we will have a Congressional vote on the nuclear deal with Iran. Foreign policy items go completely unmentioned in Sanders’ speeches, but at his Senate website he called the deal ‘a victory for diplomacy over saber-rattling.’ President Obama just needs one-third of either house of Congress to maintain the nuclear deal, again giving power to the liberal bloc. The votes will occur in September. Is Sanders prepared to organize around that?” [Salon, 7/21/15] Seven Days: Sanders “Doesn't Display Much Depth On International Affairs.” “For a guy who's served in Congress since George H.W. Bush was commander in chief, Sanders doesn't display much depth on international affairs. Asked last fall about his interest in the subject, he told Seven Days, "It's very easy for the Congress to get deflected away from the needs of tens and tens of millions of American people, and I don't want to see that happen. But that's not to say that foreign policy is not of huge consequence."” [Seven Days, 7/15/15] Chuck Todd Said Sanders’ Website Did Not Have Anything On Syria, ISIS, Iraq, Or Terrorism. “TODD: You have based much of your campaign on economic issues, economic inequality. And recently you apologized for the lack of foreign policy substance on your own website. And I noted there is nothing on Syria, nothing on ISIS, Iraq, and on terrorism. You do have something on the Iran deal. So, I want to focus a little bit on that this morning.” [Meet The Press, NBC, 9/14/15] Sanders Attributed The Lack Of A Foreign Policy And National Defense Section On His Website To His Political Infrastructure Lagging Behind His Support. “Sen. Bernie Sanders, seeking the Democratic nomination for president, says his campaign website’s silence on foreign policy and national defense is due to growing pains. Sanders apologized Thursday during a meeting with Des Moines Register reporters and editors, when asked about the omission of a key policy area from his campaign materials. ‘One of the problems that we are having, in Iowa politically and around the country, is our support is growing faster than our political infrastructure. We are hiring people every day trying to keep up with the support that we are getting and our website reflects that as well,’ he said.” [Kathie Obradovich Op-Ed, Des Moines Register, 9/5/15] Sanders Attributed His Lack Of A Foreign Policy Issue Page On His Website Due To A Lack Of Campaign Infrastructure. “EDITORIAL BOARD: Moving on to another topic, I’m not seeing anything on your website regarding foreign policy, national security. And what I have heard is discussions about--you mentioned withdrawing from trade deals, international organizations, withdrawing from military efforts. Is this an isolationist path you would take the US down…? SANDERS: No, okay, fair question and let me apologize for that. We are in this campaign all of four months and as I said earlier when I was in Iowa talking to some of your people we made that decision four, four and a half months ago. And one of the problems that we are having in Iowa politically and around the country is our support is growing faster than our political infrastructure. We’re hiring people every day trying to keep up with the support that we are getting and our website reflects that as well.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Des Moines Register, 9/3/15] Sanders Said That “I Don’t Have A Magic Solution” To Major Foreign Policy Challenges. “SANDERS: Well, Bernie Sanders would have learned the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan. Bernie Sanders voted against the first Gulf War. Bernie Sanders voted against the war in Iraq and helped lead the opposition to that war. And as the former chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee, Bernie understands what the cost of war really is - and not only 6,700 brave men and women killed but hundreds of thousands coming back with PTSD and TBI. And Bernie Sanders gets very, very nervous when he hears Republicans who apparently just can't get enough of war, whether it's going to war in Syria or going to war Iraq, or going to war in Iran, going to war with Russia. So obviously, these are very difficult issues. If I had a magic solution, you'd be the first to hear it. I don't have a magic solution.” [NPR, 6/24/15] Sanders Said That The U.S. Needed To Work With Allies “To Come Up With An Intelligent, Rational Approach To Deal With Russia, To Deal With ISIS And Deal With Other National Security Threats.” “And Bernie Sanders gets very, very nervous when he hears Republicans who apparently just can't get enough of war, whether it's going to war in Syria or going to war Iraq, or going to war in Iran, going to war with Russia. So obviously, these are very difficult issues. If I had a magic solution, you'd be the first to hear it. I don't have a magic solution. GREENE: Do you... SANDERS: What it means is that the entire world community has got to come together. It is not just the United States. I don't want the United States to be fighting wars in four separate parts of the world. The United States has got to work with our European allies and allies throughout the world to come up with an intelligent, rational approach to deal with Russia, to deal with ISIS and deal with other national security threats.” [NPR, 6/24/15] Military Personnel ROTC Liberty Union Opposed The Presence Of ROTC Presence At Colleges And Universities. “Liberty Union opposes the use of colleges and universities as training grounds for the military (ROTC) or as research centers for the development of weapons and war-related products.” [Liberty Union Principles, X: Higher Education, 4/22/71] 2004: Sanders Voted Against A Bill To Guarantee Access To ROTC Programs And Military Recruiters To Campuses Of Higher Education. “ROTC and Military Recruiter Equal Access to Campus Act (H.R. 3966): The House, on March 20, passed a bill by Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala., to maintain Senior Reserve Officer Training Corps units at institutions of higher education, improve the ability of students to participate in Senior ROTC programs, and ensure higher education institutions provide military recruiters access to students that is at least equal to any other employer’s. NAYS: Rep. Bernard Sanders I-VT (AL).” [States News Service 4/2/04] Cyber-Security Sanders Voted Against Cyber-Security Bill. “An attempt by Senate Republican leaders to advance cybersecurity legislation failed Thursday amid a report that the hack attack on federal employees' data revealed last week was worse than first acknowledged. Senators voted 56-40 to advance the cybersecurity legislation, falling four votes short of the 60 votes needed. Although the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act has strong bipartisan support, Democrats objected to the measure being tacked on to a sweeping defense bill, which many Democrats oppose and which President Obama has threatened to veto. The cybersecurity legislation would encourage private companies to voluntarily share information about hack attacks with the federal government in an effort to prevent more data breaches.” [S. Amdt. 1569 to S. Amdt. 1463 to HR 1735, Vote #207, 6/11/15] Sanders Introduced Amendment to Cybersecurity Bill To Create A Panel To Investigate Impact Of Technology On Privacy. “Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is renewing his effort to create a panel to investigate the impact of technology on privacy as part of the Senate's cyber bill. Sanders, who is running for the Democratic presidential nomination, is offering an amendment to the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA) that would establish "a Commission on Privacy Rights in the Digital Age." He wants the group to look into how public and private companies gather data on U.S. citizens and how that data is used and recommend any changes "needed to safeguard the privacy of the people of the United States," according to the amendment. He also wants the panel, which would have subpoena power, to home in on any implications for privacy rights, transparency for the government and consumers and potential waste, fraud or abuse. The panel would include 13 members — five that are appointed the president, two each from the Senate's majority leader and minority leader and two each from the speaker of the House and the minority leader.” [The Hill, 8/4/15]  Previously, Sanders Filed Amendment To The National Defense Authorization Act. “Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) wants to create a panel to investigate the impact of modern technology on privacy as part of an annual defense bill. Sanders, who is running for the Democratic presidential nomination, has filed an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to establish a ‘commission on privacy rights in the digital age.’ The panel would study how the government, as well as private companies, collect data on Americans and how the data is used, and make recommendations on any changes needed to protect privacy. ‘Innovations in technology have led to the exponential expansion of data collection by both the public and private sectors,’ according to the amendment.” [The Hill, 6/5/15]  Sanders: “Technology Has Significantly Out-Paced Public Policy” And Americans Needed To Decide If They Feel “Good About That.” “And let me say this, this is not just the government, it is corporate America as well. What is very clear is technology has significantly outpaced public policy. So, probably there is somebody who knows exactly where you are right at this moment, there’s somebody who knows the food you eat if you use a credit card when you’re at the grocery store, the books that you purchases, the magazines you buy, there is a huge amount of information being collected on our individual lives. We need to have a discussion about whether we’re feeling good about that.” [Sanders Katie Couric Interview, Yahoo, 6/1/15] Sanders Was Disappointed In Republican Filibuster Of Cybersecurity Act. “A cybersecurity bill was blocked in the Senate on Thursday by a Republican filibuster. "Our nation's national security and economy face unprecedented threats from cyber-attacks, and it is important that we defend ourselves as best we can while, at the same time, protecting the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. I worked hard with a number of colleagues to make sure that language in the bill would protect the constitutional rights of the American people," Sen. Bernie Sanders said. The Senate vote to cut off debate was 52-46, eight votes less than the 60 needed to force a final vote on the measure.” [Sanders press release, 8/2/12] Cybersecurity Act Would Have Increased Protections For Electrical Grid, Financial Networks And Other Infrastructure. “The Cybersecurity Act, introduced by Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), was rejected on a 52-46 vote — 60 votes were required to move forward with the legislation. The bill's collapse likely kills any legislative action on cybersecurity this year, punting efforts to 2013. S. 3414 would have increased cyber protections for the nation's electrical grid, financial networks, transportation system and other critical infrastructure.” [The Hill, 8/2/12] Torture Sanders Condemned The CIA’s Use Of Torture That Was Revealed In Senate Torture Report. “And I think for me the bottom line is that in a world which is becoming increasingly brutal, I mean, people would be stunned to know what goes on in countries like Syria every single day and how people are being treated in the midst of a war, if the United States of America cannot maintain a moral standard, if we descend into the same type of ugliness that exists around the world, then it becomes impossible for us to be critical and demand changes of other countries because they will look at us and say ‘Hey, that’s what you guys are doing, don’t tell me we shouldn’t torture American prisoners, you do the same thing.’ Second of all, obviously, it is totally unacceptable that we have a government agency misleading elected officials. A democracy is a nation in which the people through their elected officials make the decisions, not agencies of government who do what they want. So that was very very disturbing and I hope the end result of that is that the policy of the United States simply and straightforwardly is we do not do torture.” [Brunch With Bernie, 12/12/14] Sanders Voted For Legislation That Banned Certain Torture Tactics. “The Senate easily passed the bipartisan measure, 78-21. It is meant to prevent future presidents from using tactics employed during the 2000s. The measure was sponsored by Sen. John McCain, a Republican from Arizona and a former prisoner of war during Vietnam, along with California Democrat Dianne Feinstein and others. It was offered as an amendment to an existing defense authorization bill. [...] The amendment specifically limits U.S. intelligence gatherers to the use of interrogation techniques permitted by the U.S. Army Field Manual. Among the senators running for president on the Republican side, Ted Cruz of Texas and Rand Paul of Kentucky voted for the amendment, while Lindsey Graham of South Carolina voted no. Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent running for the Democratic nomination for president, voted for the amendment.” [McClatchy, 6/16/15] Senate Passed An Amendment To The NDAA That Would Prevent Future Administrations From Enacting Bush-Era CIA Torture Programs. “More than 20 Republican senators rejected a ban on the use of cruel and degrading treatment of prisoners on Tuesday, voting against an ultimately successful measure to permanently prevent a repeat of the CIA’s once secret and now widely-discredited torture program. The bipartisan amendment reaffirms President Barack Obama’s prohibition of interrogation techniques such as waterboarding and sleep deprivation, which were developed by the CIA under the administration of his predecessor, George W Bush. The measure passed in the Senate, 78-21.” [The Guardian, 6/16/15] Guantanamo Bay Sanders Was One Of Three Senators To Vote Against A Sense Of The Senate Resolution That Guantanamo Bay Detainees Not Be Released Into American Society Nor Transferred To Stateside Facilities, While Clinton Voted For. “The McConnell amendment would express the sense of the Senate that detainees housed at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, including senior members of al Qaeda, should not be released into the United States, or transferred to facilities in the United States. The substitute would cut government subsidies to student lenders by more than $18 billion, boost the maximum Pell grant by $700 to $5,100 next year and $5,400 by 2011, and establish a new "Promise" grant for the neediest Pell recipients. It also would cap student loan repayments at 15 percent of discretionary income.” The amendment passed 94-3. [CQ Vote Report; S Amdt 2351 to S Amdt 2327 to HR 2669, Vote #259, 7/19/07] Amendment Did Not Prevent Closure Or Express A View About If Facility Should Be Modified, Only That The Senate Opposed Movement Of High-Threat Detainees To The United States. “The McConnell amendment does not prohibit the closure of Guantanamo Bay or moving terrorists elsewhere. But the Senate is now on record as opposing any movement of highthreat terrorist detainees to the United States. The McConnell Amendment does not express a view on whether the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay should be modified, or whether it should be closed or remain open.” [McConnell press release, 7/19/07] Sanders Voted For An Amendment To Prohibit Funding To Transfer, Release Or Incarcerate Detainees At Guantanamo To Or Within The United States. “Congressional dissatisfaction peaked yesterday when the Senate joined the House in overwhelmingly rejecting, 90 to 6, Obama's request for funds to shutter the Guantanamo facility until he explains what he plans to do with its 240 occupants. Lawmakers of both parties spoke out against imprisoning or releasing any of the detainees in the United States.” [New York Times, 5/21/09; S Amdt 1133 to HR 2346, Vote #196, 5/20/09] Sanders Said He Wanted To Shut Down Guantanamo As Soon As Possible… “"I agree with President Obama that Guantanamo must be shut down. I want it shut down as soon as possible. I want to make sure that torture is never again part of America's interrogation practices and that all detainees are treated under the rules of the Geneva Conventions," Sanders said.” [Sanders press release, 5/21/09] …But Wanted To Review Obama Administration’s Upcoming Report On How The Facility Would Be Shut Down Because Voting To Spend Taxpayer Money. “"A number of important questions remain unanswered regarding the rather complicated issue of not just how you close down the facility, but what you do with the prisoners," he added. "Are there some who should be released, are there others who should be returned to their home countries, are we confident that under Bush the correct determinations were made with respect to these prisoners' status as ‘enemy combatants'? In order to answer these questions, President Obama has appointed a high-level committee of top administration officials who will be issuing a report in the coming months. I think that it is prudent to review that plan they develop before we spend $80 million in taxpayer money."” [Sanders press release, 5/21/09] Sanders Voted To Table An Amendment To Bar The Use Of Funds From A Defense Bill To Build Or Modify US Prisons To Hold Guantanamo Detainees. “The Senate on Tuesday rejected an attempt to bar using funds from a defense spending bill to build or modify prisons in the United States to hold detainees from Guantanamo Bay, a move that suggested congressional Democrats may be lining up behind President Obama's vision for closing the military prison. [...] The vote on the Republican proposal was in some ways symbolic. The ban would have applied only to this legislation, not to other spending bills, and the administration has not said that it intends to build or alter prisons in order to bring detainees from the military facility in Cuba to the United States for trial.” [Washington Post, 11/18/09; S Amdt 2774 to S Amdt 2730 to HR 3082, Vote #347, 11/17/09] Sanders Voted Against FY 2012 Defense Authorization That Forbid Transfer Of Guantanamo Detainees To US, Which Critics Said Would Make It Much Harder To Close Down Guantanamo. “The measure meanwhile forbids the transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees to US soil and sharply restricts moving such prisoners to third countries -- steps that critics of the facility say will make it much harder to close down. The bill passed by a wide margin, with only six Democrats and six Republicans voting against the legislation, along with the lone Independent of the chamber, Bernie Sanders of Vermont.” [Agence France Presse, 12/15/11; HR 1540, Vote #230, 12/15/11] Sanders Voted Against An Amendment To Prohibit The Use Of Funds To Transfer Or Release Guantanamo Detainees. “The Senate late Thursday night approved a Republican amendment that would prohibit the transfer of terrorist detainees from Guantánamo Bay to U.S. prisons. Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) introduced Amendment 3245, which would prevent the Department of Defense from using funds to move suspected terrorists from Gitmo facilities to prisons within the United States. Ayotte said Thursday that she feared that those presumed terrorists would seek legal rights in U.S. courts. She added that the Gitmo facility is far more secure because it’s protected by the military. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (DCalif.) said she opposed the amendment, which passed on a 54-41 vote, because there are already more than 100 terrorists being securely held in federal prisons today.” [S Amdt 3245 to S 3254, Vote #212, 11/29/12] Bernie Sanders Voted For FY 2013 Defense Authorization That Prohibited The Transfer Of Guantanamo Detainees To The United States. On December 4, 2012, Bernie Sanders voted yes on Senate Vote #221. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would authorize $631.4 billion for defense programs in fiscal 2013, including $88.2 billion for overseas contingency operations. […] As amended, it would bar all transactions with Iran's energy, shipping and shipbuilding sectors and its ports. It also would make it unlawful to detain a U.S. citizen or a permanent resident apprehended in the United States without charge or trial and would prohibit the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo Bay military facilities to the United States. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #221, 12/4/2012] Sanders Voted Against FY 2014 Defense Authorization That Eased Restrictions On Transferring Guantanamo Detainees To Foreign Countries. The Senate late last night passed the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2014, which will ease transfer restrictions for detainees currently held at the military detention camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, most of whom have been held without charge or trial for over a decade. The bill, which passed the House of Representatives last week, cleared the Senate by a vote of 84-15. The improved transfer provisions were sponsored by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin and were strongly supported by the White House and the Defense Department.” [ACLU 12/20/13; HR 3304, Senate Vote #284, 12/19/13] Sanders Voted Against Bill Due To Wasteful Military Spending. “At a time when the United States has a $17.2 trillion national debt and when we spend almost as much on defense as the rest of the world combined, the time is long overdue for us to take a hard look at the waste, cost overruns and financial mismanagement that have plagued the huge Defense Department for years. […] I support a strong defense system for our country and a robust National Guard and Reserve that can meet our domestic and foreign challenges. At a time, however, when the country has a $17.2 trillion national debt and is struggling with huge unmet needs, it is unacceptable that the Defense Department continues to waste massive amounts of money.” [Sanders press release, 12/19/13] Sanders Supported President Obama’s Efforts To Close Down Guantanamo. “Sanders has supported President Barack Obama's effort to close the military prison. "We should aggressively defend ourselves against terrorism, but we must do so in a way that is consistent with our nation's core values," he said. The prison at Guantanamo Bay has "significantly damaged the United States' moral standing, undermined our foreign policy, and encouraged terrorism rather than effectively combated it."” [Sanders press release, 2/6/14] Sanders Said We Should Shut Down Guantanamo. "For a wide variety of reasons, some of which I mentioned today, I think we should shut down Guantanamo. I don't think that's what the United States is about.” [Brunch With Bernie, 1/23/15]  Sanders Said We Need To Ensure When Prisoners Are Released From Guantanamo They Do Not Engage In Terrorist Activities “I think we should make sure that people are not being held in Guantanamo who are not guilty of terrorist activities and I think that before we release anyone we have to make sure they're not gonna join the opposition. And when we release people we have to be--they have to be monitored very, very carefully to make sure that they are not ending up engaging in terrorist activities and to use financial incentives on occasion may be a sensible approach." [Brunch With Bernie, 1/23/15] China Recent Statements Sanders Said U.S. Needed To Be Wary Of China’s Expansionist Efforts, Such As In The South China Sea, And That The U.S. Should Confront China Multilaterally. “CROWD MEMBER: Hi, I’m Caitlin, and I’m wondering about your stance on the South China Sea territory dispute. SANDERS: Okay. Look, I think all of us have reason to be wary about some of the efforts of China and Chinese expansionism, and I think what we have got to do is to work in coalition with other countries to tell China that they’re not going to get away with expansionist activities. And I think that holds true with Russia.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, New Hampshire Institute of Politics & Political Library at Saint Anselm College, 9/20/15] Sanders Said The South China Sea Was Among The Serious Foreign Policy Challenges Facing The United States That Should Not Be Dealt With Unilaterally. “Senator Sanders believes that the test of a great and powerful nation is not how many wars it can engage in, but how it can resolve international conflicts in a peaceful manner. From the Middle East, to Ukraine, to North Korea, to the South China Sea, to civil war in the world’s newest nation – South Sudan, we face a multitude of serious foreign policy challenges. Senator Sanders will protect America, defend our interests and values, embrace our commitments to defend freedom and support human rights, and be relentless in combating terrorists who would do us harm. However, after nearly fourteen years of ill-conceived and disastrous military engagements in the Middle East, it is time for a new approach. We must move away from policies that favor unilateral military action and preemptive war, and that make the United States the de facto policeman of the world.” [Bernie 2016, Issue Page, accessed 10/7/15] Sanders Said That The U.S.-China Relationship Needed To Change As China Became A More Important Political And Economic Power. “Let me say this about China also: people don’t know this. If you go to Latin America, a part of the world where we have largely ignored for decades, you see China all over the place. And they are assisting countries; they are purchasing, they are playing important roles in economies all over the world. These are smart people. So I think what we have to do is figure out a way we can have a peaceful relationship with China. But a relationship which changes significantly from where it is right now.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Des Moines Register, 9/3/15] Sanders Said That He Wanted China To Become A More Democratic Country. “[SANDERS:] So I think what we have to do is figure out a way we can have a peaceful relationship with China. But a relationship which changes significantly from where it is right now. EDITORIAL BOARD: What has to change? SANDERS: Well I would like to see China among other things, it’s their business, it’s not ours, allow people in their own countries to make some of the decisions. There was a piece, and I can’t remember, remind me here, of the huge numbers, we’re talking about hundreds of thousands of people every year who are dying in China because of the horrendous environmental conditions that exist. Terrible air; a colleague of mine went to China, came back very ill because of the quality of air in that country. So I would like to see China move towards a more Democratic society.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Des Moines Register, 9/3/15] Sanders Said That He Did Not View The Rise Of China And India As Necessarily Decreasing The Power And Influence Of The U.S. “Ezra Klein: Let me ask you about the economic side of foreign policy. I think one of the overwhelming background issues, and sometimes the foreground issue, is whether the economic rise of, particularly, China, but to some degree India and others, necessarily means a diminishment in American power and sway. Do you see it as zero sum in that way? Bernie Sanders: No.” [Vox, 7/28/15] Sanders Criticized U.S. Foreign Policy For Not Reaching Out Enough To Latin America, Especially With China “Moving All Over The World.” “JAVIER PALOMAREZ: How ‘bout Luis Alonso. I can’t--Luis from Associated Press. LUIS ALONSO: Yes, hi, thanks. (Inaudible) about foreign policy. If you could please talk about concrete initiatives you could--you have in mind for western hemisphere in particular for Latin America. What are the big trends you see and what do you have in mind? SEN BERNIE SANDERS: Well, as I mentioned to Javier I voted against NAFTA for a number of reasons. But by the way, in my view, if you look at the impact that NAFTA has had on Mexico, one of the impacts it has had that we have got to own up to is massive dislocation of small farms in Mexico. And driving a lot of workers off of those farms into the cities and into very bad situations. Second of all I will tell you that I am concerned when I see how aggressive China has been in moving all over the world. Obviously Latin America is our neighbor and I am not impressed to the degree that we have been reaching out with Latin America.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, 7/30/15] Arms Sales 2005: Sanders Voted For The East Asia Security Act. On July 14, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #374. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Hyde, R-Ill., motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill that would require the president to report to Congress 180 days after the bill's enactment, and yearly thereafter, identifying European or other entities that have exported any arms or dual-use technology to China for military use since Jan. 1, 2005. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #374, 7/14/2005] East Asia Security Act Supported Building A Strategic Consensus Against Arms Sales To China. “With the East Asia Security Act of 2005 (H.R. 3100), Congress has the opportunity to give the President valuable leverage to form a strategic consensus on arms sales to China. EASA mandates that any person, firm, or country that provides military arms, equipment, or technology to China or dual-use items to the Chinese military, security forces, police, or other repressive agencies face heightened scrutiny of its arms relationship with China and, if warranted, be denied access to U.S. weapons technology. By giving teeth to U.S. diplomats' warnings to Europeans who would end the EU's embargo on arms sales to China, EASA will enhance U.S. security and force China to reconsider its military buildup and confront the growing backlash against its aggressive behavior in East Asia.” [Heritage, 7/12/05] 1997: Sanders Voted To Sanction China For Transferring Cruise Missiles To Iran. On November 6, 1997, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #592. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the resolution to urge the president to sanction China for transferring C-802 cruise missiles to Iran, in violation of the Iran-Iraq Arms Non-Proliferation Act of 1992 (PL 102-484), which imposes U.S. sanctions on countries that transfer advanced conventional weapons to Iran or Iraq. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #592, 11/6/1997] Human Rights Sanders Co-Sponsored A Resolution Expressing The Sense Of Congress That China Should Stop Persecution Of Religious Practitioners And Safeguard Human Rights. “Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) the Government of the People's Republic of China should stop persecution of all religious practitioners and safeguard fundamental human rights; and (2) the U.S. Government should continue to insist that China adhere to such rights. Urges the Chinese Government to: (1) release from detention all religious practitioners, Falun Gong members, and prisoners of conscience and end torture and other cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment; (2) allow the Chinese people to pursue their personal beliefs; and (3) adhere to the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.” [H Con Res 68, co-sponsored 3/20/01] 2000: Sanders Criticized China For Religious Oppression, Arresting Catholic Bishops, And Suppressing Tibet. “You have environmental groups who are very concerned about what’s happening in the environment in China, what that means for the world environment. You have human rights groups and religious groups like the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops who are saying, how are we having a permanent trade agreement with a country that does not tolerate religious freedom, which throws Catholic bishops in jail, which has suppressed Tibet. Why should we give up our leverage of an annual review?” [Sander’s Remarks, C-SPAN, 5/24/00] Tibet Sanders Signed Letter To Secretary Kerry Asking Him To Make Tibet A Priority When Engaging With China. “The situation in Tibet is at a crisis point. We are witnessing a cycle of repression, protest, and further repression, which threatens to escalate into further instability. We welcome the State Department’s call on Chinese authorities to end the counter-productive policies that are stoking the grievances that are leading to Tibetans taking their own lives through self-immolations. […] In this context, we urge you to: make Tibet an integral issue in your engagement with your Chinese counterparts, not only as consistent with the work of your predecessors and U.S. policy, but as an expression of a principled foreign policy grounded in fundamental and universal values; urge the Chinese government to resume meaningful dialogue with the Tibetan leadership; appoint a new Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues as soon as practicable; continue to fund the programs that provide humanitarian assistance, economic development, and independent information to the Tibetan people…” [Students For A Free Tibet, 4/12/13] Sanders Co-Sponsored A Resolution Condemning Violence In Tibet And Calling On China To Open A Dialogue With the Dali Llama. “The Senate today unanimously approved a bipartisan resolution sponsored by U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) and a group of 20 other Senators condemning the violence in Tibet. The resolution also calls on China to open substantive dialogue with His Holiness, the Fourteenth Dalai Lama of Tibet. The resolution is cosponsored by Senators Joseph Biden (D-Del.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Elizabeth Dole (RN.C.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Barack Obama (D-Ill.), Robert Byrd (D-W.V.), George Voinovich (R-Ohio), Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Joseph Lieberman (I-Ct.), Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), and Russ Feingold (D- Mich.). ‘Over the past month, a wave of protests spread across Tibet. Regrettably, these protests were met with violence and a crackdown by the Chinese. The Senate is now on record condemning this violence and urging a process of reconciliation and dialogue,’ Senator Feinstein said. ‘It is my hope that the highest leadership of the Chinese Government will sit down with His Holiness the Dalai Lama face-toface and negotiate how to bring about meaningful cultural and religious autonomy for the Tibetan people. For more than three decades, I have worked to bring this about. And I remain firmly committed to doing anything that I can to help bring the two sides together.’” [Senator Feinstein Press Release, 4/9/08; S Res 504, co-sponsored 4/9/08] Sanders Criticized China For Religious Oppression, Arresting Catholic Bishops, And Suppressing Tibet. “You have environmental groups who are very concerned about what’s happening in the environment in China, what that means for the world environment. You have human rights groups and religious groups like the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops who are saying, how are we having a permanent trade agreement with a country that does not tolerate religious freedom, which throws Catholic bishops in jail, which has suppressed Tibet. Why should we give up our leverage of an annual review?” [Sander’s Remarks, C-SPAN, 5/24/00] Climate Change Sanders Said That The U.S. Had To Work With Countries Like China, India And Russia In Order To Confront Climate Change. “Bernie Sanders: [...] I should also tell you when you talk about foreign policy, what you didn't ask me, which may be as important an issue as any, is the issue of climate change. If you talk to the CIA, if you talk to the Department of Defense, and I have, what they will tell you is that one of the great security issues facing this planet is the fact that as we see more and more drought, as poor people around the world are unable to grow the food they need to survive, you're going to see migrations of people in international climate. I happen to believe that when you talk about foreign policy, a the very top of the list is the need for the United States to lead the world, to work with China, work with Russia, work with India in transforming our energy system away from fossil fuels and into energy efficiency and sustainable energy. This is not just an "environmental issue," this is also a global national security issue as well.” [Vox, 7/28/15] Currency Manipulation Sanders Called For A “Currency Manipulation Fee” To Be Imposed On China To Reduce The Deficit And Create Jobs. “Establish a currency manipulation fee on China and other countries. As almost everyone knows, China is manipulating its currency, giving it an unfair trade advantage over the United States and destroying decent paying manufacturing jobs in the process. If we imposed a currency manipulation fee on China and other currency manipulators, the Economic Policy Institute has estimated that we could raise $500 billion over 10 years and create 1 million jobs in the process.” [Senator Bernie Sanders Press Release, accessed 8/7/15] Export Import Bank Sanders Opposed Reauthorization Of The Export-Import Bank, Criticizing It For “Providing LowInterest Loans To Multi-National Companies That Are Shipping Jobs to China And Other LowWage Countries…” According to Bernie Sanders’ Senate website, “An opponent of the Export-Import Bank, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) issued the following statement today after the Senate voted on an amendment related to a five-year reauthorization of the bank: ‘At a time when almost every major corporation in this country has shut down plants and outsourced millions of American jobs, we should not be providing corporate welfare to multi-national corporations through the Export-Import Bank. Instead of providing low-interest loans to multi-national companies that are shipping jobs to China and other lowwage countries, we should be investing in small businesses and worker-owned enterprises that want to create jobs in the United States of America. If the Export-Import Bank cannot be reformed to become a vehicle for real job creation in the United States, it should be eliminated.” [Bernie Sanders United States Senator for Vermont, 6/10/15] Egypt 2011: Sanders Called On The United States To Play An “Active Role” In Helping Egypt Transition To Democracy. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., had a similar response and called on the United States to support a transition to democracy. "After 30 years of autocratic rule, Hosni Mubarak is gone," Sanders said in a statement. "That is extraordinary news and a real testament to the incredible courage of millions of people in that country who put their lives on the line in the fight for democracy. The goal now, which will not be easy, is for Egypt to make the transition to a democratic government with real legal safeguards. The United States must play an active role in helping the democratic forces in Egypt accomplish that." [Burlington Free Press, 2/12/11] 2013: Sanders Was Reluctant To Answer Questions On Arab Spring. “Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) wasn't jonesing to talk about Egypt on Monday morning is perfectly understandable. The place is a hot mess. Near the end of a press conference in his Church Street office, Sanders was asked whether, in light of the Egyptian military's recent deadly crackdown on protesters, the U.S. should suspend aid to the country. He thought twice before answering. "It's complicated-" the senator began, before reconsidering and steering the conversation back to the presser's advertised topic: the Veterans Administration. "Let me just stay on veterans' issues for a second, and then we'll get elsewhere. Other questions on veterans?"” [Seven Days Vermont, 8/21/13] Sanders: “The Vision And The Dream Of The Arab Spring Seems To Have Disappeared Pretty Quickly…I Think We’ve Got To Be Aggressive.” “WPTZ-TV's Stewart Ledbetter restated the question, asking whether it's "time to cut off foreign aid" to the North African nation. In response, Sanders did something uncharacteristic for the bombastic, self-assured politician: He pled ignorance. "The vision and the dream of the Arab Spring seems to have disappeared pretty quickly, and how we deal with it is enormously important," he said. "I think we've got to be aggressive. I'm not exactly sure what we should do."” [Seven Days Vermont, 8/21/13]  Sanders Warned Against Cutting Off Aid To Egypt. “That the military gunned down more than 800 protesters last week hasn't quite nudged Sanders into the "maybe we shouldn't fund governments who do that" camp. In his view, there are no easy answers. "Well, I think shooting down innocent women and children and men is wrong. Obviously it is. But you have-" Sanders said, interrupting himself again. "You know, it's easy to say, Well, let's cut off aid tomorrow.' Fine. What happens the next day? Does the country descend into civil war? With aid, the United States continues to have some leverage."” [Seven Days Vermont, 8/21/13] Sanders, Rubio Signed Bipartisan Letter To President Morsi Criticizing An Egyptian Court Sentence of International NGO Employees Including 16 Americans To Jail Sentences. “We write to express our deep concern about the June 4th decision by an Egyptian court to sentence 43 Egyptian and international employees of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), including 16 Americans, to jail sentences. This verdict raises concerns about how the United States and the international community can continue to assist Egypt with its transition to democracy. […]We urge your government to immediately address our grave concerns over the verdict against all 43 NGO workers, return all property that was confiscated in December 2011, and allow these organizations to carry out their work in Egypt without fear of further interference or reprisals.” [Letter to President Morsi, 6/13/13]  Letter Stated That The Decision Would “Undermine The Progress That Egypt Has Made In The Last Two Years.” “The United States-Egypt relationship is a strategic and important one, and we value our bilateral security cooperation as an anchor of regional stability. At the same time, this court decision is likely to stifle the basic human rights of the Egyptian people and undermine the progress that Egypt has made in the last two years. A decision like this will hurt foreign direct investment in Egypt, and discourages the inflow of private sector dollars that Egypt desperately needs for a healthy economic recovery. This court decision loudly reinforces the perception that Egypt is not a good place to do business.” [Letter to President Morsi, 6/13/13] Iraq and Afghanistan Obama Administration Sanders Said Troops Should Return Home From Iraq And Afghanistan Faster Than Obama Suggested. “Frankly, in my view--I think I speak for the majority of the people in my State of Vermont, I suspect, in this country--it is time to begin bringing the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan at an accelerated rate. We have been in Afghanistan now for 10 years. It is time for the Afghan people and their military to take responsibility, in terms of defeating the Taliban. We should be supportive of those efforts. But we should bring our troops home a lot sooner than the President has suggested. When we do that, among other things, we are also going to save a substantial sum of money.” [Sanders press release, 6/28/11] After Trip To Iraq, Sanders Called On Congress And The Obama Administration To Accelerate Efforts To Develop A Clear Exit Strategy. "Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) returned today from a fact-finding tour of Pakistan and Afghanistan. […]"The American presence in Afghanistan, including the efforts of the Vermont National Guard, has had a significant impact in improving the capabilities of the Afghan military and police in protecting their people and combating the Taliban," Sanders said. “However, in the tenth year of war there, the loss of 1,464 U.S. troops and the expenditure of more than $330 billion, Congress needs to accelerate efforts with the administration to develop a clear exit strategy for American troops and to significantly reduce expenditures there," he added.” [Sanders press release, 2/22/11] Sanders Applauded President Obama’s Announcement That Troops Would Leave Iraq. “I applaud the president's decision and have been advocating that position for quite a while. Our nation has spent hundreds of billions of dollars in recent years protecting the people of Iraq and rebuilding that country. Vermont and America have also paid a very heavy price in loss of life and injuries suffered by our soldiers. Now is the time to bring our troops home, lower our military budget, and use those funds to create jobs by rebuilding our infrastructure and lowering our national debt." [Sanders Press Release, 10/21/11] 2014: Sanders Supported President Obama Protecting the Embassy In Iraq, But Was “Adamantly Opposed To Sending Ground Troops Into Iraq.” “I am adamantly opposed to sending ground troops into Iraq and to get back into that war that we got out of. I do support the President protecting the embassy; I think some troops giving training to the Iraqi army is okay. But I will adamantly oppose the United States getting involved in a ground war in Iraq again.” [The Ed Show, MSNBC, 6/20/14, 3:50] Sanders Supported Obama Administration Decision To Use Airstrikes To Protect Yazidi Refugees In Iraq, But Called On The International Community To Work With The United States. “U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) issued the following statement today on efforts to assist Yazidi refugees in Iraq: “The United States is not the only country on Earth with an air force. While I support President Obama’s decision to use airstrikes to protect the lives of thousands of innocent people of the Yazidi minority, the U.S. should not have to act alone militarily in this crisis. ISIS is a danger to the entire region and to the world. The international community must work with the U.S.”” [Sanders press release, 8/13/14] Sanders Said Withdrawal From Afghanistan “Should Occur At A Significantly Faster Speed and Greater Scope” Than What President Obama Announced. “This country has a $14.5 trillion national debt, in part owing to two wars that have not been paid for. We have been at war in Afghanistan for the last 10 years and paid a high price both in terms of casualties and national treasure. This year alone, we will spend about $100 billion on that war. In my view, it is time for the people of Afghanistan to take full responsibility for waging the war against the Taliban. While we cannot withdraw all of our troops immediately, we must bring them home as soon as possible. I appreciate the president's announcement, but I believe that the withdrawal should occur at significantly faster speed and greater scope.” [Sanders Press Release, 6/23/11] 2009: Sanders Applauded President Obama For “Doing His Best” To Think Through The “Enormously Complicated” Situation In Afghanistan. “In terms of Afghanistan, after eight years of the Bush-Cheney doctrine, we ended up in a situation where the Taliban was on the offensive and where the government we helped put into office was widely disrespected by the Afghan people because of the widespread corruption which presently exists. The situation in Afghanistan is enormously complicated and fraught with danger. I applaud President Obama for doing his best to think this through and to hear as many ideas as possible. The Bush-Cheney approach gives us a very clearly warning of how we do not want to proceed.” [Sanders press release, 10/23/09] 2009: Sanders Had “Serious Concerns” About President Obama’s Decision To Send 30,000 More Troops To Afghanistan. “Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) made the following statement after President Obama announced tonight that he will send 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan. “I agree with President Obama that it would be a setback for democracy and stability if the Taliban regained power, but I have serious concerns.” [Sanders press release, 12/1/09]  Sanders Questioned Why American Taxpayers And Soldiers Had To Bear The Burden Of What Should Be An International Effort. “First, why are American taxpayers and our brave soldiers bearing almost all the burden in what should be an international effort? Where are Europe, Russia, China and the rest of the world? Second, why in the midst of a severe recession – with 17 percent of our people unemployed or under-employed and one out of four kids on food stamps – are we going to be spending $100 billion a year on Afghanistan when we have so many pressing needs at home?” [Sanders press release, 12/1/09]  Sanders Worried That Continued Engagement With An Ineffective And Corrupt Afghan Government Would Led To A “Quagmire Situation.” “Third, I worry about how we can forge a dependable partnership with an Afghan government that is ineffective and corrupt. My nightmare is that we may get caught in a quagmire situation from which there will be no successful exit.” [Sanders press release, 12/1/09] Sanders Said He Supported And Opposed Some Military Appropriations In Afghanistan. “Moderator: Mr. Sanders, did you support the appropriations for the war in Afghanistan? Sanders: I supported some military appropriations, and I opposed some, and some authorizations and I opposed some. Bottom line is, I think the record is very clear, so let’s not have any misunderstanding. This senator not only voted against the war in Iraq, but helped lead the effort against that, voted against the Gulf War. And sometimes there are big bills out there, and there are things you like and things you don’t like in it. And there was language in that particular provision that I didn’t like. But I thought it would be wrong, especially given the kind of suffering Vermont saw in the war not to say yeah, we recognize the service and thank the soldiers for serving, even though it was a war that I did not agree with.” [Vermont Senate Debate, 10/25/2012, 47:30] Sanders Questioned If U.S. Aid To Afghanistan Would Be Misused By Its Corrupt Government. “My first concern is, what are we doing there in the first place? I mean this is the kind of discussion that we need to have. What is our goal? You’re dealing with a corrupt government that steals a whole lot of money; that does not have the respect of its people because they just were engaged in an illegal election. How do you create the kind of support that we need with a government like that? Is that a good question? I think it is. If we give them money, is that to rebuild their country, is that money going to be stolen? That is a proper question as well… I think what we need to do first of all is determine what our goals are; we don’t know what our goals are right now.” [U.S. Policy in Afghanistan, 10/08/09, 02:15] Sanders Said Was Necessary To Work With The Afghani Government, But Task Was Difficult Because They Had “Fraudulent Election[s].” “The theory is that you’re working with the government, you’re not pushing aside a government and saying that the United States is now running Afghanistan, that would make everything that we’re doing look from the entire international community absurd. You got to work with the government and certainly one of the difficult problems that I’m sure President Obama and his staff are assessing right now is how do you work with a government which in many ways is not held in legitimacy by its own people, because they just held fraudulent election. We don’t know in fact if Karzai is the president, won the election, we don’t know that. And that makes a difficult problem even more difficult.” [U.S. Policy in Afghanistan, 10/08/09, 08:30] Sanders Had Doubts About Whether U.S. Should Be Involved In Putting Together A Government And Economy in Afghanistan. “Caller: If you’re going to go in, you have to go in with overwhelming force in order to win; if you don’t do anything less than that, then the Taliban will come back and, well they’re already on their way back as you know, and it’s just going to make things worse and worse and worse, and they will have a staging area from which to attack other the countries in the area, if not the United States. Sanders: [He] makes a point that is made quite often; I think it’s a Colin Powell Doctrine, if you’re going to do it, do it well, and that’s a reasonable point. I mean, just the point that I would make in response is we don’t even have a government there that is legitimate that we are working for, and working with. You haven’t indicated how many more years we are going to be there, trying to put together, essentially the United States is now trying to put together a government and an economy in that country. I have my doubts.” [U.S. Policy in Afghanistan, 10/08/09, 11:50] 2009: Sanders Approved Obama’s Approach To Exercise Caution In Afghanistan and Pakistan. “If you’re going to deal with Al Qaeda, obviously you have to be worried about Pakistan, you have to worried that Pakistan is a nuclear power, you have to be worried about the kind of corruption that exists in Pakistan. On the other hand, what the Obama Administration is trying to do I think is to take a time out for a second and start rethinking all of these things, which I think is proper attitude… Simply throwing more troops in, and getting us involved in a quagmire, a never ending quagmire is something we don’t want to do.” [U.S. Policy in Afghanistan, 10/08/09, 04:40] Bush Administration 2002: Sanders Voted To Urge President Bush To Work Through UN To Ensure Iraq Was Not Developing Weapons Of Mass Destruction. On October 10, 2002, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #452. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Lee, D-Calif., amendment that would urge President Bush to work through the United Nations to ensure that Iraq is not developing weapons of mass destruction. It would urge the use of peaceful means to resolve the issue, including the resumption of weapons inspections, negotiation, enquiry, mediation and regional arrangements. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #452, 10/10/2002] 2001: Sanders Voted To Urge The U.S. And The UN To Insist That Iraqi Leaders Allow UN Weapons Inspectors Into The Country. On December 20, 2001, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #511. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Hyde, R-Ill., motion to suspend the rules and pass the resolution that would urge the United States and the United Nations to insist that Iraq allow U.N. weapons inspections as required under the 1991 Persian Gulf War cease-fire agreement. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #511, 12/20/2001] Bernie Sanders Voted Against War in Iraq. In 2002, Sanders voted to allow the President to use the military force in Iraq. The resolution passed 296-133. [HJ Res 114, Vote #455, 10/10/02] Hillary Clinton Voted For War In Iraq. In 2002, Clinton voted to allow the President to use military force in Iraq. The resolution passed 77-23. [HJ Res 114, Vote #237, 10/11/02] Sanders: I Helped Lead The Effort Against The Iraq War. “In terms of foreign policy, Hillary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq. I voted-- not only did I vote against it, I help lead the effort against what I knew would be a disaster.” [Face The Nation, 5/10/12] 2003: Sanders Expressed Concern That Going Into Iraq Would Increase Terrorist Threats To The United States. “The war against Iraq, as many of you have already heard, is wrong for a dozen different reasons. In my view it will only increase the threats to the United States from international terrorism when the entire world looks at the United States in a unilateral action occupying Baghdad.” [C-SPAN, 1/28/03, 15:47] Sanders Had Serious Concerns About Destabilization That Iraq War Would Cause. “With regard to the war in Iraq that started in 2003, “I had serious doubts about what [President George W.] Bush and [Vice President Dick] Cheney were saying and I had serious concerns about the kind of destabilization that would take place and, sadly, much of what I feared has in fact taken place. I not only voted against that war, I helped lead the opposition to it and, unfortunately, we were not successful.” (Hillary Clinton, then a senator from New York, voted in favor of the Iraq War.)” [Examiner, 5/13/15] 2003: Sanders Said Saddam Hussein’s Capture Was “Good News,” But That It Did Not Justify The Financial Toll And American Casualties Caused By The Iraq War. “The capture of Saddam Hussein is very good news. This is a Stalinist-type demagogue who killed and tortured tens of thousands of Iraqis and ran the country with an iron fist. The people of Iraq and the world are now breathing easier. […]The President and much of the media will claim that Saddam's capture means that the war in Iraq has been ‘justified.' That's wrong. President Bush gave the American people two main reasons for going into a war which has cost us over 400 lives, thousands wounded and the expenditure of tens of billions of dollars. […] Essentially, the doctrine of “preemptive war” that the President unveiled to justify his invasion of Iraq creates a very dangerous international precedent. It says that any nation can go to war at any time for any reason, in violation of international law and the United Nations. Saddam Hussein was a terrible tyrant but no country, including the United States, has the right to act unilaterally to overthrow governments. The capture of Saddam Hussein does not negate that.” [Sanders Statement on Saddam Hussein’s Capture, 12/17/03 (via Archive.org)] Sanders Advised Against Taking Foreign Policy Advice From “People Who Got Us Into” Iraq War. “You have a situation, which clearly is complex, which is volatile, it’s changing by the day, and it is fought with a lot of danger. The most important thing, I think, that we can do at this particular difficult moment is not listen to the people who got us into this disastrous war in the first place.” [Brunch With Bernie, 6/19/14, 5:14] Bernie Sanders Drew Distinction With Hillary Clinton By Saying He Voted Against War In Iraq While She Voted For It. “He noted he has ‘never run a negative ad in my life,’ but still drew a distinction with Clinton in the interview, promising to talk ‘very strongly about the need not to get involved in perpetual warfare in the Middle East.’ ‘I voted against the war in Iraq,’ he said. ‘Secretary Clinton voted for it when she was in the Senate.’” [Dave Gram, Associated Press, 4/29/2015] Sanders: Hillary Clinton Had The Same Information On Iraq As I Did, So It’s A Fair Issue To Bring Up. “BLITZER: We went back, took a look at the statements you were making. Is this going to be an issue for you in challenging Hillary Clinton now? Are you going to bring that up again against her? SANDERS: I think it's a fair issue. And what the issue is about, not just looking back in hindsight, as you indicated, I very much opposed the war, worried about the destabilization it would bring in the region. Hillary Clinton and everybody else had the same information I had. And I made my decision. She made her decision. It's not different, for example, than what took place about deregulating Wall Street. I opposed the deregulation of Wall Street and pretty much predicted what would happen in terms of the Wall Street crash. Other people did not.” [CNN, 5/19/15] Sanders: You Have To Go Beyond The Iraq War Vote, Because Now War Has Destabilized Region. “BLITZER: On Iraq, what will you say to the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, I opposed the war, Hillary supported the war? Is that the argument? SANDERS: You have to go beyond that. That's ancient history. Where are we right now? The answer is, as a result of this war, we destabilized the region, give rise to al Qaeda, ISIS, what we need now -- this is not easy stuff, but I think the president is trying. You need to bring them together in an international coalition, Wolf, led by the Muslim countries themselves.” [CNN, 5/19/15] Hillary Clinton Vote For Cloture On A Motion To Express The Sense Of The Senate That Congress Must Provide Whatever Support Necessary To U.S. Troops, While Bernie Sanders Voted Against. “An amendment by Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) to provide whatever support was needed to U.S. troops fighting the insurgency passed by an 87-9 margin.” [Politico, 5/16/07; S Amdt 1135 to HR 1495, Vote #169, 5/16/07] The Same Day, Hillary Clinton And Bernie Sanders Voted For Withdrawal Date From Iraq. “Democrats who are highly critical of President George W. Bush's Iraq war strategy suffered a stinging defeat on Wednesday when the Senate overwhelmingly rejected a measure to cut off money for the military campaign by March 31, 2008. No Republicans voted for the amendment. The only non-Democrat who did was Senator Bernard Sanders, an independent from Vermont who usually votes with the Democrats. The vote was also important in terms of presidential politics. Two candidates for their party's nomination in 2008, Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, said for the first time Tuesday that they would support legislation to curtail major combat operations in Iraq by March 31, 2008, cutting off financing for all but a limited mission of U.S. forces.” [Vote #167, 5/16/07; New York Times, 5/16/07] Hillary Clinton Equivocated On Iraq Withdrawal Measure After Voting For It. “Yet, even some of Feingold's allies had reservations about supporting such a drastic step. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), the 2008 Democratic presidential front-runner, has long opposed setting a withdrawal date. But she voted for the Feingold measure as a message to Bush. Later, she sought to distance herself from the amendment by stressing its procedural nature, though when pressed by reporters, she acknowledged that she supports the Feingold proposal. Still, she said, "I'm not going to speculate on what I'm going to be voting on in the future." [Washington Post, 5/17/07] Also The Same Day, Hillary Clinton And Bernie Sanders Voted Against Measure To Tie War Funding to Benchmarks. “That second proposal, by Senator John Warner, Republican of Virginia, would require Mr. Bush to report to Congress in mid-July and mid-September on how well the Iraqi government was performing against a set of benchmarks. Foreign aid could be withheld for lack of progress, but, at the insistence of the White House, a provision was added allowing Mr. Bush to waive any penalties. The approach drew majority support in a 52-to-44 vote, with 44 Republicans, an independent and seven Democrats endorsing it. But it fell short of the 60 votes required. Lawmakers said the Warner plan could provide the template for an eventual agreement on war spending. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, called it a “responsible middle ground.” But Mr. Reid derided the plan as tepid and weak.” [Vote 168, 5/16/07; New York Times, 5/17/07] Hillary Clinton Voted For A Resolution That No Funds For American Troops Be Cut Off Or Reduced That Would Undermine Their Safety Or Mission, While Bernie Sanders Voted Against. The concurrent resolution “would express opposition to any congressional action that would endanger U.S. forces in the field, including reducing or cutting off funding for their assigned missions.” The resolution was agreed to 82-16. [CQ Vote Report; S Con Res 20, Vote #77, 3/15/07] The Same Day, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders Voted For Withdrawing Troops By Spring 2008. In March 2007, Clinton and Sanders voted for a proposal to set a goal of withdrawing most American troops from Iraq by March 31, 2008, with the redeployment beginning within months of passage. The resolution was defeated 48-50. [Vote 75, 3/15/07; AP, 3/15/07] Later That Month, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders Voted For Withdrawal From Iraq By Spring 2008. In March 2007, Clinton and Sanders voted against an amendment to strike language to set a goal of withdrawing most American troops from Iraq by March 31, 2008, with the redeployment beginning within months of passage. The move to strip the withdrawal language was defeated 48-50. [Vote 116, 3/27/07; New York Times, 3/27/07; CQ Today, 3/23/07] Again, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders Voted For War Funding Bill That Included Withdrawal Plan. In March 2007, Clinton and Sanders voted for the $122 billion Fiscal Year 2007 Supplemental spending bill, which included $96 billion to the Defense Department, mostly for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with $1.8 billion for veterans care. The GOP-opposed bill set a goal of withdrawing most American troops from Iraq by March 31, 2008, with the redeployment beginning within months of passage. [Vote 126, 3/29/07; AP, 3/28/07; Democratic Policy Committee, 3/26/07; MSNBC, 3/29/07; New York Times, 3/27/07; CQ Today, 3/23/07] 2007: Hillary And Sanders Cosponsored Amendment To Revoke 2002 Iraq Authorization And Would Require President Bush To Seek New Authorization To Continue Operations In Iraq. In 2007, Senator Clinton along with Senator Byrd and Sanders cosponsored an amendment stating the 2002 authorization for military force would expire on October 11, 2007 and “In order to conduct military operations in Iraq that do not relate to the withdrawal of members of the United States Armed Forces after the date specified in subsection (d)(1), the President shall be required to request from Congress specific new authority, and to articulate in detail the mission, strategy, and goals of a continued United States military presence in Iraq.'' [S. Amdt. 2146 to HR 1585, Congressional Record Page S9162, introduced 7/12/07] Hillary Clinton Voted Against The Confirmation of General George Casey, While Bernie Sanders Voted For. The nomination passed 83-14. [On The Nomination, Vote #45, 2/8/07] Hillary Clinton Criticized Casey’s Handling Of Iraq War. “Sen. Hillary Clinton was one of just four Democrats and 10 Republicans to oppose the overwhelming confirmation of Gen. George Casey to run the U.S. Army. Clinton (D-N.Y.) grilled Casey a week ago over reports troops were still going to Iraq with poor gear. Casey, who was in charge of the war, did not impress her. "While she has the utmost respect for Gen. Casey's distinguished service to our nation, Sen. Clinton found his response to her questions regarding inadequate equipment for troops under his command in Iraq to be unsatisfactory," said spokesman Philippe Reines.” [New York Daily News, 2/9/07] Sanders Said $82 Billion Spending Package Did Not Say When Iraqi Government Would Take Over Responsibility For Defending Iraq.“Rep. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., voted against the bill, which contains sweeping changes to the nation's immigration policy. The Real ID Act, a measure included in the bill, seeks to standardize drivers' licenses and tighten asylum rules. ‘This bill calls for an additional $82 billion, mostly for Iraq, but it does not have one word in it which tells us when the Iraq government will take over responsibility for defending its own country, and when American troops will begin coming home,’ Sanders said.” [Brattleboro Reformer (Vt.), 5/6/05] Sanders Said He Demanded Bush Begin To Develop An Exit Strategy From Iraq. “Others say its tightened asylum rules would strand persecuted foreigners seeking safety in the U.S. ‘I have voted, and will continue to vote, to make sure that American troops in Iraq and elsewhere receive all of the support and equipment they need,’ Sanders said. ‘But I will also demand that with 1,594 American troops already dead and over 12,000 wounded, that the president begin to develop an exit strategy.’” [Brattleboro Reformer (Vt.), 5/6/05] HW Bush Administration 1990: Sanders Said He Believed Saddam Hussein Can Be Defeated Without The United States Going To War “I have very very deep concerns about the direction that President Bush is taking this country. What Saddam Hussein did is clearly absolutely wrong. He has got to get out of Kuwait, he has got to free the hostages and I have deep concerns about him and other dictators around the world having nuclear weapons or chemical weapons. I believe however that Saddam Hussein can be defeated and we can accomplish all of our goals without having to go to war and seeing tens of thousands of people killed and all kinds of other problems resulting because of that war. I believe that if we continue the effort to put strong economic pressure on him, diplomatic pressure, if it takes a year, if it takes two years, he will be defeated and we will win and the world will win all of the goals that we are fighting for.” [C-SPAN, 12/5/90, 33:19] Sanders Said It Would Be A “Horrible Precedent” To Start Another War In A Third World Nation Just After The End Of The Cold War “But most importantly I believe now that the cold war is over it is a horrible precedent to be--the day after the cold war ends to start another war against a third world nation. That crisis and that problem in my view can be solved peacefully and I intend to play as strong a role as I can in solving it peacefully.” [C-SPAN, 12/5/90, 34:34] Iran Hillary Clinton Voted For An Amendment Expressing The Sense Of The Senate That Iran’s Army Should Be Designated As A Terrorist Organization, While Bernie Sanders Voted Against. “The Kyl amendment would express the sense of the Senate that it is in the critical national interest of the United States to prevent the government of Iran from turning Shiite militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq. It also would express that the United States should designate Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization. The substitute would authorize $648.3 billion for defense programs in fiscal 2008, including $127.5 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also would authorize $143.5 billion for operations and maintenance; $109.9 billion for procurement; $122.9 billion for military personnel and $74.7 billion for research development, testing and evaluation.” The amendment, which required a 3/5ths majority, was agreed to 76-22. [CQ Vote Report; S Amdt 3017 to S Amdt 2011 to HR 1585, Vote #349, 9/26/07] Measure Was Intended To Cut Off Financial Support To Iran. “The Senate on Wednesday approved a resolution urging the State Department to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization, a move aimed at bringing additional economic pressure on Iran. The measure passed 76-22. The proposal by Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., attracted overwhelming bipartisan support. […]Lieberman and Kyl have said their resolution does not authorize the use of force against Iran. It was instead crafted to cut off financial support for Iran, they said.” [Associated Press, 9/27/07] Designation Opened Corps and Affiliated Companies To Economic Sanctions. “Such a designation if adopted by the US government would open the corps and affiliated companies to economic sanctions. US military officials and lawmakers have accused the Revolutionary Guard of arming Shiite militias in Iraq, and supplying sophisticated roadside bombs used to kill US soldiers in the war-torn nation.” [Agence France Presse, 9/26/07] Measure Would Pressure China, Germany, and Russia In Negotiations With Iran. “While the measure is nonbinding, designating the Iranian military arm as a terrorist group would be a powerful prod to China, Germany, and Russia in diplomatic negotiations over financial penalties on Iran's oil and gas sector, in response to Tehran's continued enrichment of uranium. The proposal for the guard originated in the executive branch and has been approved by the president.” [New York Sun, 9/26/07] Critics Worried Designating Part Of Iran’s Government A Terrorist Group “Would Be A De Facto Declaration Of War.” “A second "sense of the Senate" amendment declaring it U.S. policy to "combat, contain and roll back" Iran and its surrogates in Iraq was adopted 76-22. That proposal, by Republican Jon Kyl of Arizona and Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, also would express the Senate's view that Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps should be designated a terrorist organization, a move the Bush administration is now considering. […] Critics of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, namely Jim Webb, D-Va., worried that designating part of Iran's government a terrorist group represented a de facto declaration of war on Iran. "We have never characterized an entity of a foreign government as a foreign terrorist organization. If we are saying that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards are conducting terrorist activities, what we are saying in effect is that the Revolutionary Guards are conducting military activities against us," Webb said. "We haven't had one hearing on this."” [CQ Today, 9/26/07] Sponsors Removed Language That Could Be Interpreted As A Call To Arms Against Iran. “Lieberman and Kyl, who crafted the Senate resolution, removed language from their original version to address concerns that it was a call to arms. Stripped from the resolution was the suggestion that U.S. policy should be to "combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran," and that the Senate supports the "prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments" with respect to Iran.” [Connecticut Post Online, 9/26/07] Sen. Webb Called The Measure Vice President Cheney’s “Fondest Pipe Dream.” “Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., was among those voting against the amendment. Dodd referred to the 2002 congressional vote authorizing the use of force that led to President Bush's decision to invade Iraq. "We shouldn't repeat our mistakes and enable this president again," Dodd said in a statement. Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., branded the Lieberman-Kyl measure as Vice President Dick Cheney's "fondest pipe dream."” [Associated Press, 9/27/07] Democratic Competitors Said Hillary Clinton Voted For Congressional Endorsement Of War Against Iran. “Clinton - who voted earlier yesterday for a Senate resolution calling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a "terrorist" organization - heard her rivals accuse her of enabling President Bush to take aggressive action in a feared military showdown with Iran, which is suspected of trying to develop nuclear weapons. Clinton said last night that her vote was to "put some teeth" into efforts to pressure Iran to abandon any nuclear program. But her colleagues said they feared the resolution could be construed as a congressional endorsement of a war against Iran, much like the legislators' vote five years ago in favor of a measure authorizing President Bush to go to war against Iraq.” [Boston Globe, 9/27/07] Hillary Clinton Defended Vote, Saying It Provided More Options To Impose Sanctions. “During a debate among Democratic presidential hopefuls on Wednesday night, the amendment was criticized as helping lay the foundation for President George W. Bush to take possible military action against Tehran. "I have no intention of giving George Bush the authority to take the first step on a road to war with Iran," said former senator and presidential hopeful John Edwards at the debate at Dartmouth College. […] Clinton defended her vote, saying by designating the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization "gives us the options to be able to impose sanctions on the primary leaders to try to begin to put some teeth into all this talk about dealing with Iran."” [Agence France Presse, 9/27/07] Hillary Clinton Said Measure Would “Put Some Teeth Into All This Talk About Dealing With Iran.” “My understanding of the revolutionary guard in Iran is that it is promoting terrorism. It is manufacturing weapons that are used against our troops in Iraq. It is certainly the main agent of support for Hezbollah, Hamas and others, and in what we voted for today, we will have an opportunity to designate it as a terrorist organization, which gives us the options to be able to impose sanctions on the primary leaders to try to begin to put some teeth into all this talk about dealing with Iran. We wouldn't be where we are today if the Bush administration hadn't outsourced our diplomacy with respect to Iran and ignored Iran and called it part of the "axis of evil." Now we've got to make up for lost time on the ground.” [Transcript, Democratic Presidential Debate on MSNBC, 9/26/07] Hillary Clinton Said Designation Would Help Bring International Pressure To Iran To End Its Nuclear Program. “Mrs. Clinton defended her vote on the Revolutionary Guard by saying the group had built weapons being used against U.S. soldiers in Iraq, and that the terrorist designation would allow the imposition of sanctions. The U.S., she said, should not delay in pressuring Iran to end its nuclear program. "We have to make up for lost time" in bringing international pressure to bear on Iran, she said.” [Telegram and Gazette, 9/27/07] Hillary Clinton Voted For An Amendment On US Policy Toward Iranian Ballistic Missiles, While Sanders Voted Against. “The Sessions amendment would make it official U.S. policy to develop and deploy a defense against the ballistic missile threat from Iran as soon as technologically possible and in conjunction with U.S. allies and other nations. The substitute would authorize $648.3 billion for defense programs in fiscal 2008, including $127.5 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also would authorize $143.5 billion for operations and maintenance; $109.9 billion for procurement; $122.9 billion for military personnel and $74.7 billion for research development, testing and evaluation.” The amendment passed 90-5. [CQ Vote Report; S Amdt 2024 to S Amdt 2011 to HR 1585, Vote #245, 7/12/07] Sanders Sponsored Resolution Affirming That United States Could Not Go To War With Iran Without Congressional Consent. “Affirms that: (1) initiating military action against Iran without congressional approval does not fall within the President's "Commander-in-Chief" powers under the Constitution; and (2) seeking congressional authority prior to taking military action against Iran is not discretionary, but a legal and constitutional requirement.” [S Con Res 13, introduced 2/15/07] Sanders Criticized Republicans’ Iran Letter For Sidestepping President Obama. “The President is the person, whether he’s a Democrat or Republican, who leads us in foreign policy...Can you imagine before the War in Iraq or during the War in Iraq if some Democrat had written a letter to Saddam Hussein talking about concerns. What they are doing is clearly trying to sabotage this effort to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.” [Not Another War, 3/10/15] Nuclear Deal Sanders Defended His Vote On Legislation To Allow Congress To Review Agreement With Iran. “What this legislation does do is it says that after an agreement is reached, the Congress can vote to disapprove of it and if it did between you and me there would be, if the agreement was a good agreement and I hope it will be, even if the majority voted to disapprove the President could veto that, so this is, and we would be able to sustain that veto. So in terms of the real impact I think the President now has the green light to go ahead if it’s a decent agreement I don’t think it will be disapproved and overturned and that puts us in a heck of a lot better position than where we were a few months ago.” [Brunch With Bernie, 5/8/15] Sanders Said That Iran Should Absolutely Not Have A Nuclear Program; That Would Destabilize An Already Unstable Region. “Host: Do you believe that Iran should have the capability or be allowed more or less to have a nuclear program? Sanders: No, absolutely not; that would destabilize a region, which is already extraordinarily unstable. But I think, if the alternative to a negotiated process to prevent them is a war, I want to do everything I can to prevent the war and support the effort for a negotiated peace process to prevent them from getting the weapon.” [WMUR-TV Interview with Senator Bernie Sanders, 3/20/15, 04:38] Sanders Praised President Obama and Secretary Kerry on Negotiations With Iran. “He and John Kerry deserve credit for trying to negotiate agreement that prevents Iran from getting the bomb and yet does it in a way without a war.” [Sanders on National Priorities, 4/10/15] Sanders: “Iran Has Not Been The Most Honest And Honorable Partner In Terms Of Nuclear Issues.” “Iran has not been the most honest and honorable partner in terms of nuclear issues. They have not been honest...No, I think on this one, the president has the legal right to negotiate an agreement.” [With All Due Respect, 4/8/15] ISIS Sanders Supported Airstrikes Against ISIS In Syria And Iraq. “JUDY WOODRUFF: You have said you don’t think the U.S. should be leading the charge against ISIS. Does that mean that raids like the one that took place last week where the U.S. took out one of the top ISIS leaders and the ongoing airstrikes in Syria and Iraq shouldn’t go on? SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: No, no, no, I have supported those efforts on the part of the president.” [PBS Newshour, 5/18/15] Sanders: US Has To Play An Active Role In Defeating ISIS, But It’s Going To Be Muslim Countries Themselves That Will Defeat Them And Bring Stability To Region. “So my view is, the United States has got to play an active role in defeating this barbaric organization, but at the end of the day, it’s going to be the Muslim countries themselves, supported by the United States and other Western countries, that will defeat ISIS and bring some degree of stability into the Middle East. It cannot be American troops on the ground.” [PBS Newshour, 5/18/15] Sanders Supported An Amendment That “Proposed A Temporary Surtax To Pay For American Military Operations Against ISIS” That “Would Be Discontinued Once Relevant Military Operations Have Concluded.” “Office of the Senator Chris Coons, U.S Government has issued the following news release: Today, U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) proposed a temporary surtax to pay for American military operations against ISIS. The proposal, offered as an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2016 federal budget currently under consideration by the Senate, is backed by Senator Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.), Ranking Member on the Senate Budget Committee. Under the Coons-Sanders proposal, the temporary surtax would be discontinued once relevant military operations have concluded. The amendment will be voted on this afternoon.” [Coons press release, 3/27/15] Sanders Opposed Ground Troops To Combat ISIS Because It Could Lead To “Perpetual War In The Middle East.” “We have ISIS out there which is a barbaric organization and must be defeated. We have some of my colleagues, mostly Republicans, who want to send combat troops into action. Who in a sense, are looking, as I see it, at a perpetual war in the Middle East, and I am strongly, strongly opposed to that.” [Bernie Sanders at Johns Hopkins, 6/3/15] Sanders: US Must Defeat ISIS But AS Part Of An International Coalition Led By Muslim Countries. “We must be vigorous in combatting terrorism and defeating ISIS, but we should not have to bear that burden alone. We must be part of an international coalition, led by Muslim nations, that can not only defeat ISIS but begin the process of creating conditions for a lasting peace.” [Sanders Remarks, 5/27/15] Sanders Opposed ISIS, But Said Muslim Countries Needed To “Stand Up Themselves And Lead That Fight.” “Referring to the so-called Islamic State (sometimes called ISIS or ISIL), the Vermont senator said that group should be opposed. “Here, I think, is the main point: the United States and Western countries should be very, very supportive but at the end of the day, the only way, in my view, that the war against ISIS is won, is when the Muslim countries stand up themselves and lead that fight.”“ [Examiner, 5/13/15] Sanders: The US Should Be Supportive Of Efforts To Defeat ISIS But Cannot Lead Them. “At the end of the day, the war against ISIS will only be won when the Muslim countries in the area fully engage and defeat ISIS and other groups that are distorting what Islam is supposed to be about. The United States and other western countries should be supportive of the efforts of those governments, but cannot lead them.” [Reddit, 5/19/15] Sanders Said That A War Between Solely “The U.S. And ISIS” Was “A Losing Proposition.” “If this becomes a war between the US and ISS, the West and the East, Christianity and Islam, it’s a losing proposition. It’s what ISIS wants. This is, as I understand it, a war for the soul of Islam. And if that is the case, the Muslim countries in that area have got to stand up and they have got to fight.” [MSNBC, “The Ed Show,” 10/13/14, 1:15] Sanders: “We Should Support Those Countries Taking On ISIS.” “As a result of this war, we destabilized the region, give rise to al Qaeda, ISIS, what we need now -- this is not easy stuff, but I think the president is trying. You need to bring them together in an international coalition, Wolf, led by the Muslim countries themselves. Saudi Arabia has the third- largest military budget in the world. They will have to get their hands dirty in the fight. We should be supportive. At the end of the day, this is a fight over what Islam is about, the soul of Islam. We should support those countries taking on ISIS.” [CNN, 5/19/15] February 2015: Sanders Opposed Obama’s AUMF Request To Fight ISIS. “I have supported U.S. airstrikes against ISIS and believe they are authorized under current law, and I support targeted U.S. military efforts to protect U.S. citizens. It is my firm belief, however, that the war against ISIS will never be won unless nations in the Middle East step up their military efforts and take more responsibility for the security and stability of their region. The United States and other western powers should support our Middle East allies, but this war will never be won unless Muslim nations in the region lead that fight. It is worth remembering that Saudi Arabia, for example, is a nation controlled by one of the wealthiest families in the world and has the fourth largest military budget of any nation. This is a war for the soul of Islam and the Muslim nations must become more heavily engaged. I oppose sending U.S. ground troops into combat in another bloody war in the Middle East. I therefore cannot support the resolution in its current form without clearer limitations on the role of U.S. combat troops.” [Sanders Press Release, 2/11/15] Sanders Opposed “Taking Unilateral Action” Against ISIS And Suggested The International Community Convene On “A Very Complicated And Difficult Issue.” When asked by Jonathan Capehart how involved he believes the U.S. should get in the fight against ISIS and if we should take unilateral action, Sanders responded: “I am not a great fan of the United States taking unilateral action. ISIS is a threat–look, the U.K. is putting up right now, they’re very concerned about terrorism within their own country. ISIS is a threat to the international community; the international community, countries in that region have got to come together to figure out the best way to address ISIS and a very complicated and difficult issue.” [Up With Steve Kornacki, MSNBC, 8/31/14, 7:14] October 2014: Sanders That To Combat ISIS, U.S. Should Provide Air Support, As Well As “Arming Those People Who Need To Be Armed.” “SANDERS: It is a threat to us, it is a threat to the U.K., maybe even a greater threat, and to France. And so long as the word is out that people think we’re going to do it, they’re not going to step up to the plate. So I think what the United States has got to demand yeah, we’re going to be in this thing not with troops on the ground but with air attack support and other support, arming those people who need to be armed but you guys [Middle Eastern nations] are going to have to get into this as well. CROWLEY: So would you support broader air strikes and would you support, it sounds like you would, arming the Peshmerga, the Kurdish forces? SANDERS: Yes, I think we should arm, and even that's a difficult issue to make sure that the people who we arm today don't turn against us tomorrow, but I think providing arms to those people who we can trust and providing air support is in fact something that we should be doing.” [State of the Union, CNN, 10/12/14] Asked Why He Would Support Arming The Pesmerga And Not The Syrian Rebels, Sanders Said He Did Not Want Perpetual Warfare. “CROWLEY: But for you, would it be confined to the Pesmerga? I know that you voted against arming and training Syrian rebels, so is there a difference to you between the Peshmerga and the Syrian rebels? SANDERS: Here's where I am. We have been at war for 12 years. We have spent trillions of dollars. I'm chairman of the committee on veterans affairs. We have 500,000 young men and women who have come home with PTSD and TBI. What I do not want, and I fear very much is the United States getting sucked into a quagmire and being involved in perpetual warfare year after year after year. That is my fear.” [State of the Union, CNN, 10/12/14] September 2014: Sanders Said It Was Appropriate For US To Train Forces In Syria And To Have An International Coalition Involved In Airstrikes, But Not To Send Troops. “That for a start, there needs to be an international coalition involved, and second of all, at the end of the day, it will be the people of Iraq and Syria who will ultimately make the decision. I think it is appropriate for the United States to train moderate forces in Syria and I think it is appropriate for the President, along with an international coalition, to be involved in airstrikes. But I am adamantly opposed to the United States sending combat ground troops into action.” [Brunch With Bernie, 9/11/14] Sanders Said That ISIS Must Be Defeated, But That The Struggle Would Not Be Won By Unilateral American Action, Said “We Must Not Forget The Pain Lessons Learned By The Bush-Cheney Wars.” “Sen. Bernie Sanders reacted afterward. “ISIS is a brutal and dangerous organization that must be defeated. I agree with the president that ISIS is a threat to the international community and must be combatted by the international community, not just the United States. Most importantly, this struggle will not be won without the active participation of the people of Iraq and Syria. This cannot be a unilateral American action. As we develop a long-term strategy, we must not forget the painful lessons learned by the Bush-Cheney wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. U.S. ground troops should not be sent back into combat,” Sanders said. “I support the president’s airstrike campaign and help for the Syrian opposition,” he added.” [Sanders press release, 9/10/14] Sanders Said Congress “Must Become Increasingly Engaged In The Iraq-Syria Crisis” But Through Air Strikes Not Combat Troops. “I believe that Congress must become increasingly engaged in the Iraq-Syria crisis. It is my understanding that the president does have the executive power to launch air strikes. He does not have the power to send combat troops into harm’s way without congressional authorization. As someone who voted against the military action in Iraq in the first place, I continue to be very strongly opposed to sending combat troops back into Iraq or to Syria.” [Sanders press release, 9/8/14] Sanders Said ISIS Acquired Weapons In Part From The US Government Through The Iraqi Army. “Caller: Where is the weaponry for ISIL coming from? Sanders: Well I’ll tell you one of the sources we know, and it is the United States government through the Iraqi Army. As I understand it, these guys are operating a lot of equipment that was surrendered to them by the Iraqi Army, which was given to the Iraqi Army by the United States of America. So not only did the Iraqi Army not fight, but actually surrendered very significant quality weapons to the enemy.” [Brunch with Bernie, 9/5/14] Saudi Arabia Sanders: Saudi Arabia “Will Have To Get Their Hands Dirty” Fighting ISIS. “As a result of this war, we destabilized the region, give rise to al Qaeda, ISIS, what we need now -- this is not easy stuff, but I think the president is trying. You need to bring them together in an international coalition, Wolf, led by the Muslim countries themselves. Saudi Arabia has the third- largest military budget in the world. They will have to get their hands dirty in the fight. We should be supportive. At the end of the day, this is a fight over what Islam is about, the soul of Islam. We should support those countries taking on ISIS.” [CNN, 5/19/15] Sanders Wondered Why Saudi Troops Weren’t Leading The Fight Against ISIS. “Where we are right now is you have a region, that’s Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, you have a number of countries controlled by very wealthy families who are asking the United States to take the lead. Saudi Arabia has the 3rd largest defense budget in the world. Why aren’t their troops and their much more powerful military than ISIS, why aren’t they in there?” [Sanders Katie Couric Interview, Yahoo, 6/1/15] Sanders Said That ISIS Is “A Problem For The International Community” And Saudi Arabia Should Be “Actively Involved.” “It’s a problem for the international community. And you asked me a moment ago, why are other countries not more deeply involved? I will tell you why. Because they believe that American taxpayers are going to do it and American soldiers ultimately will do it. And as long as that signal is out there, that’s what’s going to happen. I want the Saudi Arabian government to be actively involved. I want their troops to be on the ground.” [CNN, “State of the Union,” 10/12/14, 3:45] Sanders Said He Had A Gut Feeling That Saudi Billionaires Were Funding Weaponry For ISIS. Caller: Where is the weaponry for ISIL coming from? Sanders: […] But the second part, there are other people who are funding these guys. And you’re right we don’t enough about it. I’ve always had in the bottom, in my gut, the feeling that these billionaires, or God knows if they’re trillionaires or whatever, who run Saudi Arabia. If it’s not their government, they got a lot of princes and folks there and sheikhs there, who have unbelievable sums of money, and some of them are into really, really, really fundamentalist, extremist type activity, and I suspect some of that money is coming from groups in Saudi Arabia as well.” [Brunch with Bernie, 9/5/14] Sanders Failed To Lead On Israel AIPAC Member Said That Neither Sanders Nor Sen. Leahy Signed On To AIPAC’s Letters. “In Vermont, a small group of AIPAC-linked Jewish activists do have Sanders’ ear on Israel-related matters. Yoram Samets, a Burlington businessman and a member of AIPAC’s national council, said that he has been in touch with Sanders for the past decade, but that Sanders does not sign any AIPAC-backed letters. His Vermont colleague Senator Patrick Leahy does not, either.” [The Forward, 6/16/15] Sanders Had “Very Few Statements” In The Congressional Record About Israel. “A search of the Congressional Record reveals very few statements about Israel by Sanders on the floor of the House or the Senate.” [The Forward, 6/16/15] The Forward: Sanders’ Record On Israel Could Be Characterized As Centrist. “The child of Polish immigrants whose father’s family was decimated during the Holocaust, Sanders spent time on an Israeli kibbutz after graduating from college in the early 1960s. Throughout his political career, however, he has avoided talking much about Israel. When he has, he has sounded much like a centrist Democrat — a far cry from his leftist rhetoric on economic issues. “I know he’s often rated as the most liberal senator,” said Aaron Keyak, a Democratic political consultant and the managing director of Bluelight Strategies. “When I see Senator Bernie Sanders, I see someone who is a typical pro-Israel Jewish Democrat.” One longtime Hill-watcher who focuses on Israel issues placed Sanders somewhere on a continuum between California Senator Dianne Feinstein — an often outspoken Israel critic who is Jewish — and Senator Chuck Schumer, the New York Jewish lawmaker known as a forceful defender of the Jewish state.” [The Forward, 6/16/15] Sanders Did Not Support Measures Promoting Special Relationship Between United States And Israel Sanders Did Not To Co-Sponsor The United-States Enhanced Security Cooperation Act. "United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012 - (Sec. 3) States that it is U.S. policy to: (1) reaffirm the commitment to Israel's security as a Jewish state, (2) support Israel's right to self-defense and help Israel preserve its qualitative military edge, (3) expand military and civilian cooperation, (4) assist in a negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that results in two states living side-by-side in peace and security, and (5) veto any one-sided anti-Israel U.N. Security Council resolutions." The bill passed the Senate by voice vote. [S 2165, introduced 3/6/12] Sanders Did Not Sign Letter To Secretary Clinton Reaffirming The "Unbreakable Bond" Between The United States And Israel. "U.S. Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA) - along with 74 of their Senate colleagues - today wrote Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton urging her to continue promoting Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations while reaffirming the "unbreakable bonds that tie the United States and Israel together." [...] We write to urge you to do everything possible to ensure that the recent tensions between the U.S. and Israeli administrations over the untimely announcement of future housing construction in East Jerusalem do not derail Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations or harm U.S-Israel relations." [Isakson Press Release, 4/13/10] Sanders Did Not Co-Sponsor Bill Reaffirming Senate’s Commitment To A “Ture And Lasting Solution” To The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. “Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Richard Lugar (RIN), Chris Dodd (D-CT), and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) introduced a bi-partisan, pro-peace resolution which reaffirmed the Senate's "commitment to a true and lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, based on the establishment of 2 states, the State of Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, and with recognized borders." The resolution also urged the president to appoint a Special Envoy for Middle East Peace, welcomed the Arab League Peace Initiative, and called on "Israeli and Palestinian leaders to embrace efforts to achieve peace and refrain from taking any actions that would prejudice the outcome of final status negotiations."” [AAI Scorecard, accessed 9/20/15; S Res 224, introduced 6/07/07] Sanders Did Not Cosponsor Bill Opposed By Arab American Institute For Implicitly Sanctioning Discriminatory Treatment Of U.S. Citizens Traveling To Israel And Palestine. “Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) introduced S. 462, the ‘United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act,’ which, like Rep. Sherman’s bill mentioned above, grants Israel recognition into the visa waiver program even though it doesn’t meet that program’s general requirements. The bill includes a very troubling 4 Senate exemption that would lessen the standards of reciprocity that Israel would have to meet to be admitted into the U.S. Visa Waiver Program by exempting Israel from offering full reciprocity to U.S. citizens. This is a stark departure from the general principle of reciprocity in travel privileges that we apply to all other nations in the program. And given Israel’s long-held practice of detaining and denying entry to Arab Americans at the border, this exemption will implicitly sanction the discriminatory treatment of U.S. citizens traveling to Israel and Palestine.” [AAI Scorecard, accessed 9/20/15; S. 462, introduced 3/5/13] Sanders Did Not Co-Sponsor A Resolution Recognizing Israel's Right To Act In SelfDefense. "Expresses commitment to the welfare and survival of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state with secure borders and recognizes Israel's right to act in self-defense. Reiterates that Hamas must end the rocket and mortar attacks against Israel, recognize Israel's right to exist, renounce violence, and agree to accept previous agreements between Israel and the Palestinians. Encourages the President to work to support a sustainable cease-fire in Gaza that prevents Hamas from retaining or rebuilding the capability to launch rockets and mortars against Israel and allows for the long term improvement of daily living conditions for Gaza's people." The bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent. [S Res 10, introduced 1/8/09] Sanders Supported A Two-State Solution Sanders Said He Supported A Two-State Solution For Israel And The Palestinians. “We have got to try to make sure that we have a two state solution. Palestinians are entitled to have their own state and Israel is entitled to live in peace and security.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Questions in the Quad Cities, 5/30/15, 2:20] 2015: Sanders Supported A “Permanent Two-State Solution” Between Israel And The Palestinian Territories. “While the summer of 2014 was a particularly contentious time in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, Sen. Sanders’ hope is that the United States will, in the future, help play a leading role in creating a permanent two-state solution. To achieve that outcome the U.S. must work with the international community to support a settlement that respects the legitimate claims and grievances of both sides, lifts the blockade of Gaza, resolves the borders of the West Bank, and allows both the Israeli and Palestinian people to live in peace.” [Issues Pages, Sen. Bernie Sanders, Accessed 7/1/15] 2006: Sanders Called For A Two State Solution. “Sanders said a "two-state solution" was the only way to guarantee peace between Israel and its neighbors. Sanders: "In my view, in the long term we have to have a two-state solution that guarantees peace for Israel and a home for the Palestinians. It's what we ultimately have to strive for." Tarrant attacked Sanders for voting "present" on two resolutions in a 7/21 to AIPAC. The resolutions were "blasting terrorist attacks in Israel and keeping terrorist orgs out of the Palestinian territories" [National Journal Hotline, 8/1/06] 1990: Sanders Called For A Palestinian State. “In a departure which startled even the more liberalminded burghers of Burlington, the Brooklyn-born Mr. Sanders also used his office to make lofty pronouncements on US foreign policy, twinning the city with Puerto Cabeza in Nicaragua, and calling for a Palestinian homeland (although not in Vermont).” [The Guardian, 3/15/90] 1988: Sanders Said “It Is Reasonable For The U.S. And Israel To Support The Right Of The Palestinian People To Self-Determination Including An Independent State.” “Saying there were no simple solutions for the complex and volatile Middle East situation, Sanders said the U.S should play a more active role in bringing peace to the area. ‘It is clear that justice demands that all elements of the Arab world recognize Israel’s right to exist within secure borders,’ Sanders said. ‘With Israel's right to exist within secure borders, full Arab support for Israeli security, backed by international agreements, it is also reasonable for the U.S. and Israel to support the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination including an independent state.’” [Press Release, Sanders for Congress, 8/3/88] 1988: Sanders Criticized Both Israeli Government And Arab Royalty For Undermining Peace Process In Middle East. “Sanders criticized Israeli tactics against protesting Arabs in the West Bank, but added, ‘it is equally unacceptable that multimillionaire Arab kings and Sheiks turn their backs on the Palestinian refugees and on viable options for bringing peace and economic security to the Middle East.’” [Press Release, Sanders for Congress, 8/3/88] SANDERS AFFIRMED THE RIGHT FOR ISRAEL TO EXIST IN SECURITY, BUT ALSO PALESTINIAN’S RIGHT TO EXIST OUTSIDE ISRAEL’S INFLUENCE 2015: Sanders Said Israel Had A Right To Exist And Palestinians Had The Right To A Homeland. “The bottom line is that Israel must have the right to exist in peace and security, just as the Palestinians must have the right to a homeland in which they and they alone control their political system and their economy.” [sanders.senate.gov, accessed 9/21/15] 2013: Sanders Said That To Achieve Peace, The Palestinians Had To End Terrorism And Recognize Israel’s Right To Exist, While Israel Had To End Must End Their Policy Of Targeted Killings And Prevent Further Israeli Settlements On Palestinian Land. “If you had the power, how would you negotiate an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where fundamentalism is so strong? The hatred, violence and loss of life that define this conflict make living an ordinary life a constant struggle for both peoples. We must work with those Israeli and Palestinian leaders who are committed to peace, security and statehood rather than to empty rhetoric and violence. A two-state solution must include compromises from both sides to achieve a fair and lasting peace in the region. The Palestinians must fulfill their responsibilities to end terrorism against Israel and recognize Israel’s right to exist. In return, the Israelis must end their policy of targeted killings, prevent further Israeli settlements on Palestinian land and prevent the destruction of Palestinian homes, businesses and infrastructure.” [Playboy, 10/17/13] 2002: Sanders Said Israel Had An Absolute Right To Exist In Security, And Palestinians Had A Right To Their Own State Free Of Israeli Influence. “Sanders offered guidelines for the United States to follow in trying to play the role of mediator. “In my view we should operate under the following guidelines: Israel has an absolute right to exist, in security, free of terrorist attacks and suicide bombers," Sanders said. "The Palestinians have a right to their own state, free of Israeli interference.”” [Gannett News Service, 4/4/02] 1991: Sanders Said Israel Had A Right To Exist And The Palestinians Were Entitled To Justice. “In terms of Israel, of course, Israel has an absolute right to exist. My concern is that given the--what’s happening in the Persian Gulf we have lost our ability now to begin the serious negotiations that have to take place for a long term settlement between Israel and the Palestinian question and the needs of the other countries. But certainly Israel has a right to exist the Palestinians are entitled to justice and the United States and the United Nations are gonna have to play a very active role to try to bring about a lasting peace and social justice within that very complex part of the world.” [C-SPAN, 1/24/91, 43:01] 1988: Sanders Said “It Is Reasonable For The U.S. And Israel To Support The Right Of The Palestinian People To Self-Determination Including An Independent State.” “Saying there were no simple solutions for the complex and volatile Middle East situation, Sanders said the U.S should play a more active role in bringing peace to the area. ‘It is clear that justice demands that all elements of the Arab world recognize Israel’s right to exist within secure borders,’ Sanders said. ‘With Israel's right to exist within secure borders, full Arab support for Israeli security, backed by international agreements, it is also reasonable for the U.S. and Israel to support the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination including an independent state.’” [Press Release, Sanders for Congress, 8/3/88] 1988: Sanders Said That Palestinians Were Entitled To A State And Israel Was Entitled To Security. “On Sunday afternoon, a woman holding pictures of dead Palestinians confronted Sen. Bernie Sanders (IVt.) about America's policy toward Israel. Would a President Sanders make the United States into an arbiter of peace? His answer -- slightly muffled in this video by the many fans set up to cool the room -went over very well. "Palestinians are entitled to a state of their own," said Sanders, "and the United States should do what it can to make sure that state has a strong economy. Israel is entitled to live in security, not be attacked." Sanders, who if elected would be the first Jewish president, got applause for saying he'd skipped the congressional address of Israel's prime minister.” [Washington Post, 8/4/15] 1988: Sanders Said Israeli Military Actions Against Palestinians Were “Reprehensible” And “Unacceptable.” “AUDIENCE MEMBER: With all due respect, Mayor, how much time do you need? The riots, there are a hundred today, two more Palestinians died today, the death toll among the Palestinians is above 110. How much time do you need? BERNIE SANDERS: Well we have, what is going on in the Middle East right now is obviously a tragedy. There's no question about it. The sight of Israeli soldiers breaking the arms and legs of Arabs is reprehensible. The idea of Israel closing down towns and sealing them up is unacceptable.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Bernie Speaks: The Mayor Show, 3/30/88] Sanders Said Israel’s Human Rights Violations Were “Unacceptable” And “Must Be Condemned.” “AUDIENCE MEMBER: We always have a lot to say about human rights and human rights violations, and yet we haven't even seen more than an eyebrow raised in Washington over what's been going on in Israel. And as you pointed out, you see people nightly on the news being beat up with rocks, and what about the (inaudible) human rights violations. BERNIE SANDERS: It is an absolute disgrace. It goes without saying. Soldiers of any nation, especially an occupying power, are not allowed under any moral code to break the arms and legs of people. That is absolutely unacceptable. Period. And that type of behavior must be condemned.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Bernie Speaks: The Mayor Show, 3/30/88] Sanders Said Arab Countries That Supported The Destruction Of The State Of Israel Should Be Equally Condemned. “Equally what must be condemned, is the fact that there are people within Arab countries who still, to this day, believe in the destruction of the state of Israel. That is also unacceptable. The United States has got to play a leadership role in what is a morass, what has been year after year, war after war, of conflict. I mean, I don't, what I'm here to suggest is I don't know any magical solutions, except to say that I think the United States has not taken the leadership role that it should be taking in that region.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Bernie Speaks: The Mayor Show, 3/30/88] Sanders Said Israelis And Arabs Had To Come Together If They “Are Going To Survive.” “I think I've said as much as, let me just tell you that, in general, during this course of this campaign, we'll be making detailed statements as best as I can do. What I have told you today is that I deplore the type of activity that is going on in Israel. I deplore the hatred that exists among certain Arab leaders. That in fact there's going to have to be a coming together if the people of Israel and the Arab countries are going to survive.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Bernie Speaks: The Mayor Show, 3/30/88] Sanders Said Jordan Had To Accept Responsibility For The Palestinian Problem In Addition To Israel. “Well I think what I am saying is if you have a nation, like the United States, which is pouring substantial amounts of money into the nation of the Middle East, who have negotiating clout. You can say to Jordan, you can say to Egypt, you can say to Israel, that listen, this type of situation, this continued conflict, this denial of Palestinian rights, this hatred of Israel on the part of certain individuals who would like to destroy the state of Israel is unacceptable. Jordan has got to accept its responsibility for the Palestinian problem as well.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Bernie Speaks: The Mayor Show, 3/30/88] Sanders Supported U.S. Role In Peace Talks 2015: Sanders Hoped The United States Would Play A Leading Role In Creating A Permanent Two State Solution. “While the summer of 2014 was a particularly contentious time in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, Sen. Sanders’ hope is that the United States will, in the future, help play a leading role in creating a permanent two-state solution. To achieve that outcome the U.S. must work with the international community to support a settlement that respects the legitimate claims and grievances of both sides, lifts the blockade of Gaza, resolves the borders of the West Bank, and allows both the Israeli and Palestinian people to live in peace.” [sanders.senate.gov, accessed 9/21/15] 2013: Sanders Signed On To A Letter To Calling For A “Sustained US Diplomatic Initiative” To Achieve A Two-State Solution. “On the eve of President Obama’s trip to Israel, 27 Senators have signed on to a letter authored by California Senator Dianne Feinstein calling for a sustained US diplomatic initiative to help forge a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians based on a two-state solution. J Street supports the letter and its national leaders are on Capitol Hill today lobbying Senators to sign it. The letter is particularly significant because it recognizes the indispensible US role in achieving an agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians. However, with Israelis and Palestinians currently suffering from high levels of mutual distrust, J Street believes that an active and sustained US role will be crucial if talks are to have any chance of success. [...] The following Senators signed the letter: Dianne Feinstein (California) [...] Bernie Sanders (Vermont) [...] Sheldon Whitehouse (Rhode Island)[.]” [Press Release, J Street, 3/19/13] 2011: Sanders Hoped The United States “Will Play An Active Role” In Ending Violent Conflict Between Israel And Palestine “I think the Israeli Lobby is one of many many lobbies in Washington and my hope is that the President will work with Israel and the Arab countries and people of all political persuasions to develop what I suspect will be a two state solution and I think we have to be aggressive. It breaks my heart, ‘cause I’ve been to the middle east, to see decent people on both sides in this neverending violence. I would hope that the United States will play an active role, it is very difficult because you have loonies on both sides trying to tear it apart. But I would hope that we can bring people together so that this never ending violence comes to an end.” [C-SPAN, 5/3/11, 37:45] 2003: Sanders Signed Letter Commending President Bush For His Peace Efforts In Israel. “However, on May 20, 2003, Rep. Capps (D-CA), Rep. Houghton (R-NY), Rep. Issa (R-CA), and Rep. Price (D-NC) sent a letter to the President commending him for his peace efforts. In contrast to the aforementioned letter, the May 20 letter mentions both Israeli and Palestinian obligations under the Road Map.” [AAI Scorecard, accessed 9/20/15] 1991: Sanders Was Concerned That The Gulf War Limited The Ability To Begin Serious Negotiations Between Israel And Palestinians, But That The U.S. And UN Needed to Take An Active Role In Bringing About Peace. “In terms of Israel, of course, Israel has an absolute right to exist. My concern is that given the--what’s happening in the Persian Gulf we have lost our ability now to begin the serious negotiations that have to take place for a long term settlement between Israel and the Palestinian question and the needs of the other countries. But certainly Israel has a right to exist the Palestinians are entitled to justice and the United States and the United Nations are gonna have to play a very active role to try to bring about a lasting peace and social justice within that very complex part of the world.” [C-SPAN, 1/24/91, 43:01] 1988: Sanders Said The United States Should Play A More Active Role In Bringing About Peace Between Israel And Palestinians. “Saying there were no simple solutions for the complex and volatile Middle East situation, Sanders said the U.S should play a more active role in bringing peace to the area. ‘It is clear that justice demands that all elements of the Arab world recognize Israel’s right to exist within secure borders,’ Sanders said. ‘With Israel's right to exist within secure borders, full Arab support for Israeli security, backed by international agreements, it is also reasonable for the U.S. and Israel to support the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination including an independent state.’” [Press Release, Sanders for Congress, 8/3/88] 1988: Sanders Said The United States Needed To Use Their Clout To Demand The Arab States And Israel Sit Down And Work Out A Sensible Solution To The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. “What has got to happen is, Arab states, lets not forget the role of Jordan and King Hussein. You know, sometimes we concentrate on Israel, you still have an autocracy there, you have a king. You have got to bring together the Arab states and the United States has that capability. We are pouring billions of dollars in arms into Arab countries. We have the clout to demand they and Israel, who we are also heavily financing, begin to sit down and work out a sensible solution to the problem which will guarantee the existence of the state of Israel and which will also protect Palestinian rights.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Bernie Speaks: The Mayor Show, 3/30/88] Sanders Said Unless The Palestinians And Israelis Sat Down To Work Out A Settlement, He Would Have Begun To Cut Off Arms. “BERNIE SANDERS: You have the ability, when you are the United States of America, which is affording the army for the Middle East, to demand that these people sit down and work out a reasonable settlement. Protecting the rights of the Palestinians, protecting the rights of Israel. That has not yet been done. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Or else what? BERNIE SANDERS: Or else you begin to cut off arms.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Bernie Speaks: The Mayor Show, 3/30/88] BUT DID NOT SIGN ON TO SOME LETTERS SUPPORTING PEACE TALKS 2010: Sanders Failed To Sign A Letter To White House Pledging Ongoing Support For Direct Peace Talks Between Israel And Palestinians. "U.S. Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Robert P. Casey Jr. (D-PA) and Richard Burr (R-NC), along with 83 of their Senate colleagues today wrote the White House pledging their ongoing support for direct peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians." [Boxer Press Release, 9/27/10] 2009: Sanders Failed To Sign A Letter To President Obama Backing United States Efforts To Help Israel Achieve Peace. "Seventy-six senators sent a letter to President Obama yesterday that strongly backs America’s efforts to help Israel achieve peace with all her neighbors while upholding the principles that have successfully led to peace treaties between Israel and both Egypt and Jordan. These key principles include supporting direct, bilateral negotiations between the parties, remaining both a trusted mediator between the parties and a devoted friend to Israel, and insisting on an absolute Palestinian commitment to end incitement and violence against Israel." [AIPAC, 5/20/09] 2005: Sanders Did Not Sign Letter Urging Secretary Rice And President Bush To Make PalestinianIsraeli Peace A Personal Commitment. U.S. Engagement in the Middle East: Circulated in December 2005 by International Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-IL) and Congresswoman Lois Capps (D-CA), the “Hyde-Capps” letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice commends the Secretary on her engagement in securing the Palestinian-Israeli agreement on the Rafah border crossing. The letter urges the Secretary and President to make Palestinian-Israeli peace a personal commitment, stating, “more than three decades of Middle East peace efforts have shown that breakthroughs come only when the U.S. President or Secretary of State is personally involved.” [AAI Scorecard, accessed 9/20/15] Sanders Refused To Attend Netanyahu’s Address To Congress Because Of Politicization Of Speech REFUSED TO ATTEND NETANYAHU’S ADDRESS TO CONGRESS Sanders Refused To Attend Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Address To A Joint Meeting Of Congress. “By Monday afternoon, 49 House and Senate Democrats had announced they would not attend the Israeli prime minister's speech to a joint meeting of Congress scheduled for Tuesday, according to a running tally in The Hill. That total represents an unprecedented rebellion that is all the more striking because allegiance to Israel has long had nearly unanimous support in Congress. […] Those boycotting the address are a cross section of the Democratic Party, including the third-ranking House Democrat, Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina; moderates like Representatives David E. Price of North Carolina and Jerry McNerney of California; ardent liberals such as Representative Lloyd Doggett of Texas and Senator Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont who caucuses with the Democrats; Latino leaders like Representative Rubén Hinojosa of Texas, a former chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus; and African-American leaders like Representative G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina, chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus.” [New York Times, 3/4/15] Sanders Said He Believed That “Overwhelmingly Strong Bipartisan Support For Israel” Would Continue, But He Was Upset By Speaker Boehner’s Attempts To Make Speech A Political Issue. “BLITZER: I don't remember a time when so many members of Congress, like you, supporters of Israel, Jewish members of Congress, members of the congressional black caucus, former chairman of the Democratic Party, Senator Tim Kaine, have decided to boycott a speech by the visiting prime minister of Israel. How do the Israelis fix this? SANDERS: I think it will be fixed. Look, I think from day one, from the establishment of Israel as a state, there has been overwhelmingly strong bipartisan support for Israel. I think that that will continue. I am simply upset that Speaker Boehner made this a political issue when it should not have been.” [CNN, 3/2/15] Sanders Said Netanyahu Address “Improperly Interfered With President Barack Obama’s Leading Role In Charting U.S. Foreign Policy.” “Sanders did not attend Netanyahu’s address to a joint session of Congress. He had said beforehand that the address, arranged without consultation with the White House, improperly interfered with President Barack Obama’s leading role in charting U.S. foreign policy. With Israeli elections set for two weeks from now, Sanders also said it was inappropriate for any foreign leader to use an appearance before Congress for their own domestic political purposes.” Sanders Press Release, 3/3/15] CRITICIZED NETANYAHU OVER SPEECH Sanders Said “I’m Not A Great Fan” Of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “REHM: How do you believe President Obama’s relationship with Prime Minister Netanyahu has affected our relationship with Israel? SANDERS: Well, I gotta tell you, I am not a great fan of President Netanyahu I did not attend the speech that he gave before the joint session of Congress. I think it was opportunistic. I think he was using it as part of his campaign for re-election. I think he was being used or did use the Republicans to go behind the President’s back. And I think in that region sadly on both sides I don’t think we have the kind of leadership that we need. And so you know I think the President is trying to do the best that he can in enormously difficult circumstances.” [Transcript, Diane Rehm Show via Raw Story, 5/16/15] 2015: Sanders Believed It Was Wrong For Netanyahu To Address A Joint Session Of Congress Without Consulting With The President Or For Political Gain. “I will tell you why. A president of the United States, whether that person is a Democrat or a Republican, leads us in foreign policy. And when you have a situation in the Middle East where the politics and the dangers are so volatile, the idea that the Speaker of the House would invite a Mister Netanyahu to Congress without consulting President Obama is, I think, a very, very bad idea. Second point, and I think President Obama made this point, is it is wrong to give any politician, not just Netanyahu, the stage of a speech before a joint session of Congress as part of his political campaign. That’s wrong for politics in Israel, that’s wrong for politics anywhere in the world.” [CNN via Bernie Sanders’ YouTube Page, 2/10/15] 2015: Sanders Said It Was Wrong For A Foreign Leader, Such As Netanyahu, To “Inject” Himself Into An American Foreign Policy Debate. “And last point I would make: Mister Netanyahu has every right in the world to disagree with President Obama or any of us about our relationship and how we proceed with Iran, in terms of trying to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons, he has every right. But he doesn’t have the right, in my view, to inject himself into an American political discussion by being the Speaker before a joint session of Congress to criticize the President of the United States. There are all sorts of avenues open to him to speak to members of Congress, and that’s fine. I don’t think it’s a good idea to have a foreign leader coming before Congress to rip apart the President of the United States.” [CNN via Bernie Sanders’ YouTube Page, 2/10/15] AFTER SPEECH, SANDERS RENEWED SUPPORT FOR DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS WITH IRAN After Netanyahu Speech To Congress, Sanders Renewed Support For Diplomatic Engagement With Iran And Said Netanyahu Did Not Offer Serious Solution To Prevent A Nuclear Iran. “In a statement after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress, Sen. Bernie Sanders (IVt.) today renewed his support for diplomatic efforts by the United States and other world powers to negotiate an agreement to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. […]“It goes without saying that Iran must not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. It goes without saying that the United States will stand by our long-standing friendship and support for the nation of Israel. Unfortunately, Prime Minister Netanyahu did not offer any serious alternatives to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.” [Sanders Press Release, 3/3/15] Sanders Criticized Israel and Hamas For Actions During 2014 Gaza War Sanders Called Israel’s Actions In The 2014 Gaza War “Disproportionate” And Said That Israel’s “Widespread Killing Of Civilians Is Completely Unacceptable.” “While the summer of 2014 was a particularly contentious time in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, Sen. Sanders’ hope is that the United States will, in the future, help play a leading role in creating a permanent two-state solution. […] Sanders believes the Israeli attacks that killed hundreds of innocent people – including many women and children – in bombings of civilian neighborhoods and UN controlled schools, hospitals, and refugee camps were disproportionate, and the widespread killing of civilians is completely unacceptable. Israel's actions took an enormous human toll, and appeared to strengthen support for Hamas and may well be sowing the seeds for even more hatred, war and destruction in future years.” [sanders.senate.gov, accessed 9/21/15] Sanders Said Ceasefire Was An Important Step, And That All Sides Must Strictly Adhere To Humanitarian Law To Avoid Escalation Of Conflict. “The U.S. can and must play a more constructive role in promoting diplomatic efforts to achieve a lasting peace in Gaza. Sen. Sanders believes the ceasefire agreement that was reached is an important step in the right direction. He believes strict adherence, by all sides, to the tenets of international humanitarian law is necessary in order to avoid the escalation of this conflict.” [sanders.senate.gov, accessed 9/21/15] Sanders Condemned Israeli Attacks On Palestinian Buildings And Hamas Rockets Into Israel, While Also Criticizing Hamas For Attacks Against Israel And Using Money Intended For Civilian Construction For Military Purposes. “Second of all, it seems to me that Israel, with their sophistication and weaponry should not have been attacking buildings where the women and children were in that were under the auspices under the UN. On the other hand, I will say that I don’t think that Hamas should be lobbying missiles into Israel. These missiles in years to come will only become more sophisticated and will be able to his Israeli cities. Hamas also used money that was supposed to be used for construction purposes in Gaza, turned that into building tunnels for going into Israel for military purposes. And you got some elements of Hamas who believe that Israeli should be completely destroyed.” [Brunch with Bernie, 8/21/14] Sanders Said That Israel “Overreacted” During The Gaza War, But Hamas Fired Missiles Into Populated Areas Of Israel And Did Not Want Israel To Exist. “Number one, is Israel or anybody in this room happy or feel good about the kind of civilian death we’ve seen in Gaza? The answer is no. Has Israel overreacted? Have they bombed UN Facilities? The answer is yes, that is terribly terribly wrong. On the other hand, and there is another hand, you have a situation where Hamas is sending missiles into Israel. And you know where some of those missiles are coming from? They’re coming from populated areas. That’s a fact. Hamas has used money that came into Gaza for construction purposes and God knows they need roads and all the things they need and use some of that money to build these very sophisticated tunnels into Israel for military purposes.” [Bernie Sanders Town Hall, YouTube, uploaded 8/17/14] Sanders Yelled At Constituents Over The Gaza War At Town Hall. “The self-described "socialist," often named as a liberal alternative to Hillary Clinton in 2016, fought with constituents over Israel and the deaths of Palestinian civilians in Gaza that escalated into an angry screaming match. […] Several people in the audience began screaming over each other at Sanders. "Excuse me, shut up!" Sanders yelled. "You don't have the microphone."” [Washington Post, 8/12/14] Sanders Threatened To Call Police On Constituents. “You know I don't want police officers here," Sanders began to say. "What, are you going to arrest people?" a constituent challenged. "No, I'm not going to arrest people, but are you going to allow us to have a discussion?" Sanders shot back. After some more yelling, Sanders said, voice raised, "I'm trying to answer a question and I do not want to be disturbed." And even after that, there was more heckling and some profanity directed Sanders' way.” [Washington Post, 8/12/14] DID NOT CO-SPONSOR RESOLUTION SUPPORTING ISRAEL IN GAZA WAR Sanders Was One Of 18 Senators To Not Cosponsor A Resolution Supporting Israel Amidst Violence From Hamas. The Senate passed a resolution expressing support for Israel on the same night the country launched a ground offensive into the Gaza Strip. Sens. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) authored S.Res. 498, which reaffirms Senate support for Israel, condemns unprovoked rocket fire and calls on Hamas to stop all rocket attacks on Israel. ‘The United States Senate is in Israel’s camp,’ Graham said on the Senate floor Thursday. Passage of the resolution came moments after Israel announced that it launched a ground offensive into the Gaza Strip, following a week of heavy rocket attacks from Hamas forces.” [S.Res.498, Introduced 7/10/14; The Hill, 7/17/14] AIPAC Supported The Legislation. “The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which backed both resolutions, praised the Senate for its passage. “Israel launched Operation Protective Edge to defend its citizens against hundreds of rockets launched from Gaza by Islamist terrorists,” AIPAC said in a statement, referring to the air strikes launched by Israel July 8 in response to an intensification of rocket fire from Gaza. “While Israel accepted a cease-fire plan offered by the Egyptian government, Hamas rejected it and continues to send rockets into the Jewish state,” AIPAC said.” [Ha’aretz, 7/20/14] Sanders Supported Ending Blockade On Gaza Sanders Supported Ending The Blockade On Gaza. “While the summer of 2014 was a particularly contentious time in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, Sen. Sanders’ hope is that the United States will, in the future, help play a leading role in creating a permanent two-state solution. To achieve that outcome the U.S. must work with the international community to support a settlement that respects the legitimate claims and grievances of both sides, lifts the blockade of Gaza, resolves the borders of the West Bank, and allows both the Israeli and Palestinian people to live in peace.” [Issues Pages, Sen. Bernie Sanders, accessed 7/1/15] Sanders Did Not Sign Letter To President Obama Defending Israel's Actions In Gaza Flotilla Incident. "A huge majority of senators co-signed a letter to President Barack Obama Wednesday defending Israel's actions in the flotilla incident last month and urging the administration to oppose a U.N. resolution critical of the country. Led by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) — and signed by 85 other members of the upper chamber — the letter argues that Israel's blockade of Gaza was both legal and necessary, and that Israeli commandos were acting in selfdefense when they landed on the ship." [The Hill, 6/23/10] Sanders Did Not Sign Letter Blaming Lack Of Peace On Palestinians 2007: Sanders Did Not Sign Dear Colleague Letter That Blamed Lack Of Peace On Palestinians. “During this period, Congressmen Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Roy Blunt (R-MO), Howard Berman (D-CA) and Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) circulated a letter that honored Israel’s 60th anniversary but placed blame for lack of peace squarely on the Palestinians; ignored the urgent humanitarian crisis perpetuated by the blockade of the Gaza Strip; and failed to incorporate any commemoration of the plight of the Palestinians since 1948.” [AAI Scorecard, 9/20/15] 2001: Sanders Did Not Sign Letter Pressuring President Bush To Downgrade U.S. Relations With Palestine That Placed Blame For Violence Exclusively On Palestinians. “Relations with the Palestinian Authority (Letter) Coinciding with Ariel Sharon’s first visit to the U.S. as Israeli Prime Minister, 189 representatives endorsed sent a letter to President Bush on 3/16/01 pressuring him to downgrade U.S. relations with the Palestinians. The letter, initiated and driven by the pro-Israel lobby, also placed exclusive blame on the Palestinians for the ongoing violence. While the letter was non-binding in nature, it signaled a dangerous precedent for punitive measures to be implemented. “-” indicates those who signed the letter.” [AAI Scorecard, accessed 9/20/15] Sanders Did Not Cosponsor A Bill Supporting “Defensible” Israeli Borders Sanders Did Not Cosponsor A Bill Declaring US Support For “Defensible” Israeli Borders. “5. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) introduced S. Con. Res. 23, “declaring that it is the policy of the United States to support and facilitate Israel in maintaining defensible borders and that it is contrary to United States policy and national security to have the borders of Israel return to the armistice lines that existed on June 4, 1967.” The bill states the need for the United States to remain committed to defending Israel against the “authoritarian regimes and terrorist organizations” that “deny its right to exist,” and to oppose a return to the 1967 Israeli border lines.” [AAI Scorecard, accessed 9/20/15; S Con Res 23, introduced 6/9/11] Sanders Opposed Israeli Settlements In Disputed Territories Sanders Called For No More Israeli Settlements In Disputed Territories. “He favors a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and says he wants to see no more settlements in disputed territories as well as an unequivocal acknowledgment by the Palestinians of Israel's right to exist.” [Associated Press, 4/30/15] Sanders Voted To Withhold Some Aid To Israel Until It Stopped Investing In New Settlements In The West Bank And Gaza Strip. On June 19, 1991, Bernie Sanders supported a Rep. Bryant, D-Texas, amendment to withhold $82.5 million of the amount earmarked for Israel in fiscal 1992 from the Economic Support Fund, unless the president certifies that the Israeli government has demonstrated that it is not investing in new and expanded settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Motion rejected 44-378: R 10-151; D 33-227; I 1-0. A majority of House Democrats opposed the proposal. [H R 2508, Vote #173, 6/19/91; CQ Floor Votes, 6/19/91] Los Angeles Times: House Refused To Penalize Israel For Building Settlements In The West Bank And Gaza Strip. “By a vote of 44 to 378, the House refused to penalize Israel for its policy of settling areas of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The rejected amendment sought to reduce U.S. aid to Israel by $82.5 million, the amount the State Department estimates Israel spends annually to expand into the West Bank and Gaza. The vote occurred as the House sent a fiscal 1992 foreign aid bill (HR 2508) to the Senate.” [Los Angeles Times, 6/27/91] Washington Post: House Voted Down Bill To Punish Israel For Building New Settlements In The West Bank. “The House, pushing toward completion of a foreign aid bill, also voted 378-44 to reject a proposal to cut Israeli aid because of its policy of establishing new settlements in the West Bank.” [Washington Post, 6/20/91] President George H.W. Bush Opposed Israeli Settlements In Occupied Palestinian Territories But Opposed Conditioning Aid To Israel On Its Settlement Policy. “President George Bush reiterated his opposition to Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, but said U.S. aid did not depend on Israeli concessions on the issue. "We're not giving one inch on the settlement question," Mr. Bush told reporters at his lakeside summer home in Maine. "I've said this over and over again that is against U.S. policy for these settlements to be built, " he said. "The best thing for Israel to do is keep its commitment that was given at one point not to go in and build these settlements." But Mr. Bush refused to link U.S. credit guarantees for the construction of homes for Soviet immigrants to the settlement issue. "I don't think it ought to be a quid pro quo."” [Agence France Presse, 7/1/91] SANDERS VOTED AGAINST LOAN GUARANTEES TO ISRAEL, EVEN AFTER ISRAEL MADE CONCESSIONS ON SETTLEMENT CONSTRUCTION IN PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES Sanders Voted Against A Foreign Aid Package That Provided $10 Billion In Loan Guarantees For Israel. On October 5, 1992, Bernie Sanders opposed adoption of the conference report to provide $26.26 billion for foreign aid in fiscal 1993. The administration requested $27.43 billion. The bill would provide $10 billion in loan guarantees for Israel and increase the U.S. contribution to International Monetary Fund by $12.3 billion. Adopted 312-105: R 104-58; D 208-46; I 0-1. A majority of House Democrats supported the proposal. [H R 5368, Vote #470, 10/5/92; CQ Floor Votes, 10/5/92; see also: “Israeli Loans Guaranteed in Spending Bill,” CQ Almanac, 1992] 1991: Sanders Said He Could Not Support Sending $3 Billion To Israel And $2 Billion To Egypt While Millions Of American Children Were Hungry And Millions Of Americans Were Homeless. “Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, while I steadfastly support the right of women to abortions and am in strong agreement with the provisions in this bill which reverses the Reagan administration's cruel and misguided policy prohibiting funding to organizations which offer abortion as an alternative, I cannot support this bill. There are two reasons. We have 5 million children who are hungry in this country, 2 million people sleeping out on the street, and have a problem with appropriating $ 2 billion to Egypt and $3 billion to Israel. Let us take care of some of the problems that we have at home first.” [Rep. Bernard Sanders, Congressional Record, 10/30/91] Israel Requested Loan Guarantees In Part To “Help It Absorb Hundreds Of Thousands Of Jewish Immigrants From The Former Soviet Union.” “Issue: Israeli loan guarantees. Bottom line: Congress approved a five-year program of guarantees for $10 billion in loans for Israel as part of the foreign aid appropriations bill. Bill: HR5368 - Conference Report: H Rept 102-1011. (S Rept 102- 419) Synopsis: In August, President Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin agreed on terms for a five-year package of loan guarantees, which Jerusalem has been seeking to help it absorb hundreds of thousands of Jewish immigrants from the former Soviet Union. The deal easily gained the backing of Congress, long a wellspring of support for Israel. The U.S. guarantees were intended to help Israel obtain favorable rates on commercial loans.” [CQ Weekly, 10/31/92] President Bush Previously Opposed Loan Guarantees Because Of Likud Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir’s Settlement Building Policies In The Occupied Territories. “Bush's previous opposition to loan guarantees had caused a rift between the United States and Israel. He had refused to back the aid because of then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir's policy of aggressively expanding Jewish settlements in Israel's occupied territories. Two members of the Senate Appropriations Committee - Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt., and Bob Kasten, R-Kan. - led an unsuccessful effort in March to forge a compromise.” [CQ Weekly, 10/31/92] After Labor Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin Was Elected And Pledged To Restrain Settlement Growth, Bush Dropped His Opposition To Loan Guarantees. “The stalemate ended after Rabin's Labor Party swept to victory in Israel's June parliamentary elections. The more conciliatory Rabin pledged to restrain the growth of some settlements. In agreeing to the loan guarantees, Bush also sought to repair frayed relations with the American Jewish community.” [CQ Weekly, 10/31/92] Bush Was Pressured To Repair U.S.-Israeli Relations By The American Jewish Community. “The stalemate ended after Rabin's Labor Party swept to victory in Israel's June parliamentary elections. The more conciliatory Rabin pledged to restrain the growth of some settlements. In agreeing to the loan guarantees, Bush also sought to repair frayed relations with the American Jewish community.” [CQ Weekly, 10/31/92] Sanders Voted Against Foreign Aid Bills That Included Aid To Israel Sanders Opposed Foreign Aid Bill That Included Aid To Israel. On May 25, 1994, Bernie Sanders opposed passage of the bill to provide $13.6 billion in new budget authority for foreign operations, export financing and related programs in fiscal 1995. The administration requested $14 billion. The legislation included nearly $900 million in economic assistance to Russia and the other former Soviet republics and included $360 million in assistance for Eastern Europe, a reduction of $30 million from fiscal 1994. SubSaharan African nations would receive $790 million, a modest $6 million increase over this fiscal year. The measure provided $3 billion in military and economic aid for Israel and $2.1 billion for Egypt, far more than for any other countries. Passed 337-87: D 225-25 (ND 156-13, SD 69-12); R 112-61; I 0-1. A majority of House Democrats supported the proposal. [H R 4426, Vote #208, 5/25/94; CQ Floor Votes, 5/25/94; “APPROPRIATIONS: House Approves Aid to Ex-Soviets, Rejects Freeze on South Africa,” CQ Weekly, 5/28/94] Sanders Opposed Foreign Aid Bill That Included Aid To Israel. On August 4, 1994, Bernie Sanders opposed adoption of the conference report to provide $13.8 billion for foreign aid, export financing and related programs in fiscal 1995. The legislation trimmed $754 million from the administration's request and provides $514 million less than the $14.3 billion in foreign aid enacted the previous year. The legislation also provided up to $220 million in debt relief for Jordan and $50 million in emergency aid for Rwandan refugees. As in previous years, much of the funding in the bill was reserved for just two countries - Israel and Egypt. The conference committee approved Senate-passed spending mandates earmarking $3 billion for Israel and $2.1 billion for Egypt. The bill provided $850 million for the former Soviet republics, a significant reduction from the $2.5 billion in aid Congress voted in fiscal 1994. The bill required Russia to abide by agreements to remove its forces from the Baltic nations, but allowed the president to waive the provision if he determines it is in the national security interest. It also prohibited foreign aid to North Korea and tightened conditions on aid to the Palestine Liberation Organization. The legislation also restored funding that had been slashed in previous year’s appropriations to international financial institutions, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Adopted 341-85: D 226-23 (ND 156-14, SD 70-9); R 115-61; I 0-1. A majority of House Democrats supported the proposal. [H R 4426, Vote #376, 8/4/94; CQ Floor Votes, 8/4/94; “House Decisively Approves Modest Foreign Aid Bill,” CQ Weekly, 8/6/94] Sanders Opposed Foreign Aid Bill That Included Military And Economic Aid To Israel. On October 31, 1995, Bernie Sanders opposed adoption of the conference report to provide $12.1 billion in new budget authority for foreign operations, export financing and related programs in fiscal 1996. The conference report provided $1.5 billion less than the $13.6 billion provided in fiscal 1995 and $2.7 billion less than the $14.8 billion requested by the administration. The legislation slashed traditional aid programs for impoverished nations, reflecting the deep-seated disenchantment of Republicans with such programs. The bill provided $1.7 billion in fiscal 1996 to fund aid for Africa and economic development assistance, a 17 percent reduction from fiscal 1995. Some multilateral financial institutions took an even bigger hit. The bill allocates $700 million for the International Development Association, the World Bank affiliate that provides interest-free loans to poor nations in Africa and elsewhere. That is a cut of 40 percent from fiscal 1995 and nearly 50 percent from the administration's budget request. But despite the GOP's promise to trim foreign aid, the bill spared politically popular items like aid to the Middle East and subsidies for U.S. exporters. The legislation earmarked $3 billion in military and economic aid for Israel and $2.1 billion for Egypt, the same levels as in previous years. The legislation provided $68 million to back guaranteed loans from the Overseas Private Investment Corp., a huge increase from the $26 million appropriated in fiscal 1995. The Export-Import Bank would receive $787 million, no change from the previous year. The legislation also contained a provision that denied funding for organizations that provide abortions overseas. Adopted 351-71: D 154-39 (ND 108-26, SD 46-13); R 197-31; I 0-1. A majority of House Democrats supported the proposal. [H R 1868, Vote #752, 10/31/95; CQ Floor Votes, 10/31/95; “House, Senate Remain at Odds Over Family Planning Aid,” CQ Weekly, 11/4/95] Sanders Opposed A Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill That Contained Aid To Israel. On June 11, 1996, Bernie Sanders opposed passage of the bill to provide about $11.9 billion for foreign operations and export financing in fiscal 1997. The bill would provide $460 million less than the fiscal 1996 level and $1 billion less than the administration's request. The legislation cut funding for the World Bank and other multilateral lending agencies. It would provide. $590 million for aid to Russia and other former Soviet republics - $51 million less than the previous year and $50 million below the administration's request. Military and economic assistance for Israel would remain at $3 billion, the same level as in recent years and far more than any other country. Under the legislation, international organizations would have to agree to neither provide nor lobby for overseas abortions or else face a 50 percent cut in funding. It also included a $600 million account to fund children's health and education programs. Passed 366-57: D 16725 (ND 116-21, SD 51-4); R 199-31; I 0-1. A majority of House Democrats supported the proposal. [H R 3540, Vote #228, 6/11/96; CQ Floor Votes, 6/11/96; “House Panel Votes to Slash International Lending” CQ Weekly, 6/1/96] Sanders Opposed Foreign Military And Economic Aid Bill That Cut Specific Funding For Certain Countries, But Explicitly Kept Israel’s Aid Budget At Same Level As Previous Year. On June 25, 1992, Bernie Sanders opposed passage of the bill to provide $13.76 billion in new budget authority for foreign military and economic assistance and export financing in fiscal 1993. The administration requested $15.11 billion. Passage of the bill represented a deep cut in the nation’s foreign assistance programs, which the Bush administration claimed was an “inadequate” level of aid funding. The legislation included a reduction of $24 million in development assistance, and a $36 million reeducation in the U.S. contribution to multilateral development banks and the operating expenses for the Agency for International Development. The legislation also barred the use of U.S. funds for training Indonesian military officers, but fully funded the administration's request for $417 million in aid for the former republics of the Soviet Union. The bill included $400 million in aid to Eastern Europe - a $50 million cut from the administration request - and imposed new guidelines on how the assistance program should be managed. Military assistance grants to U.S. allies in NATO – Greece, Turkey and Portugal were also eliminated. Despite the budget-cutting mood in Congress, the foreign aid bill approved by the House earmarked $3 billion in Israel and $2.1 for Egypt - the same amount as in previous years. Passed 297124: D 205-51 (ND 153-25, SD 52-26); R 92-72; I 0-1. A majority of House Democrats supported the proposal. [H R 5368, Vote #235, 6/25/92; CQ Floor Votes, 6/25/92; “FOREIGN AID: House Approves Spending Bill That Slashes Bush Request,” CQ Weekly, 6/27/92] EARLY IN HIS CONGRESSIONAL CAREER, SANDERS OPPOSED FOREIGN AID, INCLUDING FOREIGN AID TO ISRAEL, BECAUSE HE BELIEVED THAT FUNDING SHOULD BE SPENT ON DOMESTIC WELFARE Sanders Voted Against Foreign Economic And Military Assistance Bill That Included Aid To Israel; House Voted Down The Bill. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Adoption of the conference report to authorize $25 billion in fiscal 1992-93 for «foreign economic and military assistance. The conference report would overturn the administration's Mexico City Policy, provide funds to the United Nations Population Fund and require cargo preferences. Rejected by a vote of 159-262: Democrats 131-127 (Northern Democrats 105-73, Southern Democrats 26-54) Republicans 28-134 Independents 0-1 Note: A "nay" was a vote supporting the president's position.” According to the Associated Press, “The bill would have authorized the usual array of aid to U.S. friends and allies around the world. The largest aid recipient is Israel, at $ 3 billion, the same level as for the past several years. Egypt continues to get $ 2.1 billion.” [CQ Floor Votes, 10/30/91, Associated Press, 10/30/91, House Vote #354, 10/30/91, H.R. 2508, 10/30/91] Sanders Opposed Aid Because He Could Not Support Sending $3 Billion To Israel And $2 Billion To Egypt While Millions Of American Children Were Hungry And Millions Of Americans Were Homeless. “Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, while I steadfastly support the right of women to abortions and am in strong agreement with the provisions in this bill which reverses the Reagan administration's cruel and misguided policy prohibiting funding to organizations which offer abortion as an alternative, I cannot support this bill. There are two reasons. We have 5 million children who are hungry in this country, 2 million people sleeping out on the street, and have a problem with appropriating $ 2 billion to Egypt and $3 billion to Israel. Let us take care of some of the problems that we have at home first.” [Rep. Bernard Sanders, Congressional Record, 10/30/91] Many Democrats Criticized Bill, Argued That Bush Focused Too Much On Foreign Affairs And Not Enough On Domestic Issues. “Congress has not approved a separate foreign aid authorization bill since 1985, relying instead on annual appropriations measures to provide military and economic largesse to U.S. friends and allies around the world. It had appeared that this might be the year that the aid bill drought would end. But that was before Democrats found a responsive chord when they began criticizing President Bush for being too preoccupied with foreign policy concerns and ignoring domestic issues.” [Associated Press, 10/30/91] Democratic Rep. Larry Smith Argued In Favor Of The Bill And In Support Of Foreign Aid. “Rep. Larry Smith, D-Fla., pleaded vainly with colleagues not to let their votes be swayed by the "maelstrom of other issues" that clouded the bill's prospects. Foreign aid like the post-World War II Marshall Plan enabled the United States to become the most respected nation in the world, he said.” [Associated Press, 10/30/91] Vote Was Symbolic Because Congress Previously Approved Continuing Foreign Aid Spending Until March 1992. “Riding a wave of political worries about the U.S. economy, the House on Wednesday killed a compromise two-year, $ 25 billion foreign aid bill. The 262 to 159 vote was largely symbolic, since Congress last week approved a stopgap spending bill that includes a continuation of foreign aid spending through next March.” [Associated Press, 10/30/91] President George H.W. Bush Would Have Vetoed Bill Because It Contradicted Republican Policies On Global Population Control. “Even if the measure had passed, it was headed for a certain veto at the White House because of provisions that would reverse seven years of Republican policy on global population control.” [Associated Press, 10/30/91] Social Conservative Opposition To Global Population Control Policies Coincided With China’s “One-Child Policy.” “As recently as the 1970s, the subject of population control was less controversial, partly because the baby boom years had given rise to concerns about scarcity of resources, some population experts and environmentalists said. Then came China’s coercive one-child policy and a rise in social conservatism in the United States, combined with the country’s aversion to anything perceived as restricting individual freedoms, be it the right to bear arms or children.” [New York Times, 10/31/11] 1988: SANDERS SAID IT WAS WRONG TO PROVIDE ARMS TO ISRAEL 1988: Sanders: “It Is Wrong That The United States Provides Arms To Israel.” “When the candidates were asked to explain their stand on Palestinian self-determination, Poirier responded, “I support selfdetermination all around the world. Palestinians have rights to have self-determination too. We have to make sure that the Palestinians go face to face with the Israeli government.” In reference to this same question Sanders strongly contended, “The policy that Israelis shoot people is not acceptable. It is wrong that the United States provides arms to Israel. We are not going to be the arms merchant to the Middle Eastern nations. We must guarantee the rights of the State of Israel to exist as well as the rights of the Palestinian to have their own homeland.”” [Vermont Cynic, 9/29/88] Sanders Did Not Support Efforts To Cut Off Aid To Palestine Sanders Did Not Cosponsor Bill Declaring That Palestinian Efforts To Gain Recognition Of Statehood Outside Direct Negotiations Should Absence Of Good Faith And Would Have Implications For U.S. Aid. “Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) submitted S. Res. 185, “reaffirming the commitment of the United States to a negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” while “declaring that Palestinian efforts to gain recognition of a state outside direct negotiations demonstrates absence of a good faith commitment to peace negotiations, and will have implications for continued United States aid.” The bill asks that President Obama “announce that the United States will veto any resolution on Palestinian statehood that comes before the United Nations Security Council which is not a result of agreements reached between the Government of Israel and the Palestinians.” [AAI Scorecard, accessed 9/20/15; S Res 185, introduced 5/16/11] Sanders Did Not Co-Sponsor Resolutions To Prohibit U.S. Aid To Palestine. “In a one-sided effort to place exclusive blame on the Palestinians for the ongoing violence, some members of Congress have initiated resolutions (HR 1087, HR 1795, HR 2566) that would prohibit virtually all U.S. aid to the Palestinians and criminalize the status of the Palestinian Authority in Washington. These dangerous initiatives undermine the efforts of U.S. diplomats to promote peace and restore the image of the U.S. as an impartial mediator. While the freestanding bills are not likely to be passed in their current form, antiPalestinian language has been discretely inserted into this year’s foreign operations bill.” [AAI Scorecard, accessed 9/20/15; HR 1087, introduced 3/15/01; HR 1795, introduced 5/1/01; HR 2566, introduced 7/19/01] Sanders Did Not Sign A Letter Urging Secretary Rice To Sever Contact With Palestinian Government. “Following the Mecca Agreement and formation of a Palestinian unity government, Senators Bill Nelson (D-FL) and John Ensign (R-NV) circulated a misleading sign-on letter to colleagues which claimed to focus on the issue of Palestinian aid. In reality, the letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice went well beyond the issue of aid, urging the secretary to sever contact with any member of a Palestinian unity government, including Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. The letter also repeats tired assertions implying that while Israel has done everything in its power to achieve peace, it has somehow been rebuffed by unwilling Palestinians. Many Senate offices chose not to sign the letter after hearing from members of AAI and other pro-peace organizations.” [AAI Scorecard, 9/20/15] 2006: SANDERS VOTED TO RESTRICT AID TO NGOS AND LIMIT PLO REPRESENTATION IN DC Sanders Voted In Favor Of A Bill To Restrict The U.S. Aid To NGOs And Restricted PLO Representation In Washington. “Palestinian Aid: Introduced in the wake of the Palestinian legislative elections, H.R. 4681 called for severe restrictions on the ability of the U.S. to provide aid to nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), attacks U.N. programs that benefit Palestinian civilians, and seeks to restrict PLO representation in Washington and New York. This legislation would do away with the President’s ability to provide direct assistance if deemed in the national security interest of the U.S. and refuses to differentiate between groups that have renounced violence and entered into peace negotiations from those who have not. Further, the sanctions outlined in the bill do not include a sunset clause or any other mechanism to react to changing political realities. Congressmen who voted against the bill received a (+); those who voted in favor received a (-).”[AAI Scorecard, accessed 9/20/15; HR 4681, Vote #181, 5/23/06] SANDERS SAID OTHER ARAB NATIONS, AS WELL AS THE U.S., SHOULD PROVIDE FINANCIAL ASSIANTACE TO PALESTINIAN ECONOMY Sanders Said That Wealthier Arab Nations, In Addition To United States, Should Provide Financial Assistance To Help Create A Stable Palestinian Economy. “Sanders said "The Palestinians have a right to their own state, free of Israeli interference. Some of the wealthier Arab countries, instead of provoking terrorism, should be asked to provide substantial financial assistance to help create a stable Palestinian economy. The wealthy nations of the world, including the U.S., should also be helping."” [Gannett News Service, 4/4/02] 1988: SANDERS WAS CONCERNED CUTTING OFF AID COULD DESTROY ECONOMIES 1988: Sanders Said The United States Could Cut Off Funding And Destroy The Economy Of The Middle East, Like The U.S. Did In Nicaragua and Panama. “Or else you begin to cut off arms. If I am supplying somebody else with money, I can to a significant degree, call to the tune. We have found that the United States has been able to destroy the economy of Nicaragua, for example. We have found that the United States has been able to destroy the economy of Panama. If the United States goes into the Middle East and demands a reasonable, a responsible, and a peaceful solution to the conflict that has gone there, because of its clout, because of the tremendous amounts of money that is pouring into that region, I think we can do it. I don't think we have exerted leadership that we should be exerting.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Bernie Speaks: The Mayor Show, 3/30/88] Sanders Declined To Call For Sanctions Against Israel Or Arab Countries. “AUDIENCE MEMBER #5: You don't have any preliminary recommendations for incentives to get them negotiating? BERNIE SANDERS: The preliminary recommendation that I have is that the United States of America is pouring billions of dollars into arms and other type of aid in the Middle East. Has the United States of America used its clout, the tremendous clout that it has by providing all kinds of aid into the Middle East to demand that these countries begin to sit down and talk about a reasonable settlement which will guarantee Israel's sovereignty, which must be guaranteed but which will begin to deal with the rights of Palestinian refugees. That's the demand that I would make. AUDIENCE MEMBER #5: Is that a call for sanctions? BERNIE SANDERS: No, it is not.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Bernie Speaks: The Mayor Show, 3/30/88] Sanders Said He Gave The Audience Enough About The Middle East And They Should Ask More Questions About People Around The World Who Were Starving To Death. “AUDIENCE MEMBER: Can you give us a little more specifics about what you mean? BERNIE SANDERS: No, I think I've given you enough that I can give you tonight. I mean, it's a fair question, but there are 50 fair questions you haven't asked me a question as to what we're going to do about the fact that this year there will be 100 million people perhaps starving to death in the world today.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Bernie Speaks: The Mayor Show, 3/30/88] Sanders Supported Aid To Pro-Democracy Programs In Palestine And Israel Sanders Signed Dear Colleague Letter Supporting Palestinian Democracy Fund. “Senators John Sununu (R-NH) and Joe Biden (D-DE) authored a letter to Senate colleagues asking them to support the Palestinian Democracy Fund. The $20 million fund was authorized by Congress last year to "support, primarily, through Palestinian and Israeli organizations, the promotion of democracy, human rights, freedom of the press, and non-violence among Palestinians, and peaceful coexistence and reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians."” [AAI Scorecard, 9/20/15] Sanders Signed Dear Colleague Letter Supporting Israeli-Palestinian Peace, Reconciliation And Democracy Fund. “Senators Joseph Biden (D-DE) and John Sununu (R-NH) circulated a letter calling for $20 million to establish a “new Israeli-Palestinian Peace, Reconciliation and Democracy Fund” to foster Middle East coexistence through educational programs, economic and community development and interreligious dialogue for Israelis and Palestinians. This program augments the $20 million fund authorized by Congress last year to support peaceful coexistence and reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians.” [AAI Scorecard, 9/20/15] Sanders Did Not Cosponsor Bill Supporting Israel’s Construction Of A Security Fence Sanders Did Not Cosponsor A Bill Supporting Israel’s Construction Of A Security Fence. “Introduced by Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), H. Con. Res. 371 calls for support for “the construction by Israel of a security fence” and condemns “the decision by the United Nations General Assembly to request the International Court of Justice to render an opinion on the legality of the security fence.” [AAI Scorecard, accessed 9/20/15; H Con Res 371, introduced 2/26/04] AND VOTED AGAINST DEPLORING THE UN FOR MISUSE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE TO ADVISE ISRAEL TO TEAR DOWN SECURITY FENCE Sanders Voted Against Deploring UN General Assembly For The “Misuse” Of The International Court Of Justice, Which Advised Israel To Tear Down Its Security Fence Along The West Bank. On July 15, 2004, Bernie Sanders opposed a resolution “deploring the UN General Assembly's ‘misuse’ of the International Court of Justice at The Hague, which last week advised Israel to tear down its security fence after the UN body referred the question of the barrier's legality to the court. House Resolution 713, introduced by Reps. Mike Pence (R-Indiana), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Florida), and Shelley Berkley (DNevada) said the ICJ court's ruling ‘seeks to infringe upon Israel's right to self-defense.’ It also condemned the Palestinian leadership for failing to engage in a sustained fight against terrorism.” Motion agreed to 361-45: R 214-4; D 147-40; I 0-1. A majority of House Democrats supported the proposal. [H RES 713, Vote #378, 7/15/04; CQ Floor Votes, 7/15/04; The Jerusalem Post, 7/16/04] Sanders Did Not Support Measures To Relocate Israeli Capital To Jerusalem Sanders And Senate Democrats Did Not Cosponsor Bill Recognizing Jerusalem As Israeli Capital. “Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) introduced S.1622, the Jerusalem Embassy and Recognition Act, calling for the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and for the relocation of the United States Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. The bill asserts that Jerusalem must remain an undivided city and that every citizen of the country of Israel should have the right to reside in any part of an undivided Jerusalem. For ignoring the rights of the Palestinian residents of Jerusalem, and the widelyrecognized importance of leaving the final status of Jerusalem to be determined in peace negotiations.” [AAI Scorecard, accessed 9/20/15; S 1622, introduced 9/23/11] Sanders Voted Against State Department Funding Legislation That Recognized Jerusalem As Israel’s Permanent Capital. On July 20, 2005, Bernie Sanders opposed passage of the bill that would authorize $10.8 billion in fiscal 2006 and $10 billion in fiscal 2007 for the State Department, international broadcasting activities, international assistance programs and related agencies. Section 210 of the legislation included language that would require that any consulate or diplomatic facilities construction in Jerusalem would only be able to be done with the consent of the U.S. ambassador to Israel. It adds that no federal funds would be able to be used to produce official lists of countries and their capitals if such lists do not include Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Passed 351-78: R 216-13; D 135-64; I 0-1. A majority of House Democrats supported the proposal. [H R 2601, Vote #399, 7/20/05; CQ Floor Votes, 7/20/05; see also: “Foreign Relations Bills Founder Under Weight of Amendments,” CQ Almanac, 2005] Bush Administration Opposed Bill Provision That Would Recognize Jerusalem As Israel’s Permanent Capital. “The administration warned that two provisions in particular would undermine its ability to conduct foreign policy: one would reduce military aid to Egypt in favor of greater economic aid; the other would recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s permanent capital.” [CQ Weekly, 1/2/06] Sanders Did Not Co-Sponsor Resolutions To Recognize Israel’s Exclusive Claim Over Jerusalem. “Some pro-Israel members of Congress have routinely attempted to pass resolutions that recognize Israel’s exclusive claim over Jerusalem. Despite initial opposition from the Bush Administration to moving embassy, three new resolutions that have surfaced that seek to prejudge the status of the holy city. One resolution (HR 1643) calls for the United States to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in all official document while two other resolutions (H.CON.RES. 30, HR 598) call for certain steps that would put into motion the process of moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem” [AAI Scorecard, accessed 9/20/15; HR 1643, introduced 4/26/01; H Con Res 30, introduced 2/13/01; HR 598, introduced 2/13/01] Sanders Voted Against Legislation Moving The U.S. Embassy In Israel From Tel Aviv To Jerusalem. On October 24, 1995, Bernie Sanders opposed a Rep. Gilman, R-N.Y., motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill to move the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem by May 31, 1999. The bill would allow the president to delay the move if he determined that it was in the interests of national security. Motion agreed to 374-37: R 221-6; D 153-30; I 0-1. A majority of House Democrats supported the proposal. [S 1322, Vote #734, 10/24/95; CQ Floor Votes, 10/24/95] 1992: Clinton Said He Supported Recognizing Jerusalem As The Capital Of Israel And He Supported Moving The U.S. Embassy From Tel Aviv To Jerusalem, Unless “I Thought It Would Interrupt The Peace Process.” “Q Bonnie Chapman from Alexandria, Virginia. Governor, you so proudly stated that Jerusalem would be recognized as the capital of Israel. Does that mean you would move the embassy and all of our business to Jerusalem and not conduct it in Tel Aviv? GOV. CLINTON: Not if I thought it would interrupt the peace process. I didn't like it when the Bush administration spent all of this time banging on Israel, and in effect, in my judgment, undermining the possibility that peace would be made, and I don't think we should do anything on our initiative that might destabilize the talks. Presumably the new prime minister will be here soon and they will -- our government will enter into negotiations about what his intentions are. He will announce them and we will go forward. But I don't think we should do anything that in any way might undermine the prospect that a lasting peace would be reached. And I think the timing is the question. I consider Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel. I think it ought to remain an undivided city. I think moving the capital there at this time might destabilize the process in a way which would undermine the very objectives we seek.” [Bill Clinton Remarks, Jewish Community Seminar at Sheraton Carlton Hotel, 6/30/92] Since Passage Of The Embassy Law, Presidents Clinton, George W. Bush And Obama Used National Security Waivers To Block Moving The U.S. Embassy From Tel Aviv To Jerusalem. “Every six months, Obama sends the same memo to the secretary of state, stating the need to delay the move in order to “protect the national security interests of the United States.” The biannual letter is necessary because a law passed by Congress in 1995 requires the American embassy to be moved to the disputed city of Jerusalem by May 31, 1999. […] Despite widespread bipartisan support -- the bill passed 93-5 in the Senate and 374-37 in the House -the new embassy never opened and the State Department’s funding continued to flow. Since the passage of the legislation, Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and, now, Obama have taken advantage of a national security waiver provision in the bill, which allows the president to suspend the embassy move for six months.” [Huffington Post, 6/3/15] At Least Four Republican Presidential Candidates, Including Gov. Bush And Sen. Rubio Supported Moving U.S. Embassy From Tel Aviv To Jerusalem. “”Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who are both running for president in 2016, are co-sponsoring a new version of the 1995 legislation. However, the new and improved law would remove the national security waiver that has allowed the past three presidents to delay moving the embassy from Tel Aviv. During a fundraising event in Tennessee on Saturday, soon-to-be candidate and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush told reporters he supported moving the embassy to Jerusalem “not just as a symbol, but a show of solidarity.” While considering a 2012 GOP campaign, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee vowed that, "If I were president of the United States, I would move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem." Huckabee, who entered the presidential fray for 2016 last month, reiterated his support for Israel at an Israel Day celebration in New York on Monday. [Huffington Post, 6/3/15] Sanders Voted For Resolutions Expressing Solidarity And Condemning Acts Of Terrorism Against Israel Sanders Voted For A Resolution Voicing Unequivocal Support For Israel In Their Fight Against Terrorism. “H.R. 294, “Condemning the terrorism inflicted on Israel since the Aqaba Summit and expressing solidarity with the Israeli people in their fight against terrorism.” This one-sided resolution voices unequivocal support for Israel and fails to mention Palestinian suffering or rights.” [AAI Scorecard, accessed 9/20/15; H Res 294, Vote #317, 6/25/03] Sanders Voted For Resolution That The Arab American Institute Said Strengthened The Impression The United States Was Not A Fair Arbiter In The Peace Process. “Introduced by Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX), H. Con. Res. 460, “Regarding the security of Israel and the principles of peace in the Middle East” is an unbalanced resolution that does little but strengthen the impression that the United States is not a fair arbiter in this conflict.” [AAI Scorecard, accessed 9/20/15; H Con Res 460, Vote #290, 6/23/04] Sanders Voted “Present” On Resolutions To Condemn Palestinian Leadership At The Beginning Of The Second Intifada October 25, 2000: Sanders Voted “Present” On A Resolution Expressing Solidarity With Israel and Condemning The Palestinian Leadership For Encouraging Violence. On October 25, 2000, Bernie Sanders voted “present” on a Rep. Gilman, R-N.Y., motion to suspend the rules adopt the concurrent resolution expressing Congress' solidarity with Israel and condemning the Palestinian leadership for encouraging the violence that has erupted in the Middle East. Motion agreed to 365-30: R 198-9; D 16621; I 1-0. A majority of House Democrats supported the proposal. [H CON RES 426, Vote #549, 10/25/00; CQ Floor Votes, 10/25/00] October 12, 2000: Mob Of Palestinians Killed Three Israeli Reservists Who Seemingly Accidently Entered Into The Palestinian Territories. “YESTERDAY was a bloody day, even by the standards of the Holy Land, but it began promisingly at 6am with news of a breakthrough in the search for peace. [...] At 9.30, three Israeli soldiers, reservists working as drivers, took a wrong turn and events went out of control. The men passed a Palestinian checkpoint on the outskirts of the Palestinian-ruled town of Ramallah. […] Television showed one of the attackers run to the second floor window and make a victory sign and then return to the fray. In the background, several men were seen pounding on something or someone on the floor. The crowd erupted into cheers. The attackers tossed one of the men out of the window, another out the door. One of the soldiers was seen dangling upside down, apparently attached to a rope. The crowd stood below, waving fists and cheering. The body was dropped into the compound, where the mob stamped on the corpse and beat it with the broken bars of a window grille. The Israelis said the third soldier was dead. At 10.30 the mob dragged the two bodies to Al-Manara Square, the town centre, where an impromptu victory celebration began. Palestinian police then tried to remove film of the attack from reporters.” [The Guardian, 10/13/00] October 12, 2000: Israeli Government Blamed Palestinian Authority For The Mob Violence, Responded With Military Action That Injured An Estimated 27 Palestinians. “At 1.30pm the Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, described the killings as "very grave". A government spokesman, Nachman Shai, pointed the finger of blame at the Palestinian Authority. "The Palestinian mob was given a free hand to do whatever it wanted to do," he said. Ten minutes later, Palestinians broadcast warnings of an imminent Israeli attack. The operation began as Israeli forces sealed off all Palestinian cities, including Ramallah, and tanks moved into position. At 2pm, a Palestinian statement described the deaths of the soldiers as "regrettable" but "caused by Israeli actions and the crimes of the settlers". Footage of the attacks was shown repeatedly on Israeli television. [...] Mr Arafat toured a Gaza hospital at 6.30pm. He said: "We are strong. Nothing will stop our march to Jerusalem as capital of the Palestinian state." At 7pm Mr Barak's security adviser, Danny Yatom, said the Israeli "limited" action was over. Half an hour later, the Palestinians said 27 people were injured in attacks on Ramallah in which 35 missiles were fired.” [The Guardian, 10/13/00] On The Week Before House Adopted Resolution, UN General Assembly Adopted Resolution Condemning Israel For Excessive Use Of Force Against Palestinian Civilians. “In a statement to the press, Gilman welcomed Washington's abstention October 7 in a UN Security Council vote on a resolution condemning Israel, and criticized "countries whose leaders should have known better, such as France and Spain ... (who) ganged up against Israel in endorsing an awful, one-sided UN resolution." Last week, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution condemning Israel's excessive use of force against Palestinian civilians. In the General Assembly, where no state has a veto, the United States voted against the resolution. On Wednesday at the United Nations, the Palestinian representative requested that the UN Security Council meet to consider sending a UN force to protect Palestinians from Israeli violence.” [Agence France Presse, 10/26/00] U.S. Voted Against Resolution Criticizing Israel’s Use Of Force Against Palestinian Civilians In The UN General Assembly. “Last week, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution condemning Israel's excessive use of force against Palestinian civilians. In the General Assembly, where no state has a veto, the United States voted against the resolution. On Wednesday at the United Nations, the Palestinian representative requested that the UN Security Council meet to consider sending a UN force to protect Palestinians from Israeli violence.” [Agence France Presse, 10/26/00] House Resolution Called On U.S. To Prevent UN Security Council From Adopting “Unbalanced Resolutions” To Address Violence In Areas Controlled By the Palestinian Authority. “The US House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a resolution condemning the Palestinian leadership for promoting the current state of violence against Israel. […] The resolution also urges the administration of US President Bill Clinton to "use its veto power ... to ensure that the (UN) Security Council does not again adopt unbalanced resolutions addressing the uncontrolled violence in the areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority."” [Agence France Presse, 10/26/00] Multiple Clinton Administration Officials Downplayed The Resolution Condemning Palestinian Leadership. “The Clinton administration on Thursday sought to distance itself from a House of Representatives resolution condemning the Palestinian leadership for promoting violence against Israel. "That was simply a sense of the House resolution. We don't think it is particularly useful or helpful," said White House spokesman Jake Siewert. The State Department echoed that view. "I think the resolution that was passed by the House obviously reflects the sense of Congress and, therefore, sort of speaks for itself," said State Department spokesman Philip Reeker. "I guess for the record I can repeat our view, which is that the focus should be on calming tensions in the Middle East region, bringing an end to the violence, and getting the parties back to the negotiating table," Reeker added.” [Agence France Presse, 10/26/00] 2001: Sanders Voted “Present” On A Resolution Condemning Terrorist Attacks In Israel. On December 5, 2001, Bernie Sanders voted “present” a Rep. Hyde, R-Ill., motion to suspend the rules and adopt the concurrent resolution that would express the sense of Congress condemning recent terrorist attacks in Israel, insisting that the Palestinian Authority act against terrorists groups in its territory and urging President Bush to apply pressure on the Palestinian leadership to ensure that it does. Motion agreed to 384-11: R 206-1; D 177-10; I 1-0. A majority of House Democrats supported the proposal. [H CON RES 280, Vote #474, 12/5/01; CQ Floor Votes, 12/5/01] 2002: Sanders Voted “Present” On A Resolution In Support Of Israel’s Efforts Fighting Terrorism And Condemning Yassar Arafat’s Support Of Terror. On May 2, 2002, Bernie Sanders voted “present” on a Rep. Hyde, R-Ill., motion to suspend the rules and adopt the resolution that would support Israel's efforts to fight terrorism in Palestinian areas and condemn Yasser Arafat's support of terror. It also would support international humanitarian efforts for Palestinians. Motion agreed to 352-21: R 194-4; D 157-17; I 1-0. A majority of House Democrats supported the proposal. [H RES 392, Vote #126, 5/2/02; CQ Floor Votes, 5/2/02] In September 2000, The Second Intifada Between Israel And The Palestinian Authority Began; It Ended With A Truce In February 2005. “The second Palestinian intifada or uprising broke out at the end of September 2000 and is named after the Jerusalem mosque complex where the violence began. Frustrations that years of the negotiation had failed to deliver a Palestinian state were intensified by the collapse of the Camp David summit in July 2000. Ariel Sharon, then the leader of Israel's opposition, paid a visit to the site in East Jerusalem known to Muslims as Haram al-Sharif, and to Jews as Temple Mount, which houses the al-Aqsa mosque and frustration boiled over into violence. […] 15 January: Mahmoud Abbas is sworn in as the new president of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank town of Ramallah. He uses his inauguration speech to call for a ceasefire between Israel and Palestinian militants. […] 8 February: After a summit at the Egyptian resort of Sharm al-Sheikh, Mahmoud Abbas and Ariel Sharon declare a truce. Both express hopes that the informal ceasefire will lead to a new era of hope for the region. […] ” [BBC News, 9/29/04] Sanders Called For The U.S. To Be A Mediator Between Israel And The Palestinians, In Order To Bring Both Sides To Negotiate. “Sanders offered guidelines for the United States to follow in trying to play the role of mediator. "In my view we should operate under the following guidelines: Israel has an absolute right to exist, in security, free of terrorist attacks and suicide bombers," Sanders said. "The Palestinians have a right to their own state, free of Israeli interference. Some of the wealthier Arab countries, instead of provoking terrorism, should be asked to provide substantial financial assistance to help create a stable Palestinian economy. The wealthy nations of the world, including the U.S., should also be helping." Immediately, the United States should urge Israel to withdraw from the Palestinian cities they have occupied in recent days, the congressman said. At the same time, the U.S. government should urge Palestinian leaders to make it clear to their people that terrorism must be stopped or they will be severely punished. "If we can accomplish this," Sanders said, "the United States should exert all of its influence to bring both parties to the negotiating tables to start working out a longer term political solution." [Gannett News Service, 4/4/02] 2006: Sanders’s Republican Opponent Attacked Sanders For Refusing To Condemn Palestinian Leaders While Voting To Cut Intelligence Spending. “Tarrant's campaign issued a "reality check" saying Sanders had voted repeatedly during the 1990s to cut intelligence spending. It also said he refused to sign onto a resolution condemning Palestinian leaders for encouraging violence against Israel. "Rather than targeting terrorists, Congressman Sanders votes to decimate our intelligence budget and refuses to condemn terrorism," the Tarrant campaign's statement said.” [Associated Press, 5/12/06] … But Voted To Condemn Palestinian Leadership In 2003 Sanders Voted For A Resolution Commending The People Of Israel For Conducting Free And Fair Elections And Condemning Palestinian Leadership. “H. RES. 61, “Commending the people of Israel for conducting free and fair elections, reaffirming the friendship between the Governments and peoples of the United States and Israel, and for other purposes.” Despite the title, this resolution goes far beyond commending Israel on its recent elections. It also condemns the Palestinian leadership and calls for their removal. This one-sided resolution was unhelpful to U.S. efforts to be a balanced and honest broker in the peace process.” [AAI Scorecard, accessed 9/20/15; H Res 61, Vote #22, 2/11/03] … Then Voted Against Condemning Palestinian Leadership In 2004 Sanders Voted Against Resolution That Condemned Palestinian Leadership For Failing To Engage In A Sustained Fight Against Terrorism. On July 15, 2004, Bernie Sanders opposed a resolution “deploring the UN General Assembly's ‘misuse’ of the International Court of Justice at The Hague, which last week advised Israel to tear down its security fence after the UN body referred the question of the barrier's legality to the court. House Resolution 713, introduced by Reps. Mike Pence (R-Indiana), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Florida), and Shelley Berkley (D-Nevada) said the ICJ court's ruling ‘seeks to infringe upon Israel's right to self-defense.’ It also condemned the Palestinian leadership for failing to engage in a sustained fight against terrorism.” Motion agreed to 361-45: R 214-4; D 147-40; I 0-1. A majority of House Democrats supported the proposal. [H RES 713, Vote #378, 7/15/04; CQ Floor Votes, 7/15/04; The Jerusalem Post, 7/16/04] Sanders Did Not Co-Sponsor Resolution Calling For UN To Rescind Goldstone Report Sanders Did Not Co-Sponsor A Resolution Calling For The UN To Rescind The Goldstone Report. "Calls on the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) members to reflect the author's repudiation of the Goldstone report's central findings, rescind the report, and reconsider further Council actions with respect to the report's findings. Urges United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon to work with United Nations (U.N.) member states to reform UNRHC so that it no longer unfairly, disproportionately, and falsely criticizes Israel." The bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent. [S.Res.138, introduced 4/8/11] Goldstone Report Found Evidence Of Potential War Crimes By Both Israel And Hamas. “Our report found evidence of potential war crimes and “possibly crimes against humanity” by both Israel and Hamas. That the crimes allegedly committed by Hamas were intentional goes without saying — its rockets were purposefully and indiscriminately aimed at civilian targets. The allegations of intentionality by Israel were based on the deaths of and injuries to civilians in situations where our fact-finding mission had no evidence on which to draw any other reasonable conclusion.” [Richard Goldstone, Washington Post, 4/1/11] 1988: Sanders Said Schultz Peace Plan Did Not Go Far Enough Sanders Said The Schultz Peace Plan Was A Start In The Right Direction But Did Not Go Far Enough. “AUDIENCE MEMBER: While we're on Israel, do you support the Schultz peace plan? BERNIE SANDERS: I think that there's got to be a coming together, a bringing together of the Israelis and the Arab people. I think the United States has clearly not shown the leadership that it should be showing. The United States has tremendous clout throughout the Arab world and in Israel, and I don't think it has made the demands that it has got to make on the Arab leadership as well as on the Israeli leadership. I think Schultz has made a start in the right direction, not far enough.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Bernie Speaks: The Mayor Show, 3/30/88] Schultz Plan Called For Limited Palestinian Self-Rule While Negotiations Were Held To Determine Permanent Status Of Territories. “U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz Friday called for limited Palestinian self-rule in the violence-plagued West Bank and Gaza Strip while “rapid” negotiations are held to determine the permanent status of the territories occupied by Israel since 1967. […] Shultz in effect revived a proposal first put forward in the 1978 Camp David accords, which the U.S. helped negotiate between Israel and Egypt. Those accords called for Palestinian autonomy in the West Bank and Gaza Strip for a five-year transition period. That approach has since been rejected by Palestinians and leaders of neighboring Arab countries because it doesn’t deal quickly enough with the underlying dispute over sovereignty of the occupied territories. To address that concern, Shultz is proposing a short timetable for negotiations on the basis of United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. Those measures are generally interpreted as calling for Israel to give up occupied land in exchange for secure borders and peace with its neighbors.” Sanders Said He Would Have Demanded A Reasonable Settlement That Guaranteed Israel’s Sovereignty And Dealt With The Rights Of Palestinians. “The preliminary recommendation that I have is that the United States of America is pouring billions of dollars into arms and other type of aide in the Middle East. Has the United States of America used its clout, the tremendous clout that it has by providing all kinds of aide into the Middle East to demand that these countries begin to sit down and talk about a reasonable settlement which will guarantee Israel's sovereignty, which must be guaranteed but which will begin to deal with the rights of Palestinian refugees. That's the demand that I would make.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Bernie Speaks: The Mayor Show, 3/30/88] No “Magical Solution” To Conflict Washington Post: In 1988 And 2015, Sanders Said That He Did Not Have A “Magical Solution” To The Israel-Palestinian Conflict. “Michael Tracey, a reporter who'd been following Sanders, pointed out that he'd given the same answer every recent time when anyone asked about the Palestinians. […] Sanders in 1988: "I don't have a magical solution to that problem. It is a tragedy." Sanders in 2015: "If I were to tell you that I have a magical solution to a problem that has gone on for 50 years, I don't."” [Washington Post, 8/4/15] 2015: Sanders Said He Did Not Have A “Magical Solution” To The “Israeli-Palestinian Tragedy,” Said “This Is All Tough Stuff.” “I mean that is just going back a thousand years or more in human history. But what I think is as I mentioned earlier that this war against these people is not going to be won by a western power Christian nation coming into that region. It has got to be won by the people in that area, so this is tough stuff. I'm not here to tell you I have a magical solution, this is really tough stuff, you know, just like the Israeli-Palestinian tragedy, this is all tough stuff.” [Diane Rehm Show, 6/10/15] 1988: Sanders Said He Did Not Have A Magical Solution To The Problem In The Middle East. “You have had a crisis there for 30 years. You have had people at war for 30 years. You have had a situation, and have a situation, within some Arab countries where there is still Arab leadership talking about the destruction of the state of Israel and the murdering of Israeli citizens. Clearly you have a gulf there and you have a gap there that has been an enormous problem. The point that I'm making is I don't have a magical solution to that problem. It is a tragedy. What is going on in Israel today is horrible and is very sad.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Bernie Speaks: The Mayor Show, 3/30/88] Personal Relationship With Israel HOLOCAUST Sanders’ Father’s Family Was Mostly Wiped Out During The Holocaust. “Sanders' father's family was mostly wiped out during the Holocaust, and his father was a struggling paint salesman. Growing up in a working-class immigrant family in Brooklyn, "sensitivity to class was imbedded in me then quite deeply," Sanders told the New York Times in 2007.” [NPR, 4/29/15] KIBBUTZ Sanders Lived On A Kibbutz In Israel After He Graduated From College. “Sanders spent a year at Brooklyn College before transferring to the University of Chicago, where he studied psychology and helped lead protests against racially segregated housing on campus. He spent time on a kibbutz in Israel after graduation and then moved to Vermont with his first wife. “I had always been captivated by rural life,” he says. As a child, Sanders attended Boy Scout camp upstate and used to cry on the bus as it returned him to New York at the end of the summer.” [New York Times Magazine, 1/21/07] STUDENTS IN THE MIDDLE EAST Sanders Arranged A Meeting With 17 American, Israeli, Jordanian And Palestinian Students In A Cultural Exchange And To Discuss The Environment. “The Arava Institute, founded in 1996, brings together people from around the Middle East-especially Israel, Jordan and Palestine-to learn about the environment they share. "The environment does not recognize political borders," said one Israeli student in a meeting with U.S. , Rep. Bernie Sanders (IVT). "We drink the same water, breathe the same air, touch the same soil." Sanders arranged for 17 American, Israeli, Jordanian and Palestinian students to receive onemonth Arava internships around the U.S. after a visit to the Middle East. "So much rests on your shoulders to try to break down the barriers between peoples," Sanders said. "The goal is [reaching] solutions without killing and without hatred." The June 13 Washington Jewish Week quoted one Jordanian program participant, Ahmed, as saying, "It was my first experience to live with Israelis." He, along with three other Jordanians and one Palestinian, were the only Arabs in the program. "tA.fter I finished, I decided to go to Hebrew University," Ahmed said, "and try to achieve a warmer peace between our two countries." Two other Palestinians were unable to participate, the article noted, due to Israeli border closures in Gaza.” [Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, 8/02] Latin America Sanders Criticized U.S. Foreign Policy For Not Reaching Out Enough To Latin America, Especially With China “Moving All Over The World.” “JAVIER PALOMAREZ: How ‘bout Luis Alonso. I can’t--Luis from Associated Press. LUIS ALONSO: Yes, hi, thanks. (Inaudible) about foreign policy. If you could please talk about concrete initiatives you could--you have in mind for western hemisphere in particular for Latin America. What are the big trends you see and what do you have in mind? SEN BERNIE SANDERS: Well, as I mentioned to Javier I voted against NAFTA for a number of reasons. But by the way, in my view, if you look at the impact that NAFTA has had on Mexico, one of the impacts it has had that we have got to own up to is massive dislocation of small farms in Mexico. And driving a lot of workers off of those farms into the cities and into very bad situations. Second of all I will tell you that I am concerned when I see how aggressive China has been in moving all over the world. Obviously Latin America is our neighbor and I am not impressed to the degree that we have been reaching out with Latin America.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, 7/30/15] Libya Sanders Said He Was “Deeply Disturbed” By The Attack On The U.S. Consulate In Benghazi, And Condemned The “Senseless Acts Of Violence.” “Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in an attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya. President Obama condemned the "outrageous attack." He ordered heightened security at American embassies and consulates around the world. "I was deeply disturbed and saddened to learn of the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other American consular personnel," said Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday. "I join President Obama in condemning the senseless acts of violence at our diplomatic post in Benghazi. The families of the four Americans who were serving our country are in our thoughts and in our prayers."” [Sanders press release, 9/12/12] Sanders Said It Was Unfortunate Republicans Had Politicized The Benghazi Tragedy. “Liberal Democrat Bernie Sanders said he believed Rice had been unfairly treated by Republicans. "The Republicans made the Benghazi tragedy and the loss of life into a very partisan political issue, and that's unfortunate," Sanders said.” [Agence France Presse, 12/13/12] Sanders Said Obama Military Action In Libya Violated War Powers Act. “Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) believe Obama is in violation of the 1973 War Powers Act, which requires a president to seek Congressional approval for U.S. military intervention that extends beyond 90 days. The deadline passed last weekend. […] Sanders said the War Powers Act is an important law that “has been violated many times in recent years. My view is that the president needs authority from Congress at the end of 90 days of a military engagement, and that the Congress must provide or deny him permission to continue.”” [Seven Days Vermont, 6/22/11] Sanders Said That Qaddafi Was “A Thug And A Murder” And Wanted To See Him Go, But Was Concerned About Entering A Third War. “"I think when somebody drops bombs on other people, usually I think we refer to that as a war," Sanders said, adding that Congress could very well have a role to play in the current situation. The senator, who has in the past supporting a defunding of the U.S. war in Iraq, said, "I think one of the things many people are upset about is this war took place without consultation of the Congress, without debate within the Congress. Look, everybody understands Qaddafi is a thug and murderer. We want to see him go, but I think in the midst of two wars, I'm not quite sure we need a third war, and I hope the president tells us that our troops will be leaving there, that our military action in Libya will be ending very, very shortly."” [Fox News, 3/28/11] Sanders Had “Reservations” About Involvement In Libya Because Of Huge Deficit And Two Wars. “BLITZER: Did the president do the right thing in launching Tomahawk cruise missiles and other strikes against targets in Libya? SANDERS: I have reservations about our involvement in Libya. I mean, we are in a huge deficit. We are in two wars. And I would become somewhat conservative on that issue. BLITZER: It's already cost U.S. taxpayers a billion dollars for what those Tomahawk cruise missiles, some of the other equipment that was used in Libya. A billion dollars is a lot of money. SANDERS: It is a lot of money. And, you know, Wolf, there are a lot of horrible things taking place all over this world, but we have enormous problems ourselves -anyone who gets in their car right now and drives home. We've got to rebuild our infrastructure. We've got to invest in our teachers. We have to build public transportation. We have to deal with global warming.” [Situation Room, CNN, 6/8/11] Sanders Co-Sponsored A Resolution Strongly Condemning The Gross And Systematic Violations Of Human Rights In Libya, Including Violent Attacks On Protesters Demanding Democratic Reforms. The resolution passed the Senate by unanimous consent. [S Res 85, co-sponsored 3/1/11] Senate Resolution Demanded Gadhafi Resign And Called On The UN To Impose A No-Fly Zone. “The Senate has approved a resolution condemning the "gross and systematic violations of human rights in Libya" and demanding that Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi leave office. Senators unanimously passed the measure that also called on the United Nations Security Council to impose a no-fly zone over Libya.” [Associated Press, 3/2/11] Sanders Supported Congressional Approval For “Any Major Military Activity,” But Acknowledged That A President Did Not Need Approval For Special Forces Missions. “I think the simple answer is it goes without saying that when men and women are putting their lives on the line, or are at risk, that Congress has got to be very actively involved in that process. There's no if's. There are, you know--if the President sends in a special force to do something, I don't believe that needs Congressional approval. But in general, I have been very supportive throughout my career to make sure that Congress is actively involved, and gives approval before there's any major military activity.” [Sanders’s Remarks, Monitor Breakfast, 6/11/15] Sanders And 80 Other Senators Voted Against Bill To Eliminate US Aid To Libya, Egypt, And Pakistan After Benghazi Attacks. “Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced S.3576, a bill to eliminate U.S. assistance to Libya, Egypt, and Pakistan in the wake of the embassy attacks on September 11, 2012. The proposed legislated stated that “no amounts may be obligated or expended to provide any direct United States assistance, loan guarantee, or debt relief,” to any of the aforementioned countries, despite the pivotal role that foreign aid plays in maintaining stability and protecting US interests.” [AAI Scorecard, accessed 9/20/15; S. 3576, Vote #196, 9/22/12] Pakistan Sanders Said Bin Laden’s Location Suggested Pakistan Had “Not Been As Vigorous As They Have Suggested In Pursuing Him And Terrorism In General.” “"The fact that Bin Laden was located in a mansion almost adjoining a military installation in a large city in Pakistan maybe suggests to us that our friends in that country have not been as vigorous as they have suggested in pursuing him and terrorism in general," said Sanders. The senator last February visited Pakistan and Afghanistan as part of a congressional delegation on a fact-finding mission.” [Sanders press release, 5/3/11] Russia Sanders Voted For Ratification For New Arms Control Treaty With Russia. “The Senate on Wednesday ratified a new arms control treaty with Russia that will scale back nuclear arsenals amassed by the cold war superpowers. […] Sen. Sanders voted for ratification. "This treaty will reduce the stockpiles of the world's biggest nuclear powers, improve our ability to monitor Russia's nuclear arsenal, demonstrate our commitment to nuclear nonproliferation, preserve our ability to defend ourselves and take an important step forward in improving our relations with Russia," he said "I'm glad that it passed."” [Sanders press release, 12/22/10] Sanders Voted Against Normalized Trade Relations With Russia. “Senators on Thursday backed a House-passed measure to normalize U.S. trade relations with Russia after opting not to push for more expansive human rights language -- a concession numerous lawmakers criticized. The bill (HR 6156) was cleared 92-4, and President Barack Obama is expected to sign it into law. Democrats Carl Levin of Michigan and Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island voted "no," as did Vermont Independent Bernard Sanders.” [CQ News, 12/6/12] Sanders: “The Entire World Has Got To Stand Up To Putin. We've Got To Deal With Sanctions.” O'REILLY: -- Putin, OK. So, Putin is going to seize Crimea. What do you do to Putin. SANDERS: Well, I think, first of all, the lesson that we learned is that we don't repeat what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan where the United States virtually did it alone. We are a tight, global community. The entire world has got to stand up to Putin. We've got to deal with sanctions. And we have to deal with freezing assets. But the entire world has got to take action.“ [The O’Reilly Factor, Fox News, 3/14/14] Sanders Said International Community Should Isolate Putin Politically And Economically By Freezing Assets And Threatening To Pull investments. “O'REILLY: OK, so you're President Sanders and you bring in Merkel and you bring in -- everybody else to Europe and you go, "This is what I want to do to Putin." What do you want to do, senator. What do you want to do to him. SANDERS: Well, you totally isolate him politically. You totally isolate him economically. They have assets all over the -- O'REILLY: Give me one example of an economic sanction you would like to see. SANDERS: Well, you freeze assets that the Russian government has all over the world. O'REILLY: You freeze them. You say, "Hey, any Russian money in U.S. banks, English banks you can't get it. SANDERS: You tell international -- O'REILLY: That's pretty harsh. You know Putin is not going to sit for that. You know that. SANDERS: Well, international corporations have huge investments in Russia. You could threaten pulling them out.” [The O’Reilly Factor, Fox News, 3/14/14] Sanders Said United States Should Not Go To War With Russia. “SANDERS: There are a number of things that you could do. But this is what you don't do. O'REILLY: All right. SANDERS: You don't go to war. You don't sacrifice lives of young people in this country as we did in Iraq and Afghanistan.” [The O’Reilly Factor, Fox News, 3/14/14] Sanders Expressed Reluctance To Go To War With Russia Even If Russia Invaded Poland. “O'REILLY: All right, so if Putin invades Poland, you go to war for that. So, you'd do that? SANDERS: That's a hypothetical -- O'REILLY: It is a hypothetical but I want to know if you're a pacifist completely. SANDERS: No, I'm not a pacifist completely by any means. O'REILLY: OK, so if Putin pushed it and started to really roll, you might have to take military action. SANDERS: Well, the issue, again, is, right now, the United States alone spends almost as much money, Bill, on defense as the rest of the world. O'REILLY: Yes, because we are the -- we're the ones that protect freedom. The others don't really -- SANDERS: Yes, but we also don't have enough -- yes, I know, that's fine. But we don't have enough money to take care of our veterans.” [The O’Reilly Factor, Fox News, 3/14/14] Sudan Feingold And McCain Sent Letter To U.S. Ambassador To United Nations To Ensure U.N. Security Council Did Not Tolerate Human Rights Abuses In Darfur. “A bipartisan group of Senators is working to ensure the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council does not tolerate continued human rights and arms embargo violations by the Sudanese government and rebel groups in Darfur. U.S. Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) and John McCain (R-AZ) led the group in writing to the United States Ambassador to the U.N., Dr. Susan Rice, citing a recent report by the Panel of Experts on Sudan, which states, almost all sides in the conflict have failed in their obligation to comply with Security Council sanctions and urging her to ensure the U.N. Security Council reviews the panel`s recommendations for action.” [Press Release, Russ Feingold, 12/15/09] Sanders Signed Feingold And McCain’s Letter To U.S. Ambassador To U.N. Regarding Darfur. “Senators joining Feingold and McCain in sending the letter were Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Arlen Specter (D-PA), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Robert Casey (D-PA), Susan Collins (D-ME), Joseph Lieberman (ID-CT), Richard Burr (R-NC), Barbara Boxer (D- CA), Bob Corker (R-TN), Benjamin Cardin (D-MD), Roger Wicker (R- MS), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), James Risch (R-ID), Amy Klobuchar (D- MN), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Ron Wyden (D- OR), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR).” [Press Release, Russ Feingold, 12/15/09] Sanders Said U.S. Needed To Bring In Forces To Stop Situation In Darfur From Continuing. “Rep. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., the Democratic-backed candidate for the Senate seat held by retiring Sen. Jim Jeffords, I-Vt., said the U.S. government needs to step up efforts to bring the genocide to an end. ‘We need to bring in forces to stop the situation from continuing and save every man, woman and child we can,’ he said.” [Burlington Free Press, 6/12/06] Sanders: “We Need To Act Today To Stop The Killing.” “Sanders, asked about Tarrant's comments before departing the event, said he agreed that the United States has the economic strength to help poor countries but said that was a long-term answer. ‘We need to act today to stop the killing,’ he said.” [Burlington Free Press, 6/12/06] Sanders Agreed To Speak At “Vermont Speaks up: A Rally To Stop The Genocide In Darfur.” “Ben played it cool, like some kind of professional event-planner, when he learned in the A/V room that Sen. Patrick Leahy, D.-Vt., had accepted his invitation to speak at a rally today in Burlington's City Hall Park. He'd pencil the senator in for 3 at ‘Vermont Speaks Up: A Rally to Stop the Genocide in Darfur.’ When he hung up, though, Ben played it a little less cool. ‘Yes!’ he said to himself, raising his fist right-on. Then he returned to class. The rally was taking beautiful shape. Leahy, Sanders, Rich Tarrant, Ben Cohen -- these big names and more had confirmed that they would speak at the Darfur rally planned by Brian and Ben, best friends and high school seniors.” [Burlington Free Press, 6/11/06] Syria Sanders Voted Against Training And Arming Syrian Rebels. “Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today vote against the United States training and arming Syrian rebels. In prepared remarks, Sanders said the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria “is a brutal and dangerous extremist organization which must be defeated, but this war cannot be won by the United States alone. There needs to be a real international coalition led by the countries most threatened – and that is Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey and Iran.” [Sanders press release, 9/18/14]  Sanders Said Arming Syrian Rebels Would Play Into ISIS Narrative That Struggle Was Muslim Versus Christian, East Versus West. “’The worst thing that we can do now is allow ISIS to portray this struggle as East vs. West, as Muslim vs. Christian, as the Middle East vs. America. That is exactly what they want and that is exactly what we should not be giving them,’ Sanders added.” [Sanders press release, 9/18/14]  Sanders Feared That Supporting Groups In Syria Who Would Be “Outgunned” By ISIS And Assad Would Drag The United States Back Into Long Term Military Engagement. “Sanders said he supports President Barack Obama’s judicious use of airstrikes which already have shown some success, but in opposing the resolution Sanders said, “I fear very much that supporting questionable groups in Syria who will be outnumbered and outgunned by both ISIS and the Assad regime could open the door to the United States once again being dragged back into the quagmire of long-term military engagement.” [Sanders Press Release, 9/18/14]  Sanders Said He Voted Against Training And Support For Syrian Moderates Because He Believed The War Against ISIS Could Only Be Won By Countries In The Region. “Yesterday, there was a, I think, extremely important vote, and sensibly what the vote was about was whether or not the United States, whether the president would have the authority to provide training and support for so-called Syrian moderates. And I voted against that for a number of reasons. The main reason I voted against it is that I believe at the end of the day, this effort against ISIS or ISIL, whatever you call them, which is a terrible, terrible, brutal, dangerous organization. It is not going to be won by the United States; it will be won by countries in that region, Muslim countries who may be Sunni or Shiite, who are going to have to stand up and take these guys on.” [Brunch with Bernie, 9/19/14] Sanders Said It Was Important For Muslim Countries To Stand Up To ISIS To Show That It Was Not Just A War Between The United States And Muslims. “It is not going to be won by the United States; it will be won by countries in that region, Muslim countries who may be Sunni or Shiite, who are going to have to stand up and take these guys on. And what I fear, is that in fact what this ISIS group wanted, they’re pretty smart guys, what they want to portray to Muslims throughout the world, is that this is a war between the United States and Muslims; this is a war between the West and the East; this is a war between Christianity, if you like, and Islam. And I think that we should not fall into that trap.” [Brunch with Bernie, 9/19/14] Sanders Questioned Why Other Middle Eastern Countries Were Not In The Fight Against ISIS. “Saudi Arabia is spending almost $60 billion a year on the military, and that’s a figure some people think is very conservative. They have a significant fleet of modern aircraft; they have an army, and the question that should be asked if that why are they, who are certainly a lot more threatened by ISIS, than is the United States of Europe, where are they in this struggle? Where is Kuwait in this struggle? Where is Turkey in this struggle? And where is Qatar in this struggle? Why is it that the United States is leading the effort? I think we should be supportive, and I support the president’s airstrikes, there’s an important role for us to play. But the question is how do you win a war when it is portrayed as the United States versus ISIS, rather than the countries in the region, the Muslim countries fighting their own fight, with our support? That worries me.” [Brunch with Bernie, 9/19/14] Sanders Condemned Use Of Chemical Weapons, But Still Needed To Hear More From President On Why It Was In The Best Interests Of The US To Intervene In Syrian Civil War. “Sen. Bernie Sanders on Saturday reacted to President Barack Obama’s call for Congress to support a military strike to punish Bashar Assad's regime for the use of chemical weapons. “The use of chemical weapons by the Assad dictatorship is inhumane and a violation of international law. However, at this point in time, I need to hear more from the president as to why he believes it is in the best interests of the United States to intervene in Syria's bloody and complicated civil war,” Sanders said.” [Sanders press release, 8/31/13] Sanders Expressed Concern About President Obama’s Request For Congress To Authorize Military Strikes Against Syria. “I intend to keep an open mind with regard to the president’s proposal on Syria but at this point I have serious reservations. These reservations are shared by many Vermonters who are calling my office – the overwhelming majority in opposition to our involvement in the Syrian civil war. I think we all understand that Assad is a ruthless dictator and that his use of chemical weapons is abhorrent and a violation of international law. Many Vermonters, however, worry that our involvement in a third Middle East war in 12 years may make a very bad situation even worse.” [Sanders press release, 9/4/13]  Sanders Concerned That US Involvement Would “Make It Even Harder For Congress To Protect Working Families.” “First, the truth is that a largely dysfunctional Congress has difficulty today focusing on the very serious issues facing our country: the disappearing middle class, high unemployment, low wages, the high cost of college, the decline of our manufacturing sector and the planetary crisis of global warming. I fear very much that U.S. involvement in another war in the Middle East, and the cost of that war, will make it even harder for Congress to protect working families.” [Sanders press release, 9/4/13]  Sanders Concerned That Even “Surgical Strikes” Would Lead To A Slippery Slope Of Another War. “Second, as someone who voted against the war in Iraq, I worry that while the president talks about ‘surgical strikes’ and a limited engagement by our military, there is no doubt that many members of Congress support ‘regime change’ in Syria and much deeper involvement. If that policy prevails, there is no question that it could cost tens of billions of dollars and the possible future involvement of American troops.” [Sanders press release, 9/4/13]  Sanders Concerned About Setting A “Dangerous Precedent” Of Not Getting UN Or NATO Support. “Third, I am concerned that the United States would be going into a war almost unilaterally without the support of the United Nations or NATO. If we are concerned about international stability, this sets a very dangerous precedent that other countries could use in the future.” [Sanders press release, 9/4/13] Sanders Was Pleased To See President Obama Working With International Coalition, Rather Than Independently, To Remove Chemical Weapons From Syria. “I believe that the American people share the president’s concerns about chemical weapons in Syria and the brutal Assad dictatorship. But, in overwhelming numbers, Vermonters are telling me they want those issues addressed diplomatically by the UN and the international community – not by unilateral military action on the part of the U.S. “I am pleased to see that the president and his administration are now working with Russia, France, the UK, China and the United Nations to remove chemical weapons from Syria – without involving the United States in the bloody and complicated Syrian civil war. This is a good step forward.” [Sanders press release, 9/10/13]  Hillary “Worked The Phones” As Obama Tried To Convince Congress To Authorize Action. “Clinton did not say whether military action, as proposed by Obama, would be the best course. But she emphasized she will support the president and argued a political solution that ends the conflict is in the interested of the United States.’ She reiterated the White House's notion that Russia's proposal could have only taken place ‘in the context of a credible military threat by the United States to keep pressure on the Syrian government.’ Behind the scenes, Clinton worked the phones for Obama, who is trying to convince Congress to go along with his plan for a limited, targeted military response. [CNN, 9/9/13] 2012: Sanders Supported Arming Syrian Rebels In “A Careful Way,” But Opposed U.S. Ground Troops And Direct Involvement In The War. “Well I think as most Vermonters know, despite what you may have heard here this evening, I not only voted against the war in Iraq, but helped lead the effort against that; voted against the Gulf War. And after two wars which have cost us over 6,000 soldiers, will end up costing us over three trillion dollars, added to our national debt. No, I do not think that we should be involved in the war in Syria. Assad is a vicious dictator; he has killed tens of thousands of his own people. I think it’s appropriate that we arm the rebels but do it in a careful way, because you don’t want blow back. You don’t want to be giving heavy-duty arms to people who end up using it against us, in years to come as occurred in Afghanistan after the Soviet Union left. So no, I do not think we should be on the ground in Syria.” [Vermont Senate Debate, 10/25/12, 37:50] United Nations Sanders Said That It Was Important To Strengthen The United Nations, Particularly To Confront Genocide. “Ezra Klein[:] Let me ask you, then, not a hypothetical but a retrospective. Should America have intervened to stop the Rwandan genocide? Bernie Sanders[:] Yes, but it's not just America. This is the damn problem that we face. We are spending more money on the military than the next nine countries behind us. Where is the UK? Where is France? Germany is the economic powerhouse in Europe. They provide health care to all of their people, they provide free college education to their kids. You know what? Germany and France and the UK and Scandinavia and the rest of Europe, all of us have got to work together to prevent those types of genocide and atrocities, and we have to strengthen the United Nations in order to do that.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Vox, 7/28/15] Sanders Said U.S. Should Work With United Nations To Address Syria’s Chemical Weapons. “We have recently heard, and the news is being updated almost momentarily, that Russia, for whatever reasons, has decided finally to play a positive role in this crisis. They are urging Syria to allow the international community to take possession of their chemical weapons. We believe that France right now is prepared to go to the Security Council with a resolution similar to what the Russians are talking about. I can't tell you how honest the Russians are being in this effort, what their ulterior plans may be. But I think now is the opportunity to work with Russia, to work with China, to work with the Security Council and the United Nations.” [Congressional Record, Volume 159, Number 118, 9/10/13] Sanders Said Americans Were Concerned About The U.S. Going Into Syria Without Support Of United Nations. “I know the President has been very clear about saying he is talking about strikes that are very targeted, very minimal. But once you break the egg, once you get involved, we have to bear and will bear a certain amount of responsibility for what happens during the war and even after the war if Asad is overthrown. This is why the American people are extremely concerned about the United States unilaterally going into Syria without the support of the international community and without the support of the United Nations.” [Congressional Record, Volume 159, Number 118, 9/10/13] 2003: Sanders: “I Do Not Support A Foreign Policy Which Undermines The United Nations.” “I do not support the concept of ‘preemptive war.’ I do not support a foreign policy which undermines the United Nations, and which alienates us from virtually all of our allies. I believe that all of these actions create a horrendous precedent which makes our country and our planet less safe, which could well result in more terrorism, not less terrorism.” [Congressional Record, Volume 149, Number 45, 3/20/03] 1990: Sanders Said United Nations Decisions Do Not Supersede The Rights Of The United States, Or Any Other Country. “Well I don’t think that most people, including myself, consider the United Nations to be a super-state in which decisions of the United Nations preempt the individual rights of the particular country--the United States or any other country. Clearly the function of the United Nations, and it’s an enormously important body, and I hope in fact it gains more and more strength, we have got to, finally, as we enter the 21st century, begin to understand that war is a human abomination.” [Sanders’s Remarks, CSPAN, 12/5/90] 1988: Sanders Called For Strengthening The UN And International Tribunals In Order To Settle Future Regional Conflicts. “Speaking at a news conference here, the four-term Burlington mayor also said the United States must put more emphasis on strengthening the United Nations and adhering to the decisions of the World Court and other international forums and less reliance on military programs. Sanders said, ‘If this planet is to avoid destruction from nuclear war or from 'regional wars' such as the Iran-Iraq war, the nations of the world are going to have to learn to sit down in international bodies and to resolve their differences under international law. Instead of denigrating the United Nations,’ Sanders noted, ‘and refusing to pay our full share of financial obligations, I would move to strengthen the UN and international tribunals.’” [Press Release, Sanders for Congress, 8/3/88] Sanders Voted Against Bill To Withhold Funding From The United Nations If They Did Not Make Specific Changes To Bureaucracy And Budget. “The House disregarded strong White House objections and voted yesterday to withhold half of the country's dues from the United Nations if the world body does not cut its bureaucracy, redirect its budget and tighten its accountability. The bill -- one of the most extensive and specific congressional edicts to the United Nations -- requires the creation of whistleblower protections, an independent oversight board with broad investigative authority and an ethics office to thwart possible conflicts of interest.” [Washington Post, 6/18/05; HR 2745, Vote #282, 6/17/05] Voted To Allow US Troops To Be Under UN Command Sanders Voted Against Prohibiting The Assignment Any Member Of The Armed Forces Under Any Standing Army Under UN Command. On May 20, 1998, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #173. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Hefley, R-Colo., amendment to prohibit the assignment of any member of the U.S. armed services to duty with the United Nations Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters, or any other standing army under command of the U.N. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #173, 5/20/1998] Sanders Voted Against Prohibiting DOD Funding For Armed Forces Under UN Control, Unless Congress Approved The Spending Or The President Certified Beforehand That It Was In The National Interest. On September 5, 1996, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #405. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill to prohibit spending Department of Defense funds on U.S. armed forces under United Nations control, unless Congress specifically approves the expenditure or the president certifies beforehand that it is in the national interest. The bill would not affect North Atlantic Treaty Organization missions. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #405, 9/5/1996] Sanders Voted Against Requiring President To Certify Need To Put More Than 100 U.S. Troops Under UN Command. On June 9, 1994, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #225. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Michel, R-Ill., motion to recommit the bill to the Armed Services Committee with instructions to report it back with an amendment to limit the use of more than 100 U.S. troops under the command of a United Nations foreign national unless the president certifies it is necessary for national security, an emergency exists, or the U.S. troops maintain the right to decline orders judged to be illegal, militarily imprudent or beyond the mandate of the mission. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #225, 6/9/1994] Sanders Voted Against Requiring The President To Certify The Importance Of A Mission Before Placing U.S. Troops Under UN Control. On September 29, 1993, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #473. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Spence, R-S.C., motion to recommit the bill to the House Armed Services Committee with instructions to report it back with an amendment to require the president to certify that it is vital and necessary to protect U.S. national interests before placing U.S. troops under the control of a foreign national on behalf of the United Nations. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #473, 9/29/1993] Early Foreign Policy Criticized For Focusing Too Much On Foreign Policy As Mayor 1986: Burlington Republican Party Chairman Said That If Sanders Continued To Attend To Foreign Policy Issues, He Should Run For Senate Or President. “Indeed it was. In the summer of 1986, Sanders attended a board of aldermen debate entitled, “Should Burlington Have a Foreign Policy?” One argument against the proposition, according to Conroy, came from the city’s Republican Party chairman, who argued that city official who couldn’t resist getting involved with foreign policy should move on to bigger things. A person like that should run for Senate, the chairman said. Or even for president.” [Politico, 7/31/15] Sanders Admitted That His Efforts At Foreign Policy As Mayor Of Burlington Were “More Symbolic Than Anything.” “Sanders was undeterred. To the young socialist mayor, all politics was global. “[H]ow many cities of 40,000 have a foreign policy? Well we did,” he wrote in his 1997 memoir, Outsider in the House. “I saw no magic line separating local, state, national and international issues.” The alderman’s meeting produced a vague plan for a donation to the Nicaraguan people, compensation for what Sanders called their suffering at the hands of the U.S.-backed contra rebels. (The tale is described in W.J. Conroy’s Challenging the Boundaries of Reform: Socialism in Burlington.) The result was, Sanders later conceded, “more symbolic than anything.” It often was. But that never stopped him.” [Politico, 7/31/15] Politico: Sanders Considered It Burlington’s Responsibility To Craft Foreign Policy In Opposition To The Reagan Administration’s. “In June 1986, the House of Representatives voted to send $100 million in U.S. military aid to Nicaragua’s contra rebels. It was a major victory for Ronald Reagan’s hardline anti-communist foreign policy. In Burlington, Vermont, Mayor Bernie Sanders sprang into action. Sanders quickly called an emergency board of aldermen meeting to discuss how the lakeside college town should respond. This was not a surprising or unprecedented move for the young socialist mayor, who considered it his small city’s responsibility to craft a foreign policy in opposition to the Reagan administration’s.” [Politico, 7/31/15] Burlington Free Press Criticized Sanders For Ignoring “Legitimate City Business” In Order To Debate Foreign Policy Issues. “But even in lefty Vermont, his foreign policy activism provoked eye rolling. The Grenada episode led the Burlington Free Press to complain that the city’s leaders were debating foreign issues “while legitimate city business was ignored.” Seven of the city’s 13 aldermen skipped the Nicaragua meeting, with many complaining that Sanders was, once again, wasting time on a far-flung cause.” [Politico, 7/31/15] Sanders: “I Saw No Magic Line Separating Local, State, National, And International Issues.” “Sanders was undeterred. To the young socialist mayor, all politics was global. ‘[H]ow many cities of 40,000 have a foreign policy? Well we did,’ he wrote in his 1997 memoir, Outsider in the House. ‘I saw no magic line separating local, state, national and international issues.’” [Politico, 7/31/15] Under Sanders, Burlington Did Some International Diplomacy Because “We All Live In One World.” “Sanders is proud of Burlington’s international diplomacy efforts. “Burlington had a foreign policy because, as progressives, we understood that we all live in one world,” he writes.” [MSNBC, 5/28/15] Citizen To Sanders: Take Care Of Burlington’s Problems Before Meddling In Foreign Affairs. “Regarding the status of Vermont as off limits to the Soviets, few regulations of the federal government have warmed my heart more than that – we don’t need anyone from Russia coming here to Vermont or to the University of Vermont in particular. […] Let Mayor Sanders and his friends start doing something about Burlington’s problems, and applying their energies to correcting them.” [Helen M. Mallow Editorial, Newspaper Unknown, 12/5/83] Free Press Headline: Sanders Defends Time Spent On World Policies [Burlington Free Press, 9/21/84] Sanders Sent Out Many Diplomatic Entreaties To Many Countries As Mayor. “The letters he sent to the Soviet Union, China, the UK and France, urging military disarmament in conjunction with the UN’s international disarmament week, was just one example of dozens of diplomatic initiatives from Sanders, who used his perch at city hall to influence issues as diverse as apartheid in South Africa and the US invasion of Grenada.” [The Guardian, 6/19/15] Sanders Said He Stood By His International Approach As Mayor. "Sanders told the Guardian that he still stands by the international approach he took in Burlington, which was summed up in the mantra “think globally, act locally”. “What you want to do is use your capabilities, whether you’re a mayor, governor, senator or president – whatever it is – to make this world a better place,” he said. “During my time as mayor, the United States was involved in the support of the contras in Nicaragua, something that I thought was part of the long-term Latin America policy in support of rightwing oligarchies and against the needs of the poor people of the continent.”" [The Guardian, 6/19/15] In His Memoir, Sanders Bragged That Burlington Had A Foreign Policy While He Was Mayor. “Burlington was by no means the only American city to develop cultural and education exchanges in the Soviet Union as the cold war drew to a close. But Sanders’ broader embrace of international politics during his mayoral years was by his own admission unique, standing him apart from local elected officials elsewhere in the country. He even visited Cuba – a highly unusual journey for any American in the 80s – hoping to meet with Fidel Castro. The encounter did not take place, although he did meet Havana’s mayor at the time. “A number of cities have nice waterfronts, good streets, honest police departments, and even minor league baseball,” Sanders wrote in his memoir. “But how many cities of 10,000 have foreign policy? Well, we did.”” [The Guardian, 6/19/15] Friends Said Sanders Has Become Less Interested In International Affairs Over The Course Of His Career. "Today it is rare to find Sanders talk about the plight of people overseas. That, friends say, is perhaps the most significant change he has witnessed in the senator’s political career, as he has become less interested in international affairs. Sanders has gradually taken a less keen interest in foreign policy; his politics have become more parochial, focused on the needs of everyday Americans. Gutman described the senator’s evolution as becoming more aligned with the bread-and-butter interests of voters. “The way to succeed in politics is not to be excessively concerned about the people far away,” he said." [The Guardian, 6/19/15] Sanders Said That Students Needed To Be Wary Of Allowing Politicians And Mass Media “Decide For You Whom You Are Supposed To Hate And, Perhaps Kill.” “I wish I could give you some simple answers to these questions and perhaps lead you in the right direction but I don’t know any simple answers and I don’t know if there are any. But there are a few thoughts that I would like to share with you. First, you have got to be very very [sic] careful about allowing other people, whether they are Presidents of the United States, members of Congress, heads of large corporations or [handwritten – unintelligible] newspapers or television stations – to decide for you whom you are supposed to hate and, perhaps kill. It’s a bad business to allow other people, who may have their own particular reasons – whether [handwritten – unintelligible] economic greed or political gain – to decide who your enemies are.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Burlington High School Graduation speech, unknown date] World War I Sanders Called World War I an “Imperialist Slaughter;” Said Debs Put His Life on the Line to Speak Out Against It. “On numerous occasions he put his life on the line by speaking out against the imperialist slaughter taking place in Europe. In September 1918, when the court was about to sentence him to his jail sentence for opposing World War I; the 63 year old Debs fixed his eyes upon the presiding judge and spoke his philosophy of life. ‘Your honor, years ago I recognized my kinship with all living things, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class I am in it, while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free .’” [Eugene V. Debs- Trade Unionist, Socialist, Revolutionary, 18551926, Transcript] Sanders Said During World War I, the “Ruling Class” Created “Patriotic Hysteria” Surrounding the War. “By 1917, however, with America's entry into the first World War and with the advent of the Russian Revolution, the Socialist Party began to decline. There were members who left the Party because of their disagreement with the Party's opposition to the war, but there were many others who left because they were simply afraid-afraid for their lives, afraid for their jobs, afraid of their government. During times of war -it is customary for the ruling class, in order to gain support for its war position, to whip up a patriotic hysteria among the people-and there has probably been no worse example of this in the United States than during, and immediately after, the first World War. In 1917, federal legislation was passed making opposition to the war illegal, newspapers opposing the war were barred from the mails, censored and closed down, Socialist Party and trade union offices were wrecked, and large numbers of people were indiscriminately arrested. In New York, in 1920, five members of the Socialist Party who were democratically elected to the State Legislature were refused admission to that body, and throughout the country workers who voiced opposition to the war were fired from their jobs.” [Eugene V. Debs- Trade Unionist, Socialist, Revolutionary, 1855-1926, Transcript] China Sanders Was Skeptical That Nixon Decided To Restore Relations With The People’s Republic Of China, Which Led To Companies Like Pepsi-Cola Started To Trade With China And The Mass Media Marketed That China Was A “Pseudo Friend And Ally.” “And then one day, when President Nixon was in office – for reasons too complex to get into here right now – it was decided, by a small number of people, that we shouldn’t hate China anymore. And suddenly, Pepsi-Cola and other products were being sold in China and somebody was making a lot of money in that tread and all of a sudden, almost overnight, China became a pretty good country. The newspaper articles and the tv shows which had told us how terrible China was, suddenly stopped appearing and in their place we found that they were very good pingpong [sic] players, good basketball players, that they liked McDonald’s hamburgers, and that, in fact, they had done some interesting things in their country since their revolution in 1949. In a short time, China had turned from being a terrible enemy to a pseudo friend and ally.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Burlington High School Graduation speech, unknown date] Cuba Sanders Visited Cuba In 1989 And Tried To Meet With Fidel Castro. “He also visited Cuba with Jane in 1989 and tried to meet with Fidel Castro, but it didn’t work out and he met with the mayor of Havana and other officials instead.” [MSNBC, 5/28/15] March, 1989: Sanders Planned To Travel To Cuba For An Eight-Day Visit Paid For By Personal Funding. “Now, I'd like to address a not-so-Iocal topic. This Friday, Jane and I will be traveling to Cuba for an 8-day visit. We will be returning on March 26th. The trip will be paid for with our personal funds.” [Statement, Office of the Mayor, Bernard Sanders, 3/13/89] Sanders Argued That There Was A Need For A Diplomatic Effort To Create Better Relations With Cuba. “Within the last year we have seen President Ronald Reagan travel to Moscow in order to reak [sic] down barriers with the Soviet Union and make this world a little safer and saner place to live. More recently, we have seen President Bush travel to China and discuss the important world issues with the leaders of the Chinese government. I strongly applaud both of those efforts. It seems to me that having dramatically improved with the Soviet Union and China, that now is precisely the time to make exactly that effort with Cuba.” [Statement, Office of the Mayor, Bernard Sanders, 3/13/89] Sanders Said He Would Go To Cuba To “Fuly Understand What, In Fact, Is Going On In” Cuba. “Last year, some 200,000 Europeans, Scandinavians, Japanese, and many Canadians visited Cuba, learned about the country, and simply enjoyed the sun on their very beautiful beaches. It seems to me to be totally absurd that the citizens of our country are restricted by our own government from visiting Cuba and learning on our own about the strengths and weaknesses of the Cuban revolution. If the United States is spending billions and billions of dollars trying to prevent "another Cuba" from happening in Latin America, then it seems fairly sensible that we fully understand what, in fact, is going on in Ceba. [sic] The goal of this trip will be to learn as much as I can about Cuba, and hopefully to speak to a number of government officials, including Mayors of cities. The trip is being coordinated by the Center for Cuban Studies in New York City.” [Statement, Office of the Mayor, Bernard Sanders, 3/13/89] Sanders’ Trip To Cuba Was Coordinated By The Center For Cuban Studies In New York City. “Last year, some 200,000 Europeans, Scandinavians, Japanese, and many Canadians visited Cuba, learned about the country, and simply enjoyed the sun on their very beautiful beaches. It seems to me to be totally absurd that the citizens of our country are restricted by our own government from visiting Cuba and learning on our own about the strengths and weaknesses of the Cuban revolution. If the United States is spending billions and billions of dollars trying to prevent "another Cuba" from happening in Latin America, then it seems fairly sensible that we fully understand what, in fact, is going on in Ceba. [sic] The goal of this trip will be to learn as much as I can about Cuba, and hopefully to speak to a number of government officials, including Mayors of cities. The trip is being coordinated by the Center for Cuban Studies in New York City.” [Statement, Office of the Mayor, Bernard Sanders, 3/13/89] After Trip To Cuba, Sanders Returned With Praise For Fidel Castro. According to the Vermont Times, “When Bernie Sanders was mayor of Vermont’s largest city, Burlington had its own foreign policy. Mayor Bernie held countless press conferences to denounce Reagan and Bush over U.S. policy toward South Africa, Nicaragua, El Salvador, you name it. [...] And he paid a visit to scenic Cuba and came back singing the praises of Fidel Castro.” [Vermont Times, 5/6/93] Chile 1987: Sanders Said That The U.S. Overthrew Any Government In Latin America That The President Or Big Business Did Not Like Over The Previous 100 Years. “Now for the answers to the quiz. Question 1, you'll recall asked if you could name 3 Latin or Central American countries overthown by the O.S. government. The answer is (c). Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, Chile and Brazil. Actually, the U.S. government, for the last hundred years, has made it a habit to overthrow any government down there that our business community and the President of the United States dislikes.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, WDEV, 11/17/87] Sanders Blasted Visit From Chilean Official To Vermont, Calling It A “Public Relations Gimmick” That Attempted To Make The “Bloody” Chilean Government Acceptable. “Burlington Mayor Bernard Sanders reacted angrily Wednesday to a visit to Vermont by a Chilean official ostensibly to study democracy in action. Sanders criticized the visit of Juan Garcia, legal counselor for the Chilean Ministry of the Interior, who attended a selectmen’s meeting in Charlotte Monday. […] ‘This is a cheap, disgraceful public relations gimmick which is attempting to make acceptable one of the most bloody governments in recent Western Hemisphere history,’ Sanders said at a hastily called news conference.” [Burlington Free Press, 7/14/83] Sanders Said Chilean Government “Should Be Giving Ph.D. Courses In How To Destroy Democracy.” “It is important that when things like this go on that people speak up, Sanders said. The Chilean official’s visit coincided with violent demonstrations in Santiago and other Chilean cities Wednesday against the 10-year-old military government’s policies. A teen-age girl was killed and more than 500 people were arrested. ‘The irony is, they should be giving Ph.D. courses in how to destroy democracy,’ Sanders said about Chilean officials.” [Burlington Free Press, 7/14/83] Ireland Sanders Brought A Speaker To City Meeting Who Supported IRA Hunger Strikers. “At a recent Board of Alderman meeting, the mayor brought in a Dublin politician touring the U.S. in support of IRA hunger strikers.” [Willamette Valley Observer, 9/17/81] Sanders Wrote To Prime Minister Thatcher That Burlington Was "Deeply Disturbed" By Government Abuse Of Prisoners In Northern Ireland. "In July 1981, the UK’s prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, was informed that Burlington was “deeply disturbed” by what Sanders said was her government’s abuse, humiliation and mistreatment of prisoners in northern Ireland." [The Guardian, 6/19/15] Israel Mayor Sanders Honored United Jewish Appeal, A Group That Supported Aid, “Rural Settlement, Social And Physical Rehabilitation In Israel,” With An Official Week. “The United Jewish Appeal is celebrating its 44th year as a relief organization, focusing on rural settlement, social and physical rehabilitation in Israel; aid to distressed Jewish communities throughout the world, and to local needs to sustain critical programs in support of Jewish education, family life, the indigent, aging, college youth and community relations, Therefore, I, Bernard Sanders, Mayor of the City of Burlington, do hereby proclaim the week of November 6-13, 1983, as United Jewish Appeal Week.” [Proclamation, Mayor Bernie Sanders, Oct. 1983] Latin America 1974: Bernie Sanders Said Of The “Vicious Military Dictatorships” The U.S. Was Supporting, “Let Them Fall… Let Revolutions Take Place Where They Are Needed.” “Sanders said that the U.S. policy of ‘propping up vicious military dictatorships’ was part of the problem, not part of the solution to many world problems. ‘Let them fall,’ he urged, ‘let revolutions take place where they are needed, then go in and offer the technology to help.’” [Bennington Banner, 10/1/74] Sanders Said That Democratic And Republican Leadership Had Destroyed Governments In Latin America. “You also know that it is not an accident that the U.S. is attempting to destroy the government of Nicaragua and that this policy toward Latin and Central America has gone on for 100 years under Democratic and Republican leadership. Recently, for example, we in Burlington commemorated the overthrow of the democratically-elected government of Chile in 1973 by the C.I.A., and the establishment of the fasciset [sic] Pinochet government. You also know that the C.I.A. overthrew the democratically elected government of Guatamala [sic] in 1954 when that government attempted serious land reform for its peasants.” [Sanders statement, 9/29/87] Sanders Said Reagan And Congress Feared A Latin American In Which Power Rested With Workers Instead Of Corporations. “And that is what Reagan and his friends in Congress fear. Imagine a Central America and a Latin America in which power rests with workers and peasants and not with large corporations and landlords.” [Sanders statement, 9/29/87] Sanders Criticized President Reagan’s Central American Foreign Policy While Visiting Puerto Cabezas. “Sanders’s passion — even anger — on the subject is evident in a video of the mayor, tieless and in shirtsleeves, addressing an audience in Puerto Cabezas about American policy in Central America. The microphone distorts as Sanders’s voice rises and he summarizes Reagan’s attitude: ‘We’re strong, you’re weak — and you’re going to do it our way, or we’re going to kill you! A very profound, civilized remark.’ The crowd burst into applause.” [Politico, 7/31/15] Politico: Sanders’s Opposition To Reagan’s Latin American Policies Flowed From His Socialist, Anti-Corporate Worldview. “To be sure, Sanders’s opposition to Reagan’s Latin America policies, including in Guatemala and El Salvador, also flowed from his socialist, anti-corporate worldview. ‘We are going to be the enemy of the struggles of poor people,’ Sanders warned Burlington’s CCTV. ‘Time and time again these interventions in Latin and Central America have been for the benefit of large corporations… And you say, “Gee, whiz —should foreign policy be made for the benefit of large corporations that want to exploit the people of Latin and Central America?”’” [Politico, 7/31/15] Libya Sanders Said That Terrorism Was Caused By “Horrendous Poverty And Despair,” And That Qaddafi Was “But A Symptom And An Evil Manipulator Of The Problem.” “Lastly, I want to touch on another issue which, obviously, has received a great deal of attention this week. And that is President Reagan's ordering of a bombing attack on Libya as a response to Mr. Qaddafi's support for international terrorism. […] My feelings are as follows: 1) The U.S. attacked Libya in the middle of the night - attacked the home of the leader of that nation and apparently, in the process (from what we hear) killed his 18 month old adopted daughter and seriously wounded two of his sons. In addition, a number of foreign embassies were damaged by American bombs. 2) The basic cause of international terrorism lies in the horrendous poverty and despair which exists throughout the third world - and the hatred and fanaticism which grows out of that despair. In my view, if Mr. Qaddafi were killed tomorrow – a dozen new Qaddafi's would rise from his grave. He is not the cause of the problem - but a symptom and an evil manipulator of the problem.” [Sanders Speech, 1986] Sanders Feared That U.S. Aggression Toward Libya Would Cause Qaddafi “To Be Regarded As Somewhat Of A Hero…And Martyr” Who Stood Up To U.S. Military. “My fear is that throughout the Third World today Mr. Qaddafi - whose tactics and whose support for terrorism should be held up for contempt and condemnation by every country on this earth - will now be regarded as somewhat of a hero in the third world - a martyr whose children fell before American bombs and before the powerful American military machine. […] I think that we would be much more effective in leading an international movement which would economically and politically isolate nations – including Libya - which supports international terrorism.” [Sanders Speech, 1986] Nicaragua Sanders: How Can We Have “Any International Credibility When We Are Treating Nicaragua The Same Way That The Russians Treat Afghanistan”. “Most Americans believe that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is wrong and illegal. It is the case of a large and powerful nation dominating a weak and poor nation. But how can we, who are defying international law by attempting to overthrow the small nation of Nicaragua, have any international credibility when we are treating Nicaragua the same way that the Russians treat Afghanistan”. [Sanders on Nicaragua, Accessed 7/6/15] Sanders Said That Americans Revolted Against England After Less Oppression Than What America Was Committing Against Nicaragua. “He compared Ronald Reagan’s “say uncle” approach to Nicaragua to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which he condemned. He said American patriots revolted after less oppression than that suffered by many Central Americans. “The King of England wasn’t a very nice guy, but at least he wasn’t torturing anyone,” said Sanders.” [unknown] Sanders: “There Is Nothing New, Or Particularly Brave, About A Large And Powerful Nation Destroying A Week And Small Nation.” “In going to Nicaragua, however, I wish to convey to the Nicaraguan people that I meet that many Americans do not agree with President Reagan that the United States has the right to destroy their government, and that the differences that exist between the two countries can be better dealt with at a negotiating table than on the battlefield. Frankly, I am not impressed by the President’s tough war-like talk regarding Nicaragua. There is nothing new, or particularly brave, about a large and powerful nation destroying a week and small nation. That type of policy has gone on for hundreds of years”. [Sanders manuscript, undated] Sanders: “I Am Deeply Concerned That The U.S. Is Moving Toward A Tragic Vietnam-Like War WIth Nicaragua”. “We would be most appreciative if you could come to speak in Burlington some time in the next few months. There are many people in this area who crave to know more, who would welcome the opportunity to learn from your experiences and observations. I would also hope that you and I could meet privately. I am deeply concerned that the U.S. is moving toward a tragic Vietnam-like war with Nicaragua, and intend to do all that I can as an elected official to speak out against that happening”. [Sanders Letter To Ambassador Robert White, 8/1/85] Sanders Offered To Arrange A Meeting Between The Nicaraguan President And President Reagan, And Sought To Enlist The Help Of Former President Jimmy Carter. "Sanders was the highest-ranking American official to visit Nicaragua at that time, and returned to the US intent, it seems, on acting as emissary between the two countries. In a letter to the White House, Sanders relayed that Ortega was willing to meet with Reagan “at any time or any place” to resolve the conflict. He also sought to enlist the help of the Democratic former president Jimmy Carter, telling him in a letter that he was highly thought of in Nicaragua. Sanders even invited Ortega to Burlington; the Nicaraguan leader politely declined." [The Guardian, 6/19/15] Sanders: “It Should Not Be Our Goal To Imitate Soviet Foreign Policy By Brazenly Seeking To Overthrow A Government We May Not Like”. “It should not be our goal to imitate Soviet foreign policy by brazenly seeking to overthrow a government we may not like - one of the few democratically elected government of Central America”. [Sanders manuscript, undated] Sander Compared US Support Of Nicaraguan Rebels To Soviet Union’s Invasion Of Afghanistan. “He said Nicaraguans were now "being assaulted in a way that is unprecedented" by U.S.-supported rebels. He said if those in the audience believed in the right of the United States to overthrow any government, they would have to acknowledge the Soviet Union's right "to do the same in Afghanistan."” [unknown, 10/25/85] Sanders Supported The Socialist Sandinista Government In Nicaragua As It Fought A Proxy War Against The United States. “He used to be a “Sandernista.” As mayor, Sanders attracted national attention and controversy for supporting the socialist Sandinista government in Nicaragua, which was fighting a proxy war with the United States under Ronald Reagan. In 1985, he became the highestranking American official to visit Nicaragua at the time, and met with President Daniel Ortega. In his book, he called the trip “profoundly emotional” and praised Ortega. Burlington and Managua, Nicaragua’s capital, became sister cities.” [MSNBC, 5/28/15] Sanders Wanted To Establish Sister City Ties With Nicaraguan Town, Said It Was A Way To Break The “Reagan Propaganda Campaign” Against Nicaragua. According to Vanguard Press, “Burlington may soon have una nueva hermana, if Mayor Bernie Sanders’ recent efforts to establish ‘sister city’ ties with a Nicaraguan town are successful. [...] Sanders calls the sister-city arrangement ‘one way to break the Reagan propaganda campaign against Nicaragua. The way you battle lies of any government is to meet people face-to-face.’” [Vanguard Press, 6/24/84] 1984: Bernie Sanders Went To Nicaragua To Help Celebrate Anniversary of Sandinista Revolution. According to Vanguard Press, “Sanders is going to Nicaragua at the invitation of its government, to help celebrate the sixth anniversary of the revolution which overthrew the dictatorship of the Somoza family” [Vanguard Press, 7/14/85] Local TV Editorial Called Sanders's Trip To Nicaragua "Absolutely Shameful." "Not everyone in Burlington appreciated the town’s transition, under the supervision of a travelling, socialist mayor, into a people’s republic. The WMNY-TV station put out an editorial that decried the mayor’s “vacation” in Nicaragua as “absolutely shameful”." [The Guardian, 6/19/15] Bernie Sanders Said U.S. Was Trying To Destroy Nicaragua. According to Vanguard Press, “Believe it or not, if you had dozens of governors who were representing their people...and these dozens of governors walked into Ronald Reagan’s office and said, ‘Ron, forget even about the morality of destroying the government of Nicaragua [...] Governors need to stand up and fight for a sane national policy, which doesn’t talk about $300 billion for the military, a trillion dollars for Star Wars, $100 million to destroy Nicaragua.” [Vanguard Press, 5/18/86] May 1985: Sanders Was Sympathetic To The Cause Of Protestors Demonstrating Against U.S. Policy In Nicaragua At Federal Building And GE Plant. “More than 100 demonstrators protesting U.S. policy in Nicaragua blocked workers and customers from entering the Federal Building on Elmwood Avenue in Burlington for nearly an hour Tuesday afternoon before police cleared a path to the building. Eleven demonstrators were arrested and charged with disorderly conduct. Three others were arrested early Tuesday morning for trespassing on the grounds of the General Electric Co. plant on Pine Street. […] At 7 a.m., three protestors scaled a fence at the General Electric plant, climbed atop a tank with Vulcan rapid-fire guns, and placed flowers in the barrels. The three, including assistant City Treasurer Barr Swennerfelt, were arrested and charged with trespassing. ‘Guns produced at GE right now are killing people,’ Swennerfelt said.” Sanders declined comment on the tactics of the protestors, but he said he was strongly sympathetic with their cause.” [Burlington Free Press, 5/8/85] *NOTE: There were several protests at the GE plant during this time. South Africa Sanders Called For A Complete Cutting Of Significant Ties With South Africa Over Apartheid. “Sanders also spoke to reporters about South Africa, the Middle East, and Central America. Sanders declared, ‘As a Congressman, I will join with the 79 Congressmen and women sponsoring the Dellums/Cranston bill mandating comprehensive economic sanctions against South Africa, including a trade embargo, the total withdrawal of U.S. corporations from South Africa and end to intelligence sharing with the South African military.’” [Press Release, Sanders for Congress, 8/3/88] Sanders Compared Apartheid To Nazism And Divested City Pension Funds Of Any South African Investments In Protest. “Sanders compared apartheid, South Africa’s system of racial separation, to Nazism, and said black people are treated like animals. He noted the city of Burlington has divested its retirement funds of any South African investments. He contended that total divestment could convince the white government in South Africa to give up power, rather than hold on and cause a bloodbath. While Smith ended with more votes, it was Sanders, with his emphatic rhetorical style, who drew the most applause.” [Burlington Free Press, 6/18/86] Sanders Praised Burlington Retirement Board For Divestment From South Africa. “Let me conclude by thanking the Retirement Board members for their efforts. This year, not only has the Retirement Board worked to withdraw its investments in South Africa, but it has begun the process of investing in our own community.” [Press Statement, 4/8/87] Soviet Union Sanders Announced That Leningrad Teenage Choir Would Visit Burlington And Stay With Local Families. “It’s a pleasure to announce my support, and the support of many people in our city, for one of the most exciting events the city will see this spring. Performing in Burlington on June 6 (at 8pm at our Memorial Auditorium) will be the Leningrad Teenage Choir from the Soviet Union. I believe this is an historic visit, and a great opportunity for the people of our region. I believe that it’s the first time this type of contingent from the Soviet Union will be staying with their young counterparts in American homes.” [Draft Statement, 1987] Sanders Said The In A Time Where The Country Was Spending So Much On Weaponry, There Was “No Greater Urgency Than To Understand The People Our Leaders Have Pledged To Annihilate.” “In a time when our country, the United States. is spending over $300 billion each year on military spending, and the development and construction of newer, more powerful, more accurate, more horrifying conventional and nuclear weapons, there is no greater urgency than to understand the people our leaders have pledged to annihilate.” [Draft Statement, 1987] Sanders Said That Political Leadership Tried To Deny Contact With Other People Because They Stood To Profit From The Ever Expanding Arms Race. “Much of our political leadership seems bent on denying this very important kind of people-to-people contact. People who stand to profit from an ever expanding arms race, from moving our planet closer and closer to the brink of calculated or accidental nuclear war… these people lose when ordinary citizens of each country meet face to face and glimpse the reality of another culture. A true, peace-seeking administration would not be spending vast sums of money on star Wars; it would be spending money to open more doors, to sponsor more cultural exchanges, to create more understanding between our countries.” [Draft Statement, 1987] Sanders Said A True Peace Seeking Administration Would Spend Money On Cultural Exchanges Rather Than Weapons. “A true, peace-seeking administration would not be spending vast sums of money on star Wars; it would be spending money to open more doors, to sponsor more cultural exchanges, to create more understanding between our countries.” [Draft Statement, 1987] Sanders Urged West Point Cadets To Get To Know Soviets “Before You Kill Them.” “Burlington Mayor Bernard Sanders urged cadets from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point Friday to get to know the Soviets “before you kill them.” It was one of several things the socialist mayor told them that they probably aren’t used to hearing. In fact, he said it many times. “How many of you have talked to someone from the Soviet Union,” he asked […] “I want you to understand that you are being trained to go to war against people you’ve never met.” [Burlington Free Press, 1/25/86] Sanders Asked Cadets Who Wanted To Visit USSR: “Great! Fantastic!... Meet Them Before You Kill Them.” “Later he asked them how many want to visit the Soviet Union someday. Many raised their hands. “Great! Fantastic!,” he said. “Meet them before you kill them. Say hello to them.” [Burlington Free Press, 1/25/86] Sanders: U.S And Soviet Union Followed Burlington’s Lead In Supporting The Concept Of A Bilateral Disarmament Treaty. “Thirdly, in 1980 and 1981, thousands of Vermonters, in town after town, voted ‘YES’ to the concept of a verifiable, bilateral disarmament treaty. Many people thought that those town meeting efforts were frivolous and a waste of energy-yet Vermonters' voices were heard around the world and several months ago President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev signed the INF treaty, a major breakthrough in the struggle for world peace.” [Opening Announcement, Bernie Sanders for the U.S. House of Representatives, 3/10/88] State Department Official Could Not Explain Why Chittenden County, VT Was On The Soviet Travel Restriction List. “And as far as Chittenden County being the only area chosen in Vermont for the ban, nobody seems to know why not even the State Department. According to Joe Reap, US State Department spokesman, there are two reasons why Soviet visitors might be-restricted from an area: The area either has a security defense establishment or is randomly chosen. […] Reap didn’t have access to a breakdown of why Chittenden County was declared off limits.” [Carol Conragan Editorial, Newspaper Unknown, 12/4/83-12/11/83] Sen. Leahy (VT) Aide: An Area Could Be Closed On Either The Basis Of National Security To Protect Military Installations Or For “Reciprocity” To Match Soviet Closures. “An aide to Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt., said earlier in the day that the reason why Chittenden County, the state's most populous, has been declared off-limits to some Soviets is considered ‘classified’ by the U.S. State Department. Chittenden is the only one of Vermont's 14 counties restricted. The investigation by Leahy's, office was triggered in part by a request from Mayor Bernard Sanders for more information; according to Bob Paquin, a Leahy aide. Sanders called the ban ‘childish and arbitrary,’ and said it should be lifted. ‘We found an area can be closed on two grounds: one, on the basis of national security to protect military installations and, two, reciprocity,’ Paquin said. Leahy Aide: “But Which Reason It Is Classified.” [Burlington Free Press, 11/29/83] Sanders Called The State Department Explanation For Soviet Travel Ban “Totally Unsatisfactory.” “A U.S. State Department explanation for the new federal ban on Soviet travel in Chittenden County was sharply criticized Friday by Burlington Mayor Bernard Sanders. ‘Their response is totally unsatisfactory,’ Sanders said after reviewing a copy of a State Department letter to Sen. Patrick Leahy, o-Vt. ‘We still have absolutely no idea why Soviet businessmen, journalists and government officials have been banned from Chittenden County,’ the mayor said. ‘Based on this response, our name came up in a random computer search.’” [Burlington Free Press, 1/7/84] Sanders Disagreed With U.S. “Reciprocity” Policy To Match Soviet Actions Of “Stupidly” Closing Off Portions Of Their Country To Americans. “Just because the Soviets act stupidly doesn't mean we should blindly follow suit. Personally, I would love to see Soviet journalists and businessmen come to Burlington.” [Boston Globe, 2/19/84] Columnist Wondered If State Department Ban On Soviet Travel To Chittenden County, VT Was A “Direct Reflection” On Sanders, Local Industry, Or Just A Random Occurrence. “Is the banning of Soviet diplomats, journalists and businesspersons from Chittenden County a direct infringement on residents' freedom of speech? Is it a direct reflection on Burlington's socialist mayor, the IBM and General Electric plants and the missile testing range in Underhill Flats? Or has the US State Department randomly selected Chittenden County as part of the territory off limits to Soviets to match the 20 percent of Soviet land blocked to US diplomats, journalists and businesspersons?” [Carol Conragan Editorial, Newspaper Unknown, 12/4/83-12/11/83] 1983: Sanders Backed A Resolution Asking The State Department To Rescind Ban On Visits From Soviets Nationals To Chittenden County, Vermont. “Burlington alderman will consider tonight a resolution to reverse a U.S. State Department decision that declares Chittenden County off-limits for some Soviet citizens: The resolution, which is backed by Mayor Bernard Sanders, would ask the State Department to rescind the decision barring visits by Soviet diplomats, businessmen and journalists to Vermont’s most-populated region.” [Burlington Free Press?, 11/28/83] Vietnam Sanders Avoided Vietnam Through A Protracted Battled With His Draft Board Over Conscientious Objector Status. “After college and the year on the kibbutz, Sanders returned to New York for what might be called "Bernie: The Missing Years," He dabbled in psychology (briefly attending graduate school and working as a psychiatric aide) and avoided Vietnam through a protracted battle with his draft board over conscientious-objector status.” [New England Monthly, 12/1985] Burlington Free Press: Sanders Applied For Conscientious Objector Status, And Was Not Rejected Until After He Was Too Old To Be Drafted. "Sanders also opposed the Vietnam War and applied for conscientious objector status after finishing his education. By the time his C.O. application was rejected, Sanders was 26 and too old to be drafted." [Burlington Free Press, 11/12/06] 1970: Bernie Sanders: “America Is Committing Atrocities In The Vietnam War Unmatched Since The Nazis.” “Q: Let’s start off with education. America is the best educated country in the world. Everybody goes to school until he’s 16, millions of kids go to college and graduate school, everyone has a diploma of one kind of another, and America is committing atrocities in the Vietnam war unmatched since the Nazis. What does this mean with regard to education?” [Bernie Sanders, “an Interview with Gerald Witherspoon,” Vermont Freeman, 1/30/70] 1971: Bernie Sanders Called The U.S. Bombing Campaign Against North Vietnam And The Vietnam War As A Whole An “Atrocity.” “President Nixon’s decision to conduct massive bombing raids in North Vietnam was solidly criticized last night by the Republican, Democratic and Liberty Union candidates for the U.S. House and Senate in next week’s election. Their comments were made in a Vermont Educational Television forum. […] Liberty Union candidates Bernard Sanders said the bombing was an ‘atrocity,’ just as the whole war has been.” [Bennington Banner, 12/30/71] DEFENSE AND FOREIGN POLICY – THE NINETIES YEARS Sanders Opposed The Run Up To The First Gulf War Sanders Called For An International Force Including American Troops To Oppose Iraqi Expansion September 1990: Sanders Praised President Bush Sr. For His Handling Of The Kuwait Crisis But Called For Reducing American Troops In The Region From 165,000 To 50,000 As Part Of A Larger International Force. “Bernard Sanders, the avowed Socialist who is running for Congress, is calling for U.S. troop reductions in the Middle East. Sanders said President Bush deserves credit for his initial handling of the crisis, adding that he supports having other countries contribute more to the multinational force to prevent Iraq from further expansion. ‘It is impossible, of course, to estimate what an effective U.N.’ (United Nations) force would number, but my initial guess would be that it would not be necessary for the U.S. to have more than’ 40,000 to ‘50,000 troops in the region,’ said Sanders. His answers were in response to questions from three Vermont newspapers. In an interview Wednesday, Sanders said he would ‘like to see ... replacement of American troops with troops from Europe.’ ‘I would like to see more of a presence from’ France and England, he said. … About 165,000 U.S. soldiers are stationed in the Saudi desert and aboard ships in the region.” [Associated Press, 9/27/90] Sanders Spent His First Days In Congress Opposing Military Action Against Iraq January 1991: Sanders “Spent Much Of His First Day On The Job Conferring With Liberal Lawmakers On How To Keep The United States From Going To War With Iraq.” “The only socialist in Congress spent much of his first day on the job conferring with liberal lawmakers on how to keep the United States from going to war with Iraq. Rep. Bernard Sanders, who ran as an independent in winning Vermont’s only House seat, missed most of a celebratory reception held in his tiny office after he was sworn into the 102nd Congress. ‘I’m going to work really hard to prevent a war in the Persian Gulf, ‘ Sanders promised his supporters during a brief appearance at the celebration. Then he left to huddle again with Democrats to devise ways to avert a U.S. offensive against Iraqi forces. The small crowd at the reception was reminiscent of the 1960s. Young people drank coffee and munched cold cuts and talked of strategy to oppose war. Brooklyn-born Sanders, who worked as a carpenter and documentary film maker before serving eight years as mayor of Burlington, cast his first House vote for a Democrat.” [UPI, 1/3/91] On Eve Of First Gulf War, Sanders Objected To The War And Called It A “Tragic Day For Humanity.”“Of dozens of speakers on the House floor, only two - Reps. Ronald Dellums, D-Calif., and Bernard Sanders, I-Vt. - objected to the war. Sanders called it ‘a tragic day for humanity’ and said, ‘It is incumbent upon us to do everything in our power to prevent unnecessary bloodshed and support our troops in the most basic way - bringing them home alive.’ After Sanders spoke, Rep. Gerald Solomon, RN.Y., motioned at Sanders, and said ‘sounds like Jane Fonda’ - the renowned Vietnam War protester. Sanders, a self-avowed socialist just elected to the House, didn’t respond.” [USA Today, 1/18/91] 1991: Sanders Said U.S. Should Not Try To Capture Saddam Hussein. According to the Vermont Times, “The United States should not try to capture Hussein, Sander said. ‘Saddam Hussein is a very dangerous and vicious dictator. But it seems to me what this war is about … is to get Saddam Hussein and Iraq out of Kuwait.’” [Vermont Times, 2/28/91] January 1991: Sanders Voted To Express The President Had To Gain Congressional Approval Prior To Military Action Against Iraq. On January 12, 1991, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #7. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the concurrent resolution to express the sense of Congress that the Constitution vests the power to declare war in Congress, and the president must gain congressional approval before any offensive military action can be taken against Iraq. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #7, 1/12/1991] Sanders Voted Against The Use Of Force Against Iraq If It Did Not Withdraw From Kuwait And Complied With Security Council Resolutions. On January 12, 1991, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #9. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the joint resolution to authorize the use of military force if Iraq has not withdrawn from Kuwait and complied with U.N. Security Council resolutions by January 15. The resolution authorizes the use of force and the expenditure of funds under the War Powers act and requires the president to report to Congress every 60 days on the efforts to obtain Iraqi compliance with the U.N. resolutions. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #9, 1/12/1991] Sanders Voted Against Expressing The Sense That Congress Commended The President’s Leadership In The Persian Gulf And Unequivocally Supported The Troops Carrying Out Missions In The Gulf. On January 18, 1991, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #10. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Gephardt, D-Mo., motion to suspend the rules and adopt the concurrent resolution to express the sense of Congress commending and supporting the efforts and leadership of the President in the Persian Gulf and stating unequivocal support for the members of the Armed Forces carrying out missions in the Persian Gulf. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #10, 1/18/1991] 1991: Sanders Condemned Saddam Hussein As Vicious And For Waging An Immoral Annexation Of Kuwait. “A vicious dictator named Saddam Hussein committed an illegal, immoral, and brutal act. There’s no justification and no defense for what he did.” [SoundCloud, Bernie Sanders, Audio Clip: “Anti Iraq War Rally #1,” Accessed 6/8/15] Sanders Opposed The Gulf War, Said That It Was Time To “Do Something That Is Finally Different.” “A vicious dictator named Saddam Hussein committed an illegal, immoral, and brutal act. There’s no justification and no defense for what he did. And then the challenge becomes how do you deal with that aggression. Do we do what has been done for thousands and thousands of years, bring the bombs, kill and destroy in order to stop aggression, or do we do something that is finally different.” [SoundCloud, Bernie Sanders, Audio Clip: “Anti Iraq War Rally #1,” Accessed 6/8/15] Sanders Believed That Gulf War Could Have Been Avoided. “A vicious dictator named Saddam Hussein committed an illegal, immoral, and brutal act. There’s no justification and no defense for what he did. And then the challenge becomes how do you deal with that aggression. Do we do what has been done for thousands and thousands of years, bring the bombs, kill and destroy in order to stop aggression, or do we do something that is finally different. …And it seems to me, it seems to me, that with the entire world and the United Nations united against Saddam Hussein, that we could have achieved that goal.” [SoundCloud, Bernie Sanders, Audio Clip: “1991: Anti Iraq War Rally #1” and “1991: Anti Iraq War Rally #2,” Accessed 6/8/15] Sanders Said He Was One Of Seven Who Opposed The Persian Gulf War. “When I was first elected to Congress, way back in 1991, I dealt with issues like the Persian Gulf War, and I opposed that war. And I wanted to tell you how it felt to be a member of Congress, to put his card, and the way you vote in Congress you got a little card, looks like a credit card, and you put it in the machine and press yes or no. And on one of the votes on the Persian Gulf War, there were I think six other members of Congress who voted with me.” [Book Discussion on Outsider in the House, 07/13/97, 00:17:40] Sanders Called For “Strangling” Economic Sanctions On Saddam As Opposed To Military Force 1991: Sanders Argued That Saddam Could Be Defeated “Not By Having Bombs Dropped And Thousands Of People Killed, But By Strangling That Person Economically.” “Rep. BERNARD SANDERS, (I) Vermont: Well, there’s a lot that’s wrong with that argument. To my mind, Larry - and my position will probably be a lot different than most people in the Congress - this country is facing enormous domestic problems. We are rapidly becoming a second-rate nation in terms of our health care, in terms of our industry, in terms of our standard of living, in terms of our educational system. I am appalled and I am outraged that the President of the United States is spending tens and tens of billions of dollars, proposes to expend thousands of American lives, tens of thousands of innocent women and children in Iraq, on a war which, to my mind, is absolutely unnecessary. Saddam Hussein can be defeated in a non-violent manner. The cold war is over and the challenge of foreign policy now is to stop aggression, not by having bombs dropped and thousands of people killed, but by strangling that person economically.” [Larry King Live, CNN, 1/14/91] Sanders Called For Vigorous “Economic Pressure” On Iraq Through The United Nations To Contain Saddam Hussein. “KING: Well, what do you do about a tyrant? Rep. SANDERS: I’ll tell you what you do. I’ll tell you what you do, and I’ll tell you what we have to do. What you do is you have the United Nations acting absolutely vigorously in terms of economic pressure. The guy’s gross national product has been reduced by 50 percent. The CIA has estimated that in nine months he’s going to have a difficult time running his air force. He can be defeated, he can be contained, without a war. And that’s the challenge.” [Larry King Live, CNN, 1/14/91] January 1991: Sanders Voted to Express That Sanctions Would Be The Best Solution To Force Iraq To Withdraw From Kuwait. On January 12, 1991, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #8. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the concurrent resolution to express the sense of Congress that the wisest course of action at this time is the continued use of international sanctions and diplomatic efforts to pressure Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait. The resolution declares that the president must obtain congressional approval before undertaking any offensive action against Iraq and provides for expedited procedures for any presidential request for the use of such force. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #8, 1/12/1991] Sanders Suggested The US Should Only Respond With Force If Saddam Hussein “Is Crazy Enough To Start An Offensive War” Sanders Said That If Saddam “Is Crazy Enough To Start An Offensive War, Then He Has To Be Dealt With. No One Has Ever Suggested That, If He Strikes First, That There Is Not A Swift And Strong Response.” “9th CALLER: [Sarasota, Florida] Hi. A question is: Even if we used economic sanctions and we allowed them to work and work, knowing that Hussein does not want to lose face and the Arab people do not want to lose face, what would stop him finally when his back is against the wall economically to say, ‘Well, I’m going to put a missile over into Israel and just blow up this whole thing. They’re not going to take me alive, and I’m not going to negotiate’? Rep. SANDERS: I think the issue is, if he is crazy enough to start an offensive war, then he has to be dealt with. No one has ever suggested that, if he strikes first, that there is not a swift and strong response. The issue is: Can we resolve this crisis without the United States starting the war? That’s the concern.” [Larry King Live, CNN, 1/14/91] Sanders Attacked Hypocrisy Of Shifting US Alliances In The Middle East And Said President Bush Sr. Should Have Allowed The UN To Deal With Iraq Sanders Mocked The US’s Recent Support For Saddam And Ongoing Alliances Without Other Dictatorships In The Region. “Rep. SANDERS: Well, I get a little bit confused about good guys and bad guys. I mean, Howard, I think, will acknowledge that several years ago we were in partnership with Saddam Hussein. In fact, if my memory is correct, we have given this guy billions of dollars of aid in terms of food. We are now- I presume the good guys are- I get a little confused. Iran, which a couple of years ago was this terrible country which was also a dictatorship killing large numbers of its own people - they are our allies. Mr. Assad, who I guess is officially recognized by the United States Government today as the leader of a terrorist nation, is our ally. The King of Saudi Arabia - he is a feudalistic monarch - is our bosom buddy in this war. Who are we kidding? We can’t keep telling the people one day that this guy is a terrible dictator, the next day he’s our ally.” [Larry King Live, CNN, 1/14/91] Sanders Accused The Bush Administration Of Hypocrisy By Comparing Saddam Hussein To Adolf Hitler While Previously Supporting The Country with Agriculture Credits Less Than A Year Before The Invasion, “White House officials Thursday angrily denied congressional charges they aided a ‘Frankenstein’ Saddam Hussein right up until he invaded Kuwait and now were trying to cover up the evidence. Lawmakers used President Bush’s likening of Saddam to Adolf Hitler to back up their charges that billions of dollars in agriculture credits were ‘appeasement’ to Saddam nine months before the invasion. ‘If he was Hitler the day after he invaded Kuwait, he was Hitler the day before he invaded Kuwait,’ said Vermont independent Rep. Bernard Sanders. ‘You do not go to bed with mass murderers and terrorists. That’s not what this country is about.’ ‘He was his own monster,’ said Deputy Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger. ‘We tried to contain him’ with ‘incentives and disincentives’ for acceptable behavior, Eagleburger said. ‘It is not the first foreign policy of the United States ... that didn’t work.’” [USA Today, 5/22/92]  Bernie Sanders Joined Other Democrats In Accusing Bush Administration Figures For Having Business Interests In Iraq Prior To The war. “THE US deputy secretary of state, Lawrence Eagleburger, yesterday angrily attacked congressional investigations of US policy towards Iraq before the Gulf war, claiming that ‘distortions of the record, half truths, and outright falsehoods [had] all combined into spurious conspiracy theories and cover-up charges’. But as skirmishing between the Bush administration and Democrats on Capitol Hill over the so-called Saddamgate affair erupted into an all-out battle, Mr Eagleburger was told that ‘Saddam Hussein is President Bush’s Frankenstein - a run-of-the-mill dictator the president fed with billions of US taxpayer dollars and turned into a monster.’ … Bernie Sanders, an independent House member, charged that Mr Eagleburger, the national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft, and the former secretary of state, George Shultz, all had private, conflicting business interests linked to US loans to Iraq. [The Guardian, 5/22/92] Sanders Said President Bush Sr. Should Have Let The United Nations Deal With The Iraq Crisis And Specified Saddam Would Be Defeated Without Use Of Military Force. “Rep. SANDERS: I don’t. I think that the President has gotten himself into a very difficult political position. He has been unyielding in his view and I think people will say to him, when the 15 th comes, ‘Hey, what’s the matter? You’re not getting wimpy on us? Why don’t you go for it?’ I think the problem stems back from many, many months ago when the President should have gotten up and stated that, ‘The United Nations is going to deal with this crisis. We are going to defeat Saddam Hussein, but we’re not going to do it militarily.’ He has put himself in a difficult box.” [Larry King Live, CNN, 1/14/91] Under President Clinton, Sanders Voted To Support Regime Change In Iraq And To Support Opposition Groups Fighting Saddam Hussein 1998: Sanders Voted To Reaffirm That The Policy Of The United States Towards Saddam Hussein Should Be Regime Change. On December 17, 1998, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #539. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the resolution to express congressional support for the troops in and around the Persian Gulf region and to reaffirm that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove Saddam Hussein's regime from power in Iraq and promote a democratic government to replace that regime. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #539, 12/17/1998] 1998: Sanders Voted To Authorize US Assistance To Iraqi Opposition Groups Engaged In Fighting Saddam Hussein’s Regime. On October 5, 1998, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #482. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Gilman, R-N.Y., motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill to authorize U.S. assistance to certain Iraqi opposition groups engaged in the fight against the regime of Saddam Hussein. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #482, 10/5/1998] 1997: Sanders Voted To Express The Sense That The President Should Work To Create An International War Crimes Tribunal To Prosecute Saddam Hussein And Members Of His Government For Crimes Against Humanity. . On November 13, 1997, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #637. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Gilman, R-N.Y., motion to suspend the rules and adopt the concurrent resolution to express the sense of Congress that the president should endorse and work towards the formation of an international war crimes tribunal to prosecute Saddam Hussein and other members of the Iraqi government for crimes against humanity. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #637, 11/13/1997] 1998: Sanders Voted To Find The Government Of Iraq In An “Unacceptable” Breach Of Its International Obligations For Hindering UN Efforts To Find And Destroy Iraq’s Weapons Of Mass Destruction. On August 3, 1998, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #378. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Gilman, R-N.Y., motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill that finds the government of Iraq in an "unacceptable" breach of its international obligations because of its repeated efforts to hamper the United Nations in finding and destroying Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #378, 8/3/1998] Sanders Has Voted To Condemn Actions By The Iraqi Government And Supported Humanitarian Aid Following Military Operations 1991: Sanders Voted To Condemn Iraqi Attacks On Israel. On January 23, 1991, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #11. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Fascell, D-Fla., motion to suspend the rules and adopt the concurrent resolution to condemn the unprovoked attack by Iraq on Israel; commend the government of Israel for its restraint; recognize Israel's right to defend itself; and reaffirm America's commitment to provide Israel with the means to maintain its freedom and security. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #11, 1/23/1991] 1991: Sanders Voted To Condemn Iraqi Treatment Of Prisoners Of War And Supported Considering War Crime Charges Against Iraqis. On January 23, 1991, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #12. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Byron, D-Md., motion to suspend the rules and adopt the concurrent resolution to condemn the abuse by Iraq of allied prisoners of war (POWs); condemn Iraq's stated intention to disperse POWs to potential military targets; condemn Iraq's failure to permit the Red Cross to visit and interview POWs; and urge the President, the international coalition, and the United Nations Security Council to consider appropriate means for bringing to justice any individuals in Iraq responsible for war crimes. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #12, 1/23/1991] 1991: Sanders Voted To Provide Hundreds Of Millions To In Support Of Humanitarian Aid And Peace Keeping Operations Related To The First Gulf War. On May 9, 1991, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #84. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill to appropriate $572 million is fiscal 1991, consisting of $235.5 million in humanitarian aid to Iraqi refugees and international peacekeeping operations, $320.5 million for the incremental costs of the Defense Department's humanitarian relief operations, and $16 million for military service organizations providing financial aid to the families of U.S. servicemen. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #84, 5/9/1991] 1994: Sanders Voted Against Cutting Funding For The Resettlement Of Iraqi Prisoners Of War. On June 27, 1994, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #284. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Stearns, R-Fla., amendment to cut $2.8 million from the State Department's general administration account, the estimated amount spent in previous years on resettling Iraqi prisoners of war. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #284, 6/27/1994] 1995: Sanders Voted to Condemn The Iraqi Government For Imprisoning Two US Citizens Who Illegally Entered Iraq. On April 3, 1995, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #281. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Stearns, R-Fla., motion to suspend the rules and adopt the resolution to express the sense of the House of Representatives condemning the Iraqi imprisonment of two U.S. citizens for illegal entry into Iraq and to urge the president to take all appropriate measures to ensure their prompt and safe release. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #281, 4/3/1995] Sanders Has Both Supported And Opposed Spending Bills That Included Funding For Military Operations In Iraq Following The First Gulf War 1993: Sanders Voted For A Conference Report Bill That Included Funding For Military Operations In Somalia And Iraq. On July 1, 1993, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #321. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of conference report on the bill to provide $1,003,413,538 in new budget authority by providing $3.5 billion in new spending and rescinding $2.5 billion in previously approved spending for fiscal 1993. The bill includes funding for U.S. military operations in Somalia and Iraq, rural water and waste disposal grants and loans, Small Business Administration loans, student loans, a summer jobs program and local law enforcement. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #321, 7/1/1993] 1998: Sanders Voted Against Passage Of A Supplemental Appropriations Bill That Funded Military Operations In Iraq And Bosnia. On March 31, 1998, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #88. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill to provide $2.9 billion in supplemental appropriations, including $2.3 billion for the military, primarily to support military operations in Iraq and Bosnia, and $575 million for disaster relief. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #88, 3/31/1998] Sanders Supported US Citizens Filing Claims Against The Iraqi Government 1994: Sanders Voted To Disburse $1.2 Billion In Frozen Iraqi Assets To Businesses And Soldiers And Relatives With Claims Against The Iraqi Government. On April 28, 1994, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #146. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill to establish procedures and authorize the disbursement of about $1.2 billion in Iraqi assets frozen during the Persian Gulf War to businesses and U.S. soldiers and their relatives with claims against the Iraqi government. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #146, 4/28/1994] 1999: Sanders Voted To Determine Validity Of Claims By US Nationals Against The Iraqi Government And To Authorize An Iraqi Claims Fund For The Payment Of Claims On July 21, 1999, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #328. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Doggett, D-Texas, amendment to authorize the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission to determine the validity of claims by U.S. nationals against the Iraqi government, giving priority to claims registered by members of the U.S. armed forces and other claims arising from the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait or from the 1987 attack on the USS Stark. The amendment would authorize the Treasury Department to establish an Iraq claims fund for the payment of claims, to be financed by the liquidation of Iraqi government assets in the United States. The amendment would place a 10 year limitation on those claims. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #328, 7/21/1999] Sanders Accused The Pentagon Of Covering Up The Exposure Of US Troops To Chemical Weapons In The First Gulf War Sanders Accused The Pentagon Of Covering Up The Exposure Of US Troops To Chemical Weapons In The First Gulf War. “Representative Bernard Sanders, a Vermont independent, accused the Pentagon of suppressing information about the chemical exposures by the Fox vehicles. ‘Persian Gulf war veterans have every right to know why this information was not forthcoming, and in fact who is responsible for what might be termed an apparent cover-up,’ Mr. Sanders said. The Pentagon has insisted that it learned only this year of an incident in which large numbers of American troops may have been exposed to chemical weapons—an event in March 1991, in which American combat engineers blew up an Iraqi ammunition bunker that was later determined to have contained tons of nerve gas and mustard agent. But the testimony today from soldiers who manned the Fox vehicles suggested that there were repeated, accurate detections of chemical weapons in Kuwait during the war and afterwards. The two witnesses remain in the military, although both have reported health problems that they believe may have resulted from their deployment to the gulf.” [New York Times, 12/11/96] Sanders Sent A Staffer On A Controversial Fact Finding Mission To Examine The Humanitarian Conditions In Iraq Under UN Sanctions 1999: Sanders Sent A Congressional Staffer On A Think Tank Led Fact Finding Mission To Examine Humanitarian Conditions In Iraq Under UN Sanctions And The Possibility Of Grain Sales To Iraq. “Bennis, of the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies, accompanied five congressional staff members to Iraq. She said the group will examine humanitarian conditions in Iraq under the U.N. sanctions and possible U.S. grain sale to Baghdad. Some members of Congress have begun to question the Clinton administration’s Iraq policy. The United States and Britain have insisted sanctions that have crippled the economy and affected the lives of ordinary Iraqis remain until Iraq convinces the United Nations it has given up weapons of mass destruction. The staff members with Bennis work for Reps. Sam Gejdenson, a Connecticut Democrat; Cynthia McKinney, Democrat of Georgia; Earl Hilliard, an Alabama Democrat; Danny K. Davis, an Illinois Democrat; and Bernard Sanders, an independent from Vermont.” [Associated Press, 8/29/99] The Congressional Staff Delegation Angered The State Department By Defying A Travel Ban And By Meeting Iraq’s Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz. “A group of U.S. congressional staff members visiting Iraq in defiance of a U.S. travel ban further angered the State Department by meeting Tuesday with Iraq’s deputy prime minister. In Washington, a State Department spokesman said organizers of the delegation of congressional staffers had previously assured the administration they would not meet with Iraqi leaders during their fact-finding tour. ‘I think that it was indicated to us in our meetings ... that they, in fact, did not intend to meet with the Iraqi leadership,’ spokesman James Foley said. ‘They appear ... to have done so.’ ‘I doubt very seriously whether what they heard from Tariq Aziz in private was different from what ... that particular representative of Iraqi propaganda has stated in public,’ he said.” [Associated Press, 8/31/99] The Staffer Sent By Sanders Was Danielle LeClair. “The congressional staffers are: Amos Hochstein, who works for Rep. Sam Gejdenson, a Connecticut Democrat; Peter Hickey, with the office of Rep. Cynthia McKinney, a Democrat from Georgia; Jack Zylman, from the staff of Rep. Earl Hilliard, an Alabama Democrat; Brian Sims, who works for Rep. Danny K. Davis, an Illinois Democrat; and Danielle LeClair, from the office of Rep. Bernard Sanders, an independent from Vermont.” [Associated Press, 9/2/99] For Future Bulleting: The Report From The Trip: http://www.tni.org/es/archives/act/3935 Miscellaneous Sanders Called For Repurposing Military Spending For Global Humanitarian Aid Sanders Opposed The Use Of Nuclear Weapons And Called For Military Spending To Be Repurposed For Worldwide Humanitarian Purposes. “Rep. SANDERS: You know, let’s back up a little bit. Let’s remember that a few months ago most of the world was celebrating that the cold war had finally come to an end, that the hundreds of billions of dollars that were being spent for military purposes could now be used for housing, for education, to deal with the crisis in the third world where 30,000 children a day starve to death. And this is- Questions like this are what upset me. There are people - many people, I guess - in this country who think it’s now appropriate to use nuclear weapons. No, I don’t. I don’t think we should use nuclear weapons. Once again, I think this crisis can be solved by economic means. You use nuclear weapons today, I’ve got news for you: Within five years, 10 years, as nuclear weapons proliferate, you’re going to see the world blow up. And it’s absolutely unnecessary. The cold war is over. We should be moving toward peace, not talking about using nuclear weapons.” [Larry King Live, CNN, 1/14/91] Sanders Said The US Banking System Was On The Verge Of Collapse And That The US Was Allied With Neo-Nazis In Latin America Sanders Complained About the Number Of Homeless And Uninsured In The US, Said The Banking System Was On “The Verge Of Collapse,” And Said The US Was Allied With “Neo-Nazi Governments” In El Salvador And Guatemala. “Rep. SANDERS: But I thank you, anyhow. Well, I’ll tell you what. Let me reverse the question and say: What do we say to 2 million people who are homeless in the United States when the Government says, ‘We don’t have money to deal with your homeless problem’? What do we say to 15 percent of the population that doesn’t have national health care when the Government says, ‘We don’t have money to deal with that’? What do we talk about when we understand that our banking system is on the verge of a collapse? My friend, it would be nice to believe that the United States could solve all of the problems in the world. The fact of the matter is today we are allied with neo-Nazi governments in El Salvador and Guatemala. We can’t solve all the problems.” [Larry King Live, CNN, 1/14/91] Sanders Voted To Condemn Soviet Military Action In The Lithuania And Latvia 1991: Sanders Voted To Condemn Soviet Military Force In The Baltics. On January 23, 1991, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #15. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Fascell, D-Fla., motion to suspend the rules and adopt the concurrent resolution to condemn the recent brutal violence by Soviet forces in Lithuania and Latvia; call on President Gorbachev to cease the use of force; support President Bush's condemnation of the recent events in the Baltics; urge the President to review bilateral relations and consider other actions; and call on the Soviet government to enter peaceful and meaningful negotiations with the Baltics, resolve peacefully disputes with all Soviet republics, and abide by its obligations under international documents to respect human rights and the self-determination of peoples. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #15, 1/23/1991] Sanders Voted To Sanction China For Transferring Cruise Missiles to Iran 1997: Sanders Voted To Sanction China For Transferring Cruise Missiles To Iran ). On November 6, 1997, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #592. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the resolution to urge the president to sanction China for transferring C-802 cruise missiles to Iran, in violation of the Iran-Iraq Arms Non-Proliferation Act of 1992 (PL 102-484), which imposes U.S. sanctions on countries that transfer advanced conventional weapons to Iran or Iraq. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #592, 11/6/1997] Sanders Strongly Supported War Against Milosevic But Warned About Civilian Casualties And Called On Working With Russia To Giving Serbia An Opportunity To Withdraw Sanders Said He Was Strongly In Support Of NATO’s Goals In War Against Milosevic In Yugoslavia. “REP. SANDERS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing. And I want to thank Curt Weldon for his outstanding work over the years in helping to improve the relationship between the United States Congress and the Russian Duma. Let me begin by saying that everybody understands the situation in Yugoslavia is enormously complex. And we, as members of Congress, have got to do as good a job as we can in communicating our views with each other. Now, maybe I can say this easily as an independent, not a Democrat, not a Republican. But I hope very much that there are not Republicans who will constantly be critical of the efforts because Bill Clinton is the president and they hate Bill Clinton. And I hope there will not be Democrats who will instinctively say everything is going well because Bill Clinton is the president and they are Democrats. This is too complicated and too important an issue to be reacting in that way. Yesterday, as I think you have heard, all of us—six Republicans, four Democrats and myself—met with Secretary of State Albright. And I thought that the meeting was important and it was useful. The 11 members of Congress who are here with you today hold very different political philosophies, but we made it clear to the secretary of State that we are in strong support of NATO’s goals in the war. ” [Hearing Of The House International Relations Committee, 5/13/99] Sanders Said He Was Hopeful After Getting Russian Politicians To Agree With NATO’s Overall Aims In The War, Saying “And I Will Not Sit Quietly And Allow Fascism And Ethnic Cleansing To Be Re-Established.” “And let me reiterate that. I absolutely am in strong support of NATO’s goals in the war NATO position, in support of the NATO position, and that we were helpful in getting Russia to play a more active role in the peace process. That was an important achievement. We met with the secretary of State yesterday. And as I mentioned to her, in my view, Mr. Milosevic cannot be allowed to be victorious in re-establishing the fascist ideology of ethnic cleansing in Europe. There can be no debate about that. That’s what World War II is about. And I will not sit quietly and allow fascism and ethnic cleansing to be re-established. What the agreement that we reach with the Russians says very clearly is that all of the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo must be allowed to return to their homes. That is what NATO is saying. That’s what the president is saying. We said there must be a complete withdrawal of Serbian armed forces from Kosovo. That is consistent with what NATO is saying. How can you have the people of Kosovo return if the Serbian troops are still there? There is no disagreement with what NATO is saying.” [Hearing Of The House International Relations Committee, 5/13/99] Sanders Warned About Mounting Civilian Casualties And Said Milosevic Needed To Be Given An Opportunity To Withdraw. “Meanwhile, while we keep saying this thing over and over again, world opinion is turning against us as we expand our bombing into civilian areas, something, by the way, that I very strongly disagree with, and as we commit horrible mistakes as the bombing of the Chinese embassy. The agreement which we reached with the Russians calls for simultaneously the stopping of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, the withdrawal of Serbian armed forces from Kosovo, and the cessation of the military activity of the KLA. Now, one of the problems that we have right now is that if, for whatever reason, Mr. Milosevic, who we do not trust, we do not believe, but if, for whatever reasons right now he wants to withdraw his troops from Kosovo, how does he do that?” [Hearing Of The House International Relations Committee, 5/13/99] Sanders Called For A Two Day Ceasefire To See If Milosevic Withdrew His Forces: “If You Do Not Live Up To Your Agreement, The Bombing Continues.” “The goal of the NATO forces now is to destroy the Serbian armed forces. He puts his troops on a road and takes them out. What’s going to happen? They’re going to be mowed down. It seems to me—and now I speak only for myself—that it would make tactical sense, in trying to reach NATO’s goals, call for a two-day—accept the United Nations request for a two-day cease-fire. Say to Milosevic—have an agreement worked out—’You withdraw 50 percent of your troops in those two days. If you do not live up to your agreement, the bombing continues.’ Give him that time. If he does live up to his agreement, he withdraws the rest of his troops.” [Hearing Of The House International Relations Committee, 5/13/99] Sanders Said He Was Proud To Involve Russia In His Efforts To End The Way In Yugoslavia. “REP. SANDERS: Mr. Chairman, if I could just—we are criticized for not negotiating every single detail and contacting every single relevant person in the world. And then on the other hand, we are criticized for having gone forward at all. In other words, there’s no way we could solve this problem. All that we did is improve our relations with the Russian Duma. I don’t know if anyone thinks that’s a bad idea in a time of great chaos and anti-Americanism in Russia. All that we did is for the first time get Russia, leaders in Russia, to sign on-board NATO’s goals. All we did was accelerate the process by which Russia became involved in the peace effort. That’s pretty good. We did not solve all of the problems of the world, but I think we made a good step forward.” [Hearing Of The House International Relations Committee, 5/13/99] Foreign Policy Criticism From Leftists 1999: Liberty Union Members Protested Sanders Over Support Of NATO Bombing Of Yugoslavia and War in Iraq. “In late April I was among the 25 Vermonters who occupied Congressman Bernie Sanders’ Burlington office to protest his support of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia and the ongoing war against Iraq. Calling ourselves the “Instant Antiwar Action Group,” we decided to bring our outrage at Bernie’s escalating hypocrisy directly to his office, an action that resulted in 15 of us being arrested for trespass. Many of us worked on Bernie’s campaigns through 1980’s, the years he was–as the local press repeatedly put it – the “avowed socialist” Mayor of Burlington, Vermont.” [Will Miller, Liberty Union, 1999] 1999, Liberty Union Member: Sanders Tried To Project Anti-War Stance, But Voted In Favor Of Continued Bombing Of Yugoslavia. “[Sanders] got himself included at the last minute with a Congressional delegation going to Austria to meet with representatives of the Russian Duna to bring the Russians in to help broker a settlement in the US/NATO war in Yugoslavia. But, before leaving to see the Russians, he voted in favor of the continued bombing of Yugoslavia, a bombing that the Russians had already said would have to stop as a precondition for any settlement. A general town meeting has already been scheduled for the following Monday, so he turned it to a “town meeting on Kosovo.” [Will Miller, Liberty Union, 1999] 1999, Liberty Union Member: Sanders Supported Military Buildup In The Persian Gulf While He Sought Membership In Democratic Caucus; Voted Against War When They Rejected Him. “She opposed the Gulf build-up, Bernie supported it. She supported decriminalization of drug use and Bernie defended the war on drugs, and so on….. After being safely elected in November of 1990, Bernie continued to support the buildup while seeking membership in the Democratic Congressional Caucus– with the enthusiastic support of the Vermont Democratic Party leadership. But, the national Democratic Party blew him off, so he finally voted against the war and returned home–and as the war began– belatedly claimed to be the leader of the anti-war movement in Vermont.” [Will Miller, Liberty Union, 1999] Liberty Union Member: After Joining Democratic Caucus, Sanders Became An “Ardent Imperialist And Supporter Of Bill Clinton. “Since 1991 the Democrats have given Bernie membership in their Congressional Caucus. Reciprocally, Bernie has become an ardent imperialist. Sanders endorsed Clinton in 1992 and 1996. In 1992 he described Clinton as the “lesser of evils,” (a justification he used to denounce when he was what the local press called an “avowed socialist”). By 1996 he gave Clinton an unqualified endorsement. He has been a consistent “Friend of Bill’s” from since 1992. One student I know worked on the Clinton Campaign in 1996 and all across Vermont, Bernie was on the stage with the rest of the Vermont Democratic Party Leadership, while the unauthorized Democratic candidate for his Congressional seat was kept out in the audience.” [Will Miller, Liberty Union, 1999] Liberty Union Member: Sanders Supported Sanctions Against Iraq and Every Bombing Of Iraq From 1992 Through 1999. “Sanders continues to support sanctions even though the Iraqi body count has now passed 1.5 million. Just as he has supported every bombing of Iraq since 1992. When Clinton sent military units to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia in October, 1994 because Iraq moved troops inside Iraq closer to the Kuwait border (apparently about 100 miles away), Bernie supported this because “we cannot tolerate aggression.”” [Will Miller, Liberty Union, 1999] Liberty Union Member: Sanders’s Congressional Office Sent Mailers Supporting The US Having “The Strongest Military In The World. “He sends out mailings to veterans that supports the US having “the strongest military in the world,” while praising our sacrifices as veterans “for the freedom of Americans.”” [Will Miller, Liberty Union, 1999] 1999, Liberty Union Member: Sanders Defended Vermont Military Contracts Against Cuts. “Bernie regularly rides out with the rest of the Vermont Congressional delegation defending the military contracts in Vermont against cuts by the Pentagon, while arguing that some moderation in military spending is possible on the grounds “that the threat of communism is over” (WCAX interview, 10/94).” [Will Miller, Liberty Union, 1999] 1999, Liberty Union Member: “Racism And Classism Seem Not To Bother” Sanders, Who Did Not Have Any People Of Color On His Staff. “Recently, Bernie championed in Congress the dumping of Vermont’s nuclear waste near Sierra Blanca, Texas, a low income border community with a mostly Latino population that is overwhelmingly opposed to the dump project. Environmental racism and classism seem not to bother him. On a related issue, Bernie was recently asked by the local press why he was the only member of Vermont’ s three member Congressional delegation who had no person of color on his staff. Bernie responded that “we’re hiring the most qualified people we can.”” [Will Miller, Liberty Union, 1999] 1999, Liberty Union Member: Sanders’s Congressional Office Had 15 Anti-War Protestors Arrested. “The response to our occupation of Bernie’s office was, unfortunately, consistent with his lurch to the mainstream. At 6:30 PM, one half hour after closing time, Philip Fiermonte of Bernie’s staff had 15 of us arrested for trespass. […]In the following week, Bernie, doing quick damage control, ducked responsibility for arresting the “Sanders 15″ …” [Will Miller, Liberty Union, 1999] Liberty Union Member: Sanders Was Heavily Criticized During Town Hall Meeting Over Support For “Every US Intervention” In The 1990s. “The overwhelming majority of the people present were against Sander’s support for the bombing. Even with all his attempts to control the meeting, the people had at him for more than an hour and a half. He was denounced for his selling out to the Empire and it’s war machine and for his support for the 9 year old war against Iraq and his active support for every US intervention since he has been in Congress–Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Liberia, Zaire (Congo), Albania, Sudan, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia. He was further criticized for his refusal to ban or even object to the use of depleted uranium with it’s long term toxicity in both Iraq and Yugoslavia.” [Will Miller, Liberty Union, 1999] 1999, Liberty Union Member: Sanders “Became An Imperialist” To Get Elected In 1990. “Bernie became an imperialist to get elected in 1990. In August, 1990–after the Bush administration enticed Iraq into invading Kuwait–Sanders said he wasn’t “going to let some damn war cost him the election,” according to a staff member who was present at the time. So Sanders backed the buildup in the Persian Gulf and dumped on the left anti-imperialist peace movement, singling out his former allies like Dave Dellinger for public criticism.” [Will Miller, Liberty Union, 1999] Socialist Worker: Sanders Decision To Support 1999 Kosovo War Drove One Of His Advisers To Resign. “Despite his own claims, Sanders has not been an antiwar leader. Ever since he won election to the House, he has taken either equivocal positions on U.S. wars or outright supported them. His hawkish positions -- especially his decision to support Bill Clinton’s 1999 Kosovo War -- drove one of his key advisers, Jeremy Brecher, to resign from his staff. Brecher wrote in his resignation letter, “Is there a moral limit to the military violence you are willing to participate in or support?”” [Socialist Worker, 11/15/06] Socialist Worker: Sanders Voted To Fund Wars In Iraq and Afghanistan. “Ever since, he has voted for appropriations bills to fund the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, despite their horrific toll on the occupied peoples as well as U.S. soldiers.” [Socialist Worker, 11/15/06] Socialist Worker: Sanders Did Not Support Immediate Withdrawal From Iraq. “The day after his election to the Senate, Sanders declared, “I don’t think you can do a quote-unquote immediate withdrawal. I think the policy has got to be we will withdraw our troops as soon as possible, and by that, I mean that I believe we can have our troops out in the next year, and maybe a significant number of them before that. I don’t think you can snap your fingers and just bring all the troops home tomorrow. I just don’t think that’s practical.” [Socialist Worker, 11/15/06] Socialist Worker: Sanders Voted For Iran Freedom Act, Which Was Denounced As “A Stepping Stone To War” With Iran. “Finally, in perhaps his worst betrayal yet, Sanders joined a host of liberal Democrats including Barbara Lee and John Conyers to vote for HR 282, the Iran Freedom Support Act -which bears a striking resemblance to the resolutions that set up the framework for the war on Iraq. The act stipulates that the U.S. should impose sanctions on Iran to prevent it from developing weapons of mass destruction and distributing them to aid international terrorism. It also calls for the U.S. to support democratic change in the country, thereby establishing all necessary pretexts for a war on Iran. Democrat Dennis Kucinich voted against the act and denounced it as a “stepping stone to war.”” [Socialist Worker, 11/15/06] Socialist Worker: Sanders Supported Israeli Actions Against Palestinian State. “In response, longtime War Resisters League leader, David McReynolds sent a public letter to Sanders, stating, “Because of your vote of support for the Israeli actions, I would hope any friends and contacts of mine would not send you funds, nor give you their votes.” Indeed, Sanders has consistently defended Israel through it worst crimes against Palestinians and Arabs. Unsurprisingly, some Sanders staffers have also worked with the American Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC) -- including David Sirota, now a Democratic Party strategist, and Sanders’ former communications director Joel Barkin.” [Socialist Worker, 11/15/06] Socialist Worker: Sanders Supported Israeli War On Lebanon. “This summer, Sanders voted for House Resolution 921, which gave full support to Israel’s murderous war on Lebanon. He also voted for HR 4681 that imposed sanctions on the Palestinian Authority with the aim of removing the democratically elected Hamas government.” [Socialist Worker, 11/15/06] Socialist Worker: Sanders Supported Bill That Expanded Federal Death Penalty. “On some pivotal issues, Sanders does worse than subordinate the demands of the oppressed -- he joins in the attack. For example, Sanders claims to oppose the death penalty, but he voted for Bill Clinton’s 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which broadened the scope of the federal death penalty and laid the foundation for Bush’s “war on terror” and attacks on civil liberties.” [Socialist Worker, 11/15/06] Socialist Worker: Sanders Supported Transport Of Vermont Nuclear Waste To Impoverished Texas Town On Mexican Border, A Precedent For Yucca Mountain. “Once in the House, Sanders made one of his worst environmental decisions. He worked with then-Texas Gov. George Bush to lead the charge for dumping nuclear waste from Vermont’s Vernon reactor in Sierra Blanca, an impoverished town inhabited mainly by Chicanos on the border with Mexico. Together, they worked to pass the MaineVermont-Texas nuclear waste compact, and then took advantage of Bill Clinton’s decision to allow interstate transportation of low-level nuclear waste. Sierra Blanca, already a toxic waste dump, has thus been poisoned for generations. However much Sanders may oppose the transportation and dumping of nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain for threatening the health of people in Las Vegas, he and the Toxic Texan, George Bush, established the precedent for this with their compact in the 1990s.” [Socialist Worker, 11/15/06] Liberty Union: Sanders Allegedly Called State Police On Anti-Israel Activists At Town Hall Meeting In Vermont. “A handful of activists from Code Pink and Occupy Central Vermont went to a town hall meeting in Cabot, Vermont on Saturday, hosted by Bernie Sanders and loudly confronted him on his unconscionable support for Israel’s murderous attacks on Palestinians in Gaza. His reaction was to freak out and call the state police on us, who came rushing through town at high speed as if there was a crime in progress.” [Liberty Union, 8/17/14] ECONOMY Nationalizing Businesses SANDERS SAID HE WOULD NOT SUPPORT NATIONALIZING ALL BUSINESSES Sanders Said He Did Not Support Nationalizing All Businesses. “I'm proud to be a socialist," Sanders said. "But does that mean we end up nationalizing everything, and government should run every small business? Obviously, and of course, not. But no one who knows anything about economics thinks that we do live in a free enterprise society. If you think the word 'socialism' is not more than symbolic, though, you're very wrong, because I say working people should be running this country rather than zillionaires. I have a different vision; I believe in a different power alignment. What I'm saying is, the world has got to change, and I have no illusion I can do it here in Burlington altogether."” [The Nation, 3/19/83] Sanders Did Not Support Nationalizing Banks, But Felt It Was Important To Highlight Struggle Between Workers And Those Who Control The Means Of Production As Part Of The Political Debate. “To Socialist Mayor Bernard Sanders of Burlington, Vt, socialism isn’t necessarily nationalizing banks, but steps like building affordable housing and helping workers control their companies. He says socialism’s key concept – that workers and those who control the means of production in the United States are on opposite sides of the struggle – must become part of the political debate or the owners will just keep winning and poor people will remain poor.” [Waterbury Republican, 5/10/87] 1986: Rutland Daily Herald: Sanders’ “Rhetoric Has Softened. No Longer Does Sanders Talk Of State Ownership Of Banks Or The Telephone Company.” “The political maverick [Sanders] suffered the same handicap in his subsequent bids for statewide office during the 1970s: innovative talk, but no tangible evidence his proposals could become reality. This year is different. For one thing, the rhetoric has softened. No longer does Sanders talk of state ownership of banks or the telephone company.” [Rutland Daily Herald, 11/1/86] BUT SANDERS HAS CALLED FOR PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OF UTILITIES… 1973: Bernie Sanders: “In The Long Run… All Utilities Must Go Under Public Ownership And All Necessities Of Life Must Be Provide Free For People.” “Unexpected opposition came from Bernard Sanders, chairman of the Liberty Union party, for whom Lifeline is not radical enough. Sanders stressed that per capita income in Vermont is the lowest in the nation except for the Deep South, and that corporate profits are highest in history. In the long run, Sanders said, all utilities must go under public ownership and all necessities of life must be provide free for people.” [Bennington Banner, 1/17/74] Liberty Union Called For State Takeover Of Private Utility Companies. “We feel it is wrong for large corporations to profit from our basic needs for heat and electricity. Liberty Union's plan calls for public takeover of these privately owned utilities. The basic problem is twofold: First, the utility companies are owned by out-of-state investors who have no real interest in our needs. Second, the Public Service Board continues to give in to the unnecessary demands of Big Business at our expense. Every time the utilities are guilty of mismanagement, the Public Service Board props them up by passing the costs on to the ratepayers. But we're at the end of the line -- we can't pass our costs on to anyone.” [Liberty Union Newspaper, pg.3, Election 1976] 1974: Sanders Supported “The Public Takeover Of All Privately Owned Electric Companies In Vermont” To Combat Rising Energy Prices. “One press release – from a Senate race he contested in 1974 – proposes a radical solution to rising energy prices. “Bernard Sanders, the Liberty Union candidate for the United States Senate, today called for the public takeover of all privately owned electric companies in Vermont,” it stated. The press release discovered by the Guardian is annotated and could be a draft, and it goes on to describe the policy as a “dollar and cents” proposal rather than a forced appropriation of the means of producing energy. (Electricity in other municipalities in America was, at the time, administered by public bodies.)” [The Guardian, 6/19/15] 1972: Bernie Sanders, Calling For The Nationalization Of Telephone And Electric Utilities, Remarked, “It’s Absurd That Corporations And Millionaires Should Make Profits Out Of Human Needs.” “Sanders wants a reordering of priorities to combat poverty in Vermont and the nation. He says that utilities such as the telephone and electric companies should ‘either be nonprofit or profits should be sued for public needs. ‘It’s absurd,’ he reasons, ‘that corporations and millionaires should make profits out of human needs.’” [Bennington Banner, 1/5/72] 1972: Bernie Sanders: “I Believe That The Phone Company Should Be Owned And Operated By A Public Agency.” “Sanders added: ‘In the final analysis I believe that the phone company should be owned and operated by a public agency. It seems absurd to me that millions of Vermonters’ dollars are going to increase the profits of a huge, out-of-state corporation when the money could just as easily be going into state revenue so as to lower taxes.’” [Bennington Banner, 9/21/72] SANDERS SUPPORTED NATIONALIZING OIL AND GAS COMPANIES 1973: Bernie Sanders Urged Vermont’s Congressional Delegation To Consider Nationalizing Private Oil And Gas Companies. “Bernard Sanders former Liberty Union candidate for governor, Tuesday urged the Vermont congressional delegation to vote against President Nixon’s energy policy legislation. […] Sanders also urged the congressmen to give serious thought to the nationalization of the oil industry, claiming these privately owned companies have ‘so far too much power and control over America.’” [Bennington Banner, 11/30/73] Sanders Was A Member Of Yipsel, An Organization That Advocated “Social Ownership… Of The Means Of Production” But Was “Explicitly Anti-Communist.” “Civil rights weren't his only passion. Sanders was also active the Young People's Socialist League ("Yipsel"), a leftist organization which advocated for the "social ownership and democratic control of the means of production and distribution," but was explicitly anti-communist. […] When LBJ aide Sargent Shriver visited campus during Sanders' senior year to make his pitch for the new Peace Corps, Yipsel organized a picket. In an open letter in the Maroon, the group explained why: "Mr. Shriver, those who are sincerely interested in economic and social justice will not serve as a front for your capitalist system; instead they will oppose it in any way they can."” [Mother Jones, 5/29/15] 1976: Bernie Sanders: I Believe That If We Live In A Sane Society, Capital Has To Be Controlled By The People.” “I believe that if we live in a sane society, capital has to be controlled by the people, and must be sued for needs to improve the quality of life for all.” [Bennington Banner, 10/27/76] SANDERS CALLED FOR THE PUBLIC CONTROL OF THE TELEVISION INDUSTRY 1979: Bernie Sanders Advocated Complete Public Control Of The Television Industry. “The potential of television democratically owned and controlled by the people, is literally beyond comprehension because it is such a relatively new medium and we have no experience with it under democratic control. At the least, with the present state of technology, we could have a choice of dozens of channels of commercial-free TV. At the moment serious writers are, by and large, not allowed to write for commercial television for fear they might produce something that is true and hence, upsetting to the owners of the media. Under democratic control people with all kinds of views could make their presentations, and serious artist would be encouraged to produce work for the tube. There is no question that television has an enormous impact upon our society, and that the controllers of that medium have far more power than almost any politician. For those of us who are concerned about living in a democratic and healthy society, it is necessary to address the control of television as a political issue, and organize to win.” [Bernie Sanders, Op-ed, Vanguard Press, 2/13/79] 1984: Sanders Called For A Municipally Owned Cable System, Drawing Inspiration From Successful Shrewsbury, Mass. Example. “The success of a municipally owned cable television system in Shrewsbury, Mass., shows that Burlington should continue to pursue city ownership if negotiations with Cox Cable Green Mountain go poorly, Mayor Bernard Sanders said Wednesday. […] Sanders said [Shrewsbury] found a system which offers more channels at a cheaper price than Cox is offering. The system, paid for with a bond issue, requires no tax support, but instead contributes money to the city treasury, he said. ‘It is, in fact, a very impressive system which has viewer support,’ he said.” [Burlington Free Press, 7/26/84] 1984: Editorial Questioned Sanders’ Push For A City-Owned Cable System. “Plans for cityowned cable television, one of Mayor Bernard Sanders’ pet projects, may be stalled until the Vermont legislature grants the city legal authority to operate the system. […] The people of the city should ask themselves whether they want to take the financial risk of building a cable television system in light of the initial costs and the possibility of annual losses in order to satisfy Sanders’ ambitions to have his own communications system.” [Editorial, Burlington Free Press, 10/15/84] Burlington Free Press: Sanders’s “Crusade” For City-Run Cable, In Light Of Bigger Problems, Was “Puzzling To Many People In The City.” “But Mayor Bernard Sanders has launched a crusade against the private service and proclaimed himself as, the champion of those who have criticized Cox Cable. He has proposed that the city run its own cable system and has claimed it could offer customers lower rates and better service. What must be puzzling to many people in the city is the emphasis Sanders has placed on the issue of cable television. They perhaps are confused by the mayor's priorities. In putting cable television near the top of his list of concerns, Sanders has implied that it is a more pressing problem than such matters as adequate housing for low-income people.” [Editorial, Burlington Free Press, 8/31/84] Burlington Free Press: Sanders Offered “But Scant Information About The Proposal And [Had] Not Dealt With The Issue Of Costs At All.” “Sanders has offered but scant information about the proposal and has not dealt with the issue of costs at all. Perhaps he has a very good reason for doing so: If a price tag were put on the system, the public might be so shocked as to demand that Sanders drop the idea immediately.” Burlington Paid $50,000 To A D.C. Consultant For A Study That Found Burlington Could Save Millions By Operating Its Own Cable System. “Independent consultant hired by this city's electric department has recommended that Burlington build and operate its own cable system, rather than rely on its current private operator. Rice Associates of Washington, D.C. issued the report to city leaders last month, about two months later than originally planned. The $50,000, 100-page study advises that Vermont's largest city could save $1.5 million to $9.5 million on various municipal services over the next 15 years if it proceeds with a municipal build.” [Multichannel News, 2/6/84] Months Earlier, Sanders Said “We’d Be Out Of Our Minds Not [To]” Switch To A City-Run Cable System If The Study Determined That It Was Feasible. “A debate Thursday over whether Burlington should operate a municipal cable television service came down to one issue: government control versus free enterprise. Control through a city-appointed, board could result in better and cheaper service if a study under way recommends the city get into the cable business, Mayor Bernard Sanders told the Greater Burlington Community Council at a luncheon meeting. […] Sanders said he won't know until the study is completed whether Burlington should run a city cable system, ‘but we'd be out of our minds not [to] do it’ if it is feasible.” [Burlington Free Press, 9/16/83] …AND THE SKI INDUSTRY 1981: Sanders Called For Public Ownership Of Vermont’s Ski Industry. “In an “exclusive” interview with “Mayor Bernie,” Vermont Business World, a monthly newspaper, said, “When the mayor of the state’s largest business center calls for public ownership of Vermont’s ski industry, you can bet the business world has a problem.” [Burlington Free Press, 6/22/81] Auto Bailout Sanders Reluctantly Supported Auto Bailout Because Without It Millions More People Could Become Unemployed. “Senator Bernie Sanders voted against the $700 billion bail out of the financial services industry but he says this package is different: (Sanders) "The problem is if you don't act in the midst of a growing recession what does it mean to create a situation where millions of more people become unemployed and that could spread and I have serious concerns about that I think it would be a terrible idea to add millions more to the unemployment rolls."” [VPR, 12/11/08] Sanders Said Every Effort Should Be Made To Prevent Failure Of Auto Makers, But Rescue Package Should Require A Commitment To Change. “With prospects of a rescue package for GM, Ford and Chrysler dimming, the Vermont Automobile Dealers Association president said the stakes are too high to allow the domestic auto industry to fail. Sen. Bernard Sanders told the Rutland Herald that with 3 million jobs directly and indirectly tied to the auto industry every effort should be made to head off a failure of one or more of the domestic car makers, but he said any rescue package must encompass a commitment by the domestic car makers to change their ways.” [Sanders press release, 11/16/08]  Headline: Leahy, Sanders reluctantly support auto industry rescue [VPR, 12/11/08] Welfare Reform Sanders Voted Against House Passage Of Personal Responsibility Act Of 1995. [HR 4, Vote #269, 3/24/95] Sanders: “We All Recognize That The Current Welfare System Is Not Working Well, But In Reforming The System We Do Not Want To Punish Some Of The Most Vulnerable People In Our Society.” “We all recognize that the current welfare system is not working well, but in reforming the system we do not want to punish some of the most vulnerable people in our society. This House just passed an unfunded Federal mandate bill and, as a former Mayor, I supported that bill. This welfare reform bill is one of the largest unfunded Federal mandates that the State of Vermont will ever experience. […] If we are serious about real welfare reform than we must be talking about a jobs bill which can employ those people who are leaving welfare. We must be talking about increasing child care, job training, and educational opportunities. If our goal is to get people off welfare and into jobs, then we must provide the infrastructure for that transaction. Not to do that is to simply punish poor people for being poor.” [Sanders Remarks, House Floor, 3/15/95] Sanders: “Yes, We Do Need Welfare Reform. Yes, We Do, But We Do Not Need So-Called Reform Which Will Add Another 1 Million Children To The Ranks Of The Poor.” “Clearly, one of the statistics that we as a nation should be profoundly ashamed of, profoundly embarrassed about, is that 22 percent of our children live in poverty, and this great Nation has the dubious distinction of having by far the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world. I heard some of our Republican friends a moment ago talk to us about so-called welfare reform. I hope that they understand that the welfare reform proposal that they are advocating will increase the ranks of childhood poverty by another 1 million children in America. Yes, we do need welfare reform. Yes, we do, but we do not need so-called reform which will add another 1 million children to the ranks of the poor.” [Sanders Remarks, House Floor, 11/13/95] Sanders On So-Called Welfare Reform: “What Is This Congress About When We Increase Childhood Poverty, When We Cut Back On Disabled People, On Vulnerable Senior Citizens In Order To Give Tax Breaks To The Richest People In This Country.” “… this Nation today has by far the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world, and, as I think my friend from Hawaii knows, the estimate is, if the so-called welfare reform bill goes through, another million-and-a-half children will be added to the poverty rolls. What sense-what is this Congress about when we increase childhood poverty, when we cut back on disabled people, on vulnerable senior citizens in order to give tax breaks to the richest people in this country, whose incomes are already soaring, to the largest corporations who are already enjoying record-breaking profits as they take our jobs to Mexico and China?” [Sanders Remarks, House Floor, 12/21/95] Sanders: “Welfare Does Need To Be Reformed, We Need Jobs, We Need Jobs Rebuilding America.” “Second, when we talk about welfare reform, and welfare does need to be reformed, we need jobs, we need jobs rebuilding America. There are so many needs, I am sure in Hawaii, and in Vermont, and all over this country. Our infrastructure is falling apart. We need help in improving our environment. Instead of laying off teachers, we need more teachers, we need more people going out to prevent disease. We can put large numbers of people to work at meaningful, important jobs at decent-paying wages instead of spending a hundred billion dollars a year defending Europe and Asia against a nonexistent enemy.” [Sanders Remarks, House Floor, 12/21/95] Sanders Voted Against Conference Report Of Personal Responsibility Act Of 1995. [HR 4, Vote #887, 12/21/95] January 9, 1996: Bill Clinton Issued His Second Veto On Proposed Welfare Reform. “I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 4, the ‘Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1995.’ In disapproving H.R. 4, I am nevertheless determined to keep working with the Congress to enact real, bipartisan welfare reform.” [The United States Presidency Project, 1/9/1996] Sanders Said He Agreed In The Need For People To Work, But He Also Believed That If Someone Worked 40 Hours A Week, They Were Entitled To Live Above Poverty. “Mr. Speaker, we hear a whole lot of discussion about welfare reform and the need for people to go out and work. I believe that. But I believe that, if somebody works 40 hours a week, they are entitled to live above poverty. I do not think that people are making it at $4.25, $4.50, or $5 an hour without benefits. You cannot raise kids on those wages. So I think that, given the fact that the minimum wage in terms of purchasing power has declined by 26 percent over the last 20 years, we have got to have the courage to raise the minimum wage. In my view it should be raised to at least $5.50 an hour.” [Sanders Remarks, House Floor, 3/13/96] NOTE: This is part of a long speech on the most important issues facing the American people, and it reads very closely to his stump speech today. Sanders Voted Against House Passage Of Welfare Reform Legislation Signed By President Clinton. [HR 3734, Vote #331, 7/18/96] Sanders Voted Against Conference Report Of Welfare Reform Legislation Signed By President Clinton. [HR 3734, Vote #383, 7/31/96] HR 3742 Was One Of Several Versions Of Welfare Reform That Had Been Introduced In The House As Early As 1995. “H.R. 3742 was one of several versions of the legislation that had been introduced in the House starting in early 1995. H.R. 3742 was the version that finally prevailed in the House, passing the House on July 18, 1996 by a vote of 256-120. The Senate began work on its own bill (S. 1956) in July 1996, and after the House passed H.R. 3742 the text of the House bill was incorporated into S. 1956, and this expanded bill passed the Senate on July 23, 1996 by a vote of 74-24.” [Social Security Administration, accessed 10/30/15] 1997: Sanders Called Welfare Reform The “Grand Slam Of Scapegoating Legislation.” “The crown jewel of the Republican agenda is their so-called welfare reform proposal. The bill, which combines an assault on the poor, women, and children, minorities, and immigrants, is the grand slam of scapegoating legislation, and appeals to the frustrations and ignorance of the American people along a wide spectrum of prejudices.” [Bernie Sanders, Outsider in the House, 1997] Sanders Said Welfare Reform Bill Blamed Poverty On The Poor. “It accepts the brilliant proposition that poverty is caused by the poor, and advances as a solution an end to government support for the most vulnerable in the country.” [Bernie Sanders, Outsider in the House, 1997] Sanders Said Welfare Reform Caused A “Dramatic And Fundamental Change In The Philosophical Underpinnings Of The Democratic Party. “Tired of high taxes and spending huge sums of money on people too lazy to work? Tired of paying black teenagers to stay at home all day and have babies while you work your butt off? Tired of providing an incentive for Mexicans to skip over the border in the middle of the night? Welfare reform is for you! The legislation is a real political winner for Republicans, and has caused a dramatic and fundamental change in the philosophical underpinnings of the Democratic Party.” [Bernie Sanders, Outsider in the House, 1997] Sanders Said He Predicated That Clinton Would Support Welfare Reform When The Administration Rejected A Request To Study The Bill’s Impact On Children. “There was a lot of uncertainty in Washington about whether or not Clinton would support this Republican legislation. Some people pointed out that he had vetoed two previous pieces of similar legislation as being too harsh on kids. But I saw a harbinger of his ultimate decision in the administration’s rejection of a request to study the actual impact of the provisions on the nation’s children. Clearly, they chose not to do the study because it would confirm the fact that large numbers of children would descend into poverty. So my bet all along was that Clinton would acquiesce. A few hours before the vote, Clinton held a press conference to announce that, while he had certain reservations about the bill, he would sign it. The legislation is a step forward, he asserted.” [Bernie Sanders, Outsider in the House, 1997] Sanders Said That Welfare Reform Represented The “Historic Collapse Not Only Of The President, But Of Much Of The Democratic Party In Congress.” “What was especially noteworthy about these past few weeks, especially in terms of so-called welfare reform, was the historic collapse not only of the president, but of much of the Democratic Party in Congress in supporting draconian cuts that five years ago nobody in the party would have seriously discussed let alone voted for. That collapse indicated the enormous success that Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, corporate American, and the far right have had in changing the political and social landscape of America. It also makes clear that there is now no major political party that represents the poor and vulnerable. There is no question about it. Beating up on the poor is now “good politics.”” [Bernie Sanders, Outsider in the House, 1997] Sanders Blasted Clinton And Democrats For Passing Welfare Reform That Hurt Immigrants And Children That “Even Richard Nixon Would Have Summarily Rejected.” “It is astonishing how little fanfare accompanies such an historic event. Here is the Democratic Party which prided itself for sixty years on defending the interests of working people and the poor, making a radical shift to the right, and accept policy which Richard Nixon would have summarily rejected. If, five years before, someone had suggested that a Democratic president and the vast majority of Democrats in Congress would have supported legislation that cut food stamps by over $20 billion, viciously attacked legal immigrants, and terminated a child’s right to minimal economic support, they would have been laughed at. But that’s exactly what happened.” [Bernie Sanders, Outsider in the House, 1997] New Market Tax Credit Bernie Sanders One Of 27 Members Of The House To Oppose New Markets Tax Credit Signed By President Clinton. In 2000, Sanders voted against of a bill providing tax credits and other economic incentives to promote investment and job creation in economically depressed urban and rural communities. The bill authorized President Clinton’s “New Markets Initiative,” and designated nine new “empowerment zones” and 40 new “renewal communities.” The bill passed 394-27. [HR 4923, Vote #430, 7/25/00; CQ Floor Votes, 7/25/00] Sanders Voted For Conference Report Of Bill That Included New Markets Tax Credit. “Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001 - Enacts the following measures into law: (1) H.R. 5656 (Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001), as introduced on December 14, 2000; (2) H.R. 5657 (Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2001), as introduced on December 14, 2000; (3) H.R. 5658 (Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001), as introduced on December 14, 2000; (4) H.R. 5666 (Miscellaneous Appropriations Act, 2001, with the exception of section 123), as introduced on December 15, 2000; (5) H.R. 5660 (Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000), as introduced on December 14, 2000…” [HR 4577, Vote #603, 12/15/00] NOTE: Sanders voted for the 2009 stimulus and 2013 fiscal cliff bills that contained extensions of the New Markets Tax Credit. Sanders Pushed For Funding From New Markets Tax Credit Program For Vermont Rural Ventures. “Leahy, Sanders and Welch supported Vermont Rural Ventures' bid for the tax credits, including a letter of support. In a joint statement, Leahy, Sanders and Welch said: "This will leverage private investments in bricks-and-mortar growth in Vermont's economy. It will make it possible to create jobs for Vermonters and to support long-term economic recovery and growth where help is needed the most."” [Press Release via Targeted News Service, Sen. Patrick Leahy, 4/24/13] Sanders Announced That Vermont Rural Ventures Would Receive Tax Credits Worth $40 Million From NMTC. “Sen. Patrick Leahy (D), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) and Rep. Peter Welch (D) Wednesday announced that Vermont Rural Ventures will receive $40 million in federal tax credits to spur economic development projects throughout the state. The New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC) Program was established by Congress in 2000 to spur investment of private capital in economic development projects in communities with high poverty and high unemployment. The program is administered by the U.S. Treasury Department. Under the program, investors receive tax credits against their federal income tax returns in exchange for making equity investments in eligible economic development projects.” [Press Release via Targeted News Service, Sen. Patrick Leahy, 4/24/13] Vermont Rural Ventures Was A Subsidiary Of Housing Vermont And Would Use Funding To Finance Construction Projects. “Vermont Rural Ventures, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Housing Vermont, has received two previous NMTC awards of $30 million and $35 million. The funds have been used to finance improvements and expansion of Weidmann Electrical Technologies in St. Johnsbury, Laraway Youth and Family Services' new building and programs in Johnson, DEW's construction of the CCV building in Rutland, Enosburg Health Center construction, expansion of the Commonwealth Dairy facility in Brattleboro, and Barre City Center, which is currently under construction.” [Press Release via Targeted News Service, Sen. Patrick Leahy, 4/24/13] 2012: Sanders Praised Announcement That Vermont Rural Ventures Would Receive $35 Million In Tax Credits From NMTC. “Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) announced today that Vermont Rural Ventures will receive $35 million in federal tax credits to spur economic development projects throughout the state. "These tax credits will leverage private investment dollars, creating jobs for Vermonters and supporting longterm economic growth in our communities," Leahy said. "This award is particularly timely for Vermont, given the economic impact and loss of jobs due to Irene. These funds will be used to create good-paying jobs where we need them most," Sanders said. […] The New Markets Tax Credit Program was established by Congress in 2000 to spur investment of private capital in economic development projects in communities with high poverty and high unemployment.” [Press Release via US Official News, Rep. Peter Welch, 2/27/12] Food Stamps Sanders Introduced Legislation That Protected Families From Liability For Any Overissuance Of Food Stamps Valued At $1,000 Or Less. “Food Stamp Overpayment Protection Act of 2001 - Amends the Food Stamp Act of 1977 to provide that: (1) no member of a household shall be liable in any calendar year for the nonfraudulent overissuance (to such household) of food stamp coupons having a face value of $1, 000 or less; and (2) an overissuance for which no household member is liable may not be collected.” [HR 2319, introduced 6/26/01] Unemployment Benefits Sanders Supported Extending Long-Term Unemployment Insurance As A Means To Create Jobs. “In defense of legislation to extend long-term unemployment insurance that was passed in the Senate, Sanders condemned the idea of leaving the unemployed in the dark. “SANDERS: I don’t think you do that from a moral perspective, but I also don’t think you do that from an economic perspective. Because what most economists understand, is that the best way to create jobs and stimulate the economy is to put money into the hands of people who are going to spend that money. And if there’s anyone who’s going to spend that money, it’s someone who is long-term unemployed. They’re going to have to spend that money in their community. And if we extend long-term unemployment, we create hundreds of thousands of jobs. So, to me, that’s what we should do.” [Brunch With Bernie, 5/30/14, 6:46] 1994: Sanders Opposed A Two-Year Limit For Welfare Recipients. “Host: Should there be a two-year limit for welfare recipients? Sanders: No, you just simply don’t say without a context, throw people into the streets, we don’t care about your children. No, you can’t do that.” [Sanders on Welfare Reform, C-SPAN, 5/24/94] 1970s: Sanders Called To End “All Time Limitations For Unemployment Benefits” In Liberty Union Campaigns. “Liberty Union “people found it difficult to support themselves while engaging in full-time political work,” Michael Parenti, one of those people, wrote in the Massachusetts Review in the summer of 1975. “Some held jobs that allowed free time for campaign activities, while others lived off unemployment insurance.” Sanders, according to an article in 1974 in the Bennington Banner, was one of them. He was on unemployment for a few months in 1971. In subsequent Liberty Union campaigns he advocated for “the doing away with all time limitations for unemployment benefits.”” [Politico, Politico Magazine, 7/9/15] In The 1970s, The Bennington Banner Said That Sanders Was On Unemployment Insurance. “Liberty Union “people found it difficult to support themselves while engaging in full-time political work,” Michael Parenti, one of those people, wrote in the Massachusetts Review in the summer of 1975. “Some held jobs that allowed free time for campaign activities, while others lived off unemployment insurance.” Sanders, according to an article in 1974 in the Bennington Banner, was one of them. He was on unemployment for a few months in 1971. In subsequent Liberty Union campaigns he advocated for “the doing away with all time limitations for unemployment benefits.”” [Politico, Politico Magazine, 7/9/15] Sanders Spokesperson Said That Sanders Could Not Remember What Job He Had That Qualified Him To Be On Unemployment Benefits “For A Few Months” In 1971. ”He said Sanders received unemployment, “for a few months,” in 1971, though Sanders can’t remember what the job was that qualified him for the benefits.” [Politico, Politico Magazine, 7/9/15] 1972: After Visiting The State Penitentiary, Bernie Sanders Stated That, The “Real Criminals” Are “The People Who Allow And Even Promote The Unemployment Which Enables Corporations To Make Large Profits.” “‘While children in New York City breathe the equivalent of two packs of cigarettes a day in automobile fumes, these men make money,’ Sanders said on Monday after touring the state prison here. Sanders also issued a statement which said that the ‘real criminals’ are ‘the people who allow and even promote the unemployment which enables corporations to make large profits.’” [Bennington Banner, 1/4/72] Small Business Sanders Sponsored Bill To Expand Paperwork Reduction Act To Small Businesses. “Amends the Paperwork Reduction Act to expand its coverage to include microenterprises (businesses employing 50 or fewer employees).” [HR 3607, introduced 6/10/96] EDUCATION Early Opposition To Compulsory Education 1970: Bernie Sanders Drew A Strong Distinction Between “The Radical Approach To Education And Child-Upbringing” And The “Liberal And Conservative” Approaches. “The radical approach to education and child-upbringing is as different to the liberal and conservative approaches, as the latter two are to each other. The radical approach to education and child-bringing as exemplified by such schools as A.S. Neill’s Summerhill, stats off with very different assumptions about human nature and society than do the other two approaches.” [Vermont Freeman, 4/3/70] 1970: Bernie Sanders: “The Radical Educator Believes… Human Instincts Are Good And That Society By Repressing… These Natural Feelings… Brings About The Hate, Sickness, And Misery Which Fills The World.” “The radical educator believes that, basically, the human instincts are good and that society by repressing and distorting these natural feelings of children, brings about the hate, sickness, and misery which fills the world. As much as possible, therefore, he allows children to act naturally and without constraint. He sees absolutely no sense in discipline for discipline’s sake. He sees no sense in imposing on children a particular body of knowledge—much of which he considers in any case, wrong or useless.” [Vermont Freeman, 4/3/70] 1970: Bernie Sanders: “The Radical Educator” Believing “Present Day Society” To Be “Sick And Anti-Life… Has No Desire To Educate Children So That They Will Fit Into That Society.” “Because he sees present day society as being basically sick and anti-life, the radical educator has no desire to educate children so that they will fit into that society, His concern is with what he conceives to be the health and happiness of the children, and if a child grows up with self-confidence, a sense of spontaneity, and a strong sense of his own abilities, the radical educator fells that he has done his job well.” [Vermont Freeman, 4/3/70] 1970: Bernie Sanders: “The Radical Educator… Seeks To Protect The Children From Such Values As Discipline, Respect For Authority, And The Conventional Morality.” “Perhaps most importantly, the radical approach differs from the other two philosophies in that it believes that the human being of today comes nowhere close to approaching the potential that nature set out form him, and that completely new and different ways of living and raising children must be tried if that potentiality is ever to be reached. Believing this, not only does the radical educator not want to inculcate traditional values to the children in his charge but in fact, he seeks to protect the children from such values as discipline, respect for authority, and the conventional morality. He sees these values as being anti-life and destructive and the cause of much of the present day social condition, which he so strongly opposes.” [Vermont Freeman, 4/3/70] Liberty Union Called For An End To Compulsory State Education And For Vouchers To Fund Alternative Education. “Some of the platform positions adopted by the People’s Party are as follows: […] A voucher system to fund alternative forms of education and an end to laws which make state education compulsory.” [A Report on the People’s Party Convention, Martha Abbott, Chairperson of the Liberty Union, August 1972] 1971: The Liberty Union Party’s Platform Called For “The Abolition Of Compulsory Education” And The “Legalization Of… The Use Of Marijuana.” “Among other Liberty Union platform items are the abolition of compulsory education and the funding of alternative education; legalization of abortions and the use of marijuana; withdrawal of military forces from all foreign countries and the end of support for overseas dictatorships distribution of foreign aid through international agencies.” [Vermont Freeman, “Early November,” 1971] Liberty Union Called For Abolishment Of Structured Classes, Grade Levels, And For A Child’s Voice To Count “As Much As An Administrator's Does.” “Liberty Union calls for drastic revisions in the educational system to make schools into places for learning, where a student is encouraged to become an individual, not merely pressured to conform to a set of social standards. One essential change is the ending of the system of marks, of graded levels, and of structured, compulsory classes. A child should be free to learn what he feels he needs at the rate of speed he wishes to go without fear of someone else's standards. Schools must also be made democratic environments where a child's voice counts as much as an administrator's does.” [Liberty Union Principles, IX: Education, 4/22/71] 1972: Bernie Sanders Advocated A Voucher System For Funding Public Schools, Maintaining It Would “Put Back Free Enterprise Into Education.” “On education, Sanders carries over his ideas about making government and the economy more responsive with his support of the voucher system for schools. ‘The voucher system would put back free enterprise into education,’ he maintained, ‘and result in better schools competing for students.’ With the voucher system, in which parents choose where they want to send their children, Sanders believes the education system will ‘really open up.’” [Bennington Banner, 9/5/72] Sanders: America’s Compartmentalization Of Different Aspects Of Life Through Education Was A Possible Explanation As To Why The U.S. Could “Napalm Children In Vietnam—And Not Care.” “All aspects of life are related—and it is only a schizophrenic society such as ours which segregates them and puts them into separate little boxes. We go to school and study ‘education’ and ‘psychology’ and ‘politics’ and ‘literature’ and ‘sexuality’ (if it is a ‘progressive’ school). How absurd: All of life is one and if we want to know, for example, how our nation can napalm children in Vietnam—AND NOT CARE—it is necessary to go well beyond ‘politics.’ We have got to get into the areas of feeling and emotion, pain and love—and how people relate to each other and how people shut off their feelings.” [Movement, Vol.1, No.5, Early August, 1972] Mother Jones: Sanders Said That Potentially Well-Meaning Infringements On Individual Choice, Such As Water Fluoridation, Dairy Regulations And Compulsory Education, Contributed To The Deterioration Of The Human Condition. “Some of his rants bordered on libertarian. He referred to water fluoridation, dairy regulations, and compulsory education as perhaps well-meaning infringements on individual choice that were contributing to the overall deterioration of the human condition. "It is obvious that in the name of 'public safety' the State is usurping the rights of free choice in many domains of life," he wrote in a 1969 essay entitled "Reflections on a Dying Society." Such regulations had a depressing effect on the soul, Sanders contended, citing a condition Freud referred to as the global "death instinct."” [Mother Jones, 7/6/15] Free College Tuition Sanders Said College Education Should Be Free. “All people, regardless of their income, should be able to get a college education. College education is free in those countries. That makes a lot of sense to me.” [Face the Nation, 5/10/15] Sanders Called For Free, No Tuition Education At Public Colleges and Universities. “I am calling for and will introduce legislation that will provide a free college university education, public colleges and universities in this country. No tuition.” [CNN, New Day, 5/6/15] Sanders Idea “Seems Radical Only In That It Makes Radically Good Sense.” “Free college tuition. That is something that students can count on in many European countries and once was not uncommon in the United States. In what many consider the most golden era of the Golden State, California's great public university system was tuition-free. In many other states, students paid only a few hundred dollars per year to go to top state colleges. Now, of course, American students are graduating with crushing student loan debts while many others cannot afford to pay in the first place. Sanders' idea seems radical only in that it makes radically good sense.” [David Horsey, Baltimore Sun, 5/12/15] Sanders Said Free Tuition Should Not Be Thought Of As “Radical Idea” Because It Used To Be A Prevailing Idea In The United States 50 Years Ago. “And it shouldn’t be thought of as a very radical idea, because it’s an idea that existed in this country 45 or 50 years ago. You see what great public universities like University of California, the City University of New York where tuition was free. So the question you have got to ask yourselves is how does it happen that 50 years ago, leadership in this country said everyone should be able to get a college education regardless of their income, but today colleges are increasingly unaffordable to so many?” [Bernie Sanders at Johns Hopkins, 6/3/15] Sanders Announced Legislation To Make Public Colleges Tuition Free. “Sanders said in a statement that he will introduce legislation Tuesday outlining plans to make tuition free at public four-year colleges and universities. “We live in a highly competitive global economy and, if our economy is to be strong, we need the best-educated work force in the world,” Sanders said. “That will not happen if, every year, hundreds of thousands of bright young people cannot afford to go to college, and if millions more leave school deeply in debt.”“ [CBS Boston, 5/18/15] Sanders Said Bill Was Only A Radical Idea Because Congress Was Dominated By Wall Street. Sanders “unveiled a new bill intended to provide free tuition at public colleges and universities and pull American students out of the rapidly sinking morass of debt. “This is not a radical idea,” Sanders said, responding to a reporter's question about the prospects for the bill's passage. “Only in a Congress dominated by Wall Street is this a radical idea.”“ [Mic, 5/19/15] Sanders Modeled His Plan Off Countries Like Germany, Denmark, and Sweden. “Sanders said his plan is similar to how European countries like Denmark, Sweden and Germany handle college costs.” [CBS Boston, 5/18/15] Sanders' College For All Act Would Eliminate Undergraduate Tuition at 4-Year Public Colleges and Universities. ”This legislation would provide $47 billion per year to states to eliminate undergraduate tuition and fees at public colleges and universities. Today, total tuition at public colleges and universities amounts to about $70 billion per year.” Sanders Claimed His Legislation Would Make Tuition Free At Public Colleges And Universities And Cut Student Debt In Half. “Our legislation not only would make tuition free at public colleges and universities, it would also cut student debt in half. It is absurd that millions of college graduates today are carrying debts of $50,000, $60,000, $100,000 or more.” [Reddit, 5/19/15] College For All Act Would Expand Federal Work Study Program. “Today, the federal work study program receives less than $1 billion per year, and serves nearly 700,000 students. This legislation would expand the number of students and colleges that can offer part-time employment and participate in the federal work study program, and focus funding on schools that enroll high numbers of low-income students.” [Sen. Sanders bill summary, 5/19/15] College For All Act Would Simplify the Student Aid Application Process. ”The bill would create a pilot program to eliminate the requirement that students re-apply for financial aid each year, simplifying the application process and removing significant barriers faced by low-income students.” [Sen. Sanders bill summary, 5/19/15] College For All Act Paid For By Speculation Fee On Wall Street Transactions. ”This legislation is offset by imposing a Wall Street speculation fee on investment houses, hedge funds, and other speculators of 0.5% on stock trades (50 cents for every $100 worth of stock), a 0.1% fee on bonds, and a 0.005% fee on derivatives. It has been estimated that this provision could raise hundreds of billions a year which could be used not only to make tuition free at public colleges and universities in this country, it could also be used to create millions of jobs and rebuild the middle class of this country.” [Sen. Sanders bill summary, 5/19/15] College For All Act Paid For By Financial Transaction Tax Headline: Sanders: Make Wall St. pay college tuition [Burlington Free Press, 5/18/15] Sanders Paid For College For All Act By Implementing A Financial Transaction Tax. “Sen. Bernie Sanders says he's about to introduce a bill that would provide free tuition at public colleges and universities by using Wall Street stock transfer fees. […]”The program that we're offering will be a grant program by which the federal government puts in $2 and the states put in $1,” Sanders said. “Now, $70 billion is a lot of money, but in a nation in which we lose $100 billion every year because corporations stash their money in tax havens around the world, that's one way you can approach it. “What we are going to be dealing with tomorrow is a transaction fee on large stock transfers,” Sanders continued. “So we're going to ask Wall Street, whose greed and recklessness drove us into the recession that we're climbing out of right now, to start helping us fund college education.”“ [Burlington Free Press, 5/18/15] Sanders’s Financial Transaction Tax Would Tax Trades At 50 Cents For Every $100 Of Stock, 10 Cents For Every $100 Of Bonds, And Place A Half Penny Fee On Derivatives. “Fully Paid for by Imposing a Robin Hood Tax on Wall Street. This legislation is offset by imposing a Wall Street speculation fee on investment houses, hedge funds, and other speculators of 0.5% on stock trades (50 cents for every $100 worth of stock), a 0.1% fee on bonds, and a 0.005% fee on derivatives. It has been estimated that this provision could raise hundreds of billions a year which could be used not only to make tuition free at public colleges and universities in this country, it could also be used to create millions of jobs and rebuild the middle class of this country.” [Sen. Sanders bill summary, 5/19/15] Sanders Said His Financial Transaction Tax Could Bring In Nearly $300 Billion A Year. “This is an effective and progressive way to raise money. The estimate is it could bring in as much as $300 billion a year.” [CNN, 5/19/15] Tax Policy Center Found That A 0.5% Financial Transaction Tax Would Have The Revenue Potential Of $514 Billion Over 10 Years. “Table 4. Revenue Potential […] Raising the base tax rate by a factor of 10 to 0.1 percent would increase the revenue yield to $541 billion, or a little over 0.2 percent of GDP. This less-than-proportionate increase in revenue arises because trading is expected to be substantially reduced as the rate increases. Indeed, if the rate were increased further to 0.5 percent, revenue would be slightly lower than at a 0.1 percent base rate.” [Tax Policy Center, 7/31/15] College For All Act Put Significant Burden On State Governments Sanders Said States Would Need To Have A Say In Number Of Years Of College His Plan Paid For. “NIEDELMAN: Back to college-for-all though, when you talk about paying for four years I assume, is there a limit? Because when I went to school, I went through four years but there were guys on eight, nine, tenyear plans. That screams for abuse. What are you going to do about those people? SANDERS: It's for college. NIEDELMAN: For four years of college? SANDERS: Yeah. I think the states will have something to say about that as well. It's going to be a matching program $2 from the federal government, $1 from the state.” [My Champlain Valley, 5/31/15] Under Bill, Federal Government Would Cover 67% Of Cost, While States Would Be Responsible For Remainder. “Under the College for All Act, the federal government would cover 67% of this cost, while the states would be responsible for the remaining 33% of the cost. To qualify for federal funding, states must meet a number of requirements designed to protect students, ensure quality, and reduce ballooning costs.” [Sen. Sanders bill summary, 5/19/15] To Qualify, States Would Need To Maintain Spending On Higher Education, Follow Certain Restrictions On Use Of Funds. ”States will need to maintain spending on their higher education systems, on academic instruction, and on need-based financial aid. In addition, colleges and universities must reduce their reliance on low-paid adjunct faculty. States would be able to use funding to increase academic opportunities for students, hire new faculty, and provide professional development opportunities for professors. No funding under this program may be used to fund administrator salaries, merit-based financial aid, or the construction of non-academic buildings like stadiums and student centers.” [Sen. Sanders bill summary, 5/19/15] New America Foundation Policy Analyst: Level Of Enforcement And Compliance Required By Compliance For All Act Would Be “Difficult To Achieve.” “But so much of what Sanders is calling for would take a level of enforcement and compliance that would be difficult to achieve, said Iris Palmer, a senior policy analyst at the New America Foundation.” [Washington Post, 5/19/15] New America Foundation Policy Analyst Questioned Sustainability Of College For All Act If More People Went To College. “More importantly, she questioned whether free tuition would be sustainable if it encouraged more people to go to college. “What happens at the next recession when the money from Wall Street drops and the number of students enrolling in college swells? How could a program like this be sustained?” Palmer said. “And how would you keep institutions from consistently increasing what they say it costs to educate a student?”“ [Washington Post, 5/19/15] State Compliance In Sustaining Higher Education Investments Would Be “Another Hurdle” For Bill. “Another hurdle is sustaining state investment, which rises and falls the economy. A big part of the reason public colleges are so expensive now is because states slashed higher education budgets during recessions and never fully made up for the loss and schools raised tuition to compensate. While some states might be enticed by the promise of federal aid, others may continue to treat higher education as a discretionary expense.” [Washington Post, 5/19/15] Sanders’ College For All Act Requires States To Contribute One Third Of Funding, As Well As Keep Up Their Current Spending Levels On Higher Education. “Sanders's plan would set up a grant program to cover the share of tuition that students currently pay. The federal government would pay for two-thirds of the grant program's budget, using a new tax on stock trades to raise an estimated $47 billion in revenue. States would be required to chip in the additional one-third of funding, as well as keep up their current spending levels on higher education.” [Vox, 5/19/15] 2009 Stimulus Bill Had A Provision Preventing States From Cutting Education Funds. “Requiring states to fund higher education has been tried before, and it worked. The 2009 stimulus bill barred states from cutting higher education funding below 2006 levels. If they did, they'd lose all federal education funds. Over the next two years, states cut right up to that threshold — but they didn't go over it. The more dramatic cuts were made after the stimulus provision expired.” [Vox, 5/19/15] Sanders’ College For All Act Would Give The Federal Department Of Education More Leverage Over States’ Higher Education Policies, Which Could Make Public Colleges Wary. “It would give the Education Department much more leverage over states' higher education policy. The Sanders bill would also require public universities to employ tenured or tenure-track faculty to provide 75 percent of their instruction — an attempt to reverse a shift toward using more part-time and adjunct faculty to teach classes, which has become an important higher education labor issue. That's why, as much as public colleges would appreciate the extra funding, they also might be wary of a proposal like Sanders's. By paying the bills, the federal government also buys itself more influence.” [Vox, 5/19/15] Criticism Of College For All Act Washington Post Editorial Board: Sanders’ College Affordability Proposal Was “An Expensive Proposition That Would Subsidize A Lot Of Rich People.” “FOR SOME students, college debt can be a disincentive to attend or a crushing burden afterward. For others, many of whom are starting classes now, it is a reasonable investment in a degree that will lead to increased lifetime earnings. As they look for crowd-pleasing solutions to the college debt “crisis,” the Democratic candidates aren’t making the right distinctions. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), for example, would make public higher education free, an expensive proposition that would subsidize a lot of rich people.” [Editorial, Washington Post, 8/24/15] Mercury News Editorial: Sanders’ Tuition-Free College Proposal Was “More Pipe Dream Than Plan.” “Hillary Rodham Clinton's sweeping proposal to make college tuition more affordable is a good starting point for a national discussion on the topic. but give the Democratic front-runner credit for offering a serious plan to tackle one of the biggest challenges for American families today. College costs are rising even at state schools while the middle class is shrinking, the number of people living in poverty is increasing and the path to a better life more than ever leads through a good education. Keeping America a land of opportunity depends on the ability of young people without wealthy parents to get a degree. Bernie Sanders, Clinton's challenger from the left, has been touting free college tuition for all as part of his platform, but that's more pipe dream than plan.” [Editorial, Mercury News, 8/12/15] StudentLoanJustice.org Founder: Sanders And O’Malley’s “Debt-Free” Higher Education Plans “Would Do Almost Nothing” For Students Already Mired In Debt. “For five years, the Institute for Higher Education Policy tracked 1.8 million student loan borrowers who left school in 2005. By 2010, only 37 percent of these borrowers were current on their loans, the rest had gone delinquent on the debt, defaulted, had their loans put into deferment, or had been forced to take out hardship forebearances. […] Despite all of this, we have yet to see even one presidential candidate address this issue directly! Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D), for all the attention they have received for their "debt-free" higher education plans, would do almost nothing to address the problems of these citizens. The refinancing plans that nearly all the democrats have been touting are all but inconsequential, and would certainly do nothing to bring down the cost of college or the amount of debt being thrown onto the backs of the citizenry.” [Alan M. Collinge Blog, The Hill, 7/20/15] Bloomberg: Sanders Higher Education Plan Was Criticized For Not Addressing Living Expenses. “But his approach has drawn criticism from some student advocates, including the influential Institute for College Access and Success, because it would not provide support for students struggling with their living expenses. In all, it would cost $750 billion over a decade, funded by new taxes on Wall Street.” [Bloomberg, 8/10/15] The Institute For College Access & Success (TIFCAS): Debt-Free College Plans Needed To Address Non-Tuition Costs, Which “Make Up The Majority Of The Full Cost Of Attending A Public Two- Or Four-Year College.” “With so many Americans concerned about college costs and student loan debt, there are more and more proposals to improve college affordability and reduce or even eliminate students’ need for loans. Yet most of the proposals are not very detailed at this point, and the details matter. One critical detail is which costs are covered. To make a real difference for low-income students, any debt-free college plan must take the full cost of going to college into account, including textbooks, transportation, and living costs like food and housing. These non-tuition costs make up the majority of the full cost of attending a public two- or four-year college (61%-79%), yet their importance is too frequently overlooked. Students may only need to pay the tuition bill to enroll in college, but to succeed in school and graduate they need to be able to cover the other costs, too. Students who can’t get to campus or can’t get the required books won’t benefit from their classes. Students who have to work long hours to pay for rent or child care don’t have enough time to study.” [The Institute for College Access & Success, Debbie Cochrane, 7/28/15] TIFCAS: “This Is Worth Repeating: Low-Income Students Who Are Already Attending College “Tuition Free” Are More Likely To Need Loans.” “This is worth repeating: low-income students who are already attending college “tuition free” are more likely to need loans. To understand why, we have to look at students’ total net costs (cost of attendance after grant aid) as a share of family income. Data show that the net costs of attending public two-year and four-year colleges account for a much larger share of income for lower income families than for higher income families. As a result, more lower income students have to borrow to get their degree. For instance, as shown below, community college students with family incomes under $30,000 are expected to dedicate 22% of their income toward paying for college. Unsurprisingly, graduates in this income range are more likely to leave school with debt than students from families who can better absorb net college costs.” [The Institute for College Access & Success, Debbie Cochrane, 7/28/15] TIFCAS: “Ensuring A Debt-Free College Option Requires More Than Covering Tuition Costs.” “This is why ensuring a debt-free college option requires more than covering tuition costs. It requires providing additional grant aid for lower income students who may already be going to college “tuition free,” and as we have discussed before, it requires a state “maintenance of effort” provision to ensure states hold up their end of the bargain.” [The Institute for College Access & Success, Debbie Cochrane, 7/28/15] Inside Higher Ed: Sanders’ Tuition-Free Higher Education Plan Would Require Public Institutions To Cover The Full Need Of Pell Grant Maximum Award Recipients. “That stands in contrast to the Sanders plan, announced in May, which aims to create tuition-free public education. Under Sanders’s proposal, the federal government would send money to states that agree to eliminate tuition and required fees at public colleges and universities for all students, regardless of income. For low-income students who qualify for the maximum Pell Grant, Sanders’s plan would require a public college to cover the student’s full need, as defined by the current federal formula, up to the cost of attendance (but minus the value of the Pell Grant).” [Inside Higher Ed, 8/27/15] Inside Higher Ed: Sanders’ Plan Did Not Specify How Schools Would Have To Charge Middle-Income Families. “The Vermont Senator's legislation doesn’t specify how colleges would have to charge other students from middle-income families who don’t qualify for the maximum Pell Grant -- other than saying states have to put the new federal money toward eliminating tuition and fees (while also maintaining their own spending on higher education).” [Inside Higher Ed, 8/27/15] Under Sanders’ Plan, Wealthy Families Would Receive Cuts To Costs Of Attendance. “But wealthier families who could otherwise afford college would benefit from any across-the-board reductions or elimination of tuition at public colleges and universities.” [Inside Higher Ed,8/27/15] Seton Hall Education Professor: Sanders’ Plan Would Subsidize Higher-Income Students But Could Also Benefit Public Institutions By Bringing In Wealthier Students. ““It’s a tradeoff between simplicity and price,” said Robert Kelchen, an assistant professor of education leadership, management and policy at Seton Hall University. “Sanders’s program is very simple to understand -- tuition covered no matter what -- but he’s subsidizing some people who Clinton would expect to pay.” That’s not necessarily a bad thing, Kelchen added. “It may subsidize higherincome students but it would also potentially increase economic diversity by getting higherincome students to go to public colleges instead of private colleges,” he said.” [Inside Higher Ed, 8/27/15] HEADLINE: “Bernie Sanders's Charming, Perfectly Awful Plan To Save Higher Education” [Chronicle of Higher Education, Kevin Carey, 7/6/15] Under Sanders’s Proposal The “Federal Government Would Enforce A Specific Vision Of What High-Quality College Education Means.” “The no-tuition part of the Sanders plan attracted a great deal of attention, aided by canny headline writers who understand that "Bernie Sanders" is catnip for social media. Less discussed was the corollary part of the plan: In exchange for billions of new taxpayer dollars, the federal government would enforce a specific vision of what a high-quality college education means.” [Chronicle of Higher Education, Kevin Carey, 7/6/15] Sanders Proposal For Tuition-Free Public Higher Education Required Public Colleges And Universities To Have At Least 75 Percent Of Instructors Be Tenured Or Tenure-Track Faculty. “The no-tuition part of the Sanders plan attracted a great deal of attention, aided by canny headline writers who understand that "Bernie Sanders" is catnip for social media. Less discussed was the corollary part of the plan: In exchange for billions of new taxpayer dollars, the federal government would enforce a specific vision of what a high-quality college education means. States would have to promise that, within five years, "not less than 75 percent of instruction at public institutions of higher education in the State is provided by tenured or tenuretrack faculty." In addition, any funds left over after eliminating tuition could be used only for purposes such as "expanding academic course offerings to students," "increasing the number and percentage of full-time instructional faculty," providing faculty members with "supports" such as "professional development opportunities, office space, and shared governance in the institution." States would be prohibited from using the money for merit-based financial aid, "nonacademic facilities, such as student centers or stadiums," or "the salaries or benefits of school administrators."” [Chronicle of Higher Education, Kevin Carey, 7/6/15] New American Foundation Education Policy Program Director: Sanders’ Vision To Require A “Professor-Centered Vision Of How To Operate A University” Was “A Terrible Idea.” “In other words, states would be required to embrace and the federal government would be obligated to enforce a professor-centered vision of how to operate a university: tenure for everyone, nice offices all around, and the administrators and coaches can go pound sand. It’s as if Bernie Sanders looked in the mirror, regarded his rumpled, redistributionist self, and said, "What legislation would most please the people who look and think the most like me?" This is understandable — and a terrible idea.” [Chronicle of Higher Education, Kevin Carey, 7/6/15] New American Foundation Education Policy Program Director: Sanders’ Plan Was “Unwise To Anchor A College-Affordability Law To A Single, Undeniably Expensive Organizational Model.” “It is unwise to anchor a college-affordability law to a single, undeniably expensive organizational model. It is almost certainly possible to design an organization that provides a high-quality college education at a reasonable price using a mix of labor, capital, and technology that is different from that of the traditional university.” [Chronicle of Higher Education, Kevin Carey, 7/6/15] U.S. News Headline: “Bernie’s Bad College Idea.” [U.S. News, 5/27/15] Kevin James: Sanders’ Plan For Free Public College “Would Cost $70 Billion Per Year” And “Provide A Free Education To Students Whose Families Can Already Afford It.” “Sanders framed the need for free public college by saying that, ‘in a global economy, when our young people are competing with workers from around the world, we have got to have the best educated workforce possible. And, that means that we have got to make college affordable.’ While these goals are the right ones, the reality is that free public college would make it harder to achieve them. Part of the concern relates to how best to use government funds. The idea would cost $70 billion per year, more than twice what the federal government spends on Pell grants. And much of that money would provide a free education to students whose families can already afford it.” [Kevin James op-ed, U.S. News, 5/27/15] Kevin James: Private Institutions “Would Likely Struggle To Survive” Under Sanders’ Proposal, Which Would In Turn “Significantly Reduce Pressure On Public Institutions To Serve Students Effectively.” “Right now we have a decentralized system where students can take much of their student aid with them to the institution of their choosing. This enables a wide variety of organizations – public and private – to offer a range of different educational programs. In contrast, free public college would limit choice as many private institutions, now trying to compete with a highly-subsidized, free public option, would likely struggle to survive. In addition to reducing options, this would significantly reduce pressure on public institutions to serve students effectively.” [Kevin James op-ed, U.S. News, 5/27/15] Kevin James: The “Top-Down Controls” In Sanders’ Plan Would “Create A System That Is Rigid, Bureaucratic And Unresponsive To The Changing Needs Of Students And The Economy.” “Many free college proponents would likely point out that by providing aid directly to institutions, the government can actually exert more direct control over how they operate. For example, Sanders' bill would require institutions to reduce their reliance on adjunct professors. But are such top-down controls really likely to create the dynamic and innovative system that we need? By trying to dictate innovation from Washington, such a proposal is more likely to create a system that is rigid, bureaucratic and unresponsive to the changing needs of students and the economy over time.” [Kevin James op-ed, U.S. News, 5/27/15] The Daily Beast Headline: “Why Free College Is Really Expensive.” [Daily Beast, 5/31/15] The Daily Beast’s Dmitri Mehlhorn: Sanders’ Free Public College Proposal Would “Cut The Economic Legs Out From Underneath” Modern Educational Innovations. “The first problem with Sanders’ proposal is that a national tuition subsidy will be counterproductive even on its own terms. The proposal will cut the economic legs out from underneath innovations such as open online courses, which may be on the cusp of delivering low-cost, high-quality college education for all. Organizations trying to deliver radical new models will now have to compete against a $70 billion subsidy for the old system.” [Dmitri Mehlhorn, Daily Beast, 5/31/15] The Daily Beast’s Dmitri Mehlhorn: Free College Tuition Would Lead To An Increase In Students’ Other Educational Expenses. “Additionally, directing that much guaranteed money into a system is a sure-fire way to accelerate cost inflation. The state may pick up the tab for tuition, but students will still have to pay for ancillary services (such as room, board, textbooks, etc.), and those services will go up in price. These costs are not trivial; for instance, although Sweden has abolished college tuition, students graduate with more debt than students in the United Kingdom, and only slightly less than students in the US. Through economic incompetence, Sanders’ proposal might hit the jackpot of reducing college quality while also increasing cost.” [Dmitri Mehlhorn, Daily Beast, 5/31/15] The Daily Beast’s Dmitri Mehlhorn: Sanders’ Proposal Might Reduce College Quality While Increasing Cost. “Through economic incompetence, Sanders’ proposal might hit the jackpot of reducing college quality while also increasing cost.” [Dmitri Mehlhorn, Daily Beast, 5/31/15] The Daily Beast’s Dmitri Mehlhorn: $56 Billion Of Sanders’ Proposed $70 Billion Tuition Subsidy “Would Help Families With Above-Average Income.” “Making college free wouldn’t immediately change who gets into college. In 2012, 81 percent of students who obtained bachelors degrees came from families with above-average incomes, vs. 7 percent of kids from bottom-quintile families. Put another way, out of Sanders’ proposed $70 billion subsidy, $56 billion would help families with above-average income.” [Dmitri Mehlhorn, Daily Beast, 5/31/15] Charles Lane: “College doesn’t need to be free” [Charles Lane Washington Post, 5/21/15] Charles Lane: “Sanders Plan Might Make U.S. Higher Education More Accessible But Less Excellent.” “Over time, however, the Sanders plan might make U.S. higher education more accessible but less excellent. Having ruled out price as a means of allocating scarce educational resources, his plan would have to rely on aggressive administrative controls, lest students flood the system and drive up costs — requiring further federal subsidies.” [Charles Lane Washington Post, 5/21/15] Charles Lane: Sanders Plan Ties Federal Assistance To Inputs, Not Outcomes Like Graduation Rates Or Post-Graduation Earnings. “If Sanders favors either German-style government management of university budgets or tracking, I haven’t heard about it, though he would eventually cap federal grants to states at the 2019 median. To the contrary, his Senate bill bars state “policies to reduce enrollment.” He even mandates steps that might increase costs, such as replacing adjunct professors with tenure-track faculty. The premise of Sanders’s program is that educational quality is entirely about inputs. Not a single dollar of federal assistance would be conditioned on performance indicators such as graduation rates or post-graduation earnings.” [Charles Lane Washington Post, 5/21/15] Student Debt Sanders: Student Debt Is “An Embarrassment” For The US And Causing The Loss Of Intellectual Potential. “This is a disastrous situation. It's an embarrassment for a great country like ours. We've got hundreds thousands of bright young people who now have given up the dream of going to college. We're losing all of their intellectual potential.” [MSNBC, 5/19/15] Sanders Lamented “Absurdity” Of Rising Financial Burden Of Attending College. “Sanders called it an ‘absurdity that thousands of bright young people have given up the dream of going to college’ because of the cost, and said he was equally disappointed that many of those who do go to college leave ‘deeply, deeply in debt.’” [Concord Monitor, 5/28/15] Sanders Said The High Cost Of A College Education Is “Taking Away The Ladder From… People To Make It Into The Middle Class.” “And right now, as a nation, we have several hundred thousand people today: bright, qualified, young people who are not going to college, not because they don’t have the ability, not because they don’t have the desire, it’s because they don’t have the money. So what we are doing is taking away the ladder from those people to make it into the middle class.” [Bernie Sanders at Johns Hopkins, 6/3/15] Sanders Said United States Was “Shooting Ourselves” By Failing To Capture The Intellectual Capabilities Of Young People Who Cannot Afford To Go To College. “As a nation trying to compete in a competitive global economy…we are shooting ourselves by saying we don’t want to capture the intellectual capabilities of these young people who could be doctors, and scientists, and engineers, and teachers, and police officers: people we need. All the professions we are saying to them, no, sorry, you don’t have the money…you’re not going to be able to get the intellectual studies and training that you need. I think that is just counterproductive and stupid.” [Bernie Sanders at Johns Hopkins, 6/3/15] Sanders Said Countries Like Germany And France Were “Correct” To Capture Intellectual Capabilities Of Their Young People Regardless Of Family Income. “In countries like Germany, France, Scandinavia and many countries around the world, in countries like Chile, they have reached the correct decision that they want to capture the intellectual capabilities of the young people, and they say that all of our people who have the ability will be able to get a higher education, regardless of the income of their families, well that just makes common sense to me.” [Bernie Sanders at Johns Hopkins, 6/3/15] Sanders: “It Is Essential That We Do All We Can To Make College Affordable.” “Members in the House and Senate have introduced legislation that would keep the rate fixed at 3.4 percent and doesn’t include an expiration date. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), one of the co-sponsors of the Senate bill, said, “At a time of rising college costs and unsustainable student debt, it is essential that we do all we can to make college affordable for students and working families.”” [Kentucky Standard, 3/24/12] Interest Rates Sander’s College For All Act Would Lower Student Loan Interest Rates. ”The College for All Act would lower student loan interest rates by restoring the formula which was in effect until 2006. Student loan interest rates would be cut almost in half for undergraduate students, dropping from 4.32% to just 2.32%. In addition, the legislation would ensure rates never rise above 8.25%.” [Sen. Sanders bill summary, 5/19/15] Sanders Proposed Lowering Interest Rate on Student Loans. “[Sanders] won applause repeatedly for his various proposals to make college education in the United States more affordable, including lowering the interest rate on student loans.” [Duluth News Tribune, 5/31/15] Sanders Said We Must “Fundamentally Restructure” Student Loan Programs To Lower Interest Rates And End The Practice Of Government Profiting Off Students. ““We must fundamentally restructure our student loan program. It makes no sense that students and their parents are forced to pay interest rates for higher education loans that are much higher than they pay for car loans or housing mortgages. We must also end the practice of the government making $127 billion over the next decade in profits from student loans,” Sanders said.” [Sanders press release, 2/18/15] Sanders: “A Government Should Not Be Making Billions A Year In Profit” From Student Loans. “Second of all, it used to be that the banks were the ones who made the money through student…much of the student debt program…So the government and the private banks, but it shouldn’t be the government either. A government should not be making billions of dollars a year in profit from low income and moderate income families who are in debt because they are trying to see their kids go to college. So I would eliminate that. You do that, you have substantially driven down interest rates.” [Bernie Sanders at Johns Hopkins, 6/3/15] Sanders Criticized President Obama For Profiting From The Interest Of Student Loans. “Second of all, it used to be that the banks were the ones who made the money through student…much of the student debt program. Obama correctly took it out of the banks, but now it’s the government that’s making the money. So the government and the private banks, but it shouldn’t be the government either. A government should not be making billions of dollars a year in profit from low income and moderate income families who are in debt because they are trying to see their kids go to college.” [Bernie Sanders at Johns Hopkins, 6/3/15] Sanders Opposed Bipartisan Bill To Peg Student Lending Rates To Treasury Notes. “Warren was referring to a deal Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and two other members of the caucus, Sens. Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Angus King (I-Maine), struck with Republicans to peg student-lending rates to the 10-year Treasury notes. […] Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a strong proponent of freezing the lower rates, called the bipartisan bill "totally insane." "The American people would laugh at that. It's not a proposal," he told The Hill, adding that the administration's push for a market-based student loan rate is also a nonstarter. "We should make sure working families in this nation can afford college," he said. "The White House's proposal is absurd as well."” [The Hill, 7/10/13] Sanders Voted Against Cap On Student Loan Rates Because It “Profits Off The Backs Of Students.” “The Senate voted 81-18 Wednesday for legislation on student loan rates, splitting Democrats in the chamber. Seventeen Democrats voted against the bipartisan bill that would cap most student loan rates at 8.25 percent. “I cannot support a plan that raises interest rates in the long-term while the federal government profits off them,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said. “This is obscene. Students should not be used to generate profits for the government.” […] Warren, along with Sens. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) argued that they could not support the bill because it “profits off the backs of students.”” [The Hill, 7/24/13] Sanders Called The Student Loan Compromise A Form Of “Regressive Taxation.” “The new bipartisan plan will bring those rates down to 3.86 percent for students this fall, including nearly 85,000 college students in Louisiana. The catch, though, is that the plan links the subsidized loans to a 10-year Treasury note. Although the rates are fixed and a cap is placed on future interest rates at 8.25 percent, new borrowers five years from now are already being projected to see interest rates at about 7 percent - more than the current doubled rate. […] Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., called the compromise a form of "regressive taxation" that overly burdens lowerand middle-income students and their parents. "We have a crisis right now in terms of student indebtedness. Why would we want to make that crisis even worse?" Sanders said.” [Baton Rouge Advocate, 7/21/13] Sanders Introduced Amendment To Sunset Student Loan Compromise Bill Before Predicted Rate Increases. “Another, by Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., would sunset the bipartisan plan after two years in an effort to avert predicted market rate increases. Sanders said Tuesday he wants to work out a better solution during the upcoming reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (PL 110-315).” [CQ News, 7/23/13] 2013: Sanders Said He Voted Against Senate Student Loan Reform Bill Because It Would Lead To “Substantially Higher Interest Rates.” “The great debate about student loans, I voted against the bill that eventually passed off in an amendment that tried to improve it. Bottom line it is now going to be based on variable interest rates. So as interest rates go up in years to come, which is very very likely, it means that students and their parents will be paying substantially higher interest rates than they’re paying right now. Given the disaster we currently have in terms of student indebtedness, the average student is $28,000 in debt, that is a bad, bad idea.” [Brunch With Bernie, 7/26/13, 0:30] July 12, 2013: Sanders Said It Was “Wrong” For The Government To Profit From Student Loans To Low And Middle Class Families. “As Vermont’s congressional delegation seeks to roll back student loan interest rates, a larger discussion is emerging to address how much profit a lender should make from a student. […] According to Sanders, the U.S. government will make about $180 billion in profit from student loans during the next 10 years. “I think that is wrong because the government is profiting from low- and middle-class families who need the loans the most,” Sanders said. “Some students are graduating with a mountain of debt that has an onerous effect on their lives.”” [Sanders press release, 7/12/13] July 1, 2013: Sanders Said Government’s $100 Billion In Profits From Student Loans Was “Not Bad.” “EVANS: There are no easy options here, Senator, though, because we spoke with your colleague Senator Blumenthal last week, and he was upset about the government profiting from these rates. But either there's going to be a profit or there's going to be a loss. So, there doesn't seem to be any situation here whereby both parties can benefit. Both the students who we'd like to see able to borrow at rates that, say, banks can, but also taxpayers who don't want to be stuck subsidizing what will be an increasing cost of these loans, especially as interest rates start to normalize. SANDERS: Well, you know, nobody knows what interest -- interest rates are going to be tomorrow, let alone 10 years from now. But as I understand it, if you kept interest rates at 3.4 percent for the next 10 years, you know what? Government would make over $100 billion in profits. That's not bad.” [CNBC, 7/1/13] Sanders Said Allowing Interest Rates On Student Loans To Float Up Was “Preposterous” And Called For Stabilization Of Rates For Several Years At 3.4 Percent. “So, the idea of allowing interest rates to float up to 7, 8 percent is preposterous. As you well know, all over the world, countries do a far better job than we do in subsidizing higher education because quite sensibly, they want the best-educated workforce that they can get. This is a tough global economy. And to say to our kids, "Sorry, but you're not going to be able to afford to go to college," or "You're going to come out really deeply in debt" makes no sense to me. So, at the very least, we should stabilize rates for the next several years at 3.4 percent while we come up with a longerterm plan.” [CNBC, 7/1/13] Sanders Said He Would “Continue To Fight” To Reverse Doubling Of Student Loan Interest Rate. “Sen. Bernie Sanders says he'll continue working to reverse a doubling of student loan rates under the Stafford student loan program. The Vermont independent blames congressional inaction on a doubling of the interest rate from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent that took effect Monday.” [Associated Press, 7/2/13] Sanders Said Student Loan Report Showed The Need To Prevent Student Loan Rates From Doubling. “Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders says a new report shows that the average student loan debt of college students in Vermont is higher than the amount in most other states. Sanders says only six other states had higher average student loan debt amounts. The independent senator says the report released from the Joint Economic Committee on Tuesday shows that 63 percent of college students in Vermont have student loans and the average balance is $28,860. Sanders says the report shows the need for legislation to prevent the doubling of interest rates to 6.8 percent next month on some Stafford student loans.” [Associated Press, 6/19/13] Sanders Introduced Legislation To Stop Student Loan Interest Rates From Doubling. “Vermont's two U.S. Senators, Patrick Leahy (D) and Bernie Sanders (I), Wednesday joined in introducing legislation to stop student loan interest rates from doubling this summer. In 2007 Congress passed the College Cost Reduction and Access Act, which reduced the fixed-interest rate on Stafford Loans from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent, helping millions of American students better afford college education. That law is about to expire. Without new action, subsidized Stafford loan interest rates are set to double, returning to 6.8 percent on July 1.” [Leahy press release, 2/1/12] Sanders Introduced Legislation To Reverse Cuts To Student Aid And Cut Student Loan Interest Rate In Half. “The first proposal is H.R. 5150, the Reverse the Raid on Student Aid Act of 2006. This bill would not only reverse the $12 billion Republican cutback in student aid, it would also slash student loan interest rates in half. If this legislation were signed into law, Vermont college graduates would save $4,120 in interest over the ten-year life of their loans.” [Sanders press release, 8/18/06] Pell Grants Sanders Pushed For Higher Pell Grants And Public Service Loan Forgiveness As Part Of 2007 Student Aid Legislation. “Congress on Friday approved the largest increase in student aid since passage of the GI Bill after World War II. The legislation provides $17 billion in additional college aid, including $34.2 million over the next five years in new Pell grants for students attending colleges and universities in Vermont. Another $26.7 million is allotted for increased loans to Vermont students. Senator Bernie Sanders, a member of the Senate education committee, played a major role in pushing for higher Pell grants and for the creation of a loan forgiveness program that also is included in the bill. Loans would be cancelled for college graduates who stay in public service jobs - including nursing, education, and law enforcement - for a decade. "This bill is the most significant improvement in higher education that we have seen in decades," Sanders said. He also noted that "this is not costing taxpayers one nickel. It is paid for by lower subsidies for lenders."” [Sanders press release, 9/7/07] Sanders Praised 2010 Higher Education Bill That Strengthened Pell Grants. “President Obama on Tuesday signed into law a higher education bill that will expand educational opportunities for America's students and families. The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act strengthens the Pell grant program, invests in community colleges, and helps student borrowers manage their student loan debt. The bill invests $40 billion in the Pell grant program to ensure that all eligible students receive help and that awards keep pace with rising inflation. "At a time of soaring college costs, increasing Pell grants for students is a smart investment in their future and ours," said Senator Bernie Sanders, a member of the Senate health and education committee. "With many young people not able to afford college or graduating deep in debt, this is an important step forward in making sure all of our people, regardless of income, have a better opportunity for a higher education."” [Sanders press release, 3/30/10] Sanders Supported Legislation To Double Maximum Pell Grant Award. “Sanders is also supporting the College Opportunity for All Act, H.R. 2960, which would double the maximum Pell Grant award to $11,600 over the next five years.” [Sanders press release, 8/18/06] Sanders Introduced Legislation To Double Appropriations To The Pell Grant Program And Expand Eligibility. “Rep. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., wants to help middle income students like Proulx afford college. Along with Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, Sanders said Monday he plans to introduce legislation to double the amount of money the federal government gives to Pell Grants from $ 7 billion to $ 14 billion, to increase the amount students receive and to expand eligibility so that more middle income families will benefit from the program. Now few families with incomes over $ 30,000 qualify for Pell Grants, Sanders said. His legislation would encompass more middle income families, without detracting from the neediest students.” [Associated Press, 1/18/99] Sanders Introduced Bill To Increase Available Student Financial Aid, Including Pell Grants. “Amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA) to increase funds available for the provision of student financial assistance. Increases the maximum individual Pell grant amount to: (1) $7,500 for academic year 2002-2003; and (2) $7,900 for academic year 2003-2004. Increases amounts authorized to be appropriated for FY 2002 and 2003 under the HEA student assistance provisions: (1) Federal TRIO programs; (2) Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP); (3) supplemental education opportunity grants; (4) graduate assistance in areas of national need; and (5) Thurgood Marshall legal educational opportunity program.” [HR 2476, introduced 7/11/01] Debt Refinancing Sanders’s College For All Act Would Allow Students To Refinance Their Loans. “The College for All Act would enable borrowers to refinance their loans based on the interest rates available to current students.” [Sen. Sanders bill summary, 5/19/15] Sanders Would Reduce Student Debt By Allowing People To Refinance Their Student Loans, Much Like Home Or Automobile Loans. “In terms of student debt we’re going to do 2 things. Number 1: in America, as you all know, if you own a home and interest rates go down, say your paying 5% and interest rates go down, what do you do? You go to the bank and refinance right? Now if you wanted to go out and buy a new automobile what would interest rates be? 1, 2 percent. So the questions is, if you could buy a car for 1 or 2 percent, why are millions of people stuck with 4, 5, guy in my office 9, percent interest rates? Why? Alright so refinancing is the first important one that will be huge.” [Bernie Sanders at Johns Hopkins, 6/3/15] Sanders Supported Warren Bill To Allow Refinancing Of Student Loans. “Meanwhile, the Senate this week is expected to take up legislation that would let college graduates with heavy debts refinance their loans. Sanders backs the bill by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) to address what he called "the crisis of college affordability impacting millions of middle-class and working families."” [Sanders press release, 6/9/14] Income Based Repayment Sanders Supported Obama Administration Executive Order To Limit Student Loan Payments To 10 Percent Of Monthly Income. “Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today welcomed an executive order by President Barack Obama to limit student loan payments to no more than 10 percent of a borrower's monthly income. "Millions of American families are struggling to repay student loans. Capping payments at no more than 10 percent of income is one way to help," said Sanders, a member of the Senate education committee. He also endorsed Obama's proposal to help students make better-informed choices about which student loan repayment options are best for them.” [Sanders press release, 6/9/14] Sanders Praised Obama Administration Executive Orders To Allow Consolidation Of Student Loans And Lower The Maximum Monthly Payment For Income Based Plans. “One measure would allow borrowers who have two kinds of federal student loans -- Federal Family Education Loans from banks or nonprofit agencies like VSAC, and Direct Loans from the U.S. Department of Education -- to consolidate them into one loan from the department. The incentive would be a slight interest rate reduction of 0.25 to nearly 0.5 percent for those who consolidate. About 5.8 million borrowers across the country would be eligible. Another measure would lower the maximum monthly payment for borrowers who are on income-based repayment plans. Under these plans, college graduates who earn relatively low salaries -- working for nonprofit organizations, for example -- are allowed to make reduced monthly payments over longer periods. The unpaid balance of these loans can be forgiven after 25 years under current law; Obama wants to shorten this to 20 years. The president said he would use his executive authority to make these changes, bypassing Congress and Republican opposition to his economic initiatives. "The president's announcement about new student loan policies is a step forward, and I support his efforts," said Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., in a written statement. "I believe we need to go even further, to make sure that college is accessible and affordable for every student, regardless of family income." [Burlington Free Press, 10/27/11] Public Service Loan Forgiveness Sanders Supported Loan Forgiveness For Students Who Stay In Public Service. “Sanders played a major role in developing the loan forgiveness program for college graduates who stay in public service jobs - including nursing, education, and law enforcement - for a decade.” [Sanders press release, 7/19/07] Sanders Supported Incentivizing Medical Students To Work At The VA By Offering Programs Such As Debt Forgiveness. “Longer-term […] what the Veterans Administration has got to do is work with other agencies of government to get a whole lot of medical school students into the VA by doing debt forgiveness, among other things.” [All In with Chris Hayes, MSNBC, 5/30/14, 4:24] Loan Counseling Sanders Co-Sponsored Bill To Improve Student Loan Counseling. “Today, U.S. Sens. Al Franken (DMinn.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), and Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) introduced the Smarter Borrowing Act to protect and empower student loan borrowers with effective loan counseling. Last year, student loan debt topped $1 trillion, surpassing credit card debt for the first time. By improving the timing and quality of loan counseling, this bill will ensure that students are better prepared to avoid taking on burdensome debt and will help them manage repayment once they're out of school. […] The Smarter Borrowing Act is led by Sens. Harkin and Mikulski, and cosponsored by Sens. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Elizabeth Warren (DMass.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)…” [Franken press release, 3/13/13] Service Members Sanders Signed Letter Urging The Establishment Of Best Practices To Ensure Service Members Had Access To All Available Student Loan Benefits. “U.S. Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD has joined U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and a group of 22 other U.S. Senators in sending a letter to the Executive Director of the Student Loan Servicing Alliance urging her to establish best practices to ensure that service men and women have access to the full range of student loan benefits that they are entitled to by law. In the letter, the Senators wrote, "We were alarmed to learn that some student loan servicers are providing incomplete or inaccurate information regarding service members' options for reducing their debt--often leading individuals to make decisions that have costly long-term consequences." […] In addition to Senators Cardin and Boxer, the letter was signed by: U.S. Senators Tim Johnson (D-SD); Tom Harkin (D-IA); John F. Kerry (D-MA); Patty Murray (D-WA); Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT); John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV); Bernard Sanders (I-VT)…” [Cardin press release, 11/20/12] For-Profit Colleges Sanders Called "For Department Of Education To Implement And Strengthen "Gainful Employment" Rule To Ensure For-Profit Schools Prepared Students For Workforce. "Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, was joined by Sens. Dick Durbin (D-IL), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Al Franken (D-MN) in a letter to Education Secretary Arne Duncan urging the Department to strengthen the proposed ‘gainful employment’ regulation, and to implement the regulation swiftly. [...] The rule will ensure schools are preparing students for the workforce, not just saddling them with debt they can’t repay. The for-profit college sector, most of which would be covered by the rule, accounts for ten percent of students but approximately forty-four percent of student loan defaults." [Sanders press release, 9/10/10] Sanders Signed Letter Calling For Department Of Education To Publish Amount Of For-Profit Colleges Revenue Was Received From Federal Programs. "In an effort to help service members and veterans make more informed decisions when choosing where to enroll in school, the senators called on Secretary Duncan to publish the amount and percentage of for-profit colleges’ and universities’ revenues that are received from all federal education programs, in addition to calculations required by current law, in the report required by the Higher Education Act. [...] In addition to Murphy and Blumenthal, the letter was signed by U.S. Senators Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Tom Carper (D-Del.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Patty Murray (DWash.), Gary Peters (D-Mich), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)…” [Murphy press release, 5/1/15] Sanders And Other Senators Believed Publishing Revenue Statistics Would Better Protected Service Members And Veterans Targeted By For-Profit Institutions. "“We write to ask you to better protect service members and veterans from being targeted and exploited by some for-profit colleges by publishing the amount and percentage of revenue received by these institutions from all federal educational programs,” wrote the senators. “According to 2013 analysis from the Department of Education obtained by the Center for Investigative reporting, 133 for-profit colleges received more than 90 percent of their revenues from taxpayers when DOD and VA benefits were counted as federal education assistance, and another 292 institutions received more than 85 percent. The now-collapsed Corinthian Colleges chain received $186 million in VA Post-9/11 GI Bill dollars alone.”" [Murphy press release, 5/1/15] Professors Sanders Said The Fact That Adjunct Professors Can’t Earn A Living Wage Is “Pathetic.” “Low-wage workers in [the case of adjunct professors] are not just people doing menial, low-wage, entry-level work. These are some of the best educated people in this country. And that’s pretty pathetic that people of that educational level can’t earn a living wage.” [Brunch With Bernie, 7/3/14, 35:30] Sanders Criticized The “Assembly Line Situation” Under Which Adjunct Professors Work. “Instead of–in the case of the university–having tenured professors who have a relationship with their students, who are caring about their students, you do have an assembly line situation where you bring people in, they teach large courses, they get low wages, and you move them on to elsewhere. Not a very good educational model to my mind.” [Brunch With Bernie, 7/3/14, 36:01] Sanders Supported Efforts To Unionize Adjunct Professors. “There has been that effort [to unionize those workers], and I think it should continue and it should expand. The function of teachers is to provide quality education to the people in the university. And if they’re not doing it now because of this model, I think that’s got to change.” [Brunch With Bernie, 7/3/14, 36:23] K-12 Sanders Said That The American Education System Was “Doing An Abysmal Job In Educating Our Young People” For High-Skilled, Good Paying Jobs. “JAVIER PALOMAREZ: So, in your view, you think that these high-tech conglomerates want to bring immigrant labor in so that they can depress wages? Wouldn’t you think, though, that maybe it’s more of a training and education issue? That the young people, or people who are unemployed today don’t have the skillsets. Isn’t this more of a training and education issue than it is raising or lowering the cap on H1-Bs? SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: The answer is an unequivocal yes and no. JAVIER PALOMAREZ: So we agree? (Laughter) SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: No. We agree that we are doing an abysmal job in educating our young people for certain types of jobs. I have no doubt, and I know for a fact––I see it in Vermont, and it’s true all over this country––there are highly skilled, good paying jobs that our educational system has not enabled young Americans to get. That’s true, and I accept that. On the other hand, what I will tell you, that there are corporations who would prefer to bring high-tech skilled people from Russia and other countries into America at lower wages, rather than pay an American worker a higher wage.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, 7/30/15] No Child Left Behind Sanders Supported Repealing No Child Left Behind. “Excerpts from Governor Senator Bernie Sanders: […] “As I sit on the Senate education committee, it’s fair to say that there are few people on the committee who are as opposed to No Child Left Behind and as opposed to this absurd effort to force teachers to spend half of their lives teaching kids how to take tests. If I have anything to say in the coming months we would end NCLB.”” [Press Release, National Education Association, 6/18/15] Sanders Said That He Supported Eliminating No Child Left Behind. “In Marshalltown, the town hall focused on economic issues, though one question hinted at the town’s immigrant population and its struggles. Sue Cahill, a local teacher, said her school was 90 percent minority and 92 percent of its students received free or reduced-price school lunches. She wanted to know what Sanders would do to make sure students are more than just test scores. “How can we make sure…we’re looking at the whole student, their mental health issues, the issues of how they deal with a parent who’s been deported, issues of going—not sure where they’re going to sleep that night?” she asked. Sanders said that the U.S. needs to improve the economy so parents earn more; create a better child-care system; fund public education; and end No Child Left Behind, the George W. Bush-era program criticized for too heavily emphasizing test scores.” [Bloomberg Politics, 6/14/15] Sanders Helped Draft Every Child Achieves Act To Give States More Control Over How Public School Performance Is Evaluated. “Vermont and other states would have much more control over how public schools are held accountable for student performance under legislation that a Senate panel approved today. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a member of the Senate education committee, helped draft the measure to replace the much-maligned No Child Left Behind education law which inaccurately stigmatized most Vermont schools for supposedly low performance.” [Sanders press release, 4/16/15] Every Child Achieves Act Would Replace NCLB Rules That Classified Almost Every School In Vermont As Failing. “ U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions gave preliminary approval to the Every Child Achieves Act, which would give more authority to states to decide how to evaluate their schools, and would replace the current law that has led to nearly every school in Vermont to be identified as failing.” [Rutland Herald, 4/17/15] Sanders Said Standardized Tests Did Not Fully Capture What Children Were Learning. “U.S. Sen. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., who serves on the Senate committee, said the annual standardized tests taken by Vermont’s children in grades three through 11 do not fully capture what a child is learning in school. “I think it is wrong to judge schools solely on the basis of narrow tests. We have to work on what kind of criteria we really need,” Sanders said. “What we in Vermont understand is, a kid is more than a test. We want kids to be creative. We want kids to be critical thinkers. We also want schools held accountable for factors other than test scores, including how they meet the challenges of students from low-income families.”” [Rutland Herald, 4/17/15] Sanders Co-Sponsored Bill To Replace No Child Left Behind. “In addition to Senator Mikulski, Chairman Harkin's legislation is cosponsored by Senators Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), […] The Strengthening America's Schools Act would replace NCLB with a law that is fair to students and teachers, and provides states and districts with the certainty, support, and flexibility they need to prepare all children for success in the 21st century. The Strengthening America's Schools Act provides a framework to get all children to graduate from high school with the knowledge and skills needed for success in college and a career. It does this by: * Supporting teachers and principals to help provide highquality instruction; * Ensuring disadvantaged students get the supports they need to succeed; and * Focusing federal attention on supporting states and districts in turning around low-performing schools and closing achievement gaps.” [Mikulski press release, 6/4/13] NEA Letter On Strengthening America’s Schools Act. http://www.nea.org/home/55722.htm Sanders Said That The Obama Administration’s Shift To Measuring Student Growth Was “Good News.” “What I want to see is that the most punitive aspects of that legislation are removed. Under President Bush, the law set out to punish schools that did not make what is called ‘adequate yearly progress.’ And there are some in Congress that still favor that approach. But the Obama Administration and Secretary of Education Duncan are much more realistic about expectations and want to measure student growth rather than measuring whether schools meet some arbitrary standards in reading and mathematics. And that’s the good news.” [Sanders Speaks to Vermont Principals, 8/6/10, 5:50] Sanders Pushed Department Of Education For NLBC Waiver For Vermont, Saying Requirements Were “Fundamentally Incompatible With The State’s Educational Model.” “In early June Sen. Bernie Sanders complained to U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan about the exclusion of Vermont and other rural states from Race to the Top funding. Sanders and Duncan also discussed the rejection of Vermont’s NCLB waiver request. Sanders argued that requirements of the Bush-era initiative are “fundamentally incompatible with the state’s educational model,” and described opposition to the law as “near unanimous.”” [VT Digger, 6/24/12] Sanders Was “Extremely Disappointed” Vermont Could Not Obtain A Waiver From NCLB. “Also during the meeting, the senator said he was "extremely disappointed" that Vermont could not obtain a waiver from the "No Child Left Behind" law. He said requirements of the Bush-era law are "fundamentally incompatible with the state's education model." Sanders said he was delighted that Secretary Duncan promised to personally discuss the waiver issue with Vermont education officials to explore how a resolution could be reached. In Vermont, Sanders added, "there is widespread - near unanimous - opposition" to the law's inflexible mandates.” [Sanders press release, 6/6/12] Sanders Said NCLB Reflected The Unfair Challenges Faced By Rural States When Contending With Federal Education Laws. “Sanders said the grants, and the No Child Left Behind waivers, both reflect unfair challenges that rural states have to deal with when trying to contend with national education laws and rules that are written in Washington D.C. "Vermont takes education very seriously and we need support," Sanders said. "Rural America has many of the same problems of urban areas, and when you address problems you have to make sure you are addressing the problems for the whole country."” [Brattleboro Reformer, 6/7/12] Bernie Sanders Voted Against Conference Report Of No Child Left Behind. On December 13, 2001, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #497. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the conference report on the bill that would overhaul education proposals to increase school accountability and reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act for six years. The agreement would require states to annually test students in reading and math in grades three through eight, provide new accountability measures for schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress, and give schools greater flexibility to spend federal funds. It would include about $26.3 billion for federal elementary and secondary education programs and $13.5 billion for Title I programs for disadvantaged children in fiscal 2002. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #497, 12/13/2001] Sanders Voted For House Passage Of No Child Left Behind. On May 23, 2001, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #145. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would authorize $22.8 billion in education funding, which is a 29 percent increase from fiscal 2001. The centerpiece of the bill would require states to test elementary and junior high students in math and reading each year. The bill also would authorize funding for disadvantaged students to meet higher standards, professional development for teachers, funding to states for innovative strategies, safe and drug free schools programs and education technology programs. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #145, 5/23/2001] Sanders Said He Voted Against NCLB Because It Did Not Adequately Fund Special Education. “Congressman Bernie Sanders said today the Education bill passed by the House of Representatives on Thursday was a good start, but it failed to provide full funding for special education. The bill provides Federal funding for grades K-12. Sanders said: “I voted against the Education bill because it fails to adequately fund special education -- a major problem for school districts in Vermont. None of the House Republicans supported the provision offered by the Senate conferees to fully fund special education. The time is long overdue for the Federal Government to adequately fund special education -- and that’s what my vote says.”” [Press Release via archive.org, Rep. Bernie Sanders, 12/14/01] Sanders Praised NCLB For Preserving The After-School Program, Funding School Construction And Increasing Education Funding. “On the positive side, the bill preserves the After-School program, adds funding for school construction, and increases education funding above President Bush’s request. The bill, which passed the House this week, must pass the Senate before being signed into law by the President.” [Press Release via archive.org, Rep. Bernie Sanders, 12/14/01] High Stakes Testing Sanders Opposed Standardized Testing Under NCLB, Wanted To Do Away With “Fill-In-TheBubble” Tests. “Sen. Sanders has been a vigorous opponent of the standardized testing regimen put in place by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) because it narrows school curriculum and constrains the development of critical thinking and creativity. Instead, the Senator supports a system that would promote creative learning by doing away with “fill-in-the-bubble” standardized tests, and instead evaluate students based their understanding of the curriculum and their ability to use it creatively.” [sanders.senate.gov, 6/2/15] Sanders Said That “Teaching Kids Just To Take Test In My View Does Not Go Far Enough” In Giving Kids The Best Possible Education. “Excerpts from Governor Senator Bernie Sanders: […] “If elected president, we are going to look at the whole child. We are going to give teachers the opportunity and freedom to work with kids in any and all ways to improve their lives and to give them the best possible education. Teaching kids just to take test in my view does not go far enough.”” [Press Release, National Education Association, 6/18/15] Sanders Said That Punishing Teachers For Student Performance On Standardized Testing Was Unfair. “But here’s the news that’s not so good. We all want to hold schools accountable and teachers accountable. But it is simply unfair as in my view Secretary Duncan is attempting to do, to punish teachers based on very narrow criteria. If students do well on mass-produced standardized, multiplechoice tests, teachers are to get so called ‘merit’ increases. If students do not do well, regardless of the circumstances, teachers could be fired. Is this better than closing down schools that underperform? I don’t think so. The punishments that earlier were meated out on schools, will now be meated out on teachers. That is not acceptable to me.” [Sanders Speaks to Vermont Principals, 8/6/10, 5:50] Teachers Sanders Decried State Of Teacher Pay Compared To Hedge Fund Managers. “The great moral, economic and political issue of our time is the grotesque level of income and wealth inequality we are experiencing. Something is very wrong when, last year, the top 25 hedge fund managers earned more than the combined income of 425,000 public school teachers. We have got to get our priorities right.” [Forbes, 4/30/15] Sanders: We Need More Educators, Doctors, Nurses, Dentists, And Medical Personnel. “We have enormous shortages in terms of highly-qualified pre-school educators and teachers. We need more doctors, nurses, dentists and medical personnel if we are going to provide high-quality care to all of our people.” [Reddit, 5/19/15] Sanders Introduced Bill To Ensure That Teachers Have Completed A Certification Program And Passed A State Assessment. “Assuring Successful Students through Effective Teaching Act of 2011 Amends the school improvement program under part A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to define "highly qualified teachers" as those that have: (1) completed a stateapproved traditional or alternative teacher preparation program, where available; or (2) passed a rigorous state-approved teacher performance assessment and obtained full state certification. Defines "effective teachers" as highly qualified teachers that demonstrate certain qualities and have done so for at least three years, as measured by a comprehensive teacher evaluation and support system developed by the relevant local educational agency (LEA).” [S 1716, introduced 10/17/11; Sanders Fact Sheet, accessed 7/17/15] Common Core Sanders Voted In Favor Of Common Core Standards. “An anti-Common Core budget amendment passed a Senate vote Thursday, allowing states to opt-out of the educational standards without penalty from the federal government. The amendment would also prohibit the federal government from "mandating, incentivizing, or coercing" states into adopting Common Core or any other standards, instructional content, curricula, assessments, or instruction programs. […] On the Democratic side, potential presidential candidates Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., voted against the amendment.” [Washington Examiner, 3/26/15] Vouchers Sanders Believed Vouchers Would Destroy Public Education Because They Would Create A “Segregated System” Based On Class. “To answer your question, no, I do not believe in vouchers. I believe that their ultimate goal is to destroy public education, to have a segregated educational system not primarily on race but on class and that is wrong. If we are serious about the future of this country, then we’re serious about education and you fund it.” [C-SPAN, 5/21/03, 48:10] Full Year Programs Sanders Sponsored Bill To Establish Pilot Programs For Expanded K-12 Education. “Amends title I of the the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to create a new part I (Expanded Education) program awarding grants to states for the conduct of separate expanded day, week, or year pilot programs. Requires that for each of the expanded day and week programs at least: (1) 20 schools in each small state and 50 schools in each large state participate; (2) 50% of each participating school's student population consist of low-income students; (3) one entire grade in each participating school be involved in the program. Requires each expanded day and week program to: (1) increase student proficiency in reading and language arts, and mathematics; (2) provide education in new areas or directions, so that it is not wholly remedial; and (3) include sufficient recreational, social, or extracurricular cultural activities.” [S 2157, introduced 10/4/07] Community Schools Sanders Introduced Bill To Encourage Community School Model. “Legislation introduced by Vermont’s independent senator earlier this month encourages the community model that forms partnerships between schools and community resources to focus on academics, health care and social services. Public schools determined to be in need of improvement under the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act now have four choices in order to receive School Improvement Grant money: Closing the school, replacing the principal (which happened in Burlington last summer), replacing the principal and at least half of the teachers or becoming a charter school (which Vermont does not allow). Sanders’ proposal is to add a fifth option that he says would promote stronger families and healthier communities. It calls for offering a range of supports and opportunities to children and others in the community. The service providers might include doctors, dentists, family clinicians and others who would be available even outside of regular school hours. The senator’s office said the implementation cost would be covered by the federal money the district receives, so it would not affect local spending.” [Bennington Banner, 4/1/11; S 616, introduced 3/17/11] Sanders Introduced Bill To Award Grants To Local Education Program And Community Partners. “Authorizes the Secretary of Education to award renewable five-year grants to states and, through them, subgrants to local consortia that include a local educational agency (LEA) and other community partners to: (1) ensure the academic, physical, social, emotional, and civic development of disadvantaged youth; and (2) strengthen their families and communities. Requires each state grantee to develop and implement a state child and youth strategy that assesses children's needs and the assets within the state that can be mobilized, coordinated, and integrated to achieve quantifiable progress toward goals that include ensuring that: (1) children are ready for school; (2) students are engaged and achieving in school; (3) students are physically, mentally, socially, and emotionally healthy; (4) schools and neighborhoods are safe and provide a positive climate for learning; (5) families are supportive and engaged in their children's education; (6) students are ready for postsecondary education and 21st Century careers; and (7) students are contributing to their communities. Directs the consortia to develop and implement a local child and youth strategy that integrates multiple private and public services into a comprehensive, coordinated continuum of services directed toward achieving quantifiable progress toward such goals.” [S 426, introduced 3/1/11] After School Programs Sanders Secured Funding For Summer And After School Programs In Vermont. “On the last school day for most Vermont students, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) announced summer school and afterschool programs that will receive funds to help more than 2,500 students. The awards will be shared by 27 programs that offer academic support, enrichment activities, and career exploration. "Study after study show that high-quality summer programs can help all children, particularly those who are struggling, to stay on track for the academic challenges ahead," Sanders said. ‘It also is important for working parents to know their kids will be engaged in challenging and enriching activities." […]The funds secured by Sanders were awarded from the U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice. The program is administered by the Vermont Department of Education. The funding ranges from $7,000 to more than $46,000.” [Sanders press release, 6/17/11] Sanders Supported Expanding School Day and Year. “One of Sen. Sanders' top priorities was to provide more support for expanding the school day and year. Longer school days allow for a richer and more varied curriculum, as well as allowing for activities which keep students interested in going to school. Summer learning addresses the debilitating fact that students from low-income families lose 30 percent of what they had learned the previous year during the extended summer recess, when that learning is not reinforced by continuing learning. One of the important aspects of this new legislation is that it opens up funding for expanding the school day and year, including summer learning.” [Sanders press release, 10/25/11] Sanders Supported Protecting The 21st Century Community Learning Center Program. “The measure also would protect the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program, which provides about $5.5 million a year to run afterschool programs in Vermont.” [Sanders press release, 4/16/15] Sanders Introduced Bill To Expand After School Educational Programs For K-12 Students. “Requires states to use at least 95% of the grant allotted to them under part B to award subgrants to local educational agencies (LEAs), nonprofit organizations, or partnerships between LEAs and nonprofit organizations or local governmental entities. Creates two types of subgrants: (1) one-year planning subgrants for use in developing and implementing expanded learning time programs as part of a community learning center; and (2) renewable, multi-year implementation subgrants for use in creating expanded learning time, before and after school, summer enrichment, or summer school programs as part of a community learning center. […] Establishes specified community learning center performance indicators to assess success in creating additional learning time and improving student achievement. Reauthorizes appropriations for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program for FY2012FY2017.” [S 1311, introduced 6/30/11] Dual Enrollment Programs Sanders Introduced Legislation To Expand Programs For High Schoolers To Take College Level Courses. “Sanders' proposal would expand programs that allow high school juniors and seniors to take college-level classes and earn credit that counts toward both high school and college graduation. The approach reduces the cost and time necessary to complete a college degree. The bill is co-sponsored by Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Jack Reed (D-R.I,), Christopher Coons (D-Del.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), and John D. Rockefeller (D-W. Va).” [Sanders press release, 6/9/14; S 2349, introduced 5/15/14] Sanders Supported Dual Enrollment Programs To Allow High Schoolers To Take College Courses. “Sen. Sanders is also working to promote “dual enrollment” programs, which allow high school students to take college courses that count toward high school and college graduation. Research has shown that students who participate in dual enrollment programs are more likely to go to college and have more successful academic careers, and that these programs are especially beneficial for low-income and firstgeneration college students. The Supporting College Success through Dual Enrollment Act, which Sen. Sanders introduced in May, aims to provide all students with access to dual enrollment programs, and would provide funding to offset tuition, books and fees for moderate to low-income students.” [sanders.senate.gov, accessed 6/2/15] Droputs Sanders Sponsored Program To Create Local Agencies To Assist Dropout Return To High School. “Amends part H (School Dropout Prevention) of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) to make consortia of local educational agencies (LEAs) eligible to receive school dropout prevention grants and subgrants. Requires LEAs that receive a subgrant under part H to use at least 30% of the funds to implement reentry programs that assist school dropouts in returning to the educational system to obtain a secondary school diploma. Requires the reentry programs to be implemented through a partnership between a state, an LEA or consortium of LEAs, and at least one of the following: (1) a community-based organization, (2) an institution of higher education, (3) a local government agency, (4) a business group, (5) a community or national service program, (6) a qualified intermediary, or (7) other education provider.” [S 1019, introduced 5/18/11] Child Care And Early Childhood Education June 25: Asked Why He Was A Better Candidate For Women, Sanders Said He Was “About To Unveil” A Childcare Proposal For Universal Pre-K. “HEILEMANN: I’m going to ask you to make the case to female voters as to why they should support you over Hillary Clinton, especially given that she would be a historic figure for that gender. SANDERS: I do understand that and you're absolutely right there are millions of women who are excited about the possibility of a woman for the first time becoming President of the United States. I fully understand that and appreciate that. I think on the other hand, if you look at my economic agenda, that says to women workers, you can't keep working for 10 or 12 dollars an hour we need to raise the minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour. We are gonna unveil a childcare proposal for universal Pre-K, which I think will make working families all over this country extremely excited, because what we have now is a disaster.” [With All Due Respect, Bloomberg, 6/25/15] Sanders Called for Universal Pre-Kindergarten. “Sanders, in his roughly 45-minute speech to supporters, also called for universal prekindergarten in the United States, a proposal that Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton has been pushing amid stiff resistance in the most recent legislative session.” [Duluth News Tribune, 5/31/15] Sanders Supported Universal Pre-K. “In a society with our resources, it is unconscionable that we do not properly invest in our children from the very first stages of their lives. We need to move to a universal Pre-K system for all the children of this country. A system that establishes a high quality early care and education system that promotes children's social, emotional and physical development critical to their futures and the future of our nation.” [Facebook, Bernie 2016, 6/15/15] Sanders Supported Universal Prekindergarten. “Sanders also supports […] universal prekindergarten.” [Politico, 5/28/15] Sanders Said Early Childhood Education Was A “Moral Imperative.” “When we have almost over 1 out of 5 kids in this country living in poverty, some of them not getting the nutrition they need, some of them living in totally inadequate housing, some of them, most of them, not getting the education, the early childhood education they need, from a moral perspective, that is not the kind of people we should be.” [Brunch with Bernie, 3/14/14] Sanders Worked To Expand Eligibility For Head Start. “Research has shown that roughly 80 percent of all brain development occurs before age 3. Accordingly, Sen. Sanders believes access to quality early learning programs is vitally important. When the Senate reauthorized the Head Start program in 2007, Sen. Sanders worked closely with teachers, parents, and administrators to make sure that the bill expanded eligibility for Head Start, included increased funding allotments for the program, and provided greater flexibility to use funds for Early Head Start (ages 0-3).” [sanders.senate.gov, accessed 6/12/15] Sanders Praised Finland For Providing Free Preschool And Childcare. “Deep down, we know they would privatize Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and public education tomorrow if they could. About three weeks ago, I brought Ambassador Pekka Lintu from Finland to the State of Vermont. We have some information on the website about him. I said: I want you to come to Vermont to tell people how it is that in your country, you have free college education and graduate school. You want to go to medical school? It's free. You have free preschool and child care. You have what is regarded as the best public educational system in the world. Kids do better than in any other country. You have free health care. How do you do all these things? How does it work?” [Sanders interview, 4/22/08] Sanders Said The United States Has A Major Childcare Crisis. “So for example, we have a major crisis in childcare in this country. We’re way behind many other countries in providing quality, affordable childcare.” [Bernie Sanders at Johns Hopkins, 6/3/15] Sanders Said Child Care Workers Have An Important Job In Society, Yet Are Paid The Same As McDonald’s Employees. “I can’t imagine work that is much more important to a society than making sure we provide the nest, uh, intellectual, and emotional opportunities for our young children. And yet we pay child care workers in this country what McDonalds workers get.” [Bernie Sanders at Johns Hopkins, 6/3/15] Sanders Said The Lack Of Affordable Childcare Was “One Of The Most Terrible, Serious Problems” In The United States. “One of the most terrible, serious problems that gets almost no discussion is that in my state of Vermont, and all over this country, if you're a working class family and a Mom and Dad go out to work, it is very difficult to find affordable childcare. Good quality childcare is very expensive, there are long waiting lines, all over this country and what we have got to recognize that in the year 2014, when Mom and Dad are both working, we have got to understand that education does not begin at age 5, it begins a lot younger than that. That's an issue that we are working hard on.” [Brunch with Bernie, 3/14/14] Sanders Introduced Bill To Encourage States To Ensure Disadvantaged Youth Are Ready For School. “Developing Innovative Partnerships and Learning Opportunities that Motivate Achievement Act or the DIPLOMA Act - Authorizes the Secretary of Education to award renewable five-year grants to states and, through them, subgrants to local consortia that include a local educational agency and other community partners to: (1) ensure the academic, physical, social, emotional, and civic development of disadvantaged youth; and (2) strengthen their families and communities. Requires each state grantee to develop and implement a state youth strategy that assesses the needs of youth and the assets within the state that can be mobilized, coordinated, and integrated to achieve quantifiable progress toward goals that include ensuring that: (1) youth are ready for school; (2) students are engaged and achieving in school; (3) students are not chronically absent; (4) students are physically, mentally, socially, and emotionally healthy; (5) schools and neighborhoods are safe and provide a positive climate for learning; (6) families and communities are engaged in the education of their youth as equal partners; (7) students are ready for postsecondary education at institutions of higher education and 21st Century careers; and (8) students are contributing to their communities.” [S 2849, introduced 9/17/14] Sanders Introduced The “Foundations For Success Act” To Provide All Children Care And Early Education Starting At Six Weeks Old. “Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has introduced legislation to provide child care and early education to all children six weeks old through kindergarten. The Foundations for Success Act would provide pre-school children with a full range of services, leading to success in school and critical support for hard-pressed families nationwide.” [Sanders press release, 2/17/11] Bill Was Supported By The Children’s Defense Fund. “Sanders bill is backed by the nation's leading advocacy organization for children. "The Children's Defense Fund is pleased to support the Foundations for Success Act which sets forth a vision for addressing the crisis facing young children across the country who lack quality early childhood experiences," said Marian Wright Edelman, the organization's president. "There is valuable evidence of the rate of return on investments in the early years. This bill will establish a high quality early care and education system that promotes children's social, emotional and physical development critical to their futures and the future of our nation," she added.” [Sanders press release, 2/17/11] Legislation Created A Competitive Grant Program To Launch Program In 10 States As A Pilot Program. “A competitive grant program would allow 10 states to launch the program. Additional states would be phased in after three years. In order to participate, states would have to establish high standards for early child care and education. Participating states also would have to ensure that qualified teachers participate in the program.” [Sanders press release, 2/17/11] Sanders Sponsored A Resolution To Honor Early Childhood Care And Education Staff. “Supports the goals and ideas of National Child Care Worthy Wage Day (May 1, 2001) and urges public officials and the general public to honor early childhood care and education staff and programs in their communities, and work together to resolve the early childhood care and education staff compensation crisis.” [H Con Res 115, introduced 4/26/01] 2001: Sanders Launched A Bipartisan Caucus On Childcare. “Two states, Rhode Island and North Carolina, already offer benefits to child-care workers. And the grass-roots effort here has spread across state borders. In neighboring Vermont, child-care workers have formed a group called Kids Are Priority One to pressure legislators, and the state’s sole congressman, Independent Bernie Sanders, launched a bipartisan caucus on child care.” [Los Angeles Times, 4/5/01] 2001: Sanders Was Praised By National Women’s Law Center For His Efforts “To Improve The Nation’s Child Care Policies Through The Formation Of A New Bipartisan Congressional Child Care Caucus. “The National Women’s Law Center praised Reps. Bernie Sanders, Connie Morella, Rosa DeLauro and Ben Gilman for their efforts to improve the nation’s child care policies through the formation of a new, bipartisan Congressional Child Care Caucus.” (U.S. Newswire, 3/29/01] 2001: Sanders “Called For New Ways To Expand And Improve Affordable Child Care In Vermont And Across The Country.” “U.S. Rep. Bernie Sanders called for new ways to expand and improve affordable child care in Vermont and across the country. At a conference he convened at the South Royalton High School Saturday, Sanders said the growing number of women entering the workplace who have children under the age of 6 means demand for affordable child care is growing. In Vermont, he said, child care costs an average of $7,500 per child each year, which he said was too much for most middleincome families.” [Associated Press, 5/19/01] Sanders Praised Finland For Providing Free Preschool And Childcare. “Deep down, we know they would privatize Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and public education tomorrow if they could. About three weeks ago, I brought Ambassador Pekka Lintu from Finland to the State of Vermont. We have some information on the website about him. I said: I want you to come to Vermont to tell people how it is that in your country, you have free college education and graduate school. You want to go to medical school? It's free. You have free preschool and child care. You have what is regarded as the best public educational system in the world. Kids do better than in any other country. You have free health care. How do you do all these things? How does it work?” [Sanders interview, 4/22/08] 1986: Sanders Proposed Initiative That Provided Tax Credits For Businesses That Provided Access To Child Care And Required Businesses Receiving Public Funds To Provide Daycare. “Child care was at the top of Sanders’ list of initiatives he would propose. He said the state needed to get involved in seeing that working parents have access to day care. According to Sanders, nowhere in the state are there enough daycare facilities to meet the demand, and in many areas there are none. Sanders said he would propose tax credits or other incentives for employers who provide child care for their employees or offer day care as a part of a benefit package. He would also require businesses that receive public funds to provide daycare for their employees or offer day care as part of a benefit package.” [Vermont Press Bureau, 9/12/86] Sanders Supported A Ballot Measure That Would Authorize The Burlington City Council To Establish An Early Child Care Fund And Criticized The Burlington Free Press, Democrats, Republicans And Members Of The Business Community Who Opposed The Measure. “Vermont Perspective Burlington Free Press On Town Meeting Day, Burlington voters will be asked to support Question #1, a charter change to give the City Council authority to establish a child care [ineligible writtenin text] fund and to raise up to $600,000 to finance it. None of this money would be raised from taxes on homes or apartments. Your editorial opposing Daycare workers themselves earn little more than the minimum wage, even this item joins the voices of Democratic and Republican aldmermen and some members of the business community who also oppose it. I strongly urge the voters to support it. Question # 1 proposes something which is, frankly, bold and historic in nature.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, undated] Sanders Supported The Ballot Measure, Which Would Require Employers With Five Or More Employees To Contribute To The Early Child Care Fund. “The most vigorous criticism is saved for the method of funding. Our crime is not asking homeowners and renters to pay into this fund through a general property tax increase. Instead we ask all employers who employ five or more full-time workers to contribute into the fund whether or not they are taxexempt.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, undated] Sanders Proposed $600,000 Child Care Development Fund To Ensure That Parents Paid No More Than 10 Percent Of Their Income On Child Care. “The average cost of child care in Burlington is $75 per week. People working at low wage jobs are often required to spend up to25-35 percent of their weekly earnings on child care – an enormous burden for a worker, most often a woman, who simply wants to improve the life of her family and make ends meet. […] If the charter change establishing the Child Care Development Fund is passed, we could pump up to $600,000 into child care in Burlington every year. Two years ago, Gov. Madeleine Kunin’s Child Care Task Force recommended that no Vermont family should spend more than 10 percent of their income on child care. The $600,000 fund that we propose would significantly achieve this goal when intelligienly combined with existing social programs and child care tax credits.” [Bernie Sanders Op-Ed, undated] ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT 1990: Bernie Sanders Suggested “The Environmental Crisis Cannot Be Separated” From Economic Inequality. “On Earth Day, April 22, Bernie had given a sonorous 15-minute speech at John State College. We wanted him to deliver a different message on Tuesday. At Johnson State Bernie had said the following: ‘Today I am going to approach the issue of the environment a little bit differently than most politicians do, and a little bit differently than most politicians do, and a little bit differently than many, but not all, environmental organizations do,’ he began on Earth Day. ‘What I am going to suggest to you is that the environmental crisis cannot be separated from the general political crisis facing our country. I cannot be separated from the reality of the richest 1 percent of the population owning half of the wealth of this nation…” [Steven Rosenfeld, “Making History in Vermont: the Election of a Socialist to Congress,” 1992, P.60] Sanders’ Critics Contended That He Was A Johnny-Come-Lately To Environmental Concerns, Which He Had Initially Portrayed As A Concern Of The Leisure Class. “But many of Sanders’ critics charge that he is a Johnny-come-lately to environmental concerns. They say that the mayor’s tree planting program hardly constitutes deep environmental commitment and point to his long-standing indifference to environmental issues, which he has portrayed as a concern of the leisure class.” [Rutland Daily Herald, 11/1/86] Sanders: Corporations’ Relentless Pursuit Of Wealth Put The Country On The Brink Of “An Environmental Point Of No Return.” “Independent Congressional candidate Mayor Bernard Sanders said today that large corporations relentlessly pursuing maximum profits around the globe are pushing the world ‘closer and closer to an environmental point of no return.’ […] Sanders noted, "Acid rain is destroying millions of acres of prime forest land, and multinational corporations are cutting down millions of acres of rain forests in Latin America and Asia. The ozone layer is being depleted and garbage and syringes are washing up on Atlantic beaches. This nation and this planet is coming closer and closer to an environmental point of no return. ‘The time for rhetoric about environmental protection is over and the time for bold, decisive action is now,’ Sanders said.” [Press Release, Sanders for Congress, 8/25/88] Climate Change Sanders Was An Original Co-Sponsor Of Democratic Bill Intended To Signal Support Of President Obama’s Climate Change Agenda. “Senate Democratic leaders on Tuesday plan to unveil a measure intended to signal their support of President Obama’s aggressive climate change agenda to 2016 voters and to the rest of the world. The Democrats hope that the bill, sponsored by Senator Maria Cantwell, of Washington, the top Democrat on the Senate Energy Committee, will demonstrate a new unity for the party on energy and climate change, and define Democrats’ approach to global warming policy in the coming years. The measure would establish as United States policy a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2 percent each year through 2025 — a cut even larger than the target set by the Obama administration.” [New York Times, 9/22/15; S 2089, introduced 9/28/15] Bill Did Not Include A Carbon Tax Or A Cap And Trade Proposal. “But the Democratic measure lacks the one policy that most experts say is essential for addressing planet-warming pollution: a price, or tax, on carbon. The idea is to make it more expensive to burn fossil fuels and to drive the market toward energy such as wind and solar. That policy, however, has proved to be politically toxic in states that depend heavily on manufacturing and the fossil fuel industry. In his first term, Mr. Obama tried to push through a bill with a “cap and trade” program, but it died in the Senate because of a lack of support from Midwestern Democrats.” [New York Times, 9/22/15] Bill Would Direct U.S. To Secure Carbon Emission Cut Commitments From Other Countries, Require Energy Efficiency Increases From Electric Utilities, Extend Wind And Solar Energy Tax Credits, Increase Spending On Energy Efficiency Research And Enable Consumers To Invest In Solar. “The Cantwell bill would direct the United States to use its leadership to secure commitments from other countries to cut emissions. The measure would require electric utilities to increase energy efficiency by 20 percent from current levels by 2030. It would also extend tax credits for electric utilities that use wind and solar power, increase spending on research into energy-efficient trucks and factories, and enact policies that would make it cheaper for consumers to invest in their own solar power.” [New York Times, 9/22/15] Sanders Co-Introduced A Resolution Stating That The Senate Agreed With The Pope On Climate Change. “A group of Senate Democrats wants to vote on Pope Francis’s climate change pronouncement. The lawmakers, led by Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), introduced a resolution on Wednesday stating that the Senate agrees with the pope’s June encyclical declaring climate change a man-made problem and calling on world leaders to take steps to fix it. The resolution states that “the Senate stands with Pope Francis and the scientific consensus that human activity is the primary driver of climate change, present climate trends are unsustainable and immediate action must be taken to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order to limit the deleterious effects of human-induced climate change.” […] The resolution — introduced by Franken and Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) — comes before Francis’s September visit to the United States and his speech before a joint session of Congress, during which he’s widely expected to urge action on climate change.” [The Hill, 8/5/15] Bernie Sanders: Pope Francis’ Climate Change Message “Should Change The Debate” And “Become A Catalyst” For Reversing Global Warming. “Pope Francis’ powerful message on climate change should change the debate around the world and become a catalyst for the bold actions needed to reverse global warming. “ [Senator Sanders Press Release, 6/18/15] Bernie Sanders Said Pope Francis “Helps Us All See” How “The Least Among Us Will Fare” Under The Worst Consequences Of Climate Change. “The pope helps us all see how those with the least among us will fare the worst from the consequences of climate change.” [Senator Sanders Press Release, 6/18/15] Sanders Said He Was “One Of The Leaders In Congress” Fighting To Transform America’s Energy System. “I am one of the leaders in the Congress in fighting to transform our energy system…” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Diane Rehm Show, 6/10/15] June 2015: Bernie Sanders: “Denying The Science Related To Climate Change Is No Longer Acceptable.” [Senator Sanders Press Release, 6/18/15] Sanders Believed That Climate Change Was “The Great Planetary Crisis.” “…I believe that climate change is the great planetary crisis that we face.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Diane Rehm Show, 6/10/15] Sanders: There Is Nothing More Important Than Leaving This Planet Habitable For Future Generations. “When we talk about our responsibilities as human beings and as parents, there is nothing more important than leaving this country and the entire planet in a way that is habitable for our kids and grandchildren. The debate is over. The scientific community has spoken in a virtually unanimous voice. Climate change is real. It is caused by human activity and it is already causing devastating problems in the United States and around the world.” [Sanders Remarks, 5/27/15] Sanders: “It Is To Transform Our Energy System Away From Coal, Away From Oil, Away From Fossil Fuel.” “So I am delighted the President will veto this legislation if it happens to pass the Congress. Our job now is not to bring more carbon into the atmosphere; it is to transform our energy system away from coal, away from oil, away from fossil fuel, and toward energy efficiency and sustainable energy. That should be the direction of this country, and we should lead the world in moving in that direction.” [Sanders Remarks, Senate Floor, 1/7/15] Sanders Said That The United States Must Transform Its Energy System Away From Fossil Fuels And Toward Sustainable Energy As Rapidly As Possible. “Lastly, and what logically follows from the previous four positions, is the following: It is imperative that the United States transforms its energy system away from fossil fuels and toward energy efficiency and sustainable energy as rapidly as possible. That doesn't mean you close down every coal-burning plant in America tomorrow, but it does mean we move away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy as rapidly as possible.” [Sanders Remarks, Senate Floor, 1/21/15] Sanders Said Climate Change Already Having Devastating Impacts On United States. “And that is, climate change is real, climate change is caused by human activity, climate change today is already causing devastating impacts in the United States, droughts, floods, extreme weather disturbances, freaky weather, and it is only going to get worse unless we transform our energy system and move to energy efficiency and sustainable energy.” [Brunch with Bernie, 4/4/14] Sanders Amendment To Recognize And Address Climate Change Was Voted Down In Committee. “A Senate panel on Wednesday rejected a push from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to acknowledge climate change in an energy reform bill. Sanders, who is running for the Democratic presidential nomination, had pushed an amendment to the chamber’s energy bill affirming the sense of Congress that climate change is real and that more needs to be done in the energy sphere to confront it. “I think, for those who are planning to vote against the amendment, speak to your kids, think about your grandchildren,” Sanders said at an Energy and Natural Resources Committee mark-up. “Because I think that history will record you on the very, very, very wrong side of this enormous issue.”” [The Hill, 7/29/15] Sanders “Has One Of The Strongest Climate Change Records In The Senate. “In fact, according to rankings released by Climate Hawks Vote, a new super PAC, Sanders was the No. 1 climate leader in the Senate for the 113th Congress that ended in January. Climate Hawks Vote measures leadership, not just voting records, tabulating actions like bills introduced, speeches given, and so forth. In the 112th Congress, Sanders ranked third behind Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.). In the last Congress, he edged out Whitehouse by one point.” [Mother Jones, 5/14/15] Sanders Said Climate Change Is A National Security Issue. “We are seeing a great concern that when people around the world are unable to grow their crops because of drought or have to move because of floods this raises serious national security issues, something the department of defense here is very worried about. So it’s an issue that we have got to address…” [Brunch With Bernie, 1/16/15] 2010: Sanders Criticized Glenn Beck And Rush Limbaugh For Denying Climate Change. “So with all of this evidence, who’s arguing against global warming? Who’s saying that it’s not real? Well, the wellknown climate expert Glenn Beck, has suggested that climate scientists should commit suicide, and compared Al Gore to Adolf Hitler. Well, there you go. Rush Limbaugh, another scientist of outstanding repute, said that global warming is bogus and is the work of pseudo-scientists.” [SoundCloud, Bernie Sanders, Audio Clip: “2010: Climate Change,” Accessed 6/8/15] Sanders Said That Climate Change Was A Moral Issue And That Republicans Were Funded By The Fossil Fuel Industry And Denied Climate Change. “COOPER: Senator Sanders, are you tougher on -on climate change than Secretary Clinton? SANDERS: Well, I will tell you this. I believe -- and Pope Francis made this point. This is a moral issue. The scientists are telling us that we need to move extremely boldly. I am proud that, along with Senator Barbara Boxer, a few years ago, we introduced the first piece of climate change legislation which called for a tax on carbon. And let me also tell you that nothing is gonna happen unless we are prepared to deal with campaign finance reform, because the fossil fuel industry is funding the Republican Party, which denies the reality of climate change... (APPLAUSE) ...and certainly is not prepared to go forward aggressively.” [Democratic Primary Presidential Debate, CNN, 10/13/15] Sanders Said That Addressing Climate Change Was A “Moral Responsibility.” “The Nation: Obviously, for a lot of those who have followed you, the economic issues, the populist message, is at the heart of your campaign. But when you talk about the crisis, you always include a discussion of climate change. Sanders: Look, for those of us who believe in science, you simply cannot ignore what the scientific community is saying almost unanimously. And that is that climate change is real; it’s caused by human activity; it’s already causing devastating problems; and it will only get worse in years to come if we don’t transform our energy system. You cannot ignore what is happening every day in terms of the climate and what it will mean—what it’s meaning today to the folks in California and elsewhere—for your kids and my kids. There is a moral responsibility that we must accept to transform our energy system. It cannot be ignored.” [The Nation, 7/6/15] Sanders: Climate Change Is Real And Caused By Human Activity. “Not only is climate change real and caused by human activity, but it is already causing devastating problems in America and around the world. In terms of the kind of planet we are going to leave our kids and grandchildren, the scientists tell us that if we do not get our act together, this planet may be five to 10 degrees Fahrenheit warmer by the end of this century. Just think of all the cataclysmic impacts that will mean.” [Washington Post, 5/1/15] International Cooperation Sanders Said That Climate Change Would Decrease International Stability, Particularly Through Increased Droughts, Which Would Cause More Migration. “Ezra Klein: Let me ask you about the economic side of foreign policy. I think one of the overwhelming background issues, and sometimes the foreground issue, is whether the economic rise of, particularly, China, but to some degree India and others, necessarily means a diminishment in American power and sway. Do you see it as zero sum in that way? Bernie Sanders No. I should also tell you when you talk about foreign policy, what you didn't ask me, which may be as important an issue as any, is the issue of climate change. If you talk to the CIA, if you talk to the Department of Defense, and I have, what they will tell you is that one of the great security issues facing this planet is the fact that as we see more and more drought, as poor people around the world are unable to grow the food they need to survive, you're going to see migrations of people in international climate.” [Vox, 7/28/15] Sanders Said Our Ancestors Would Question Why The U.S. Did Not Lead The International Community On Cutting Greenhouse Gas Emissions. “Unless we take bold action to address climate change, our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren are going to look back on this period in history and ask a very simple question: Where were they? Why didn’t the United States of America, the most powerful nation on earth, lead the international community in cutting greenhouse gas emissions and preventing the devastating damage that the scientific community told us would surely come?” [Issues Page, Bernie 2016, accessed 8/11/15] Sanders Said It Was Important To Work With China, India And Russia To Combat Climate Change. “COOPER: Senator Sanders, are you tougher on -- on climate change than Secretary Clinton? SANDERS: Well, I will tell you this. I believe -- and Pope Francis made this point. This is a moral issue. The scientists are telling us that we need to move extremely boldly. I am proud that, along with Senator Barbara Boxer, a few years ago, we introduced the first piece of climate change legislation which called for a tax on carbon. And let me also tell you that nothing is gonna happen unless we are prepared to deal with campaign finance reform, because the fossil fuel industry is funding the Republican Party, which denies the reality of climate change... (APPLAUSE) ...and certainly is not prepared to go forward aggressively. This is a moral issue. We have got to be extremely aggressive in working with China, India, Russia. COOPER: Senator -- thank you, Senator. SANDERS: The planet -- the future of the planet is at stake.” [Democratic Primary Presidential Debate, CNN, 10/13/15] Economic Impact Of Climate Change Sanders Said He Was Worried That Industrialized Economies Might Need To Stop Growing In Order To Deal With Climate Change. “Jim Tankersley: Let’s go back to growth and the environment. Are you worried we’re at a moment like Naomi Klein describes, where industrialized economies need to stop growing in order to avoid the worst of climate change? Sanders: Yes. I am.” [Washington Post, 7/16/15] Sanders Said That Growth For The Sake Of Growth Was Insufficient, Instead “We’ve Got To Move To A Society That Provides A High Quality Of Life For All Of Our People.” “Jim Tankersley: Let’s go back to growth and the environment. Are you worried we’re at a moment like Naomi Klein describes, where industrialized economies need to stop growing in order to avoid the worst of climate change? Sanders: Yes. I am. The point is, there’s growth and there’s growth, but unchecked growth – especially when 99 percent of all new income goes to the top 1 percent – is absurd. Where we’ve got to move is not growth for the sake of growth, but we’ve got to move to a society that provides a high quality of life for all of our people. In other words, if people have health care as a right, as do the people of every other major country, then there’s less worry about growth. If people have educational opportunity and their kids can go to college and they have child care, then there’s less worry about growth for the sake of growth.” [Washington Post, 7/16/15] Sanders Believed That The Country Could Decarbonize The Economy While Increasing Incomes. “Do you think we can decarbonize the economy and keep growing people’s incomes? Sanders: Yes. Yes I do.” [Washington Post, 7/16/15] Sanders Called For The Need To “Protect Those People Who Will Lose Their Jobs” As A Result Of A Transition To Clean Energy. “Sanders said, as he has before, that the U.S. needs to move away from fossil fuels to more sustainable energy forms like wind, solar, and geothermal. “I am more than aware,” he said, “that there will be economic dislocation, and as part of any climate change legislation we must protect those people who will lose their jobs, and help them get good jobs.” He didn’t elaborate on how that transition for workers would work.” [Bloomberg Politics, 7/27/15] Sanders Said That While There Could Be “Dislocation” As A Result Of A Shift To Clean Energy, It Would Eventually Create Good Paying Jobs. “I know that there are some people who think that there will be doom and gloom if we break our dependency on fossil fuels, on coal on oil. I don’t agree. There will be dislocation, which we have got to address. But at the end of the day, if we are not spending hundreds of billions of dollars every year importing oil from abroad, if we are not producing enormous amounts of greenhouse gas emission, but in fact producing our energy from thermal, solar, biomass, and other sustainable technologies, at the end of the day what we will be doing is creating millions of good paying jobs by becoming energy independent.” [Climate Change Conference 2009—Washington DC, 10/20/09, 4:50] Sanders Said That Transforming Our Energy System Away From Fossil Fuels Could Create Millions Of Good-Paying Jobs. “I am also asking Senator Inhofe and my Republican colleagues to understand that the United States, with all of our knowledge, all of our expertise, and all of our technology, can and must lead the rest of the world, which must follow our effort in cutting back on carbon emissions and reverse global warming, and to understand that when we do this-when we transform our energy system away from fossil fuels and enter into energy efficiency and sustainable energy-when we do that over a period of years, we can create millions of good-paying jobs.” [Sanders Remarks, Senate Floor, 7/30/12] Clean Energy Jobs Sanders And Clinton Worked Together To Pass A Green Collar Jobs Amendment To The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. "The green-collar jobs provision originally was adopted in the Senate as an amendment by Sanders and Senator Hillary Clinton. It authorized $100 million to train workers in jobs that involve the design, manufacture, installation, operation, and maintenance of clean, efficient energy technologies. A 2006 study from the National Renewable Energy Lab said that a lack of skilled workers in the field was a major barrier to making America more energy efficient." [Sanders press release, 12/13/07; S.Amdt.1515, 6/12/07] Sanders And Clinton Co-Authored The Green Jobs Act. “By the time Sanders arrived in the Senate in 2007, Hillary Clinton was already gearing up for her first presidential run, though the two did find opportunities to join forces during their two-year overlap in the upper chamber. 2007, they co-authored the Green Jobs Act, which funded renewable energy and energy efficiency programs and passed as part of a larger energy bill. They both served on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee, and in July 2008, along with Barack Obama and Ted Kennedy, the pair co-sponsored the Access for All America Act to expand the availability of primary care medicine, which died in committee.” [Politico, 6/17/15] The Energy Independence And Security Act Was Signed Into Law By President Bush. "Legislation that will slowly but fundamentally change the cars Americans drive, the fuel they burn, the way they light their homes and the price they pay for food was signed by President Bush Wednesday after having been adopted by the House on Tuesday by a large margin. [...] The bill, which passed on a bipartisan vote of 314 to 100, sets higher fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks by law for the first time in 32 years and requires the production of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2022, a nearly fivefold increase from current ethanol production levels." [New York Times, 12/19/07] The Program “Would Train Workers To Build And Install Solar Panels And Other EnergyEfficient Technology.” “The bill includes a jobs program by Sanders and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., that would train workers to build and install solar panels and other energy-efficient technology. A 2006 study from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory said that a lack of skilled workers in the field was a major barrier to making America more energy efficient.” [Gannet News, 12/18/07] Sanders And Clinton Co-Sponsored Funding For Energy Research. “In 2007, he cowrote with then-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) the Green Jobs Act, which allocated funding for clean energy and energy efficiency research and job training. This did pass, as part of a big 2007 energy bill.” [Mother Jones, 5/14/15] Senate Adopted Sanders-Clinton Amendment To Authorize Resources For “Green Collar Job” Training. “As debate began on a comprehensive energy bill, the Senate today adopted a job-training proposal by Senators Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. The measure would authorize resources to train workers for "green collar jobs" that involve the design, manufacture, installation, operation, and maintenance of technologies associated with energy efficiency and renewable, clean energy options. It also would authorize research on labor market trends.” [Sanders Press Release, 6/12/07] The Amendment Provided Training For Jobs Created Through Renewable Energy And Energy Efficiency Initiatives. “The amendment would create a sustainable, comprehensive public program that: provides quality training for jobs created through renewable energy and energy efficiency initiatives; satisfies industry demand for a skilled workforce; provides grants for safety, health and skills training; funds national and State research, labor market information, and labor exchange programs; and develops national and State training programs.” [Sanders Press Release, 6/12/07] Keystone 2015: Sanders Voted Against the Keystone XL Pipeline. In 2015, Bernie Sanders voted against a bill that would “immediately allow TransCanada to construct, connect, operate and maintain the pipeline and cross-border facilities known as the Keystone XL pipeline, including any revision to the pipeline route within Nebraska as required or authorized by the state. It also would consider the January 2014 environmental impact statement issued by the State Department sufficient to satisfy all requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act. It would grant the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia exclusive jurisdiction regarding legal disputes over the pipeline or the constitutionality of the bill. As amended, it would express the sense of the Senate that climate change is real.” [S.1, Vote #49, 1/29/15; CQ Floor Votes, 1/29/15] Sanders Opposed Overriding Veto of the Bill. [S.1, Vote #68, 3/04/15] Sanders Applauded President Obama’s Veto Threat Of Keystone Pipeline Legislation. “Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a member of the Senate energy and environment committees, issued the following statement welcoming the announcement by the White House today that President Barack Obama would veto legislation allowing construction on the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada to Texas: “I applaud the president for standing up to Republicans trying to ram through Congress a bill to let a Canadian oil company ship some of the dirtiest oil on the planet across the United States on its way to overseas markets. Climate change is real. It is caused by human activities. It already is causing devastating problems and if we don’t transform our energy system those problems will become much worse in years to come. Our country must lead the world in combating the planetary crisis of global warming. We must not reject science and set a terrible example by encouraging the drilling of oil that creates more carbon emissions than conventional oil and poses the risk of extremely damaging oil spills. If we are serious about protecting the planet and improving our economy, we must focus on energy efficiency and renewable energy, not a continued dependence on fossil fuels.”” [Sanders Press Release, 1/6/15] Sanders Said That Instead Of Debating Keystone, The Senate Should Be Discussing How To Implement A Carbon Tax And Move Aggressively Toward Energy Efficiency. “Instead, what the debate is about is how we transport some of the dirtiest oil in the world and thereby cause more carbon emissions into the atmosphere. I suspect our kids and our grandchildren will look back on this period and say: What world were you living in? Why did you do that to us? It would seem to me that what we should be debating here is how we impose a tax on carbon so that we can break our dependence on fossil fuel. That is what we should be discussing, not how we increase carbon emissions. We should be discussing what kind of legislation we bring forward that moves us aggressively toward energy efficiency, weatherization, and such sustainable energies as wind, solar, and geothermal. That is the kind of bill that should be on the floor.” [Sanders Remarks, Senate Floor, 1/7/15] Sanders Said The United States Could Not Credibly Tell The Intenational Community That Climate Change Was A Crisis While Facilitating Construction Of The Keystone Pipeline. “In my view, the U.S. Congress in a very profound way should not be in the business of rejecting science because when we reject science, we become the laughingstock of the world. How do we go forward? How do we prepare legislation if it is not based on scientific evidence? And to say to the overwhelming majority of scientists that we are ignoring what they are telling us and we are going to move in exactly the wrong direction I think makes us look like fools in front of the entire world. How do we go forward and tell China and India and Russia and countries around the world that climate change is a huge planetary crisis at the same time as we are facilitating the construction of the Keystone Pipeline?” [Sanders Remarks, Senate Floor, 1/7/15] 2014: Sanders Voted Against Legislation To Approve The Keystone Pipeline. “Senate Democrats, by a single vote, stopped legislation that would have approved construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, one of the most fractious and expensive battles of the Obama presidency. The vote represented a victory for the environmental movement, but the fight had taken on larger dimensions as a proxy war between Republicans, who argued that the project was vital for job creation, and President Obama, who had delayed a decision on building it.” [New York Times, 11/18/14; S 2280, Vote #280, 11/18/14] Sanders Opposed Keystone, Said That His Infrastructure Bill Would Create More Jobs Than Keystone. “There is, however, one issue on which Sanders differs from some of his union allies: Asked about building trade unions’ support for the Keystone Pipeline, which he opposes on environmental grounds, Sanders said that while “every job is important,” his infrastructure proposal would create 13 million jobs, compared to just a couple thousand from Keystone.” [Bloomberg, 8/6/15] Sanders Led The Opposition To The Keystone XL Pipeline. “KEY FACTS: Led the opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline.” [Issues Page, Bernie 2016, accessed 8/11/15] Sanders: “I Have Helped Lead The Effort Against the Keystone Pipeline.” “In terms of climate change, I have helped lead the effort against the Keystone Pipeline. I'm not quite sure that Hillary Clinton has come out with a position on that. So those are just some of the areas where we differ.” [Face The Nation, 5/10/15] Sanders Said That Passing The Keystone Pipeline Would Send A Message To The World That America Is “Not Serious” About Energy Efficiency. “If we were to pass the Keystone Pipeline, this will be a signal to the entire world that we are not serious about moving away from fossil fuel and transforming our energy system into energy efficiency and sustainable energy.” [Now with Alex Wagner, MSNBC, 5/13/14, 2:21] Sanders Said The Keystone Pipeline Would Be A “Terrible Mistake.” “Well, I hope very much that we do not go forward with the Keystone Pipeline, which moves us exactly in the wrong direction by expanding the production and transportation of some of the dirtiest fossil fuel on this Earth. I think that would be a terrible mistake.” [Sanders Remarks, Senate Floor, 1/13/15] Responding To Clinton’s Comments On Keystone XL, Sanders Said “It Is Hard For Me To Understand How One Can Be Concerned About Climate Change But Not Vigorously Oppose The Keystone Pipeline.” “Sanders made clear his opposition to the controversial pipeline on the same day former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was asked during a New Hampshire town meeting for a “yes or no” answer on whether she supports the project. She declined to answer. Said Sanders […] “We must make significant reductions in carbon emissions and break our dependency on fossil fuels. That is why I have helped lead the fight in the Senate against the Keystone pipeline which would transport some of the dirtiest fossil fuel in the world. It is hard for me to understand how one can be concerned about climate change but not vigorously oppose the Keystone pipeline.”” [Press Release, Bernie 2016, 7/28/15] Renewable Energy Sanders Told Quad City Times He Did Not Have A Definitive Answer On Renewable Fuel Standard And Ethanol Incentives. "Times reporter Ed Tibbetts pressed Sanders for a position on the Renewable Fuel Standard that includes incentives for Iowa ethanol production. “I know this is important to Iowa. I don’t have a definitive answer. I’ve got to learn more. You will get an answer.”" [Editorial, Quad City Times, 5/30/15] Bernie Sanders Co-Sponsored Bill That Would Set Goal of 25% Renewable Energy by 2025. In 2007, Bernie Sanders co-sponsored a “concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress that it is the goal of the United States that, not later than January 1, 2025, the agricultural, forestry, and working land of the United States should provide from renewable resources not less than 25 percent of the total energy consumed in the United States and continue to produce safe, abundant, and affordable food, feed, and fiber.” [S.CON.RES.3, Co-sponsored on 5/01/07] Bernie Sanders Supported Extending the Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit for 5 Years. In 2015, Bernie Sanders voted in favor of an amendment that would “express the sense of Congress that the production tax credit should be extended until Jan. 1, 2020 for facilities that use wind energy technology for electricity.” [S.1, Vote #40, 1/28/15; CQ Floor Votes, 1/28/15] Bernie Sanders Voted to Extend Renewable Energy and Efficiency Tax Incentives. On March 22, 2007, Bernie Sanders voted yes on Senate Vote #97. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Conrad, D-N.D., amendment no. 598 that would create a reserve fund to adjust the budget and allow for legislation to extend renewable energy and energy efficiency tax incentives. [Senate Vote #97, 3/22/2007; CQ Floor Votes] Sanders Introduced Bill To Help Families Retrofit Their Homes For Energy Efficiency. “lso in 2013, Sanders introduced the Residential Energy Savings Act to fund financing programs that would help residents retrofit their homes for energy efficiency. This bill didn't become law either.” [Mother Jones, 5/14/15] Sanders Authored Bill To Distribute Solar Panels Across The Country. “In 2010, Sanders authored a bill to spread distributed solar throughout the country, the very literally named “10 Million Solar Roofs & 10 Million Gallons of Solar Hot Water Act.” As Grist's David Roberts explained, it would “provide rebates that cover up to half the cost of new systems, along the lines of incentive programs in California and New Jersey.” The bill didn't pass.” [Mother Jones, 5/14/15] Sanders Co-Sponsored Bill To Help State And Local Governments By For Energy Programs. “Also in 2007, with Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), he cosponsored the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program, to help states and local governments pay for efficiency and clean energy programs. It was also passed as part of the 2007 energy bill, and both the block grant program and the green jobs program got a funding infusion from the 2009 stimulus package.” [Mother Jones, 5/14/15] Drilling Sanders Signed On To A Letter Calling For The SEC To Require More Transparency From Companies Engaged In Offshore Drilling. “In continued efforts to halt offshore oil drilling in the Arctic Ocean, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and other senators this week called on the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to require increased transparency from companies engaged in offshore drilling in American waters. The senators’ call follows the Obama Administration issuing drilling rights to royal Dutch Shell plc. […] Leahy and Sanders were joined by 10 other senators – all of whom oppose offshore drilling -- in a letter initiated by Senator Ben Cardin (D-Md.). The full text of the letter can be found here.” [Press Release, Sen. Bernie Sanders, 8/19/15] Sanders Sponsored A Bill To Prohibit Gas Exploration On The Coasts And Increase Fuel Economy Standards. “Amends the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from issuing a lease or permit for the exploration, development, or production of oil or natural gas in: (1) the Pacific and Atlantic Regions of the outer Continental Shelf; or (2) certain areas in the Gulf of Mexico. Replaces current fuel economy standards for automobiles for model years 2021 through 2030 with new standards for model years 2017 through 2030. Requires the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe an average fuel economy standard for passenger and non-passenger automobiles for each model year beginning with model year 2017 to achieve a combined fuel economy average for model year 2030 of at least 55 miles per gallon for the total fleet of passenger and non-passenger automobiles manufactured for sale in the United States for that model year (excluding light-duty vehicles that draw motive power from a battery with a capacity larger than 4 kilowatt-hours).” [S 3433, introduced 5/27/10] Bernie Sanders Opposed Natural Gas Drilling Off the Coast of Virginia. On June 14, 2007, Bernie Sanders vote no on Senate Vote #212. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Warner, R-Va., amendment no. 1566 to the Reid, D-Nev., substitute amendment no.1502. The Warner amendment would authorize Virginia to petition for the authority to conduct natural gas drilling and exploration in the state's coastal zone. [Senate Vote #212, 6/14/2007; CQ Floor Votes] Bernie Sanders Voted Against Drilling in ANWR and Coastal Waters Under Moratorium. On May 13, 2008, Bernie Sanders voted no on Senate Vote #123. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: McConnell, R-Ky., perfecting amendment no. 4720 that would allow energy exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and allow states to authorize oil drilling in offshore coastal waters currently subject to a federal moratorium. It also would promote development of clean coal technology and suspend oil acquisition for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for 180 days. [Senate Vote #123, 5/13/2008; CQ Floor Votes] Bernie Sanders Voted Against Lifting Moratorium on Drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf. On May 19, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #192. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Peterson, R-Pa., amendment that would lift the moratorium on natural gas production in the Outer Continental Shelf. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #192, 5/19/2005] Bernie Sanders Voted Against Ending Moratorium on Most Offshore Drilling. On June 29, 2006, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #356. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would end a federal moratorium on most offshore exploration and development of oil and natural gas but give states more control over drilling along their coasts. The bill would require the Interior Department to offer leases for offshore oil and gas drilling for 75 percent of available offshore locations on the Outer Continental Shelf. Drilling would be banned out to 50 miles off the coasts. States could repeal the ban and pursue exploration closer to the coast or extend protection to 100 miles. It would incrementally increase states' share of revenue from offshore fuel production, bids for leases, and royalty payments from 4.6 percent in fiscal 2006 to 42.5 percent in fiscal 2022. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #356, 6/29/2006] Bernie Sanders Voted to Encourage Oil and Gas Drilling in Outer Continental Shelf Not Covered by Moratorium. On March 13, 2008, Bernie Sanders voted yes on Senate Vote #55. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Nelson, D-Fla., amendment no. 4329 that would create a deficit- neutral reserve fund to allow for the impact of any legislation to encourage consumers to replace conventional wood stoves with EPA-approved stoves and install electricity meters in their homes, and to encourage the capture and storage of carbon dioxide emissions from coal projects and the development of oil and natural gas resources beneath the Outer Continental Shelf area not covered by current moratoria. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #55, 3/13/2008] Bernie Sanders Voted to Require 50% of Revenue from Outer Continental Shelf Drilling be Distributed Among Coastal Energy-Producing States. On April 2, 2009, Bernie Sanders voted no on Senate Vote #136. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Landrieu, D-La., amendment no. 931 that would allow a deficit-neutral increase in the resolution's discretionary spending cap to pay for the impact of any legislation that would require that 50 percent of revenue from outer continental shelf drilling be distributed among coastal energy-producing states and/or allocated for the conduct of alternative energy research and the support of parks and wildlife. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #136, 4/2/2009] Bernie Sanders Voted Against Granting Leases for Drilling in ANWR. On May 25, 2006, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #209. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would authorize the Interior Department to grant leases for oil and gas exploration, development, and production in the coastal plain of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). It would allow the first lease sale of at least 200,000 acres to be held within 22 months of the bill's enactment. It would declare a 1987 environmental impact statement sufficient for the Interior Department to begin the sales. Lessees would be required to pay the federal government royalties of at least 12.5 percent of the product value removed or sold as determined by the agency. Half of the rental and royalty revenues would be paid to Alaska and half would go to the federal government. It would ban the exportation of oil pumped in ANWR and it would limit to 2,000 acres the area covered by wells, roads and other production infrastructure. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #209, 5/25/2006 2001: Bernie Sanders Voted to Prohibit Oil Drilling in ANWR. On August 1, 2001, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #317. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Markey, D-Mass., amendment that would maintain the current prohibition on oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge by striking language opening the reserve up to development. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #317, 8/1/2001] Tax Break For Oil Companies Sanders: Immoral To Cut Social Security And Medicare But Preserve Tax Breaks For Oil Companies. “In 2012, Sanders introduced the End Polluter Welfare Act, to get rid of special tax deductions and credits for coal, oil, and gas producers. As he wrote in Grist at the time, “It is immoral that some in Congress advocate savage cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security while those same people vote to preserve billions in tax breaks for ExxonMobil, the most profitable corporation in America.” The bill didn't pass.” [Mother Jones, 5/14/15] Sanders Sponsored Bill To Repeal Certain Tax Credits For Oil Companies. “Amends the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to repeal tax provisions that allow: (1) a taxpayer election to expense 50% of the cost of crude oil refinery property with a specified production capacity placed in service before January 1, 2008; and (2) the amortization of geological and geophysical expenditures for the exploration for, or development of, oil or gas within the United States over a 24-month period. Amends the Internal Revenue Code to repeal: (1) enhanced oil recovery credits; (2) credit for production of low sulphur diesel fuel; (3) credit for producing fuel from a nonconventional source; (4) the deduction for capital costs incurred in complying with Environmental Protection Agency sulfur regulations; and (5) the deduction of expenses for intangible drilling and development costs for oil wells, gas wells, and geothermal wells.” [HR 4420, introduced 11/18/05] Carbon Emissions Supported A Carbon Tax Sanders Said The Democratic Nominee Should Run On A Climate Change Platform That Included A Tax On Carbon And Massive Investment In Solar, Wind, And Geothermal Energy. “PLUM LINE: Should the Democratic nominee offer a platform that goes considerably farther than what the president has done? SANDERS: Yes. PLUM LINE: What would that look like? SANDERS: It would look like a tax on carbon; a massive investment in solar, wind, geothermal; it would be making sure that every home and building in this country is properly winterized; it would be putting substantial money into rail, both passenger and cargo, so we can move towards breaking our dependency on automobiles. And it would be leading other countries around the world. PLUM LINE: You think the Democratic nominee should campaign on a platform like that? SANDERS: Yes.” [Washington Post, 5/1/15] Sanders Said That Carbon Could Be Priced, That The U.S. Needed To Price Carbon And That He Had Introduced Legislation To Price Carbon. “Ezra Klein: Do you think the international capacity and relationships exist to price carbon in a verifiable way? Bernie Sanders: Yeah, I do, and we've introduced legislation to do that. [...] Ezra Klein: Do you believe we need to price carbon? Bernie Sanders: Yes.” [Vox, 7/28/15] Sanders Supports A Carbon Tax. “Sanders railed against the “billionaire class”, called for gradually raising the minimum wage to 15 dollars and drew loud cheers as he spoke about the need for pay equity for women. Sanders, who supports a carbon tax, got a standing ovation when he spoke of climate change and called for ending dependence on fossil fuels.” [Radio Iowa, 6/12/15] Sanders Called For Making Our Transportation System Energy Efficient And Taxing Carbon. “The United States must lead the world in reversing climate change. We can do that if we transform our energy system away from fossil fuels, toward energy efficiency and such sustainable energies such as wind, solar, geo-thermal and bio-mass. Millions of homes and buildings need to be weatherized, our transportation system needs to be energy efficient, and we need a tax on carbon to accelerate the transition away from fossil fuel.” [Sanders Remarks, 5/27/15] Sanders Called For A Carbon Tax. “I've been a leader in terms of climate change, introduced legislation for the first time that would have a carbon tax and say, this is a globe crisis. America has got to move away from fossil fuel and carbon. Those are my views and people have to judge Secretary Clinton's views.” [CNN, New Day, 5/6/15] Co-Sponsored Boxer Carbon Tax Legislation Sanders Sponsored A “Radical” Fee And Dividend Variant Of A Carbon Tax That Taxed Carbon Emission At Their Source, Such As Coal Mines. “Sen. Barbara Boxer plans Thursday to co-sponsor a radical plan to control carbon dioxide emissions modeled on Alaska's rebates of oil royalties to residents. The California Democrat is a marquee draw for an otherwise obscure bill by Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont liberal and independent. Called "fee and dividend," the legislation is an unusual variant on a carbon tax. It would impose a fee on carbon emissions at their source, such as coal mines, raising the price of fossil fuel energy. But instead of giving the proceeds to the government, three-fifths of the money would be refunded to U.S. residents.” [San Francisco Chronicle, 2/13/13; S. 332, introduced 2/14/13] Sanders Said Legislation Was The “Gold Standard” For Climate Change Legislation To Tax Carbon And Methane Emissions. “KEY ACTIONS: Introduced the gold standard for climate change legislation with Sen. Barbara Boxer to tax carbon and methane emissions.” [Issues Page, Bernie 2016, accessed 8/11/15] Sanders: “I’ve Introduced The Most Comprehensive Legislation On Climate Change In Congress.” “I have helped to lead the US Congress in introducing legislation to combat climate change. I’ve introduced the most comprehensive legislation on climate change in Congress.” [theSkimm, 7/22/15] Sanders-Boxer Bill Enacted A $20 Per Ton Tax On Carbon And Methane, Rising By 5.6% Per Year For 10 Years. “While setting a long-term emissions reduction goal of 80 percent or more by 2050 as science calls for, the legislation would enact a carbon fee of $20 per ton of carbon or methane equivalent, rising at 5.6% a year over a ten-year period. Applied upstream (at the coal mine, the oil refinery, the natural gas processing point, or at the point of importation, this fee would apply to only 2,869 of the largest fossil fuel polluters, covering about 85 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.” [Sanders Press Release, 2/14/13] Sanders-Boxer Bill Would Rebate Three-Fifths Of Tax Revenue From Carbon And Methane Emissions To Citizens, And Invest The Remainder In Clean Energy. “In 2013, along with Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Sanders introduced the Climate Protection Act, a fee-and-dividend bill. It would tax carbon and methane emissions and rebate three-fifths of the revenue to citizens, then invest the remainder in energy efficiency, clean energy, and climate resiliency. The bill, of course, went nowhere (even if it had advanced in the Democratic-controlled Senate, it would have been DOA in the Republican-controlled House), but it shows that Sanders supports serious solutions and wants to keep the conversation going.” [Mother Jones, 5/14/15] Family Clean Energy Rebate Program Was Modeled Off Alaska’s Oil Dividend. “Using the 3/5ths of the carbon fee revenue, the Family Clean Energy Rebate Program would work off the model developed by Alaska’s oil dividend to provide a monthly rebate to every legal U.S. resident.” [Sanders Press Release, 2/14/13] Sanders Said Fee On Carbon Would Only Impact Top 3,000 Polluters. “What we do in this legislation is introduce a fee on carbon, and it only impacts the top 3,000 polluters in the country. We protect communities from fracking. We make very significant investments in energy efficiency and sustainable energy. As a nation, we waste a huge amount of energy, we try to deal with that issue. Invest in wind, solar, geothermal, biomass. We’re going to weatherize a million homes. We’re going to pass trade legislation which says that companies that are continuing to pollute the planet cannot bring their products into this country without significant tariffs.” [Brunch With Bernie, 2/14/13, 2:30] Sanders-Boxer Bill Ended Halliburton Exemption From Fracking And Included All The Provisions Of The FRAC Act. “In order to ensure that any carbon price does not cause harm to communities from increased production of natural gas, the legislation ends the so-called Halliburton exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act for fracking, and includes all the provisions from the FEC Act to ensure disclosure of chemicals used in the fracking process.” [Sanders Press Release, 2/14/13] Sanders Said That He And Senator Barbara Boxer “Introduced The First Piece Of Climate Change Legislation Which Called For A Tax On Carbon.” “COOPER: Senator Sanders, are you tougher on -- on climate change than Secretary Clinton? SANDERS: Well, I will tell you this. I believe -- and Pope Francis made this point. This is a moral issue. The scientists are telling us that we need to move extremely boldly. I am proud that, along with Senator Barbara Boxer, a few years ago, we introduced the first piece of climate change legislation which called for a tax on carbon.” [Democratic Primary Presidential Debate, CNN, 10/13/15] Politico Disagreed With Sanders’ Claim That He Introduced First Piece Of Climate Legislation That Called For Carbon Tax. “Bernie Sanders: ‘I will tell you this, and Pope Francis made this point, we need to move boldly. Along with Sen. Boxer, we introduced the first piece of climate legislation which called for a tax on carbon.’ Not exactly, Bernie. There have actually been many carbon tax champions on Capitol Hill over the years. Long before Sanders and Sen. Barbara Boxer released their 2013 bill setting a fee on carbon emissions across the economy there was Rep. Pete Stark, a California Democrat who had been writing bills taking a similar approach back in the early 1990s.” [Politico, 10/14/15] Vox: Sanders’ Carbon Tax Plan Was Not Intended To Raise Money, But Rather Push The Economy Toward More Sustainable Energy Alternatives. “Sanders's boldest move on climate change is his plan for a carbon tax. […] The point of this tax, though, isn't to raise money. It's to change the way the economy works. By making carbon-intensive activities more expensive, Sanders hopes to push producers and consumers toward more sustainable alternatives. The better the tax works, the less money it will raise, as less carbon will be emitted for the government to tax.” [Vox, 8/10/15] 2015: Said A Tax On Carbon Was Better Than A Cap And Trade System Sanders Said He Supported A Carbon Tax Over Cap And Trade, Claimed That Wall Street Would Profit From A Cap And Trade System. “Ezra Klein: Do you think the international capacity and relationships exist to price carbon in a verifiable way? Bernie Sanders: Yeah, I do, and we've introduced legislation to do that. [...] Ezra Klein: Do you believe we need to price carbon? Bernie Sanders: Yes. Ezra Klein" Would you do it through a carbon tax or cap and trade? Bernie Sanders: Carbon tax. Ezra Klein: Why? Bernie Sanders: It's the simple and direct way to do it, and I've introduced legislation with Senator [Barbara] Boxer to do just that. Once you're into cap and trade you're into all kinds of complicated stuff. Wall Street are going to make a whole lot of money.” [Vox, 7/28/15] Supported Cap And Trade Legislation 2005: Bernie Sanders Co-Sponsored Bill Establishing Cap & Trade System. In 2005, Bernie Sanders co-sponsored the Climate Stewardship Act of 2005, which “establishes a program for the market-driven reduction of GHGs by covered entities through the use of tradeable emissions allowances. Requires covered entities, beginning in 2010, to submit to the Administrator one tradeable allowance for every metric ton of GHGs emitted. Allows tradeable allowances to be sold, exchanged, purchased, retired, or otherwise used as authorized by this Act. Establishes the Climate Change Credit Corporation (CCCC) to receive, manage, buy, and sell tradeable allowances.” [HR 759, Co-Sponsored on 3/14/05] 2007: Sanders Sponsored Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act. “Amends the Clean Air Act to set forth provisions concerning global warming pollution emissions. Directs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to: (1) set milestones to reduce the aggregate net levels of emissions (authorizes EPA to establish market-based programs to achieve such reduction); (2) require each fleet of automobiles sold by a manufacturer beginning in model year 2016 to meet emission standards; (3) contract with the National Academy of Sciences to study the potential contribution of the non-highway portion of the transportation sector towards meeting the emission reduction goal; (4) require that electric generation units meet an emission standard that is not higher than the emission rate of a new combined cycle natural gas generating unit; and (5) establish a low-carbon generation trading program.” [S 309, introduced 1/16/07] Bill Set Out Targets, Requirements And Incentives To Be Used By The EPA To Reduce US Emissions. “The Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act of 2007 is based on the increasing scientific evidence that global warming poses a significant threat to the national security and economy of the United States, to public health and welfare, and to the global environment, and that actions can and must be taken soon to begin the process of reducing emissions substantially over the next fifty years. The bill sets out a roadmap of targets, requirements and incentives that EPA will use to reduce U.S. emissions and help stabilize global atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.” [Sanders Press Release, 1/15/07] Bill Did Not Require, But Allowed A Cap And Trade System. “Section 704 contains mandatory emission reduction milestones leading to an 80 percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2050. The bill does not require a cap and trade program, but in the event that EPA uses a cap and trade system, it is directed to consider a declining cap with a technology based stop price. Such a mechanism is designed to provide a smooth glide path for reductions that is keyed to the price of available technologies.” [Sanders Press Release, 1/15/07] Bill Included Transition Assistance For Industries “Disproportionately Affected By The Transition To A Low Carbon Economy.” “Section 706 provides for allocation of allowances in any cap and trade program to be allocated for transition assistance for industries and to consumers disproportionately affected by the transition to a low carbon economy, as well as to other low carbon or carbon sequestration technologies.” [Sanders Press Release, 1/15/07] 2007: Bernie Sanders Voted Against America’s Climate Security Act In Subcommittee Because He Felt It Was Not Strong Enough And Gave Industry Too Much Wiggle Room. “A compromise global warming bill moved through a Senate subcommittee yesterday despite objections from the left and right. Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) teamed up with the climate bill's coauthors, Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.), to send ‘America's Climate Security Act’ to the full Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders joined Republican Sens. John Barrasso of Wyoming and Johnny Isakson of Georgia to vote against the measure -- albeit for very different reasons. […] Sanders tried on multiple occasions to strengthen the bill but was voted down repeatedly. […] Sanders questioned reliability of offsets, and he insisted the bill as written gives industry too much wiggle room if they can use offsets for up to 15 percent of the program's requirements.” [E&E Daily, 11/2/07] Sanders Voted For Cloture On The Lieberman-Warner Climate Change Bill. “Senate leaders yesterday abruptly pulled back legislation that would have mandated major cuts in U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions after they came a dozen votes shy of ending a GOP filibuster. Although the bill -- sponsored by Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John W. Warner (RVa.) -- enjoyed bipartisan support, the week-long floor debate devolved into partisan bickering over which party was most responsive to the plight of Americans trying to cope with rising gas prices. In a statement after the 48 to 36 vote, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) charged that Republicans were "refusing to address one of the most important issues of our time." He said Democrats "have tried to curb global warming, lower gas prices and invest in renewable energy, but Republicans have squandered each opportunity." [Washington Post, 6/6/08; S Amdt 4825 to S 3036, Vote #145, 6/6/08] NOTE: Clinton missed the vote. Lieberman-Warner Bill Included A Cap And Trade Program. “And it was complicated, even bloated — it would have raised $6.7 trillion over 40 years by auctioning global warming pollution permits, using great gobs of that money to buy off various interest groups. […] LiebermanWarner, like any cap-and-trade bill, would increase the cost of energy derived from fossil fuels while giving clean, alternative energies an enormous boost. In other words, it would drive up gasoline prices and coal-powered electricity rates in the short term (though by smaller amounts than the doomsayers were claiming last week) while delivering far greater energy savings over the long term — by unleashing a clean energy economy that creates jobs and helps free the U.S from dependence on foreign oil.” [Time, 6/9/08] Supported Requiring That Legislation Receive A Carbon Score Sanders Introduced Bill To Require The CBO To Create A Carbon Score For Legislation. “Carbon Pollution Transparency Act of 2014 - Requires the Director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to calculate a carbon score for legislation. Requires the score to include projected net greenhouse gas emissions that would result from enactment and implementation of a bill or resolution and the appropriation of any amounts authorized in the legislation. Directs CBO to include the carbon score when carrying out provisions of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 requiring a cost estimate for each bill or resolution reported by any congressional committee except the appropriations committees.” [S 2905, introduced 9/18/14] Vermont Has No Coal Fired Power Plants There Are No Coal-Fired Power Plants In Vermont. “There are no coal-fired power plants in Vermont, but the state will collaborate with New England neighbors in a Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Vermont also will continue to be a model for other states by aggressively encouraging the development of alternative energy sources and promoting energy efficiency. In proposing the new national rules, EPA singled out Efficiency Vermont as a model that states should look to in developing their plans.” [Sanders Press Release, 7/30/15] EPA Emission Standards Sanders Supported EPA Rule On Power Plant Pollution. “Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today praised the Environmental Protection Agency for forcing coal- and oil-fired power plants to reduce emissions. "I strongly support the Clean Air Act standards announced today that will slash toxic air pollution, such as mercury and arsenic, from our nation's power plants," said Sanders, a member of the Senate environment committee. "We know from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that mercury can cause brain damage and is particularly harmful to infants and young children. We also know that installing the necessary pollution control scrubbers and equipment will create jobs as we update our power plants. This clean air rule is long overdue, and I commend EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson for protecting our family's health and wellbeing," Sanders added.” [Sanders Press Release, 12/21/11] Sanders Supported Obama Administration EPA Emission Rules. “The Environmental Protection Agency announced Monday that it will seek to cut greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants 30 percent by 2030. It is one of the most ambitions efforts by the Obama administration to address climate change. Sen. Bernie Sanders welcomed the initiative, but he said real progress on global warming has been blocked by Republicans in Congress who have thwarted every measure to confront a planetary crisis that they deny is happening. “I applaud the EPA’s proposal for common-sense standards to reduce the carbon pollution that causes global warming. Much more must be done to avoid a planetary crisis, but reducing emissions from dirty coal-fired power plants is a good step. Shutting down old, dirty power plants and replacing them with solar, wind and other renewable and sustainable sources of energy will also create hundreds of thousands of jobs and save consumers billions of dollars,” Sanders said.” [Sanders Press Release, 6/2/14] CAFÉ Standards Bernie Sanders Voted to Require CAFÉ Standards at 35 Miles/Gallon and Use of 36 Billion Gallons of Biofuels by 2022. On December 13, 2007, Bernie Sanders voted yes on Senate Vote #430. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Reid, D-Nev., motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment with an additional amendment to the bill that would require new Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards of 35 miles per gallon for cars and light trucks, and require 36 billion gallons of biofuels to be used by 2022. It also would direct the Energy Department to set new energy efficiency standards. The additional amendment would strike a provision that would require utilities to produce 15 percent of their electricity from alternative sources by 2020. As modified, it also would strike a $21.8 billion package of tax incentives and replace it with a $2.1 billion tax package. [Senate Vote #430, 12/13/2007; CQ Floor Votes] Nuclear Power And Waste Sanders Sponsored Spent Nuclear Fuel Control and Accounting Act of 2006. [HR 5761, introduced 7/11/06] Sanders Said That Nuclear Energy Is “The Most Expensive Way” To Produce New Energy. “Many of my Republican friends, and some Democrats want to build a whole lot of new nuclear power plants. And what I want the American people to understand is, when you’re talking about the new production of electricity […] the most expensive way to go is nuclear power. And when you’re talking about a major American welfare program, you’re also talking about nuclear power. As taxpayers, what we do is put at risk, we are providing major major insurance to the nuclear power industry that Wall Street won’t give them.” [Brunch With Bernie, 3/16/12, 8:00] Sanders, According To Critics, Never Categorically Opposed Nuclear Power Plants For Environmental Reasons. “Similarly, some of Sanders’ critics find it strange that he never categorically opposed nuclear power for environmental reasons. Sanders has advocated for shutting down Vermont Yankee, but not for three years. And he has refused to comment on his view of nuclear power nationwide.” [Rutland Daily Herald, 11/1/86] Liberty Union Was “Unconditionally Opposed To The Initiation Of Or Continued Operation Of All Nuclear Power Plants” And Other “Hazardous And Polluting” Industries. “Specifically, Liberty Union is unconditionally opposed to the initiation of or continued operation of all nuclear power plants and all other potentially hazardous and polluting industries unless and until such operation is proved to be harmless to human and animal life and to the air and the earth and to any water near the industry's location.” [Liberty Union Principles, VIII: The Environment, 4/22/71] Sanders: “I Doubt That We Would Have Much Of A Nuclear Industry Today At All “If The Federal Government Had Not Agreed to Partially Indemnify Nuclear Energy Companies. "SANDERS: 'Well, that's a very good point Steve. What there is, is a provision, it's called the, what is it? The Price--' HARTMANN: 'Price Anderson Act.' SANDERS: 'Price Anderson Act, that's right, that's exactly right Thom. What Price Anderson says, if God forbid there is a nuclear disaster, the industry will pick up a certain amount of the cost, but if it becomes too large, the United States government will be there to pick up some of that liability. Interestingly enough, our friends in the nuclear sector who, you know, when we say "well why don't you go to Wall Street? Why don't you go to the private insurance companies to get that insurance?" The answer is they can't get it, because the private insurance companies will not provide it them because it's just too risky. So I think that Steve makes a very, very good point, and that's just one of the many ways, Steve, that the Federal government is promoting nuclear industry. Right now these, some of my colleagues in the Senate who want to have tens and tens of billions of dollars in loan guarantees for new nuclear power plants. But without the strong intervention of the federal government, I doubt that we would have much of a nuclear industry today at all.'" [Thom Hartmann Program, 9/30/11] Bernie Sanders Supported $15.5 Million Cut to Nuclear Waste Storage & Reprocessing. In 2005, Bernie Sanders voted in favor of cutting $15.5 million from interim nuclear waste storage and direct the funds towards energy efficiency and conservation. While the legislation left it up to the Energy Department to select one or more interim storage sites, a report accompanying the bill suggested the Energy Department’s Savannah River weapons facility in South Carolina, the Hanford complex in Washington state and a facility in Idaho as possible locations. It also said the department should consider other federal sites, including closed defense bases. The interim storage proposal came amid delays in opening the proposed Yucca Mountain project in Nevada, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The amendment to strip funding for the project failed 110-312. [Associated Press, 5/25/05; HR2419, Vote #207, 5/24/05] Sierra Blanca Nuclear Waste Dumping Facility Controversy Sanders Opposed Yucca Mountain Nuclear Disposal Site 2002: Bernie Sanders Voted Against Approval Of Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Disposal Site Over Transportation Safety Concerns. “The House voted this year to approve Yucca Mountain as the nation's nuclear waste dump. Rep. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., voted against the plan in part because of concerns about transportation safety.” [Gannett News Service, 7/8/02; HJ Res 78, Vote #133, 5/8/02]  2005: Sanders Supported $15.5 Million Cut to Nuclear Waste Storage & Reprocessing. In 2005, Bernie Sanders voted in favor of cutting $15.5 million from interim nuclear waste storage and direct the funds towards energy efficiency and conservation. While the legislation left it up to the Energy Department to select one or more interim storage sites, a report accompanying the bill suggested the Energy Department’s Savannah River weapons facility in South Carolina, the Hanford complex in Washington state and a facility in Idaho as possible locations. It also said the department should consider other federal sites, including closed defense bases. The interim storage proposal came amid delays in opening the proposed Yucca Mountain project in Nevada, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The amendment to strip funding for the project failed 110-312. [Associated Press, 5/25/05; HR2419, Vote #207, 5/24/05] But Supported Controversial Maine-Vermont-Texas Nuclear Waste Compact FORMATIVE STAGES 1983: Texas Began Searching For A Nuclear Waste Dump Location. “Texas began the search for a dump location in 1983, and agreed earlier this decade to link itself with the New England states.” [Bangor Daily News, 9/22/98] 1993: Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact Commission Was Formed As A Result Of An Agreement Between Texas, Vermont And Maine. “The commission was formed through a compact agreement signed between Texas, Vermont and Maine in 1993 to dispose of the Lone Star State’s nuclear waste and allow the two smaller states to tag along.” [VTDigger.org, 9/28/12]  Maine Would Later Pull Out Of Waste Dumping Commission After It No Longer Needed Space In Texas. “Meanwhile, Maine has dropped out of the compact. Its lone reactor, Maine Yankee, closed in 1996. All of its low-level waste was shipped elsewhere and it no longer needed space in the Texas site. ‘It was just a matter of timing,’ Hofmann said.” [Portland Press Herald, 9/26/12] BERNIE SANDERS VOTED TO MAKE THE RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL COMPACT A REALITY 1997: Sanders Voted For House Passage Of The Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact. “The House gave overwhelming approval Tuesday to a controversial deal that would allow Maine and Vermont to begin shipping low-level radioactive waste to a dump site near the tiny community of Sierra Blanca in West Texas. The agreement, known as the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact, passed 309-107, as members signaled their intention to follow through on a 1980 federal law authorizing establishment of multistate dumps to handle increasing amounts of radioactive materials generated by hospitals, research facilities and nuclear power plants. Although the facility to be built near Sierra Blanca, about 16 miles from the Mexican border, will be prohibited from accepting highlevel radioactive waste, opponents argued that it will pose a health and safety threat.” [Houston Chronicle, 10/8/97; HR 629, Vote #497, 10/7/97] 1998: Sanders Voted For Final Conference Version Of “Contentious” Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact. “An arrangement allowing Maine and Vermont to ship low-level radioactive waste to Texas in exchange for payments of $25 million apiece won House approval Wednesday. The House action, on a 305-117 vote, means approval by the Senate and the president will complete federal action on the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact. […] The Texas-Maine-Vermont alliance, been pending in Congress for several years, is the 10th and by far most contentious such compact up for congressional approval. It was negotiated under terms of a 1980 law that directed states to find a common solution to dispose of low-level radioactive waste from dismantled nuclear power plants, industry, hospitals and universities.” [Associated Press, 7/29/98; HR 629, Vote #344, 7/29/98] Sept. 1998: President Clinton Signed The Bill Into Law “To The Chagrin Of Anti-Nuclear Activists…” “President Clinton quietly signed the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact into law on Sunday, to the chagrin of anti-nuclear activists and the satisfaction of the deal’s congressional supporters.” [Bangor Daily News, 9/22/98] Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Was 10 th Such Agreement Approved By Congress Under Terms Of A 1980 Law. “This is the 10th compact approved by Congress under terms of a 1980 law that urged states to band together to find a common solution for disposal of low-level radioactive waste.” [Bangor Daily News, 9/22/98] BERNIE SANDERS WAS UNEQUIVOCAL IN HIS SUPPORT AS EVIDENCED BY THREE SEPARATE FLOOR SPEECHES Sanders: Entire Vermont Delegation Was “Undivided” In Support Of The Compact. “We have the two Members from Maine, the entire Vermont delegation, me, in support of the compact. I know that will carry a lot of weight. We are undivided on this issue, and we have two-thirds of the Texas House delegation in support of this compact.” [Congressional Record, H8517, 10/7/97] Sanders: The Waste Disposal Compact Made “Absolute Environmental Sense.” “The second issue, and actually the more important issue, has to do with good environmental policy. I happen to believe that passage of this amendment makes absolute environmental sense. The evidence is very, very strong that the geology of Vermont and Maine is such that it would be a serious environmental problem if we continued to keep the waste in those States.” [Congressional Record, H8517, 10/7/97] Sanders Supported The Waste Disposal Compact Because Stayed True To What He Felt Was A States-Rights Issue. “The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act and its 1985 amendments make commercial low-level radioactive waste disposal a State, not a Federal responsibility. Since that time, 41 States from every region of the country have come together to form compacts. Essentially, all we are asking today is that our three States be given the same consideration that every other State which went before us received in this process. […] We hear a great deal of discussion in this body about devolution, returning powers to the States. If we believe in that concept and believe that States should have the right to come together in their own best interests to address this very difficult issue, then today's vote should be an easy one.” [Congressional Record, H3074, 5/12/98] Sanders Declared Himself “In Strong Support Of The Bill,” Nothing That The Compact Had Support In All Three States Involved. “Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report. Let me say a few words on process, and then a few words on substance. In terms of process, what is important for everyone to understand is that this compact bill has been passed overwhelmingly by the legislatures of Texas, Maine, and Vermont, and the legislation is strongly endorsed by the Governors of Texas, Maine, and Vermont. In fact, in Vermont the legislature approved this legislation by voice vote in the State Senate and by a 3 to 1 margin in the House. In Texas, the Texas State Senate approved this legislation 26 to 2, while the Texas House approved it by voice vote. In Maine, both the House and Senate approved the bill by wide margins. Under a statewide referendum held in Maine, the legislation passed by better than a 2 to 1 margin. This bill, Mr. Speaker, is supported by both Senators from Texas, both Senators from Maine, both Senators from Vermont. It is supported by the entire Maine delegation in the House, all two Members; the entire Vermont delegation, me; and as I understand it, two-thirds of the Texas House.” [Congressional Record, H6527, 7/29/98] Sanders Defended The Legislation, Saying “This Compact Is Not A New Idea.” “So there is opposition from some Members of the Texas House here, but two-thirds support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, this compact is not a new idea. Since 1985, nine interstate low-level radioactive waste compacts have been approved by Congress, encompassing 41 States. I think all we are saying, if this approach is valid for 41 States in nine compacts, it certainly should be valid for Texas, Maine, and Vermont. That is the process.” [Congressional Record, H6527, 7/29/98] Sanders: Compact Was About Getting Rid Of Radioactive Waste “In The Safest Possible Way.” “If I had my druthers, I would close down every nuclear power plant in America as quickly as we safely can. But the issue today is something different. The reality is, we have nuclear power plants. We have universities and hospitals that are using nuclear power. The environmental question today, therefore, is how do we get rid of that low-level waste in the safest possible way? In my view, that is what this legislation is about.” [Congressional Record, H6527, 7/29/98] SANDERS DENIED SPECIFICALLY TARGETING SIERRA BLANCA, BUT SIERRA BLANCA HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED AS PLANNED SITE SINCE 1992 Sanders: “I Think The Evidence Is Pretty Clear That Texas Is In Fact The Best Location To Get Rid Of This Waste.” “I think the evidence is pretty clear that Texas is in fact the best location to get rid of this waste. The last point that I would make is there is nowhere in this legislation that talks about a specific site. Nowhere will we find that.” [Congressional Record, H6527, 7/29/98]  Sanders Added, “We Are Not Voting On A Site.” “We are not voting on a site. That decision is left to the authorities and the people of the State of Texas.” [Congressional Record, H6527, 7/29/98] 1992: United Press International: The Toxic Waste Dumps “Are Planned For The Texas Communities Of Sierra Blanca, Spofford And Dryden.” “Mexican officials have accepted a U.S. offer to hold a high-level meeting to discuss three toxic waste dumps planned for Texas near the border, the Mexican Foreign Ministry said late Thursday. […] Mexico said that under a 1983 accord with the United States both countries agree to consult with the other regarding possible environmental impacts in the border zone, defined as 60 miles on either side of the frontier. The dumps, two of which would accept radioactive waste, are planned for the Texas communities of Sierra Blanca, Spofford and Dryden.” [United Press International, 3/26/92] 1993: New York Times: Texas Government “Settled On A Spot Just Outside Sierra Blanca Last February” For Radioactive Waste Depository. “For more than a decade the Texas government has been searching for a place to put a federally mandated low-level radioactive waste depository. It settled on a spot just outside Sierra Blanca last February. That, plus the way the sludge project was handled -no formal hearings were held -- and its size -- up to 94,369 acres, more than six times the size of Manhattan -- provoked fears like Mr. Addington's: ‘We've become a designated dumping ground for all the stuff no one else wants because we don't have enough people or money to fight back.’” [New York Times, 1/25/93] THE SIERRA BLANCA LOCATION BECAME CONTROVERSIAL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL, DIPLOMATIC, AND POLITICAL REASONS The Proposed Waste Dump Near Sierra Blanca “Would Hold Radioactive Waste Generated By Nuclear Power Plants, Industry, Medical Labs And Universities.” “The compact clears the way for construction of a low-level radioactive waste dump near Sierra Blanca, some 90 miles southeast of El Paso. Opponents, however, have vowed to derail the deal when the Texas Legislature meets next year. State lawmakers must appropriate funds for the dump’s construction.The proposed facility would hold radioactive waste generated by nuclear power plants, industry, medical labs and universities.” [Bangor Daily News, 9/22/98] Critics Contended That The Sierra Blanca Site Was Seismically, Geologically, Environmentally, And Diplomatically Unsound. “Critics of the Sierra Blanca site contend it is seismically, geologically, environmentally and diplomatically unsound, potentially jeopardizing the region’s key water sources. Texas officials defend the location as safe. Two state hearing officers concluded in July that licensing of the state’s Sierra Blanca property should be denied because of questions about an underground fault.” [Bangor Daily News, 9/22/98] Texas Governor George W. Bush Was A Major Proponent Of Sierra Blanca Waste Site. “The site has received strong support from U.S. politicians, including Gov. George Bush Jr. (R-TX). While former governor Ann Richards conceived the Sierra Blanca site, Gov. Bush perhaps has been the single greatest entity ‘lobbying hard in Congress to pass the compact with no restricting amendments.’ His support of the disposal site, coupled with financing from the nuclear industry, has made it difficult for community groups to respond, being outspent 1000-1.” [“Environmental Justice Case Study: The Struggle for Sierra Blanca, Texas Against A Low-Level Nuclear Waste Site,” umich.edu, accessed 6/8/15] Opponents: Site Was Chosen Where Residents Held Little Political Clout; 67 Percent Were Hispanic And Earned $8,000 A Month On Average. “Opponents of the Maine-Vermont-Texas compact contend that Sierra Blanca was chosen as the site because it lacks political clout, considering it is 67 percent Mexican-American and its residents have an average income of $8,000. ‘In this area, we don’t want it. We don’t need it. And we shouldn’t have it,’ said Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas. Reyes and other opponents say it is not environmentally safe.” [Bangor Daily News, 7/30/98]  Deal Would Allow Maine And Vermont “To Dump Their Low-Level Nuclear Waste […] In A Poor Hispanic Town In West Texas.” “The House approved Wednesday a deal that would allow Maine and Vermont to dump their low-level nuclear waste from places like the now-closed Maine Yankee in a poor Hispanic town in west Texas. In a 305-117 vote, the House approved the compact without any of the troublesome amendments that had been previously attached to the tri-state deal, setting up a final showdown in the Senate that will determine its fate.” [Bangor Daily News, 7/30/98]  Local Opposition Coalition Leader: "If There Was Ever A Case Of Environmental Racism, Sierra Blanca Is It." “A coalition of environmental, religious, and Hispanic groups also is rallying against the disposal site, saying Texas authorities targeted Sierra Blanca because its poor, predominantly Mexican-American population of fewer than 800 lacked the political muscle to fight back. ‘They are turning a poor, Hispanic town into New England's pay toilet,’ said Bill Addington, a Sierra Blanca businessman and leader of the local opposition. ‘If there was ever a case of environmental racism, Sierra Blanca is it.’ [Boston Globe, 9/8/98]  Resident: Sierra Blanca, Already A Receptor Of New York City Sludge, Was Chosen “Because We Don’t Have Any Political Clout.” “Sierra Blanca is already home to one of the largest sewage sludge dumps in the country. Since 1992, three trainloads a week of New York City sludge have been dumped on a 36,400-hectare ranch just outside of town. […] ‘First sludge now nuclear waste,’ said Maria Mendez, another resident of Sierra Blanca. ‘I think we were chosen because we don't have any political clout. Our home has been taken over as the nation's dumping ground.’ [Inter Press Service, 9/2/98]  LULAC And NCAACP Passed Resolutions Opposing The Sierra Blanca Site. “Several communities and organizations have passed resolutions opposing the Sierra Blanca site, including El Paso, Austin and McAllen, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) and the state conference of the NAACP.” [Dallas Morning News, 9/3/98]  Anti-Waste Dump Advocate: “Clinton Is Now An Accomplice To The Racist Government Of Texas.” "‘[President] Clinton is now an accomplice to the racist government of Texas,’ charged Richard Boren, coordinator of Southwest Toxic Watch, an advocacy group that monitors hazardous waste along the Mexico-U.S. border. ‘Now the United States government has given the green light to send nuclear waste from primarily white states like Maine and Vermont to the Texas Border region that is over 70 percent Mexican- American,’ he said.” [Inter Press Service, 9/23/98]  Sierra Blanca Had Fewer Than 600 Residents At The Time. “The project is planned for the town of Sierra Blanca, 90 miles southeast of El Paso, with 600 residents, two-thirds of them Hispanic, and a per capita income of $8,000.” [New York Times, 10/22/98] Mexican Congress Urged U.S. Authorities To Stop The Sierra Blanca Project. “Although accords signed by Mexico and the United States prohibit the construction of installations that pollute the environment within 100 kilometers from the neighboring country's border, and the Mexican Congress has urged both local and U.S. authorities to stop the project, plans have gone forward without any changes, Greenpeace points out.” [Inter Press Service, 11/14/97] Mexican Government Believed Sierra Blanca Proposal Violated The La Paz Agreement Because It Undermined Efforts To Prevent Contamination Along The Border. “The Sierra Blanca proposal has created a public relations nightmare with the Mexican government who believe it violates the La Paz Agreement of 1983 signed by both Mexico and the United States. Article Two of this agreement states that both sides must work to "prevent, reduce, and eliminate any contaminating sources along the border zone extending sixty-four miles on either side of the border." Sierra Blanca is only sixteen miles from the Mexican border.” [“Environmental Justice Case Study: The Struggle for Sierra Blanca, Texas Against A Low-Level Nuclear Waste Site,” umich.edu, accessed 6/8/15]  Mexican Government Later Reversed Course And Approved The Sierra Blanca Site. “‘The planned waste site at Sierra Blanca represents no risk for our country's population or environment, as long as its storage facilities are constructed, operated and sealed in accordance with the documentation that has been submitted,’ said the Ministry for External Relations, Energy and Environment in a statement Monday.” [Agence France Presse, 9/7/98] THE SIERRA BLANCA LOCATION WAS ULTIMATELY REJECTED 1998: Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Voted Against Granting Permit To Build Nuclear Waste Facility. “The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission rejected the application for the permit to build the dump at Sierra Blanca in 1998, citing geological instability.” [Des Moines Register, 10/5/03]  Boston Globe: Administrative Panel Had Recommended Rejecting Sierra Blanca Because Of Socioeconomic Impact And Potential For Earthquakes. “Although Texas has already spent more than $30 million developing the Sierra Blanca dump, a panel of administrative judges recently recommended rejecting the site because the state had not adequately studied the socioeconomic impact on the region and the potential for an earthquake. However, the ruling is not binding and is considered unlikely to block the dump's licensing and eventual operation, perhaps as early as next year. [Boston Globe, 9/8/98] PROJECT WAS REVIVED IN ANDREWS, TX AFTER STATE GRANTED A PRIVATE LICENSE TO A REPUBLICAN BILLIONAIRE 2009: Waste Control Specialists (WCS) Won A 15-Year License To Take Up Nuclear Waste After Texas Legislature Had Approved Concept Of Privately-Run Dump In 2003. “Texas officials once envisioned a state-owned dump, but those hopes faded after local opposition stopped plans for a site at Sierra Blanca. The Legislature approved the concept of a privately run dump in 2003, when Waste Control spent as much as $925,000 on lobbying, records show. In 2009, Waste Control won a 15-year license from the environmental commission to take up to 2.31 million cubic feet of waste.” [Austin American-Statesman, 5/9/10]  WCS Facility Is Located In Andrews, Texas. The Waste Control Specialists, LLC waste facility is located at 9998 West Highway 176, Andrews, Texas, 79714. [Radioactive Material License, tceq.texas.gov, accessed 6/9/15] WCS Was Owned By Republican Billionaire Harold Simmons, Who “Showered Campaign Contributions” On Gov. Rick Perry And Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst. “Prolific Republican donor and Dallas businessman Harold Simmons, No. 56 on the Forbes list of the richest Americans, could get a little richer if state lawmakers hand him what he wants today: a bill expanding the right of his company to accept low-level radioactive waste from a number of states — and the power to set the rates it charges them. Critics say the bill gives too much authority to Simmons, whose wealth was calculated at $5.8 billion by Forbes magazine. The Dallas billionaire has showered campaign contributions on mostly Republican officeholders, from Gov. Rick Perry and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst on down. He’s also a large contributor to the influential conservative group Texans for Lawsuit Reform.” [Texas Tribune, 5/17/11] NOTE: Simmons passed away in 2013. Texas Tribune: Harold Simmons Wanted Texas Lawmakers “Hand Him” The Right Of His Company To Accept Radioactive Waste From More States. “Prolific Republican donor and Dallas businessman Harold Simmons, No. 56 on the Forbes list of the richest Americans, could get a little richer if state lawmakers hand him what he wants today: a bill expanding the right of his company to accept low-level radioactive waste from a number of states — and the power to set the rates it charges them.” [Texas Tribune, 5/17/11] ACTIVITY AT WASTE SITE 2012: Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant Shipped First Container Of Waste To Texas Disposal Site. “Earlier this month, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant shipped its first container of low-level radioactive waste to a disposal site in Andrews County, Texas. Vermont regulators made a special agreement with Texas more than a decade ago to send all of the state’s low-level radioactive waste from the plant in Vernon. The facility in West Texas will someday entomb the nuclear plant’s dismantled body.” [VTDigger.org, 9/28/12]  Entergy Operated Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant Until It Was Closed In 2014. “Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station completed its 30th and final operating cycle at 12:12 p.m. December 29, 2014. The station was in commercial operation since 1972. [Entergy-Nuclear.com, accessed 6/9/15]  2008: Burlington Free Press: Hillary “Stopped Short Of Calling For A Halt In Relicensing Older Plants Like Vermont Yankee” In Her Criticism Of Nuclear Relicensing Process. “Hillary Clinton, in a separate interview, stopped short of calling for a halt in relicensing older plants like Vermont Yankee, but counted herself as a sharp critic of nuclear power. ‘I think those issues should be part of the relicensing process,’ Clinton said, referring to the safety and waste storage issues. ‘I'm not in favor of automatic relicensing, which is basically what the Nuclear Regulatory Commission does.’” [Burlington Free Press, 3/2/08] As Of 2012, Vermont Had Paid $25 Million To Texas And $2.5 Million To Andrews County To Reserve 20 Percent Of Landfill’s Capacity. “The state of Vermont has paid $25 million to Texas and $2.5 million to Andrews County to ensure that 20 percent of the landfill’s capacity would be left for Vermont-generated waste. WCS began preparing the site in 2008; the commission met for the first time in Feb. 2009; and the landfill received its first concrete barrel of radioactive material in April.” [VTDigger.org, 9/28/12] 90 Percent Of All Waste Coming From Vermont Ends Up In Texas Radioactive Waste Facility. “Vermont Yankee also sent its first shipment of radioactive resin earlier this month. The nuclear facility’s waste will account for more than 90 percent of all waste coming from Vermont, said Vermont Yankee representatives on Wednesday.” [VTDigger.org, 9/28/12] POTENTIAL RISK IS GROWING 2011: Texas Legislature Passed A Law Allowing The Facility To Set Disposal Fees And Accept Waste From 36 Additional States. “Waste Control Specialists began accepting low-level radioactive waste in 2011. It was originally allowed to accept out-of-state low-level radioactive waste only from Vermont. The same year, the Legislature approved a bill that allowed the facility to set disposal fees for and accept waste from 36 more states. Shipments from those states began earlier this year.” [Dallas Morning News, 8/22/14]  Anti-Nuclear Waste Advocates Said Expansions Would Create A Capacity Problem At Waste Facility And A Transportation Risk On Texas Roads. “Tom ‘Smitty’ Smith, the Texas director of Public Citizen, said that opening the site to the waste from states other than Texas and Vermont could create a capacity problem. ‘We may not have enough space for our waste — for Texas waste and Vermont waste,’ he said.” Smith also cited concerns over an increased number of trucks carrying hazardous materials on Texas roads, and its potential impact on local groundwater if the wastes migrated.” [Texas Tribune, 5/17/11] 2014: State Approved Expansion Of Facility That Would “More Than Triple The Amount Of Waste The Site Can Accept” And Allow It To Store “Depleted Uranium.” “The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality approved changes this week to its license with Waste Control Specialists — a private disposal facility in Andrews County in West Texas that handles low-level radioactive waste — that would greatly expand the site’s operations. […] The changes will more than triple the amount of waste the site can accept and reduce the amount of money the company would need to have on hand to cope with disaster. They will also allow the company to store depleted uranium, a byproduct of nuclear power plants that scientists say becomes more radioactive over time.” [Dallas Morning News, 8/22/14] Environmental Groups: Expansion Of Operations Would Endanger Public By Putting More Trucks Transporting Radioactive Waste On The Road. “Environmental groups, including the Sierra Club and Public Citizen, argue that the company’s plans to expand operations endanger the public by putting more trucks transporting radioactive waste on the road. Also, they say a spill could contaminate the Ogallala Aquifer, one of the country’s largest underground water sources.” [Dallas Morning News, 8/22/14] Dallas Morning News: Because The Site Rests Atop The Ogallala Aquifer, “Any Radiation Leak Could Risk Contaminating A Major Water Source For Eight States.” “The site sits atop the Ogallala Aquifer, and any radiation leak could risk contaminating a major water source for eight states. Waste Control maintains that the facility is state of the art, with multiple backup measures to avert accidents.” [Editorial, Dallas Morning News, 6/19/14] Dallas Morning News: “Texans Could Find Themselves The Unwitting Hosts Of The Nation's First Permanent For-Profit High-Level Nuclear Waste Facility.” “The nuclear waste disposal site operated by Waste Control Specialists in West Texas is steadily morphing away from its original mission as a depository for very limited quantities of low-level radioactive items from Texas and Vermont. Today, the site is taking on much greater quantities and higher levels of radioactive waste from multiple states, and its owner wants permission to dramatically expand operations. If this mission creep continues, Texans could find themselves the unwitting hosts of the nation's first permanent for-profit high-level nuclear waste facility.” [Editorial, Dallas Morning News, 6/19/14] Energy Speculation Sanders Sponsored Bill To Eliminate Speculation in Energy Markets. “Directs the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to eliminate excessive speculation in energy contract markets, unwarranted energy price fluctuations, or other unlawful activities that prevent energy prices from accurately reflecting supply and demand.” [S 1225, introduced 6/10/09] Sanders Introduced A Bill To Limit Excessive Oil Speculation. “Directs the Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to establish speculative position limits: (1) in any registered trading entity on or through which crude oil, gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, or heating oil futures or swaps are traded that are equal to the position accountability levels or position limits established by the New York Mercantile Exchange (Exchange); and (2) that are equal to the position accountability levels or position limits established by such Exchange upon the aggregate number or amount of positions in contracts based upon the same underlying commodity that may be held by any person (including any group or class of traders) for each month across specified contracts, transactions, and swap contracts.” [S 1200, introduced 6/15/11] Sanders Said That The US Must “Limit The Amount That Any Company Can Control On The Oil Futures Market.” “As part of the Dodd Frank financial reform bill, what the Congress told the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, you’ve got to deal with this issue. You’ve got to end excessive speculation on the oil futures market. You’ve got to do it by January 2011. Well last I heard we’re in March 2012, and guess what, they have not done that yet [...] These guys have got to obey the law, is what it’s about. They’ve got to start putting what we call position limits. Limit the amount that any company can control on the oil futures market, and economists tell us that will drive oil and gas prices down.” [Brunch With Bernie, 3/9/12, 4:45] Fracking Bernie Sanders Voted to Give Federal Government Power to Regulate Fracking. In 2015, Bernie Sanders voted to “remove exemptions of fracking and natural gas storage from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The amendment would clarify that the definition of underground injections includes the underground storage of natural gas and hydraulic fracking fluids.” [S.1, Vote #41, 1/28/15; CQ Floor Votes, 1/28/15] Criticized For Lack Of Concern About The Environment In Burlington During His Tenure As Mayor, Sanders Was Criticized By Environmentalists For Supporting A Waterfront Development Plan. According to Vanguard Press, “Sanders has also been criticized by some local environmentalists for supporting the $100 million Alden Corporation waterfront development plan in 1985.” [Vanguard Press, 11/19/87] Sanders’ Critics Contended That He Was A Johnny-Come-Lately To Environmental Concerns, Which He Had Initially Portrayed As A Concern Of The Leisure Class. “But many of Sanders’ critics charge that he is a Johnny-come-lately to environmental concerns. They say that the mayor’s tree planting program hardly constitutes deep environmental commitment and point to his long-standing indifference to environmental issues, which he has portrayed as a concern of the leisure class.” [Rutland Daily Herald, 11/1/86] Governor Kunin Said That The State Had To Take Legal Action To Force Sanders To Clean Up Burlington’s Landfill. “Burlington’s messy landfill has been debated back and forth between Sanders and Kunin, with the governor charging that the state had to take legal action to force the city to clean up the landfill and Sanders charging that the state offered no financial assistance or technical help in addressing the matter.” [Rutland Daily Herald, 11/1/86] Vermont Alliance of Conservation Voters Endorsed Gov. Kunin Over Sanders Because “Planting Trees On A Sanitary Landfill” Didn’t “Come Close” To Kunin’s Record. “And a coalition of environmental groups Wednesday reaffirmed its support for Kunin. ‘Vermont cannot afford to abandon an administration which has shown a clear commitment to improving environmental quality in this state,’ said Carl Reidel of Vermont Alliance of Conservation Voters. Sanders crossed paths with the environmentalists at their Montpelier news conference and demanded to know why he was not considered pro-environment. Reidel, director of the University of Vermont environmental program, said ‘planting trees on a sanitary landfill…doesn’t come close’ to Kunin’s record. Sanders replied that Burlington’s landfill was cleaned up as fast as possible and that the state’s suit to force the clean-up was politically motivated.” [Unknown Newspaper, 10/30/86] Sanders, According To Critics, Never Categorically Opposed Nuclear Power Plants For Environmental Reasons. “Similarly, some of Sanders’ critics find it strange that he never categorically opposed nuclear power for environmental reasons. Sanders has advocated for shutting down Vermont Yankee, but not for three years. And he has refused to comment on his view of nuclear power nationwide.” [Rutland Daily Herald, 11/1/86] NOTE: Not sure how true this is. Would review other bullets. Rutland Daily Herald: “Despite His Tough Talk,” Sanders Sided With Business Interests Over Environmentalists In Supporting A Wood-Chip Plant That Remained “Mostly Idle.” “Despite his tough talk about the PSB, Sanders sided with business interests following his election in 1981, not with the environmentalists and others who opposed construction of the wood-chip plant. Sanders maintained that because the McNeil bond issue was passed in 1978, it was too late to oppose the plant. But opponents note that construction had not yet begun and that the plant plans were no further along than the southern connector highway, which Sanders opposed. Today, the wood-chip plant is mostly idle, while Burlington residents pay off a $6 million debt service on it every year.” [Rutland Daily Herald, 11/1/86] FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUES Pornography Sanders Opposed Bans On Sale Of Pornographic Material, Citing First Amendment Rights. “Liberty Union gubernatorial candidate Bernard Sanders said Tuesday he opposed attempts by state and local governments to pass legislation prohibiting the sale of pornographic literature. In a press statement issued Tuesday, Sanders said: ‘In a free society, people have the right to read what they want to read without regulation from government.” [Vermont Press Bureau, undated] American Flag Sanders Said His Support Of The American Flag Depended On The Context In Which It Was Used. “Another aspect of patriotism touched on by Sanders during the interview was the reverence for the American flag: ‘A flag is a symbol and if reverence for a flag means respect and love for those things in our history which are symbolic of actions and people who have uplifted the word, then I revere the flag,’ Sanders said. ‘If reference for the flag means respect for the American people who died in World War II in order to destroy the Nazis, or for the founders of our country who gave their lives for some fundamental and democratic rights, I think that that flag has a right to be respected. […] On the other hand, Sanders went on: ‘If the American flag is wrapped around a Richard Nixon or a Rockefeller or political hacks who see this nation as people to be manipulated and exploited, I don’t rally around the flag waved around those people and for their reasons. I think that patriotism is very often used by those people for their own selfish ends,’ he concluded.” [Sunday Times Argus, 5/30/76] Religion Bernie Sanders Voted For An Amendment That Would Have Prohibited “Organizations From Using Community Services Block Grants Funds To Discriminate In Hiring On The Basis Of Religion.” “Improving the Community Services Block Grant Act (H.R. 3030): The House, on Feb. 4, rejected an amendment in the nature of a substitute bill offered by Rep. Lynn C. Woolsey, D-Calif., to insert a provision that prohibits organizations from using Community Services Block Grants funds to discriminate in hiring on the basis of religion. YEAS: Rep. Bernard Sanders I-VT (AL).” [States News Service, 2/13/04] Bernie Sanders, In 2004, Voted Against Legislation To Prevent Federal Courts From Hearing Constitutional Challenges To The Pledge Of Allegiance’s ‘Under God’ Phrase. “The House voted 247-173 Thursday to prevent the Supreme Court and other federal courts from hearing constitutional challenges to the Pledge of Allegiance's ‘under God’ phrase. Sanders, Bernard: Nay.” [Gannett News Service, 9/24/04] Bernie Sanders, In 2005, Voted Against Passing “A Bill That Would Allow Religious Groups Participating In Federal Job-Training Programs To Take Religion Into Account When Hiring.” “The House on Wednesday passed, 224-200, a bill that would allow religious groups participating in federal job-training programs to take religion into account when hiring. Sanders, Bernard: Nay.” [Gannett News Service, 3/4/05] Bernie Sanders Voted To Uphold The Removal Of The Ten Commandments From An Indiana Courthouse Lawn. “TEN COMMANDMENTS DISPLAY: Voting 242 for and 182 against, the House on June 15 barred the US Marshals Service from enforcing a federal judge's order that a Ten Commandments display be removed from the Gibson County, Ind., courthouse lawn. In January, the judge ruled the display ‘in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.’ VERMONT Voting no: Sanders.” [The Boston Globe, 6/19/05] Bernie Sanders Voted To Mark Congress’s Opposition To “Coercive And Abusive Religious Proselytizing” At The U.S. Air Force Academy. “The House voted 210-198 to reject an amendment that would have put Congress on record against ‘coercive and abusive religious proselytizing’ at the U.S. Air Force Academy. Some have complained that evangelical Protestants have been harassing cadets of other faiths. Sanders, Bernard: Yea.” [Gannett News Service, 6/24/05] GOVERNMENT REFORM Filibuster Sanders Supported Limiting Use Of The Filibuster. “I voted [to limit the use of the filibuster] because the Senate, as a result of Republican obstructionism, has become totally dysfunctional.” [Jansing & Co., MSNBC, 11/22/13, 0:23] Sanders Advocated For Ending “This Business Of Needing 60 Votes To Pass Anything [In The Senate].” “I think, in the interim, what you have got to do and where the Democrats have not been as strong as they should be, is come up with an agenda a) that speaks to the needs of a collapsing middle class and b) if, God willing, the Democrats retain control over the Senate, we have to end this business of needing 60 votes to pass anything. What most people don’t know is that the majority of the members of the Senate have voted to raise the minimum wage, we voted for a jobs program, we voted for pay equity. We voted for a lot of good things but nobody knows it because we couldn’t get 60 votes.” [The Billionaire’s Election, 10/29/14] Sanders Opposed Indefinite Holds On Senate Legislation. “I voted against that legislation because I think, at the end of the day, if we are going to address the major crises facing this country […] We are not going to be able to address those problems if we need 60 votes. We simply do not have the votes to overcome Republican filibuster. So, my own view is, the Senate is not the House. People who are in opposition should have as much time as they need to get down to the floor of the Senate, explain their point of view, and tell the American people why they are in opposition. That's called a talking filibuster. But I think it is wrong to continue a practice where a Senator simply calls up the cloak room and says 'I am going to put a hold on this legislation and you're going to need 60 votes to overcome it.' I think that is wrong, it's undemocratic, and it's going to make it impossible for us to address the problems facing our country.” [Brunch with Bernie, 1/29/13] Sanders Supported Filibuster Reform. “So we need filibuster reform, I think. Folks are still working out exactly what the language will be, but to my mind, it is absolutely imperative, we cannot continue to go forward as we have in the last 4 years when the main role of the Republican party was to defeat every initiative coming from Democrats or Obama, to make sure that Obama was a one term president. Well they didn't succeed on that, but now our job is to make sure that we can pass serious legislation with a majority vote.” [Brunch with Bernie, 11/16/12] Disclosure Requirements Sanders Introduced Bill To Reduce Mail Allowance For Members Of House Of Representatives. “Amends the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1991 to change the Official Mail Allowance for Members of the House of Representatives to not more than the product of: (1) one and one-half times the single-piece rate applicable to first class mail (currently three times such rate); and (2) the number of addresses in the congressional district.” [HR 918, introduced 2/13/95] Sanders Introduced Bill To Expand Reporting Requirements On Financial Disclosure Reports For Congressional Officers And Employees. “Amends the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to: (1) require specified details in financial disclosure reports by congressional officers and employees; (2) modify reporting requirements, among other changes lowering the threshold at which total liabilities owed to certain creditors become reportable; and (3) require Members of Congress to divest themselves of any asset or interest which exceeds $1,000 in real property (other than property used solely as the personal residence of that Member or that Member's spouse) or in stocks, bonds, commodity futures, or other forms of securities or place all such assets and interests in a qualified blind trust.” [HR 1356, introduced 3/29/95] Term Limits Sanders Said He Was “Not A Great Fan” Of Congressional Term Limits. “I'm not a great fan of term limits. People may say, ‘well that's self serving, you're an elected official.’ I think if you have term limits, and everybody goes, it is not going to guarantee a stronger or more progressive Congress. I think, Jim, the real solution is real, real campaign finance reform, and that means public funding of elections so that everybody has a fair shot at getting elected, rather than being dependent upon big money.” [Thom Hartmann Program, 8/5/11] Sanders Said Congressional Term Limits Would Give Lobbyists An “Increased Degree Of Power.” “Bernie Sanders: ‘I'm not a great fan of term limits. People may say, "well that's self serving, you're an elected official." I think if you have term limits, and everybody goes, it is not going to guarantee a stronger or more progressive Congress. I think, Jim, the real solution is real, real campaign finance reform, and that means public funding of elections so that everybody has a fair shot at getting elected, rather than being dependent upon big money.’ Thom Hartmann: ‘Well said. And also, with term limits, the only institutional memory that's left is the lobbyists because they're there from term to term.’ Bernie Sanders: ‘They will have an increased degree of power. That's correct.’” [Thom Hartmann Program, 8/5/11] FOIA Brattleboro Reformer: "No One In The Three Member Vermont Delegation Expressed Support For Placing Himself Within Reach Of FOIA.” "Leahy is not alone in thinking there are higher priorities than making Congress subject to the law. No one in the three-member Vermont delegation expressed support for placing himself within reach of FOIA. "Sen. Sanders is a strong supporter of FOIA and an outspoken advocate in the fight for open government," Erin Campbell, Sanders' spokeswoman, said in a written statement. "Since President Bush took office, his administration has increasingly chosen to conduct its business under a veil of secrecy -- operating behind closed doors and without oversight from other branches of government or the American people," she added." [Brattleboro Reformer, 3/12/07] Brattleboro Reformer: Access Granted By FOIA Laws "Is Repelled At The Doors Of Congress." " Members of Congress routinely herald the Freedom of Information Act as a pry bar for the press and public to lift the lid on secretive government operations, sometimes exposing fraud and always buttressing the spirit of transparency. That agent of access, however, is repelled at the doors of Congress -- which exempted itself from the very law it passed 41 years ago to keep the executive branch in check. As federal agencies labor to respond to thousands of requests for documents each year, Congress returns none." [Brattleboro Reformer, 3/12/07] Brattleboro Reformer: Even Lawmakers Who Support Expanding FOIA Laws Did Not Introduce Bill To Hold Congress To Similar Standards. "Even as lawmakers, such as Sen. Patrick Leahy, work to hasten the agencies' response times and sharpen other aspects of the law, they introduce no bills holding Congress to similarly strict standards. The law is commonly called FOIA (pronounced foy-yah). "The biggest challenge lately hasn't been expanding FOIA but keeping it from being scaled back further by the Bush administration," Leahy spokesman David Carle said in a written statement." [Brattleboro Reformer, 3/12/07] Sanders Did Not Co-Sponsor The FOIA Improvement Act. [S 2520, introduced 6/24/14] FOIA Improvement Act Passed Senate By Unanimous Consent. "The Senate unanimously approved the FOIA Improvement Act, sending a bill intended to create a “presumption of openness” among government agencies to the House, which passed a similar bill earlier this year." [Politico, 12/8/14] FOIA Improvement Act Established a "Presumption Of Openness" With Government Documents. "The Senate bill, which moved to the House last Monday, would have established a “presumption of openness” with government documents, codifying a directive that President Obama issued to federal agencies in 2009." [Washington Post, 12/16/14] FOIA Improvement Act Would Have Required Agencies To Identify A "Foreseeable Harm" Before Invoking An Exemption. " The bill also would have restricted a FOIA exemption that allows the government to deny records requests to protect executive privilege and sensitive decision-making processes, requiring agencies to identify a “foreseeable harm” and open the records to the public after 25 years."[Washington Post, 12/16/14] FOIA Improvement Act Would Create A Central Website For Requests And Eliminated FOIA Fees When Deadlines Are Not Met. " Additionally, the bill would have required the government to create a central Web site for records requests and eliminated FOIA fees when agencies fail to meet statutory deadlines for providing documents." [Washington Post, 12/16/14] FOIA Improvement Act Did Not Appear To Remove Exemption For Members Of Congress. [Sunlight Foundation, 6/25/14] Sanders Did Not Co-Sponsor The FOIA Improvement Act Of 2015. [S 337, introduced 2/2/15] Sanders Co-sponsored OPEN Government Act Of 2007. "Leahy has authored a number of FOIA bills during his Senate tenure. Leahy crafted the OPEN Government Act of 2007, the most recent Congressional overhaul of FOIA. Cornyn cosponsored the 2007 bill, as did Sen. Bernard Sanders. [...] The 2007 law, among other things, mandated more efficient processing services by the government and created the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), which was tasked to review FOIA compliance by the government and report back to Congress. Leahy’s 2014 bill gives OGIS greater authority to mediate FOIA disputes between the public and the government." [Rutland Herald, 7/2/14] Government Contracting Sanders Maintained That American Corporations That Move Operations Abroad Should Not Be Able To Bid On Contracts For Any Government Agency. “In terms of the Defense Authorization Act, what we’re going to do is say: ‘If you want to call Switzerland or the U.K. your home, guess what? You’re not going to be bidding on defense contracts for the Untied States government.’ And I would generalize that to say, ‘You’re not going to bid on contracts for any agency of the government.’” [The Ed Show, MSNBC, 7/25/14, 1:09] Post Office Sanders Called For Protecting The U.S. Postal Service. “The U.S. Postal Service is one of our most popular and important government agencies. Let’s protect the Postal Service, not dismantle it.” [Twitter, Bernie Sanders, 7/28/15] Sanders Said That He Worked To “Preserve Saturday Mail” And Address The Postal Service’s Financial Problems. “But we’re in a major fight now to preserve Saturday mail, and we’ have introduced I think the most significant legislation on that, which deals with the major financial problem facing the postal service, and that is between 75 and 80 percent of the financial problems of the postal service have to do with this unprecedented mandate that they pay 75 years of retirement health benefits in a ten year period, over 5 billion a year, and that is the most significant financial problem they have. And our legislation addresses that.” [Brunch With Bernie, 3/29/13, 18:30] Sanders Opposed Republican Efforts To Scale Down The Postal Service. “[...] Right-wing Republicans who want to attack–who are attacking Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid–also want to move toward the privatization of the postal service, they want to shut down post offices all over the country, processing plants all over the country, and they also want to end Saturday mail. So we’re going to fight them. We were able to beat back that effort last year, we’re going to continue to do that. My view is that if we give the postal service more flexibility to earn more money, they’re going to be in strong financial shape. We should not be dismembering the postal service, making it slower, and doing away with Saturday mail.” [Brunch With Bernie, 6/13/14, 27:17] Sanders Called On The Postal Service To Reinstate Overnight Mail Delivery Standards. “Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) sent a letter today to Postmaster General Megan Brennan urging the Postal Service to reinstate overnight mail delivery standards in light of a recent report finding significant delays in the delivery of mail. The report from the United States Postal Service’s Inspector General found that since the Postal Service eliminated overnight delivery standards in January, there has been a 48 percent increase in the time it takes to process mail. As a result, letters that should have been delivered in three to five days have been late up to 44 percent of the time during the first five months of this year. “It is abundantly clear that the Postal Service’s decision to shut down more than 140 mail processing plants a few years ago and to eliminate overnight delivery standards this year has been a disaster that is negatively impacting Americans all over this country,” Sanders wrote in the letter. “I would urge the Postal Service to reinstate overnight delivery standards and speed up the delivery of mail as soon as possible.”” [Press Release, Sen. Bernie Sanders, 8/26/15] GUNS Believed Gun Control Should Be A State Issue 2015: Sanders: “We Have To Do Everything We Can To Make Sure That Guns Do Not Fall Into The Hands Of People Who Should Not Have Them.” “Well, I come from a state which has virtually no gun control. And in Vermont, guns are seen as something people use for hunting, target shooting, antique gun shows. But I realize, and Vermont has realized, that guns in Detroit and Los Angeles are used to shoot at police officers and to commit terrible crimes. So, I believe that we have to do everything we can to make sure that guns do not fall into the hands of people who should not have them. Period.” [Diane Rehm Show, 6/10/15] 2006: Sanders Said Gun Regulation “Shouldn’t Be Done In Washington.” “But [Sanders] breaks with most congressional progressives on federal gun control. Gun regulation should be left to the states, he said, ‘and shouldn’t be done in Washington.’ In 1990, Sanders’ position on guns helped him defeat incumbent Congressman Peter Smith, who had voted for a bill banning sales of semi-automatic weapons. The National Rifle Association sided with the socialist against the Republican.” [Austin AmericanStatesman, 10/29/06] Sanders Chief Of Staff Said Gun Industry Was Different Than Tobacco Industry Because Cigarettes Did Harm Even When Used As Designed. “"He agrees with the proposition that if the gunmakers follow all the federal rules ... and someone goes and buys the gun and does something illegal with it, that (the gun industry) should not be held responsible for it," said Jeff Weaver, Sanders' chief of staff. "This is different (than exempting the tobacco industry from lawsuits). Because cigarettes, if you use the product as designed, are still going to hurt the person using it, and the people around them."” [White River Junction Valley News, 12/01/05] Sanders: “Decisions About Gun Control Should Be Made As Close To Home As Possible.” “Our legislators have failed in their responsibility to safeguard us. In Vermont, the congressional delegation leans toward having state governments take the lead on gun laws. Or, as Sen. Bernie Sanders recently put it, "In my view, decisions about gun control should be made as close to home as possible -- at the state level." By avoiding advocating for gun laws at the federal level, they escape the opposition of the NRA.” [Thomas and Maganiello, White River Junction Valley News, 8/10/12] Sanders’ Friend Said He Did Not Own Or Care About Guns, But Thought There Was “Elitism” In The Anti-Gun Movement. “He doesn't have a gun," says his close friend Richard Sugarman, a religion professor at the University of Vermont, when I asked how Sanders—a University of Chicago graduate from Brooklyn—became a Second Amendment guy. "He doesn't really care about guns. But he cares that other people care about guns. He thinks there's an elitism in the antigun movement."” [National Journal, 6/21/14] 1976: Bernie Sanders: “I’d Like To Get Into Hunting.” “Behind the harsh rhetoric and roughshod image Sanders displayed and underneath his admittedly radical political beliefs, lies another side to the man, a side which many ordinary people may identify with. An intense man, Sanders has need for relaxation, and he does the same things everyone else does—plays ball, hikes, likes to canoe. ‘I’d like to get into hunting,’ he admitted, adding that he just hadn’t gotten around to it yet.” [Bennington Banner, 10/27/76] Bernie Sanders Opposed A Seven-Day Waiting Period For Gun Purchases, Saying, “It’s A Local Control Issue. In Vermont It Is Not My View That The Present Law Needs Any Changing.” “All four said they would have voted against recent legislation that would have required a seven-day waiting period before purchasing a firearm and added they were generally satisfied with the nation’s gun-control laws. […] Sanders: ‘It’s a local control issue. In Vermont it is not my view that the present law needs any changing. … If I were mayor of Washington, D.C., I might have a concern of Saturday night specials.’” [Burlington Free Press, 10/26/88] Bernie Sanders Opposed Federal Gun Control Legislation, Saying The Issue Was Better Left Up To State Legislatures. “U.S. Rep. Bernard Sanders said Friday he would oppose a federal bill calling for a seven-day waiting period for the purchase of handguns. The independent socialist said he believed the subject is best left to state legislatures, noting that a similar proposal in Vermont two years ago never made it out of committee.” [Sunday Rutland Herald and Times Argus, 3/31/91] Urban Versus Rural Issue Sanders Said That People Viewed Guns Differently In Rural Areas Like Vermont Compared To Urban Areas Like In Chicago Or Los Angeles. “I come from a state that has virtually no gun control. And it turns out one of the safest states in the country. I come from a state where tens and tens of thousands of people hunt and do target practice. I understand that guns in my state are different than guns in Chicago or Los Angeles. I understand and the people from my state understand that there are people all over this country have guns who should not have guns who are killing other people.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, “Rebooting Our Policy Agenda to Reclaim the American Dream” Forum in Arlington, VA, 7/9/15] Sanders: Issue Of Gun Control Was Different In A Rural State Like Vermont Than In Cities Like Baltimore, N.Y. and L.A. “Where Guns Are Associated With Drug Dealers And Killers…” “I come from a very rural state, in the state of Vermont we have almost no gun control at all, and that’s kind of what the majority of the people of our state feel comfortable with. In Vermont, in other very rural states, what guns are about is hunting, guns are about target shooting, a lot of antique gun collectors and in fact we have have a pretty low, thank god, crime rate here in the state of Vermont. But obviously in the rest of the country, whether it’s Baltimore, Los Angeles, New York City, whatever, guns are associated with drug dealers and killers and everything else. So looking at it in national perspective is different than looking at it in Vermont perspective.” [Brunch With Bernie, 5/8/15] Sanders Defended His Gun Control Record, Said That Guns Should Be Regulated Differently In Large Cities Than In Small States Like Vermont. “There are thorns on Mr. Sanders’ liberal rose, too. On gun control, he is well to the right of Ms. Clinton and most Democrats. Vermont’s guns laws, as he himself pointed out, are virtually nonexistent. As a congressman, he voted against the Brady Act and another law which shielded gun manufacturers from lawsuits when their firearms are used illegally. “Guns in cities like Los Angeles or New York or Detroit are not the same thing as they are in Vermont or New Hampshire,” Mr. Sanders told reporters in June. “What we need is a balanced gun policy, which makes sure … guns do not get into the hands of people who should not have them.”” [New York Observer, 6/17/15] Sanders’s Chief Of Staff Said Sanders Tried To Balance “The Fact That Different States Have Different Cultures Regarding Guns” Against Legislation Important For Public Safety. “Weaver said Sanders tries to balance the fact that different states have different cultures regarding guns against what law enforcement officials feel is important legislation for public safety.” [White River Junction Valley News, 12/1/05] Sanders Has “Fiercely Defended” Vermont’s Lax Gun Laws. “Arguably, the independent senator from Vermont has taken a pragmatic approach – his state prides itself on a deep hunting and gun culture and has traditionally fiercely defended its lax guns laws.” [Politico, 6/18/15] Sanders: Issue Of Gun Control Was Different In A Rural State Like Vermont Than In Cities Like Baltimore, N.Y. and L.A. “Where Guns Are Associated With Drug Dealers And Killers…” “I come from a very rural state, in the state of Vermont we have almost no gun control at all, and that’s kind of what the majority of the people of our state feel comfortable with. In Vermont, in other very rural states, what guns are about is hunting, guns are about target shooting, a lot of antique gun collectors and in fact we have have a pretty low, thank god, crime rate here in the state of Vermont. But obviously in the rest of the country, whether it’s Baltimore, Los Angeles, New York City, whatever, guns are associated with drug dealers and killers and everything else. So looking at it in national perspective is different than looking at it in Vermont perspective.” [Brunch With Bernie, 5/8/15] Sanders Opposed The Importation Of Assault Weapons, Acknowledged That Guns In Vermont “Are Different” Than Guns Elsewhere In America. CHRIS HAYES: “Are you in fact, Senator, a gun nut?” SEN. SANDERS: “Well, actually, if you check it out, the last rating I got from the NRA, to the best of my knowledge, was an F. That doesn’t quite make me a gun nut. In my state of Vermont—we are a very rural state—what guns are about are hunting, are target practice, are antique guns, and we have a pretty low crime rate. But I do believe, obviously, that nationally, guns in Baltimore and guns in Los Angeles are very different. I have voted against the importation of assault weapons, and I understand that not every part of America is the state of Vermont.” [All In with Chris Hayes, MSNBC, 5/13/15, 0:15] 1980s: Sanders Said Crime In New York City Or Los Angeles “May Well Be Out Of Hand Because Of The Enormous Social Chaos” But In Burlington, Crime “Can And Must Be Dealt With Through Rational And Intelligent Decision Making.” “The city administration, under Gordon Pauquelle, has been extremely' negligent in its relationship to the police department and to the rapidly rising crime rate in our city. In New York City, in Boston or in Los Angeles the crime problem may well be out of hand because of the enormous social chaos in those areas. In Burlington, Vermont, however, the crime situation can and must be dealt with through rational and intelligent decision making.” [Sanders newspaper advertisement, date unknown, ~1980] Bernie Sanders And Is Staff Tried To Justify His Opposition To The Brady Bill By Contrasting Vermont And Larger, More Urban Areas With Higher Rates Of Gun Violence. “‘If it’s wanted in the Legislature, let it be dealt with in the Legislature,’ Sanders said. He added: ‘Vermont and Wyoming are very different types of states than California or New York.’” Sanders aide Doug Boucher was quoted in Friday’s Washington Post as saying, ‘The situation in Vermont is very different than in some urban areas – we have far more murders from knives than we do from guns.’” [Sunday Rutland Herald and Times Argus, 3/31/91] Rep. Bernie Sanders Opposed The Brady Bill On Grounds That “Vermont And Wyoming Are Very Different Types Of States Than California Or New York State.” “Rep. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., saidFriday he would oppose a federal bill calling for a seven-day waiting period for the purchase of handguns. The independent socialist said he believed the subject is best left to state legislatures, noting that a similar proposal in Vermont two years ago never made it out of committee. ‘It it’s wanted in the Legislature, let it be dealt with in the Legislature,’ Sanders said. He added: ‘Vermont and Wyoming are very different types of states than California or New York state.’” [Rutland Herald, 3/30/91] Rep. Bernie Sanders’ Spokesman: “The Situation In Vermont Is Very Different Than In Some Urban Areas – We Have Far More Murders From Knives Than We Do From Guns.” “Sanders aide Doug Boucher was quoted in Friday’s Washington Post as saying, ‘The situation in Vermont is very different than in some urban areas – we have far more murders from knives than we do from guns.’ Actually, an official with the Department of Public Safety’s Vermont Crime Information Center said Friday that there were 14 homicides in Vermont last year, 62.5 percent involving funs and 18.8 percent knives. Sanders said later Friday that Boucher had told him ‘he talked with that guy (Post reporter Michael Isikoff) for 15 minutes. He’s not quite sure where that statement came from.’” [Rutland Herald, 3/30/91] The Department Of Public Safety’s Vermont Crime Information Center Said This Claim Was False. “Sanders aide Doug Boucher was quoted in Friday’s Washington Post as saying, ‘The situation in Vermont is very different than in some urban areas – we have far more murders from knives than we do from guns.’ Actually, an official with the Department of Public Safety’s Vermont Crime Information Center said Friday that there were 14 homicides in Vermont last year, 62.5 percent involving funs and 18.8 percent knives. Sanders said later Friday that Boucher had told him ‘he talked with that guy (Post reporter Michael Isikoff) for 15 minutes. He’s not quite sure where that statement came from.’” [Rutland Herald, 3/30/91] In 1990, 62.5% Of Homicides In Vermont Involved Guns. “Sanders aide Doug Boucher was quoted in Friday’s Washington Post as saying, ‘The situation in Vermont is very different than in some urban areas – we have far more murders from knives than we do from guns.’ Actually, an official with the Department of Public Safety’s Vermont Crime Information Center said Friday that there were 14 homicides in Vermont last year, 62.5 percent involving guns and 18.8 percent knives.” [Sunday Rutland Herald and Times Argus, 3/31/91] Can Bring People To The “Middle” Sanders Believed That He Could Bring People Together On Gun Control As Someone Who Represented A Rural State Where Gun Ownership Was Popular. “Tavis: […] When you say you think you are in a unique position to bring these sides together, where is that common ground between repeal of the Second Amendment and reasonable gun control? And when you said you think you’re a unique person to bridge that divide, what do you mean by that? Sanders; Well, by unique, I don’t think I’m the only person in America who can do it… Tavis: Sure, sure, sure, sure. Sanders: But I do think I start with some credibility because I come from a rural state where a majority of our people own guns and where hunting is very, very popular. So I come from a state, you know, where a lot of have guns and it’s a state, by the way, that has virtually no gun control at all.” [Tavis Smiley, PBS, 10/19/15] Sanders Said He Could Bring People To The Middle In The Gun Control Debate. “And this is part, by the way, I may say, of -- you know, folks who do not like guns is fine, but we have millions of people who are gun owners in this country; 99.9 percent of those people obey the law. I want to see real serious debate and action on guns. But it is not going to take place if we simply have extreme positions on both sides. I think I can bring us to the middle.” [State of the Union, CNN, 7/5/15] Sanders Said He Could Effectively Communicate With Urban Communities On The Safe Usage Of Guns. “There may be other things we have to do. But coming from a rural state, I think I can communicate with folks coming from urban states, where guns mean different things than they do in Vermont, where it’s used for hunting. That’s where we’ve got to go. We don’t have to argue with each other, and yell at each other; we need a common sense solution.” [Sanders Calls for Stricter Gun Control, 7/27/15] Sanders Said Gun Rights And Gun Control Advocates Needed To Compromise. “We can argue all that we want between Vermont and Montana and urban America about guns. We are not going to succeed. What we need is a gun policy, it may not be your policy, but if you want to succeed we have got to overcome the cultural divide. […] There has to be some give on both sides. In my state, you know what people would say to you? They would say what do you have against me? What have I ever done wrong because I’ve taken my kids into the woods and gone hunting? We haven’t done anything wrong. But there’s going to have to be some compromises on both sides.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, “Rebooting Our Policy Agenda to Reclaim the American Dream” Forum in Arlington, VA, 7/9/15] Said Gun Control Did Not Solve The Problem Sanders Said Gun Control Legislation Would Not Have A “Profound Effect” On Mass Violence. “His position seemed to shift in January, when he intimated in a written statement that he’d support federal bans on assault weapons and high-capacity clips proposed by Obama. But in last week’s interview, he seemed to back away again from such measures, saying, “If you passed the strongest gun control legislation tomorrow, I don’t think it will have a profound effect on the tragedies we have seen.”” [Seven Days Vermont, 3/13/13] On Multiple Occasions, Sanders Was Critical Of The Idea That Gun Control Would Have A Meaningful Impact On Stopping Gun Violence Tragedies. ““If you passed the strongest gun control legislation tomorrow, I don’t think it will have a profound effect on the tragedies we have seen,” he told Seven Days Vermont a month before the vote, adding that he was still on the fence about the assault weapons ban. In his official statement following his vote for the legislation in April 2013, Sanders opened with a caveat: “Nobody believes that gun control by itself is going to end the horrors we have seen in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., Blacksburg, Va., Tucson, Ariz. and other American communities.”” [Politico, 6/18/15] 2014: Bill Maher Criticized Sanders For Downplaying The Importance Of Gun Control Laws In Preventing Gun Violence Tragedies. “And on liberal comedian Bill Maher’s television show last year, Sanders said mental health was “maybe the more important issue” than gun control. “We’ve got millions of folks walking the streets who are need of mental health and they can’t walk into a place and get it,” he said. “This is the NRA talking point. I’m not saying it’s wrong, but I’m just saying, that’s what they say,” Maher responded.” [Politico, 6/18/15] Rutland Herald Editorial: Rep. Bernie Sanders Contended “That Crime In The United States Is Caused By Underfunding Of Federal And State Programs For The Poor And Underprivileged, Not By The Free And Easy Access To All Kinds Of Firearms.” “Sanders said it would be ‘dishonest with people who voted for me’ to alter his opposition to federal gun control, possibly having in mind the campaign of vilification launched against former Congressman Peter Smith last year when he modified his commitment against gun regulation. Legislation dealing with guns doesn’t address the major problem in this country anyway according to Sanders who contends that crime in the United States is caused by underfunding of federal and state programs for the poor and underprivileged, not by the free and easy access to all kinds of firearms.” [Rutland Herald editorial, 4/2/91] 1990: Bernie Sanders On Gun Control: “People Pull The Trigger, Not The Guns Themselves.” “Independent U.S. House candidate Bernard Sanders received a warm welcome from a group of Ludlow sportsmen. […] Sanders said he did not believe ‘gun control is a panacea for the forces of crime.’ ‘People pull the trigger, not the guns themselves,” he said.” [Rutland Herald, 10/22/90] 1991: Bernie Sanders: “Anyone Who Has Any Illusions That Gun Control Will Cause A Significant Dent In The Very Serious Problem Of Crime Is Mistaken.” “People who believe gun control will slow down the increasing violence in America are wrong, Vermont’s Congressman said Sunday. ‘Anyone who has any illusions that gun control will cause a significant dent in the very serious problem of crime is mistaken,’ said representative Bernard Sanders, I-Vt.” [Rutland Herald, 10/28/91] Bernie Sanders Argued That A Background Check Waiting Period Would Not Reduce Violent Crime. “Less Consistently – at least on the surface of it – he benefited from the limited support from the National Rifle Association in 1990 after criticizing his opponent, Republican Peter Smith, who voted in favor of controls on some assault weapons, in spite of his campaign promise not to do so. Sanders also voted ‘no’ on the Brady Bill to delay handgun sales while law-enforcement officials check the background of the purchaser, arguing that the solution to crime is to fix its causes: poverty, neglect and disenfranchisement.” [Vermont Sunday Magazine, 1/8/95] Bernie Sanders Called A 1994 Vote For A Ban On Assault Weapons “A Tough Vote” And Opined That It Was Not A Solution To Violent Crimes. “Rep. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., will support a ban on select semi-automatic assault weapons today in what is expected to be a squeaker of a vote. ‘This was a tough vote (to decide),’ Sanders said late Wednesday, adding that the bill is not perfect and is not a panacea for crime.” [Burlington Free Press, 5/4/94] Sanders, After A Mass Shooting In Vermont, Said, “Anyone Who Has Any Illusions That Gun Control Will Cause A Significant Dent In The Very Serious Problem Of Crime Is Mistaken.” “People who believe gun control will slow down the increasing violence in America are wrong, Vermont’s Congressman said Sunday. ‘Anyone who has any illusions that gun control will cause a significant dent in the very serious problem of crime is mistaken,’ said representative Bernard Sanders, I-Vt. Sanders’ comments came in an interview following his talk at a labor forum in Bennington, a town reeling from a fatal shooting on Friday. According to police, Elizabeth A. Teague, 30, shot four people, killing one of them, at the Everready Battery Co. A 9mm semiautomatic handgun allegedly was used in the crime police said. Last May, the U.S. House passed the Brady Bill, which established a seven-day waiting period for handgun purchases. Sanders voted against the bill, saying at the time that the bill did not address the causes of crime, such as poverty, drugs, lack of jobs and inadequate education. He repeated that view on Sunday. ‘The federal government has failed to back in the last 12 years drug rehabilitation, education and good jobs,’ Sanders said. ‘Unless we deal with those issues, I predict a continued increase in crime and violence.’ Sanders said he was saddened by the shooting at the Eveready plant. He called the incident ‘tragic’ for Bennington. He said the recession that has gripped the country had demoralized people and that often led to violence. ‘When people become desperate, they suffer severe mental disturbances that lead to violence,’ Sanders said.” [Rutland Herald, 10/28/91] Bernie Sanders Argued That A Waiting Period Would Not Solve The Problem Of Crime And Violence. “Sanders also said a handgun waiting period would not get at what he called ‘the root causes of crime and violence’ – poverty, poor education and lack of police protection and programs designed to keep young people out of trouble.” [Sunday Rutland Herald and Times Argus, 3/31/91] Mixed Record On Gun Control Legislation Sanders Record “Uneven on Guns.” “It is generally acknowledged that gun ownership in Vermont is robust and that gun violence is very rare. A Vermont politician running on a gun control platform would be committing political suicide. Sanders, for all his consistency in the leftist faith, is also an able politician. So he has an uneven record on guns.” [Weekly Standard, 5/22/15] Sanders’ Conflicting Votes Upset Gun Control And Gun Rights Advocates. “But while his campaign manager says he is “very moderate” on the issue, others call him “erratic.” To wit, he has voted against the Brady Bill, voted for an assault weapons ban, voted to allow firearms on Amtrak, and voted for universal background checks — upsetting gun-control and gun-rights advocates alike.” [Politico, 6/18/15] Sanders Campaign Said That He Was “Very Moderate” On Guns. “But while his campaign manager says he is “very moderate” on the issue, others call him “erratic.” […] Weaver dismissed the idea that Sanders had a poll-tested message on guns, calling that a “fantasy” and saying his moderate approach is an “organic position.”” [Politico, 6/18/15] Sanders Emphasized His F Rating From The NRA As Proof That He Wasn’t “Some Kind Of Gun Nut.” “What my critics about guns don’t tell you is that I have an F NRA voting record. So the idea that I am some kind of gun nut and blah blah blah blah is just not true. Again, I have an F rating from the NRA because I have voted for a number of things they don’t like.’ [Brunch With Bernie, 5/8/15] HEADLINE: “Bernie Sanders’ Awkward History With Guns In America” [Politico, 6/18/15] Politico: “Bernie Sanders Is A Liberal Standard-Bearer On Nearly Every Single Policy Issue […] But There’s One Notable Exception – Guns.” “Bernie Sanders is a liberal standard-bearer on nearly every single policy issue, from climate change to taxation to financial regulation. But there’s one notable exception – guns.” [Politico, 6/18/15] Sanders’s Campaign Manager Claimed That Sanders “Never Embraced A Pro-Gun Message.” “The NRA didn’t campaign for Sanders in 1990, and Jeff Weaver, the campaign manager for his presidential bid and a longtime adviser, noted that Sanders supported an assault weapons ban and never embraced a pro-gun message. “The easy position would have been to be against the assault weapons ban,” said Weaver, pushing back on the idea that Sanders catered to the NRA for political purposes. (Weaver made the comments before the Charleston shooting.)” [Politico, 6/18/15] Former Vermont AP Bureau Chief Chris Graff Said That Sanders “Disappointed Many Progressives In Vermont” And Angered “Both Sides Through The Years” Because He Walked A “Middle Line” On Gun Control. “‘I think he has disappointed many progressives in Vermont with his gun positions, which sort of walk a middle line – and angering both sides through the years,’ said Chris Graff, the former Vermont Associated Press bureau chief. ‘Gun control is a tough issue in Vermont for all politicians.’” [Politifact, 7/10/15] Sanders Voted To Tighten Gun Control “About Half The Time,” And Voted To “Protect” Second Amendment Rights The Other Half Of The Time. “Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, whose 2004 presidential bid is often compared to Sanders’ 2016 run, received high marks from the National Rifle Association. Vermont Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy also voted against the Brady bill. For his part, Sanders has voted to tighten gun control about half the time, and to protect Second Amendment rights the other half.” [Politifact, 7/10/15] Politifact: Experts Agreed That Sanders’s Views On Guns Were “To The Right Of His Democratic Rivals.” “Experts agreed that on guns, Sanders’ views are to the right of his Democratic rivals.” [Politifact, 7/10/15] Opposed Gun Control Times Argus: “Sanders Is No Friend Of Gun Banners.” “Sanders is no friend of gun banners. His constituency is largely rural, made up of people who enjoy firearms sports. During his 1990 campaign Sanders vowed to protect their interests from further federal regulation, and to that end dissented from last spring’s House vote approving the Brady Amendment which imposed a seven-day waiting period on handgun purchases. (Final details of that provision remain to be worked out with the Senate.)” [Times Argus editorial, 10/18/91] Times Argus: Bernie Sanders Position On Guns, As Vermonters Target-Shooting Or Hunting, Is “Idyllic.” “Sanders, campaigning in 1990, doggedly cast his view on gun control issues from the vantage point of Vermonters target-shooting at the local gun club or hunting blissfully in the autumn woods. He maintains that positions, that idyllic view today, refuting the Brady Bill and claiming ‘consistency.’” [Times Argus, Editorial, p. 6, 4/3/91] Brady Bill 1990: Sanders Successfully Campaigned On Opposing The Brady Bill. “Instead, Sanders said that he didn’t support the proposed Brady Bill, which instituted federal background checks and a five-day waiting period, and vowed that he wouldn’t flip-flop on the issue. He won the election by nearly 20 points.” [Politico, 6/18/15] Between 1991 And 1993, Sanders Voted Against The Brady Bill Five Times, Which Would Have Imposed A Five-Day Waiting Period For Handgun Purchases. “The Brady bill imposed a five-day waiting period for would-be purchasers of handguns. Between 1991 and 1993, Sanders voted against it five times. He did, however, vote for a version of the bill that imposed instant background checks, and against an amendment that repealed state background checks.” [Politifact, 7/10/15] Sanders Voted For A Version Of The Brady Bill That Imposed Instant Background Checks On Handgun Purchases. “The Brady bill imposed a five-day waiting period for would-be purchasers of handguns. Between 1991 and 1993, Sanders voted against it five times. He did, however, vote for a version of the bill that imposed instant background checks, and against an amendment that repealed state background checks.” [Politifact, 7/10/15] Sanders Voted Against An Amendment That Repealed State Background Checks On Handgun Purchases. “The Brady bill imposed a five-day waiting period for would-be purchasers of handguns. Between 1991 and 1993, Sanders voted against it five times. He did, however, vote for a version of the bill that imposed instant background checks, and against an amendment that repealed state background checks.” [Politifact, 7/10/15] 1991: Bernie Sanders Voted Against Brady Gun Control Bill. “In approving the so-called Brady bill, lawmakers rejected an NRA alternative that would have delayed any screening of would-be gun-buyers for several years. On the final vote, 179 Democrats and 60 Republicans voted for the Brady bill; 83 Democrats, 102 Republicans and independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont opposed it. The bill goes now to the Senate, where gun control opponents will renew their efforts to derail it.” [Miami Herald, 5/9/91; House Vote #83, 5/8/1991] 1993: Bernie Sanders Voted Against The Brady Bill In The House, And Leahy Voted Against The Bill In The Senate. [HR 1025, House Vote 564, 11/10/93; Senate Vote #394, 11/20/93] Sanders Voted Against Brady Bill Because It Reflected The Will Of Vermonters. “…many progressives find Sanders’ position on the Brady bill to be in contradiction with leftist thinking. “Bernie’s response,” Pollina reported, “is that he doesn’t just represent liberals and progressives. He was sent to Washington to represent all Vermonters.” Arguing that many of Sanders’ home-state constituents oppose the Brady bill, Pollina added, “It’s not inappropriate for a congressman to support a majority position, particularly on something that Vermonters have been very clear about. What you see is the entire congressional delegation responding to the feelings of Vermonters at a grassroots level.” [Seven Days Vermont, 4/11/91] Sanders Spokesman Acknowledged That Sanders’ Opposition To The Brady Bill Was Unpopular With Many Progressives. “Sanders himself did not respond to a request for an interview on this issue. Anthony Pollina, the congressman’s chief aide in Vermont, did acknowledge, however, that many Progressives find Sanders’ position on the Brady bill to be in the contradiction with leftist thinking.” [Seven Days, 4/11/91] Sanders Spokesman Denied That Sanders Was In Step With The Gun Lobby, Noted That Sanders Supported Some Restrictions On Assault Weapons. “Polina denied, however, that Sanders is following the gun lobby’s line, since the congressman differs with the NRA in advocating some restrictions on assault weapons.” [Seven Days, 4/11/91] 2015: Sanders Said He Voted Against Brady Bill Because He Represents Vermont, A State With No Gun Control And One Of The Lower Crime Rates In America. “ALBERT HUNT: But you did vote against the Brady bill. And you voted against making gun makers liable giving them liability for actions. Why are you different than most liberals on the issue of guns? BERNIE SANDERS: Well, I come from a state with, you know, how much gun control there is in the state of Vermont? ALBERT HUNT: How much? BERNIE SANDERS: None. And thank God, we also have one of the lower crime rates in America. That’s the state that I represent. And I think the people of Vermont, and so I voted to ban certain types of assault weapons, I did. In fact, you know what my voting grade I received from the NRA? I think it was D-minus. That’s my lifetime voting record. So to make me out as a ALBERT HUNT: You’re not a pro-gun zealot? BERNIE SANDERS: No, I’m not. But what we understand is that in states like Vermont, guns are associated with hunting, with antique gun shows, with target shooting. I understand that in Los Angeles and Detroit and Chicago, guns are a very different thing.” [Charlie Rose, 6/11/15] Despite Sanders’ Professed Closeness With The Congressional Black Caucus, Sanders Opposed The Brady Bill. “Sanders’ announced opposition to the Brady proposal seems especially incongruous. The independent socialist has said that, among his House colleagues, he feels politically closest to the members of the Congressional Black Caucus. And only one of Sanders’ 25 black colleagues is pledged to vote against the Brady bill.” [Seven Days, 4/11/91] Sanders Spokesman Said That Voting For The Brady Bill Without Developing Anti-Poverty Legislation Could Be Seen As “Dishonest.” “While recognizing that the U.S. does have a problem with criminal justice, Sanders believes many politicians use the Brady bill as a ‘smoke-screen,’ Pollina suggested. “Bernie would rather work with Congress to develop a package of legislation that deals with the root causes of crime, such as economic injustice and the lack of job opportunities in many urban communities,’ the aide explained. Simply voting for the Brady bill and not addressing poverty as a cause of violence could be seen as ‘dishonest,’ Pollina asserted.” [Seven Days, 4/11/91] Sanders’s Spokesman Said He Had “Long Been An Opponent” Of A Seven Day Waiting Period. “Sanders, the former socialist mayor of Burlington, says he will vote against the Brady bill, which would establish a national waiting period for handgun purchases and allow police time to check purchasers for criminal records or histories of mental illness. The NRA is actively opposing the bill. "They wanted to make an example," says Smith. "It worked. Not only did they make an example of me, but Vermont's congressman, the most radical guy in the Congress, is going to vote against the Brady bill." A spokesman for Sanders said the congressman has long been an opponent of the seven-day waiting period.” [Newsday, 4/16/91] Sanders’ Campaign Manager Said He Opposed The Brady Bill Because He Believed Implementing A National Waiting Period Was “Federal Overreach” And Because His Constituents Opposed The Bill. “According to Sanders' campaign manager Jeff Weaver, Sanders’ reason for opposing the Brady bill was two-fold. First, he believed implementing a national waiting period was federal overreach. And second, he was doing his job. ‘He wasn't opposed to states having (waiting periods) if they wanted to. The Republicans wanted to repeal waiting periods in states that had them, and Bernie voted that down,’ Weaver said. ‘He said he would be against waiting periods, and he kept his word to the people of Vermont.’” [Politifact, 7/10/15] 1991: Sanders’s Then-Chief Of Staff Said He Voted Against The Brady Bill Because He Represented All Vermonters, Not Just “Liberals And Progressives.” “In April 1991, Sanders’ thenchief of staff Anthony Pollina echoed the idea that Sanders was simply representing the will of his constituents. ‘Bernie’s response is that he doesn’t just represent liberals and progressives. He was sent to Washington to present all of Vermont,’ Pollina said. ‘It’s not inappropriate for a congressman to support a majority position, particularly on something Vermonters have been very clear about.’” [Politifact, 7/10/15] Vermont Was “Left-Leaning,” But Had A High Gun Ownership Rate And “Lax” Gun Control Laws. “The Green Mountain State, though left-leaning, has a high gun ownership rate and lax gun control laws (as well as a low homicide rate).” [Politifact, 7/10/15] Washington Post: Sanders Appeared To Oppose The Brady Bill For “Strictly Political Reasons.” “It wasn't so much his position that upset Democrats but that he -- a self-proclaimed man of principle -appeared to oppose the bill for strictly political reasons: The National Rifle Association played no small role in bringing him to office by campaigning vigorously against Sanders's opponent, Republican Peter Smith, who had switched his position on gun control. "He can give you all the lofty reasons he wants for opposing Brady -- but it was strictly a survival vote," maintains a source close to Vermont politics. "He wants to get reelected next year. Period."” [Washington Post, 7/9/91] Times Argus: Bernie Sanders Voted Against The Brady Bill In Order For Firearms Proponents Not To Target Him For Defeat. “In any case, Sanders narrowly construes the gun control issue in local terms and pleads ‘consistency.’ Read between the lines: No firearms proponents are going to do to him what they did last year to former Rep. Peter Smith, whom they targeted for defeat because he had abandoned his blanket opposition to weapons-control measures after he was elected in 1988 and advocated for a partial ban on assault rifles.” [Times Argus, Editorial, p. 6, 4/3/91] Times Argus: Bernie Sanders “Has Failed The Test” Of Global Thinking On The Brady Bill. “Vermont’s independent congressman, U.S. Rep. Bernard Sanders, is normally adept at global thinking. But he has failed the test on the Brady Bill, the gun-control measure now before Congress that would impose a seven-day waiting period upon handgun purchases.” [Times Argus, Editorial, p. 6, 4/3/91] Bernie Sanders “Thinks Nationally In Dairy Policy But Derides A Larger Perspective In Public Safety Issues.” “Since Sanders – who thinks nationally in dairy policy but derides a larger perspective in public safety issues – professes to be committed to local concerns that the bill would enable Vermont authorities to enforce federal laws for the benefit of local people, and that if Brady-style background checks continue to be adopted at snail’s pace on a state-by-state basis, the interstate transport of weapons will foil meaningful controls, as it does now.” [Times Argus, Editorial, p. 6, 4/3/91] Bernie Sanders: The Brady Bill’s Seven-Day Delay To Check The Legal History Of An Applicant Would Cause A Person To “Get Caught Up In The Bureaucracy.” “Before the congressman takes too much comfort in consistency, he might measure his opposition to Brady (he says a seven-day delay to check the legal history of the applicant would mean a person ‘would get caught up in the bureaucracy’) against this own priorities – national health insurance and a two-tier price support system for dairy farmers. Both those causes are worthy of the strongest consideration and analysis; both are examples of a less parochial view of government programs as well as the development of purposeful, efficient (if possible) bureaucracies. Since Sanders – who thinks nationally in dairy policy but derides a larger perspective in public safety issues – professes to be committed to local concerns that the bill would enable Vermont authorities to enforce federal laws for the benefit of local people, and that if Brady-style background checks continue to be adopted at snail’s pace on a state-by-state basis, the interstate transport of weapons will foil meaningful controls, as it does now.” [Times Argus, Editorial, p. 6, 4/3/91] Sanders Viewed It As “Hypocritical” That Congress Would Spend An Enormous Amount Of Time On The Brady Bill That Even Supporters “Know Will Not Have A Major Impact On Crime.” “Sanders dismisses the notion that he "caved to the NRA." He offers a multitude of vague reasons for opposing the bill, not surprisingly ending with lofty principle. "I have a problem with a Congress and media that spend an enormous amount of time talking about the Brady bill, which even the strongest proponents know will not have a major impact on crime. I view it as hypocritical."” [Washington Post, 7/9/91] Sanders “Has Cast Votes Against Federal Gun-Control Legislation” Like The Brady Bill. “The bluecollar agenda puts Sanders in a complicated position with the contemporary Left on noneconomic issues. For instance, he has cast votes against federal gun-control legislation, like the landmark 1994 Brady Bill, and owes his first congressional victory in part to support from the National Rifle Association. "He doesn't have a gun," says his close friend Richard Sugarman, a religion professor at the University of Vermont, when I asked how Sanders—a University of Chicago graduate from Brooklyn—became a Second Amendment guy. "He doesn't really care about guns. But he cares that other people care about guns. He thinks there's an elitism in the antigun movement."” [National Journal, 6/21/14] Rutland Herald Editorial: Bernie Sanders’s Opposition To The Brady Bill Was “Opportunistic.” “U.S. Rep. Bernard Sanders has been fond of saying that the labor leader Eugene Debs is one of his role models. The similarities may be closer than many realize, including the quirk of occasional opportunism. A public television documentary on the life of renowned lawyer Clarence Darrow showed how he defended Debs in one of his early cases. But years later, when Darrow defended two men accused of dynamiting a California newspaper plant during a labor dispute, Debs wouldn’t come near. He didn’t want to have the national labor movement tarnished with a perceived connection to violence, despite the fact that Darrow was in financial and legal trouble. A similar opportunistic streak puts Rep. Sanders, often a foe of fighting, against a proposal for a national seven-day waiting period in the purchase of handguns. Gun-makers are considered very influential in Vermont.” [Rutland Herald, 6/19/91] Times Argus: Bernie Sanders Is “Dead Wrong” In Writing Off The Brady Bill As Useless. “Finally, Sanders takes a swipe at those who support the measure, saying that if it passes they would simplistically conclude: ‘now we’ve dealt with the problem of violence,’ and adding that, ‘To my mind, that’s just not honest.’ If that’s his assumption, he hasn’t been reading the commentary in this space and elsewhere that admits point-blank that the Brady Bill won’t steam violence in the United States. Sanders is dead right when he says the cure for rampant violence lies in economic justice, education, and law enforcement. But he’s dead wrong in writing off the measure as useless. Until Americans can achieve that more just, less desperate society, a measure that can help keep guns out of the wrong hands is vital.” [Times Argus, Editorial, p. 6, 4/3/91] Bernie Sanders Derided Supporters Of The Brady Bill Who Thought Bill Would Solve Gun Violence Problem: “To My Mind, That’s Just Not Honest.” “Sanders made his comments against the so-called ‘Brady bill’ one day after former President Reagan came out in support of the measure, and the Bush White House announced it was softening its opposition. He derided supporters of the measure, saying that after its passage, they would say ‘“now we’ve dealt with the problem of gun violence.” To my mind, that’s just not honest.’ Sanders also said a handgun waiting period would not get at what he called ‘the root causes of crime and violence – poverty, poor education and lack of police protection and programs designed to keep young people out of trouble.” [Rutland Herald, 3/30/91] Rep. Bernie Sanders Said His Opposition To The Brady Bill Represented His Consistency On Gun Control. “But Sanders said in an interview Friday that it was most important to note what he called his consistency on the issue. ‘When I ran for Congress in 1990, that’s exactly what I said, so it should not come as a surprise to anybody. ‘One of the reasons that people lose faith with politicians is that before an election they say one thing and after the election they say something different,’ Sanders said. The comments came two years after former Rep. Peter Smith, R-Vt., was engulfed in controversy over switching his position and coming out in support of a ban on automatic weapons. Gun enthusiasts referred to the Smith switch as ‘the big lie,’ and hounded him through the campaign that ended last November with his defeat by Sanders.” [Rutland Herald, 3/30/91] Rutland Herald Editorial: Pres. Reagan’s Support For The Brady Bill “Prompted Vermont’s Independent Congressman Bernard Sanders To Go On Television To Reiterate His Opposition To Restrictions On Gun Ownership At The Federal Level.” “Former President Ronald Reagan’s aboutface on federal gun control last week and signs of compromise by the Bush administration prompted Vermont’s Independent Congressman Bernard Sanders to go on television to reiterate his opposition to restrictions on gun ownership at the federal level.” [Rutland Herald editorial, 4/2/91] Rutland Herald Editorial: It Was “Remarkable” How Much Rep. Bernie Sanders’ Position On Gun Control “Resembled That Formerly Held By Reagan.” “It was remarkable how much his reasoning on the issue resembled that formerly held by Reagan and still retained with some discomfort by George Bush. As Reagan had in the past, Sanders took the position that gun control was a proper subject for state rather than federal regulation, although everyone acknowledges that state regulation has failed. He noted that the state Legislature had declined to act on gun control and that influenced his opposition to deferral legislation. He didn’t mention that public opinion polls of Vermont voters have invariably revealed strong support for restrictions on gun traffic.” [Rutland Herald editorial, 4/2/91] Burlington Free Press Opinion: Rep. Bernie Sanders Offered “Limp Excuses” In Opposition To The Brady Bill. “As a gun control measure, the Brady bill – which requires a national seven-day waiting period before a handgun purchase – is only a modest first step. The House approved the measure last week, with Rep. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., dissenting. Sanders makes the same limp excuses as Sens. James Jeffords and Patrick Leahy, who say they will vote no when the bill reaches the Senate floor. They say the bill is largely symbolic, and that the federal government doesn’t have any right to tell Vermont what to do when it comes to gun control.” [Burlington Free Press opinion, 5/16/91] Rutland Herald Editorial: Rep. Bernie Sanders Was “Committed To The NRA And Sportsmen’s Point Of View” Against The Brady Bill. “At any rate the Brady Bill has the best chance it has ever had to pass the House this year, although it’s not a foregone conclusion. Vermont’s Independent Congressman Bernard Sanders at last report remains committed to the NRA and sportsmen’s point of view.” [Rutland Herald editorial, 4/25/91] Vermont Times Headline On Sanders Opposing Brady Bill: “Who's Afraid Of The NRA? Vermont's Congressmen, That's Who.” “All three of Vermont’s congressmen are considered liberals on many controversial issues. So why do they all oppose the Brady Bill, a gun control measure backed by most liberals and even endorsed by former president Ronald Reagan?” [Vermont Times, 4/11/91] CHARLESTON LOOPHOLE Sanders Voted For An Amendment To That Created A "Default Proceed" Loophole To Allow A Gun To Be Purchased If A Background Check Did Not Return A Result Within One Business Day. "(ii) 1 business day (as defined in subsection (s)(8)(B)) has elapsed since the end of the business day on which the licensee contacted the system, and the system has not notified the licensee that the receipt of the handgun by such other person would violate subsection (g) or (n) of this section or any State or local law." [H.Amdt.390 to H.R.1025, House Vote #562, 11/10/1993] Gekas Amendment Required The Five Day Waiting Period To Conduct A Background Check Sunset In Five Years. "It adopted an NRA-backed amendment offered by Representative George Gekas (R-Pa.), requiring that the bill’s five-day period to conduct a background check sunset in five years whether or not an instant check system was operational." [Brady Campaign, 10/2006] Final Version Of The Brady Bill Included A Three Day Time Limit For Background Checks. "His amendment was initially rejected, but when he tweaked it slightly and requested a floor vote on November 10, 1993, it passed the House 238 to 192, with 122 Republicans and 84 Democrats voting “aye.” The full Brady bill passed the House later that day. When the Senate took up the legislation, lawmakers were faced with Gekas’s one-business-day time limit, which would go into effect five years after Brady’s enactment, along with the instant check system. But after further maneuvering in the Senate, the investigation period was raised to three days." [The Trace, 7/21/15] Default Proceed Loophole Allowed Dylann Roof To Obtain A Gun. "Mr. Roof exploited the three-day waiting time that has allowed thousands of prohibited buyers to legally purchase firearms over the past decade — and some of those weapons were ultimately used in crimes, according to court records and government documents." [New York Times, 7/11/15] Protection Of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act SANDERS VOTED TO ALLOW FAST FOOD CHAINS TO BE HELD LIABLE FOR OBESITY 2004: Sanders Voted Against Releasing Food Manufacturers And Restaurants From Liability Due To Health Problems Such As Obesity. “The House on Wednesday passed, 276-139, a bill that would protect food manufacturers, restaurants and trade associations from being held liable for their customers’ health problems, such as obesity. Sanders, Bernard: Nay.” [Gannet News Service, 3/12/04; HR 339, Vote #54, 3/10/04] 2005: Sanders Voted Against Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act. [HR 554, Vote #533, 10/19/05] Bill Would Block Lawsuits By People Who Blame Fast-Food Chains For Their Obesity. “The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill Wednesday that would block lawsuits by people who blame fast-food chains for their obesity. The "cheeseburger bill," as it has been dubbed in Congress, stems from class-action litigation that accused McDonald's of causing obesity in children. The legislation's backers say matters of personal responsibility don't belong in the courts.” [CNN, 10/20/05] SANDERS VOTED TO ALLOW LITTLE LEAGUE VOLUNTEERS TO BE SUED FOR ACCIDENTS 2004: Sanders Voted Against A Bill To Protect Non-Profit Organizations From Civil Lawsuits. “The House on Tuesday rejected, 217-176, a bill that would protect Little League Baseball groups and other nonprofit organizations from civil lawsuits. Sanders, Bernard: Nay” [Gannett News Service, 9/17/04; HR 3369, Vote #445, 9/14/04] Supporters Said Bill Would Protect Volunteers From Being Sued For Accidents. “Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., said the athletic associations depend on volunteers who should not be discouraged from lending their time and expertise for fear they might be sued for accidents that occur on the field. Sensenbrenner said liability insurance for volunteer athletic organizations has increased 300 percent over the last three years, threatening to bankrupt sponsors of youth sports.” [Pahrump Valley Times, 9/22/04] … BUT VOTED AGAINST HOLDING GUN MANUFACTURES ACCOUNTABLE FOR GUN CRIMES Sanders Voted For Passage Of 2003 Version Of Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. On April 9, 2003, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #124. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would block liability lawsuits against gunmakers and sellers based on the criminal misuse of firearms. It also would block such actions against gun trade organizations and against ammunition makers and sellers. The measure would apply immediately to any pending cases. Several specific exceptions to the ban exist and include allowing civil suits against a maker or seller who "knowingly and willfully violated" state or federal laws in selling or marketing a weapon. Design and manufacturing defect lawsuits also would be allowed when weapons are "used as intended." [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #124, 4/9/2003] Bill Would Bar Local Governments From Bringing Cases Against Gun Makers. “The legislation would prohibit lawsuits from being brought against gun and ammunition manufacturers, distributors, dealers and importers for damages resulting from "misuse" of their product. The bill would bar local governments from bringing cases against gun makers. Thirty-one states have passed legislation banning their cities and counties from filing similar lawsuits, supporters said. Since 1998, at least 33 municipalities, counties and states have sued gun makers, with many alleging manufacturers allowed weapons to fall into criminals' hands because of lax distribution policies and irresponsible marketing. Many of the suits sought restitution for the costs of handgun violence and improved gun safety.” [Associated Press, 4/9/03] Bill Would Block Suits By Private Individuals Or Groups Against Gun Makers. “Such suits by private individuals or groups also would be blocked by the bill, including one that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is now arguing in federal court in New York. The group contends that irresponsible marketing of handguns has "led to disproportionate numbers of injuries, deaths and other damages" among minorities.” [Associated Press, 4/9/03] Sanders Voted For Passage Of 2005 Version Of Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. “He also supported the most odious NRA–backed law in recent memory—one that may block Sandy Hook families from winning a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the gun used to massacre their children […] In 2005, a Republican-dominated Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). This law doesn’t protect gun owners; it protects gun manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers. The PLCAA was the No. 1 legislative priority of the National Rifle Association for years, because it shields gun makers and dealers from most liability when their firearms are used criminally. It is one of the most noxious pieces of pro-gun legislation ever passed. And Bernie Sanders voted for it.” [Slate, 5/6/15; S 397, Vote #534, 10/20/05] Bill Would Allow Civil Suits If Manufacturer Or Sellers “Knowingly And Willfully” Violated The Law When Selling Or Marketing A Weapon Or When Damages Resulted From The Product When Used As Intended. “The bill would not ban all civil lawsuits -- a point underscored by the White House in its statement endorsing the legislation. The administration said the measure would "carefully preserve the right of individuals to have their day in court with civil liability actions." Sponsored by by Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., the bill would allow lawsuits brought against any manufacturer or seller who "knowingly and willfully violated" a state or federal law in selling or marketing a weapon, consequently helping to cause the gun violence. The legislation also would not apply to cases alleging a breach of contract or civil lawsuits brought because of "physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended."” [CQ Daily Monitor, 4/9/03] Hillary Clinton Voted Against The Bill. “Hillary Clinton, who voted against the act as a senator, would almost certainly sign a repeal bill.” [Slate, 5/6/15; S 397, Vote #219, 7/29/05] Protection Of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act Removed Tort Liability On Gun Makers And Sellers. “Before the PLCAA, most states imposed some form of tort liability on gun makers and sellers. If a gun manufacturer made an assault rifle that could slaughter dozens of people in a few seconds, for instance, one of its victims might sue the company for negligently making a gun that could foreseeably be used for mass murder […] Victims of gun violence and their families could recover financially from the people and companies who negligently enabled gun violence. The PLCAA changed all that. Remarkably, the act wiped out gun liability laws in all 50 states, rendering them invalid except for a handful of narrow exceptions. (So much for states’ rights.) Thanks to the law, victims of mass shootings are barred from suing the companies that produced a wartime weapon that no civilian could ever need.” [Slate, 5/6/15] Protection Of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act Protected Gun Sellers And Manufacturers From Lawsuits Brought By Crime Victims. “The US Congress on Thursday gave final approval to a bill protecting gun sellers and manufacturers from lawsuits brought by crime victims. "The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" was approved in the House of Representatives by a vote of 283 to 144, and now goes to US President George W. Bush for his signature. The president said he looked forwarding to signing the bill. "Our laws should punish criminals who use guns to commit crimes, not law-abiding manufacturers of lawful products," Bush said. "This legislation will further our efforts to stem frivolous lawsuits, which cause a logjam in America's courts, harm America's small businesses, and benefit a handful of lawyers at the expense of victims and consumers."” [Agence France Presse, 10/20/05] Sanders’s Chief Of Staff Said That Sanders Believed That If Gun Makers Followed All Federal Rules, They Should Not Be Held Responsible For Actions Of Someone Who Does Something Illegal With Their Product. “Sanders on Oct. 20 voted in favor of a bill, now law, which exempts the gun industry, including dealers and manufacturers, from being sued for the harm caused when their products are used in a crime, or otherwise unlawfully. "He agrees with the proposition that if the gunmakers follow all the federal rules ... and someone goes and buys the gun and does something illegal with it, that (the gun industry) should not be held responsible for it," said Jeff Weaver, Sanders' chief of staff. "This is different (than exempting the tobacco industry from lawsuits). Because cigarettes, if you use the product as designed, are still going to hurt the person using it, and the people around them." The measure was bitterly opposed by gun-control supporters, with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence calling it a "tragic capitulation to the special interest gun lobby" at the expense of victims.” [White River Junction Valley News, 12/1/05] Protection Of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act May Block Sandy Hook Families From Winning Lawsuit Against Gun Manufacturer. “He also supported the most odious NRA–backed law in recent memory—one that may block Sandy Hook families from winning a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the gun used to massacre their children […] In 2005, a Republican-dominated Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). This law doesn’t protect gun owners; it protects gun manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers. The PLCAA was the No. 1 legislative priority of the National Rifle Association for years, because it shields gun makers and dealers from most liability when their firearms are used criminally. It is one of the most noxious pieces of pro-gun legislation ever passed. And Bernie Sanders voted for it.” [Slate, 5/6/15; S 397, Vote #534, 10/20/05] While The Sandy Hook Lawsuit Attempts To Dodge The Legislation, PLCAA Was “Designed To Block Exactly This Sort Of Litigation.” “That dubious claim is not the only problem with the lawsuit, which uses a negligent entrustment theory to dodge the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a 2005 law that was designed to block exactly this sort of litigation.” [Jacob Sullum, Reason, 12/15/14] PLCAA “Prevents People From Suing Gun Manufacturers For Allowing Crimes And Killings,” But Sandy Hook Families Argued The Rifle Was Unsuited For Civilian Use. “A 2005 federal shield law prevents people from suing gun manufacturers for allowing crimes and killings to happen with their products, he said. The legislation includes an exception for cases where businesses should realize a firearm could be used to harm another individual. […] In their legal motion, the families said the rifle shouldn’t have been entrusted to the general public because it is a military-style assault weapon that is unsuited for civilian use, “engineered to deliver maximum carnage with extreme efficiency.” Individuals deemed mentally unfit to operate the weapon can gain access to the firearm, they added. The families ask that the company admits accountability for the consequences of selling the rifle.” [MSNBC, 1/22/15] PLCAA Was “An NRA-Backed Bill To Disallow Gun Manufacturers From Being Sued For Negligence When People Commit Crimes With Their Guns.” “The most distressing vote for gun-control advocates is his 2005 vote in favor of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, an NRA-backed bill to disallow gun manufacturers from being sued for negligence when people commit crimes with their guns. A recent Slate article focusing on the vote called Sanders a “gun nut,” and activists say the bill provides a level of legal protection for the gun manufacturers unprecedented for any other industry.” [Politico, 6/18/15] PLCAA Was The NRA’s “Top Legislative Priority.” “Opponents say the bill effectively exempts gun makers from liability and that dealers allow the weapons to get into the hands of people the law says shouldn't have them. The bill is the National Rifle Association's top legislative priority.” [Associated Press, 10/20/05] Wayne LaPierre Called Passage “An Historic Victory For The NRA.” “The bill, which was approved in the US Senate in July, received a big push from the powerful pro-gun lobby group the National Rifle Association, which said it would provide much-needed relief to an industry that has been besieged in recent years by litigation. "This is an historic victory for the NRA. Freedom, truth and justice prevailed," said the group's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre. "No other industry is forced to defend themselves when a violent criminal they do not know, have never met and cannot control, misuses a legal non-defective product. American firearms manufacturers will now receive the same fair treatment," LaPierre said.” [Agence France Presse, 10/20/05] Sanders Vote For The PLCAA Was “Squarely Allied With The National Rifle Association.” “U.S. Rep. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent now running for the U.S. Senate, has made a career of railing at corporate interests. But he's also had a mixed voting record when it comes to gun control legislation, and earlier this fall was squarely allied with the National Rifle Association. Sanders on Oct. 20 voted in favor of a bill, now law, which exempts the gun industry, including dealers and manufacturers, from being sued for the harm caused when their products are used in a crime, or otherwise unlawfully.” [White River Junction Valley News, 12/01/05] NRA Claimed The Bill Would Enhance US Security. “The NRA also said in a statement that the bill also will enhance US security by "preventing frivolous lawsuits against an industry that plays an important role in fulfilling our military's procurement needs."” [Agence France Presse, 10/20/05] Bill Lead To Dismissal Of Half A Dozen Pending Lawsuits Filed By Cities And Counties Against The Gun Industry. “When Bush signs the measure into law, a half-dozen pending lawsuits filed by cities and counties against the gun industry would be dismissed. Antigun groups said pending suits by families of people murdered in gun crimes also could be dismissed. "This is a get-out-of-liability-free card," said John Russo, city attorney for Oakland, one of 11 cities and counties in California whose suits against the industry would be dismissed.”” [Associated Press, 10/20/05] Sanders Voted Against An Amendment To PLCAA That Would To Remove Language Requiring A Criminal Conviction Against An Individual Who Transferred A Firearm Knowing It Would Be Used To Commit A Crime Before A Civil Suit Could Be Brought. On April 9, 2003, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #120. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Scott, D-Va., amendment that would strike a provision that would require a prior criminal conviction against a person who transferred a firearm knowing that it would be used to commit a crime before a plaintiff could bring a civil lawsuit against that individual. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #120, 4/9/2003] Sanders Voted Against An Amendment To PLCAA To Allow Lawsuits Against Sellers Or Manufacturers Who Transfer Guns Or Ammo To People Addicted To Drugs. On April 9, 2003, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #121. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Linda T. Sanchez, D-Calif., amendment that would allow liability lawsuits against manufacturers and sellers who sell or transfer guns or ammunition to an individual who uses, or is addicted to drugs, or who has been adjudicated a "mental defective." [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #121, 4/9/2003] Sanders Voted Against Amendment To PLCAA To Allow Individuals To Recover Damages In Cases Or Negligence By Manufacturers Or Sellers. On April 9, 2003, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #122. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Meehan, D-Mass., amendment that would permit plaintiffs to bring negligence actions against firearms manufacturers, sellers and trade associations. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #122, 4/9/2003] Sanders Voted Against Motion To Recommit That Would Strike Language Applying PLCAA To Pending Cases. On April 9, 2003, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #123. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Watt, D-N.C., motion to recommit the bill to the House Judiciary Committee with instructions to strike language that would make the measure apply immediately to any pending cases. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #123, 4/9/2003] Brady Campaign President Dan Gross Attacked Sanders As “Erratic” For His Vote For The Protection Of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act. “The most distressing vote for gun-control advocates is his 2005 vote in favor of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, an NRA-backed bill to disallow gun manufacturers from being sued for negligence when people commit crimes with their guns. A recent Slate article focusing on the vote called Sanders a “gun nut,” and activists say the bill provides a level of legal protection for the gun manufacturers unprecedented for any other industry. “Any smart person had to realize how insidious that law was,” said Brady Campaign president Dan Gross, who said the vote was a big reason for why he described Sanders’ gun-control record as “erratic.”” [Politico, 6/18/15] Sanders Campaign Said He Would Voted The Same Way Today. “Weaver defended the vote, saying that while Sanders wants to ban assault weapons, gun manufacturers shouldn’t be sued if their product works effectively. “I believe he would make the same vote” today, said Weaver.” [Politico, 6/18/15] Sanders Defended His Vote To Prevent Lawsuits Against Gun Manufacturers And Sellers, Comparing Guns To Baseball Bats. “Yeah, I voted on the gun thing, the gun manufacturers. Yeah. You know what? Yes, you’re right that’s how I voted. Why did I vote that way? […] Because if somebody has a gun, and somebody steals that gun, and they shoot somebody, do you really think it makes sense to blame the manufacturer of that weapon? […] Point is that I made, if someone sells you a baseball bat, and you hit someone over the head with a baseball bat you’re not going to sue the baseball bat manufacturer. (Applause.) But this becomes an issue.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, “Rebooting Our Policy Agenda to Reclaim the American Dream” Forum in Arlington, VA, 7/9/15] Dickey Amendment DICKEY AMENDMENT STRIPPED $2.6 MILLION FROM FEDERAL GUN RESEARCH Jay Dickey on his amendment: “this is an issue of federally funded political advocacy. We have here an attempt by the CDC through the NCIPC… to bring about gun control advocacy all over the United States…” “Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 21⁄2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, this is an issue of federally funded political advocacy. We have here an attempt by the CDC through the NCIPC, a disease control agency of the Federal Government, to bring about gun control advocacy all over the United States through seminars, through the staff members and through the funding of different efforts all over the country just on this one issue, to raise emotional sympathy for those people who are for gun control. It is a blatant attempt on the part of government to federally fund lobbying and political advocacy. Rather than calling violence a disease and guns as a germ, these people should be looking at the other root causes of crime: Poverty, drug trade, gangs, and children growing up without parental support, and the cruel trap of welfare dependency. Those things have more to do with crime control than trying to come at it from a disease definition.” [Congressional Record, page H7281, 7/11/96] Jay Dickey: “Rather than calling violence a disease and guns as a germ, [we should look at the] root causes of crime: Poverty, drug trade, gangs, and children growing up without parental support, and the cruel trap of welfare dependency.” “Mr. DICKEY. […] We have here an attempt by the CDC through the NCIPC, a disease control agency of the Federal Government, to bring about gun control advocacy all over the United States through seminars, through the staff members and through the funding of different efforts all over the country just on this one issue, to raise emotional sympathy for those people who are for gun control. It is a blatant attempt on the part of government to federally fund lobbying and political advocacy. Rather than calling violence a disease and guns as a germ, these people should be looking at the other root causes of crime: Poverty, drug trade, gangs, and children growing up without parental support, and the cruel trap of welfare dependency. Those things have more to do with crime control than trying to come at it from a disease definition.” [Congressional Record, page H7281, 7/11/96] Jay Dickey: “[I] served as the NRA’s point person in Congress and submitted an amendment to an appropriations bill that removed $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget.” “From 1986 to 1996, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) sponsored high-quality, peer-reviewed research into the underlying causes of gun violence. People who kept guns in their homes did not — despite their hopes — gain protection, according to research published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Instead, residents in homes with a gun faced a 2.7-fold greater risk of homicide and a 4.8-fold greater risk of suicide. The National Rifle Association moved to suppress the dissemination of these results and to block funding of future government research into the causes of firearm injuries. One of us served as the NRA’s point person in Congress and submitted an amendment to an appropriations bill that removed $2.6  million from the CDC’s budget, the amount the agency’s injury center had spent on firearms-related research the previous year. This amendment, together with a stipulation that ‘None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control,’ sent a chilling message” [Jay Dickey and Mark Rosenberg, 7/27/12] SANDERS VOTED AGAINST AMENDMENT TO RESTORE THE FUNDING Nita Lowey and Mike Castle offered an amendment to restore funding to the NCIPC stripped by the Dickey amendment. “Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment that the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. CASTLE] and I are introducing with the gentleman from New York [Mr. SCHUMER] restores funding to the CDC National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Our amendment simply overturns the Dickey amendment passed by the full committee which reduced the bill’s appropriation for the CDC injury prevention and control program by $2.6 million and increased the appropriation for the area health education centers by a like amount.” [Congressional Record, page H7281, 7/11/96] Mike Castle on the Lowey-Castle amendment: “This is a modest amendment. It would simply… restore the funding for the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.” “Mr. CASTLE. […] This is a modest amendment. I would simply, as we know, restore the funding for the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. But this is very important, and what they do is important, and I do not think they should be involved in gun control, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. OBEY] pointed out very carefully it is very specific in this piece of legislation right now that they cannot be involved in any advocacy with respect to gun control.” [Congressional Record, page H7281, 7/11/96] Bernie Sanders voted against the Lowey-Castle amendment. On July 11, 1996, Bernie Sanders opposed a Rep. Lowey, D-N.Y., amendment to provide an additional $2.6 million for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in order to fund research at the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control on issues related to firearms use and to reduce by an equal amount the $3.1 billion in funding for health resources and services. A majority of House Democrats supported the proposal. Rejected 158-263: R 36-193; D 122-69; I 0-1. [H R 3755, Vote #302, 7/11/96; CQ Floor Votes, 7/11/96] LIBERALS ATTACKED THE AMENDMENT AS AN NRA TO KILL SCIENCE THEY DISAGREED WITH Nita Lowery attributed the cutting of funds to the NCIPC to the NRA who explained, “even though the injury control program spends only 5 percent, or 2.6 million, of its budget on gun violence related research, it is despised by the NRA.” “Mrs. LOWEY: […] Unless our amendment passes, all of these vital activities could be affected. So why were funds for the injury prevention program cut? Let me be very blunt to my colleagues. The NRA dislikes the fact that the injury control center collects statistics and does research on gun violence. Even though the injury control program spends only 5 percent, or 2.6 million, of its budget on gun violence related research, it is despised by the NRA. But frankly, my colleagues, I do not understand this. Is not the purpose of the NRA to promote the responsible use of guns? Is not the NRA interested in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and teenagers who are not using guns for sport but to kill? It seems to me that the CDC and the NRA really should be working together to ensure that guns are used safely and responsibly.” [Congressional Record, page H7281,7/11/96] Chuck Schumer on the Dickey Amendment: “Once again, the NRA is making its annual assault on scientific efforts to make guns more safe for families.” “Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. What is the NRA so afraid of? Perhaps it is the truth. Once again, the NRA is making its annual assault on scientific efforts to make guns more safe for families. Last year, 38,000 Americans died of gunshot wounds compared to 41,000 who died from automobile accidents. Yet we would never dream of opposing Government research efforts to make automobiles safer. If the automobile lobby was as irresponsible as the NRA, we would not have the seat belt. Today, we are seeing a proliferation of cheaply made guns that are blowing up in people’s hands, misfiring when jostled or dropped, and killing or wounding people accidentally. So while motor vehicle deaths are dropping year by year, we have seen no progress on the number of those dying accidentally from gunshot wounds. Shame on the NRA for spreading its paranoic world view to stop legitimate scientific research from making guns just a little bit more safe.” [Congressional Record, page H7281, 7/11/96] THE DICKEY AMENDMENT HAD A CHILLING EFFECT ON GUN VIOLENCE RESEARCH THAT HAS HAD PERMENANT AND FAR-REACHING EFFECTS The Dickey Amendment led to a “near death experience” for scientific research in the field of gun violence. “In 1996, Representative Jay Dickey, Republican of Arkansas, succeeded in pushing through an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the disease control centers’ budget, the very amount it had spent on firearms-related research the year before. […] Language was also inserted into the centers’ appropriations bill that remains in place today: ‘None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.’ The prohibition is striking, firearms researchers say, because there are already regulations that bar the use of C.D.C. money for lobbying for or against legislation. No other field of inquiry is singled out in this way. In the end, researchers said, even though it is murky what exactly is allowed under this provision and what is not, the upshot is clear inside the centers: the agency should tread in this area only at its own peril. ‘They had a near-death experience,’ said Dr. Arthur Kellermann, whose study on the risks versus the benefits of having guns in the home became a focal point of attack by the N.R.A. In the years since, the C.D.C. has been exceedingly wary of financing research focused on firearms. In its annual requests for proposals, for example, firearms research has been notably absent. Gail Hayes, spokeswoman for the centers, confirmed that since 1996, while the agency has issued requests for proposals that include the study of violence, which may include gun violence, it had not sent out any specifically on firearm.” [New York Times, 1/15/11] The National Rifle Association has successful stopped most of the research on gun violence. “In the wake of the shootings in Tucson, the familiar questions inevitably resurfaced: Are communities where more people carry guns safer or less safe? Does the availability of highcapacity magazines increase deaths? Do more rigorous background checks make a difference? The reality is that even these and other basic questions cannot be fully answered, because not enough research has been done. And there is a reason for that. Scientists in the field and former officials with the government agency that used to finance the great bulk of this research say the influence of the National Rife Association has all but choked off money for such work. ‘We’ve been stopped from answering the basic questions,’ said Mark Rosenberg, former director of the National Center for Injury Control and Prevention, part of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which was for about a decade the leading source of financing for firearms research.” [New York Times, 1/15/11] Former director of the National Center for Injury Control and Prevention: “We’ve been stopped from answering the basic questions.” “‘We’ve been stopped from answering the basic questions,’ said Mark Rosenberg, former director of the National Center for Injury Control and Prevention, part of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which was for about a decade the leading source of financing for firearms research.” [New York Times, 1/15/11] The NRA’s push to ensure there is “no current scientific consensus about guns and violence” began with the Dickey Amendment. “As we discussed last year, it’s common knowledge that the NRA and its allies have fought to kill any kind of restrictions on firearm ownership. What was less recognized was the fact that the gun lobby also helped block basic data collection, to the point that there’s ‘no current scientific consensus about guns and violence,’ in large part because the NRA ‘has been able to neutralize empirical cases for control.’ There is no mystery as to how this happened. In the 1990s, the Clinton administration’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention began expanding its research into gunrelated deaths as a public health issue, so conservatives in Congress added language to the appropriations bill that finances the CDC: ‘None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.’ Nearly 20 years later, the principal author of that language, Arkansas Republican Jay Dickey, conceded to the Huffington Post that he has ‘regrets’ over the policy that came to be known as the Dickey Amendment.” [MSNBC, 10/6/15] JAY DICKEY LATER REGRETTED HIS AMENDMENT Jay Dickey later said he regretted the Dickey amendment. “In 1996, Rep. Jay Dickey (R-AR) spearheaded a piece of legislation that effectively put an end to government-funded research of gun violence. Now 75, the retired congressman admitted in a Huffington Post interview, ‘I have regrets.’ […] His namesake amendment eliminated the $2.6 million that the Center for Disease Control spent on researching the effects of firearms ownership on public health. Passed by a Republican-dominated Congress, the NRA-backed amendment explicitly stated that, ‘None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.’” [“Congressman Whose Amendment Ended Federal Gun Research: 'I Have Regrets',” TPM, 10/6/15] Jay Dickey: “This amendment… sent a chilling message.” From 1986 to 1996, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) sponsored high-quality, peer-reviewed research into the underlying causes of gun violence. People who kept guns in their homes did not — despite their hopes — gain protection, according to research published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Instead, residents in homes with a gun faced a 2.7-fold greater risk of homicide and a 4.8-fold greater risk of suicide. The National Rifle Association moved to suppress the dissemination of these results and to block funding of future government research into the causes of firearm injuries. One of us served as the NRA’s point person in Congress and submitted an amendment to an appropriations bill that removed $2.6  million from the CDC’s budget, the amount the agency’s injury center had spent on firearms-related research the previous year. This amendment, together with a stipulation that ‘None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control,’ sent a chilling message. [Jay Dickey and Mark Rosenberg, 7/27/12] Other Sanders Voted For Blocking Funding To Any International Organization, Including The UN, That Would Require Registering Or Taxing A Gun Owned By A U.S. Citizen. On September 6, 2007, Bernie Sanders voted yes on Senate Vote #321. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Vitter, RLa., amendment no. 2774 that would bar the use of funds by any international organization, agency or entity, including the United Nations, that requires the registration of or taxation of a gun owned by a citizen of the United States. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #321, 9/6/2007] Sanders Voted Against Blocking U.S. Dues To UN If The UN Implemented Or Imposed A Tax On Americans. On March 5, 2009, Bernie Sanders voted no on Senate Vote #83. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Inhofe, R-Okla., amendment no. 613 that would bar the use of funds in the bill for any U.S. dues contribution or voluntary payment to the United Nations if the United Nations implements or imposes any tax on U.S. persons. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #83, 3/5/2009] Sanders Voted For Reform Bill That Placed “Greater Burden Of Proof On The Government” Regarding Revocation Of Licenses For Dealers Who Break Federal Law. “A bill that would make it more difficult for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to revoke the licenses of gun dealers who break federal laws will not come up for a vote in the Senate this year, Senator Charles E. Schumer said yesterday. Mr. Schumer, a Brooklyn Democrat, placed a hold on the bill, which passed the House by a vote of 277 to 131 this week, ensuring that it will not come up for a vote before the Senate recesses for the year. The bill, which has angered Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, redefines many violations of gun laws as minor and places a greater burden of proof on the government in assessing penalties.” [New York Times, 9/29/06; HR 5092, Vote #476, 9/26/06] Sanders Voted For An Amendment To Allow Gun Owners To Carry Loaded Firearms Into National Parks And Wildlife Refuges. “The Twin State's four senators last week voted in favor of an amendment sought by gun-rights groups that would reverse federal policy dating to the Reagan administration and allow gun owners to carry loaded firearms into national parks and wildlife refuges. […] Under current regulations, gun owners essentially must secure their unloaded guns in their car when entering a national park. The change approved by the Senate last week in a 67-29 vote would allow people with a license to carry a firearm to bring their loaded guns into the national parks if state law already allowed them to carry the guns elsewhere in public.” [White River Junction Valley News, 5/19/09; S.Amdt. 1067 to S.Amdt. 1058 to H.R. 627, Vote 188, 5/12/09] Sanders Spokesman Said Sanders Supported Measure Because He Believed Firearm Issues Should Be Addressed At A State And Local Level. “Michael Briggs, a spokesman for Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said the measure would put "people in the states completely in control of the issue," so that state legislators could forbid guns in parks if they wanted to. "With some exceptions, Senator Sanders believes that firearms issues should be addressed at the local and state level so that different views of people in various regions of the country can be accommodated," Briggs said.” [White River Junction Valley News, 5/19/09] 2009: Sanders Voted To Allow Guns In Checked Bags On Amtrak Trains. Sanders voted for an amendment “to permit Amtrak passengers to safely transport firearms and ammunition in their checked baggage.” The amendment passed 68-30. [S Amdt 2366 to HR 3288, Vote 279, 9/16/09] Proposal Sought To Give Amtrak Riders Comparable Rights To Those Available To Airline Passengers. “The proposal, approved by a 68-30 vote, seeks to give Amtrak riders rights comparable to those enjoyed by airline passengers, who are permitted to transport firearms provided that they declare they are doing so and that the arms are unloaded and in a securely locked container. […]"Law-abiding people who choose to travel by rail should be able to carry their firearms as they would on an airplane in checked baggage," National Rifle Association spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said.” [Associated Press, 9/16/09] Guns Needed To Be Unloaded And In A Locked Hard-Sided Container, And Could Only Be Transported On Amtrak Routes That Allowed Checked Baggage. “(1) if an Amtrak station accepts checked baggage for a specific Amtrak route, Amtrak passengers holding a ticket for such route are allowed to place an unloaded firearm or starter pistol in a checked bag on such route if-- (A) before checking the bag or boarding the train, the passenger declares to Amtrak, either orally or in writing, that the firearm is in his or her bag and is unloaded; (B) the firearm is carried in a hard-sided container; (C) such container is locked; and (D) only the passenger has the key or combination for such container; and (2) Amtrak passengers are allowed to place small arms ammunition for personal use in a checked bag on an Amtrak route if the ammunition is securely packed-- (A) in fiber, wood, or metal boxes; or (B) in other packaging specifically designed to carry small amounts of ammunition.’” [S Amdt 2366, introduced 9/15/09] Amendment Passed As Part Of The Consolidated Appropriations Act Of 2010, And Was Signed Into Law By President Obama in 2009. [HR 3288, became Public Law 111-117, signed by President 12/16/09] 2013: Sanders Voted To Allow “Veterans Who Are Mentally Incapacitated, Deemed Mentally Incompetent Or Experiencing An Extended Loss Of Consciousness” To Own Guns. Sanders voted against a majority of Democrats in the U.S. Senate when he voted for the Burr amendment to S. 649, which was an amendment to “prevent veterans who are mentally incapacitated, deemed mentally incompetent or experiencing an extended loss of consciousness from being deemed ‘a mental defective’ and blocked from owning guns unless a court finds that the individual poses a danger.” [CQ Weekly, 04/20/13; S Admt 720 to S 649, Vote 102, 4/17/13] Bernie Sanders Opposed Higher Fees For Gun Dealers And Raising The Tax On Ammunition. “Gross – and Sanders – pointed out that Sanders has supported the positions of sporting groups on other issues. He voted against the Brady Bill handgun purchase waiting period. And Sanders opposes other legislation under discussion – raising fees paid by gun dealers, raising the tax on ammunition.” [Burlington Free Press 5/4/94] Rep. Bernie Sanders Said He Would Oppose Legislation Requiring Gun Owners To Wait “A Number Of Days” Before Purchasing A Firearm. “Responding to a questionnaire from a conservative political group, the American Freedom Coalition, last year, Sanders said he would support a ban on some semiautomatic assault weapons, but would oppose a requirement that gun owners be required to wait ‘a number of days’ before making the purchase. In another candidate questionnaire produced by the St. Albans Messenger, Brattleboro Reformer and Bennington Banner newspapers, Sanders said he would support ‘a one-day verification period for gun purchases.’” [Rutland Herald, 3/30/91] Bernie Sanders Feared A Longer Waiting Period “Would Get Caught Up In A Bureaucracy When They All Wanted To Do Was Go For Target Practice Or Something.” “Sanders said Friday he believes there is a difference between a one-day check and a seven-day check. The longer period could mean a person ‘would get caught up in a bureaucracy when they all wanted to do was go for target practice or something.’” [Sunday Rutland Herald and Times Argus, 3/31/91] 2007: Sanders Voted To Prohibit Foreign Or United Nations Aid To Be Used For Gun Control Efforts. “Sanders’ vote against the Brady Bill was one of several that appealed to the gun-rights community, including a 2007 vote that prohibited foreign or United Nations aid to be used for gun control and a 2009 vote to allow firearms on checked bags on Amtrak.” [Politico, 6/18/15] 2006: Sanders Voted To Make It Harder To Revoke Licenses Of Gun Dealers Who Violate Federal Law. “Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg joined the mayors of Philadelphia, Trenton and cities across Pennsylvania on Tuesday to lobby state lawmakers to approve a series of gun-control measures. Mr. Bloomberg said that he was fulfilling a promise to take his campaign against gun violence beyond New York City and into the halls of state legislatures and Congress. But about an hour after the mayor met with three Pennsylvania state senators here to push for stronger controls, members of Congress took a step in the opposite direction. The House of Representatives voted, 277 to 131, to pass a bill that would make it much harder for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to revoke the licenses of gun dealers who violate federal law. The bill also gives dealers whose licenses have expired, or have been suspended or revoked, 60 days to liquidate their inventories. Mr. Bloomberg called the latter provision the equivalent of giving drug dealers, upon arrest, 60 days to sell ‘all of the crack’ in their possession. The Senate is highly unlikely, however, to take up the bill before the November elections.” [New York Times, 9/27/06; Vote 476, 9/26/06] 1985: Sanders Broke Up Protest Against General Electric Making Gatling Guns, Some Of Which Went To Anti-Sandinista Forces. “In 1985, peace activists gathered at the gates of Burlington's General Electric plant. Protesters wanted GE to stop making Gatling guns at the plant in favor of peaceful products. Sanders ordered the arrests of the demonstrators even though some of the guns were being shipped to the Salvadoran government for use against the Nicaraguans. The protests, Sanders declared, were ‘anti-worker.’” [Hartford Courant, Jim Condon, 6/11/15] Sanders Campaign Criticized Tarrant For Claiming That Sanders Introduced A Bill That Would Limit Hunting, Despite The Fact That Vermont’s Congressional Delegation Supported The Bill. “In a deceptive mailing and on his attack website, Republican Rich Tarrant, falsely accuses Congressman Bernie Sanders of introducing wilderness legislation that will, according to Tarrant's mail piece, "limit hunting and other traditional outdoor activities on over 30,000 acres of Vermont forests" and restrict Vermonters' right to hunt and fish. In fact, H.R.5157, introduced by Sanders in the House, and the identical bill S.2565, introduced by Vermont's Sen. James Jeffords and cosponsored by Sen. Patrick Leahy in the Senate, preserve the ability of Vermonters to hunt and fish on affected lands.” [Bernie.org via Archive.org, accessed 8/26/15] Supported Gun Control Sanders Touted His “Very Difficult Vote[s]” On Gun Legislation. “I am open to any ideas that make sense but I will tell you, I have voted in a very difficult vote to ban assault weapons, I voted to close the gun show loophole, and I voted for instant background checks, and I’m open to other ideas.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, “Rebooting Our Policy Agenda to Reclaim the American Dream” Forum in Arlington, VA, 7/9/15] Sanders Said “We Have To Do Something” To Address Gun Violence. “The issue is, what is the best way forward to prevent these types of horrible occurrences. How do we make sure that guns do not get into the hands of people who are mentally ill? How do we make sure that people own guns which are only designed to kill people not to be used for hunting or target practices? So there’s a lot to be discussed, we have to do something, we don’t want to be reading about this every month. It is an issue that we will have to address.” [Brunch With Bernie, 12/14/12, 16:45] Sanders Voted For Expanded Background Checks. “The failure in the U.S. Senate to expand background checks for gun purchases represents a shameful failure of Washington politicians to represent the interests of the vast majority of Americans. […] The background check amendment vote was 54 for, 46 against, falling short of 60 votes necessary to end debate and move forward. Vermont's senators, Patrick Leahy and Bernie Sanders, voted for the amendment.” […] Expanding checks to Internet and gun show sales would close off gaping loopholes and make it more difficult for such people to obtain a weapon.” [Burlington Free Press, 4/19/13] 2013: Sanders Said Congress’s Failure To Pass Background Checks For Guns Was A “Disappointing Loss.” “The Congress dealt with guns this week. Some of the important provisions, including background checks, there was a significant majority, but in the US senate, majority does not rule you need sixty votes. We did not gain 60 votes. We had 56 on the issue of background checks, which seems to me to be a common sense approach to trying to make sure that while you’re not going to solve mass killings overnight, we can make and should make every effort to keep guns out of the hands of the people who should not have them. So that was a loss, and a disappointing loss.” [Brunch With Bernie, 4/19/13, 1:00] Sanders Supported “Instant Checkoff” System For Gun Purchases. “Sanders has voted for a ban on assault weapons and against the waiting period in the Brady bill, but supported the current "instant checkoff" system in place now for gun purchases, Weaver said.” [White River Junction Valley News, 12/1/05] Sanders Did Not Sign Bipartisan Supreme Court Brief Opposing DC Handgun Ban. “Fifty-five senators and 250 representatives joined Vice President Dick Cheney in filing an amicus curiae brief with the Supreme Court on Friday supporting the overturning of the District of Columbia's ban on handguns. That's a majority of both houses stating that the DC gun ban violates the Second Amendment. The brief -filed on behalf of a bipartisan group headed by Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex) and Jon Tester (DMont.) -- states that gun possession is an individual right and cites law after law, precedent after precedent, in support of that interpretation. […]Those not signing include: Senators Ensign, John (R-Nev.) Lieberman, Joseph I. (I-Conn.) Lugar, Richard G. (R-Ind.) Sanders, Bernard (I-Vt.)…” [Human Events, 2/13/08] 1990: Bernie Sanders Suggested He Would Only Support An Assault Weapons Ban Which “Bans…Very Specific Types Of Weapons And Allows That Decision To Be Made [By Congress], Not The (Federal) Bureaucracy.” “[Bernie Sanders:] “All I can say is I told the sportspeople of Vermont what I believe before the election and I will say it again. I do believe that we need to ban certain types of assault weapons, I have talked to police chiefs. I have talked to the police officers out on the street… So the answer is I would support something similar to a DeConcini-type bill which bans about nine very specific types of weapons and allows that decision to be made within the United States Congress, not the (federal) bureaucracy.” [Steven Rosenfeld, “Making History in Vermont: the Election of a socialist to Congress,” 1992, P.38] Sanders Supported A Ban On Assault Weapons In A “Major Defeat” For The NRA. “The House on Thursday narrowly approved a ban on 19 assault weapons, recognizing the American public's increasing fear of violent crime and rewarding President Clinton's aggressive lobbying for the gun ban. The 216-214 vote was a major defeat for the National Rifle Association. Clinton said supporters of the ban had "demonstrated extraordinary courage in the face of extraordinary political pressure to walk away." […] The legislation was supported by 177 Democrats, 38 Republicans and Rep. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.) and opposed by 137 Republicans and 77 Democrats.” [Chicago Sun-Times, 5/6/94] Assault Weapons Ban Caused Vermont Gun Groups To Oppose Sanders. “Take US Rep. Bernard Sanders, the Vermont Independent who in 1992 voted against the Brady bill to impose a waiting period on gun purchases. Sanders, who always supported an assault weapons ban, joined Swett and Andrews in the 216-214 House majority to ban 19 types of semiautomatic guns which require the trigger to be pulled each time the gun is fired but have high rates of fire and magazines that hold more than 10 cartridges. "We're going to put our complete and entire effort to unseat him," said Douglas Hoffman, president of a pro-gun group, the Sportsman's Alliance for Vermont's Environment, of Sanders.” [Boston Globe, 5/15/94] Vermont Sportsmen Accused Rep. Bernie Sanders Of Lying About His Position On Guns After The Congressman Voted To Ban Certain Semiautomatic Weapons. “Vermont gun owners and sportsmen made good on their threat Thursday, opening a ‘Bye-Bye Bernie’ campaign to unseat Rep. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt. ‘He lied to us’ said Douglas Hoffman, a spokesman for the Vermont Sportsmen’s Coalition. ‘He told us gun control should be debated at the state level. … There was a bill to ban semiautomatic weapons in the Vermont Legislature this year and it lost. But Bernie voted for the same thing in Congress,’ he said. Sanders has supported a ban on some semiautomatic weapons since 1988. He voted for the ban again as part of the crime bill now before Congress. ‘That’s pretty tortuous (reasoning),’ Sanders said Thursday. ‘I understand there are some gun owners who disagree with my vote … but it would be dishonest for anyone to suggest that I have been less than honest or straightforward about my stand,’ he said. Sanders said he thinks most Vermonters support federal action to slow the proliferation of assault weapons.” [Burlington Free Press, 8/26/94] Bernie Sanders Supported An Assault Rifle Ban And A One-Day Background Check Period, But Said Congress, Not The Treasury Department, Should Decide The Details. “Sanders: Supports a bill to ban nine types of assault rifles and a one-day verification period between purchase and receipt, to allow for a background check of the purchaser; he would oppose having the Treasury Department decide the details of those bans, and instead would prefer the Congress’ doing so.” [Burlington Free Press, 11/4/90] Sanders Would Not Give A Definitive Answer When Asked If He Supported Assault Weapons And High Capacity Ammunitions Ban, Saying It Was “Not One Of My Major Issues.” “Asked whether he’d vote for an assault-weapons ban if it reached the Senate floor, he said, “We’ll see. We’ll see what other things it is part of.” “What about high-capacity ammunition?” Seven Days asked. “That is something we’re looking at as well,” he said. Asked why he was on the fence about the assault-weapons ban, which he backed in 1994, Sanders interrupted midsentence, saying, “This is not one of my major issues. It’s an issue out there. I’ve told you how I feel about it. If there’s anything else you want to ask me about, I’m happy to answer. But that’s about it.”” [Seven Days Vermont, 3/13/13] Sanders Voted For An Amendment Requiring Background Checks On Handgun Purchases. “While in Congress, Sanders continued to oppose the Brady Bill because of the waiting period, which he said should be determined at the state level. He voted against the bill but in favor of an amendment from thenWest Virginia Democratic Rep. Harley Staggers for an instant background check for all handgun purchases.” [Politico, 6/18/15] Sanders Avoided Giving His Opinion On Whether Military Personnel Should Be Allowed To Carry Guns: “It’s Not An Issue That I Have Studied.” “CHRIS JANSING: “Let me start with what we just heard from Chairman McCall, which is that: look, military bases are not schools where teachers are not trained, because we heard after many school shootings, maybe teachers should carry guns. These are folks largely trained, and if they have a concealed weapons permit, maybe they should be able to carry it on base and defend themselves. What do you say?” SEN. SANDERS: “It’s not an issue that I have studied. But what I do know, as Chairman of the Veterans Committee, is that we have hundreds of thousands of men and women who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, who have come home with PostTraumatic Stress Disorder, and traumatic brain injury. And on top of that, outside of the military, it is no great secret—we get calls in my office every so often from a family member who worries deeply about somebody who is extremely unstable, about what he or she might do to himself and others. We have a major mental health problem in this country, and we have that problem that has to be addressed, and hope we are serious about addressing it.”” [Jansing & Co., MSNBC, 4/3/14, 0:07] Manchin-Toomey Sanders Voted For Manchin-Toomey Gun Control Amendment That Would Allow Gun Show Sales To Proceed If A Background Check Did Not Prompt A Response Within 48 Hours. On April 17, 2013, Bernie Sanders voted yes on Senate Vote #97. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Manchin, D-W.Va., amendment no. 715 that would expand an existing background check system to include firearms purchased at gun shows and over the Internet. It would allow gun show sales to proceed if a background check does not prompt a response within 48 hours and reduce that to a 24-hour wait four years after enactment. It would exempt family transfers and some private sales. The amendment would restrict law enforcement grant funds for states that do not provide all available records to the national background check database. It would ban the creation of a national firearms registry, allow active-duty military members buy guns in their home state and create a commission to study the causes of mass violence in the United States. The amendment, which needed a three-fifths majority, failed 54-46. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #97, 4/17/2013] Sanders Voted For Manchin-Toomey. “Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today voted for expanded background checks on gun buyers and for a ban on assault weapons but the Senate rejected those central planks of legislation inspired by the shootings of 20 first-grade students and six teachers in Newtown, Conn.” [Press Release, Sen. Bernie Sanders, 4/17/13] Sanders: “Nobody Believes That Gun Control By Itself Is Going To End The Horrors” From Mass Shootings, But Congress Should Do Everything It Can To Address Them. ““Nobody believes that gun control by itself is going to end the horrors we have seen in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., Blacksburg, Va., Tucson, Ariz. and other American communities,” Sanders said. “There is a growing consensus, however, in Vermont and across America that we have got to do as much as we can to end the cold-blooded, mass murders of innocent people. I believe very strongly that we also have got to address the mental health crisis in our country and make certain that help is available for people who may be a danger to themselves and others,” Sanders added.” [Press Release, Sen. Bernie Sanders, 4/17/13] Sanders Said It Was Common Sense To Expand Background Checks. “The amendment on expanded background checks needed 60 votes to pass but only 54 senators voted for it. “To my mind it makes common sense to keep these weapons out of the hands of people with criminal records or mental health histories,” Sanders said.” [Press Release, Sen. Bernie Sanders, 4/17/13] Sanders Said Congress’s Failure To Pass Machin-Toomey Background Check Bill For Guns Was A “Disappointing Loss.” “The Congress dealt with guns this week. Some of the important provisions, including background checks, there was a significant majority, but in the US senate, majority does not rule you need sixty votes. We did not gain 60 votes. We had 56 on the issue of background checks, which seems to me to be a common sense approach to trying to make sure that while you’re not going to solve mass killings overnight, we can make and should make every effort to keep guns out of the hands of the people who should not have them. So that was a loss, and a disappointing loss.” [Brunch With Bernie, 4/19/13, 1:00] Tiahrt Amendments Tiahrt Amendments Originally Passed House Appropriations Committee In July 2003. "The proposal surprised some members of the House Appropriations Committee when it came up for a vote in July 2003. As a result, it barely passed, 31-30, though the committee was full of NRA supporters such as Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.), who voted no because he was troubled at being "caught flat-footed and blindsided."" [Washington Post, 10/23/10] Sanders Was Not A Member Of House Appropriations Committee. [bernie.house.gov, via archive.org, 3/1/03] Tiahrt Amendments, First Created In 2003 And 2004, Limited ATF From Building A Federal Gun Crimes Database. “The so-called Tiahrt amendments — named for Todd Tiahrt, a former Republican congressman from Kansas, and first attached as riders to appropriations bills in 2003 and 2004 — limited the A.T.F.’s ability to share tracing information on firearms linked to crimes with local and state law enforcement agencies and with the public.” [New York Times, 12/25/12] 2007-2015: Sanders Did Not Sit On Relevant Senate Committees For Tiahrt Amendments, Appropriations And Judiciary. [New York Times Magazine, New York Times, 1/21/07; Press Release, Congressional Documents and Publications, 1/21/09; Press Release, Congressional Documents and Publications, 1/27/11; Press Release, Congressional Documents and Publications, 1/4/13; Committee Assignments – Sen. Bernie Sanders, accessed 9/7/15] 2003: Sanders Voted For Appropriations Bill That Included The Tiahrt Amendments. On July 23, 2003, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #422. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would appropriate $38.6 billion for the departments of Commerce, Justice and State and the federal judiciary and related agencies in fiscal 2004. The bill would prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from spending any funds to grant licenses that would allow a single company to own television stations that reach more than 35 percent of the national audience. It also would bar the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from requesting transaction records from gun retailers unless the request was part of a criminal investigation. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #422, 7/23/2003] Sanders And Clinton Voted Against Final FY2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act That Included Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations. [HR 2673, House Vote #676, 12/8/03; Senate Vote #3, 1/22/04] House FY2004 Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations Bill Included The Tiahrt Amendments. “For FY2003-FY2009, a rider on the ATF appropriations language has prohibited that agency from disclosing data on illegal gun trafficking based on firearm traces and FFL transfer records, as well as multiple handgun sale reports, for any purpose other than supporting a “bona fide” criminal investigation. This rider is known as the “Tiahrt” amendment, for its sponsor in full committee markup of the FY2004 Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill, Representative Todd Tiahrt.” [Congressional Research Service via Federation of American Scientists, 5/27/09] Relationship With NRA Sanders “Generally Sided With The NRA On Most Major Legislative Fights.” “In fairness to Sanders, the senator does not always see eye to eye with the far-right gun group, but over the course of his congressional career, the Vermont independent has generally sided with the NRA on most of the major legislative fights regarding gun policy.” [MSNBC, 5/8/15] Sanders Received Low Marks From The National Rifle Association Year 2012 2006 2004 2002 2000 1993-1994 Organization Rating National Rifle Association 8% / DNational Rifle Association 33% / CNational Rifle Association 25% / D+ National Rifle Association 0% / F National Rifle Association 0% National Rifle Association 25% [Project Vote Smart, accessed 4/29/15; NRA Scorecards] Sanders Grades From The NRA Included: An F In 2002, A D+ In 2004, A C- In 2006 And A DIn 2012. “The National Rifle Association awarded Sanders an F rating in 2002 when he ran for reelection in the House of Representatives. The grade changed to a D+ in 2004; a C- in 2006 when he ran for the Senate, and most recently earned a D- when he ran in 2012.” [Boston Globe, 6/19/15] Sanders Has Never Taken A Contribution From The NRA. “Whether or not constituents chose Sanders because they hoped he would better protect their right to bear arms, the senator did not take any contributions from the National Rifle Association or other gun-rights groups that year. He hasn't since then, either, according to the Center for Responsive Politics and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.” [Washington Post, 5/13/15] Sanders Emphasized His F Rating From The NRA As Proof That He Wasn’t “Some Kind Of Gun Nut.” “What my critics about guns don’t tell you is that I have an F NRA voting record. So the idea that I am some kind of gun nut and blah blah blah blah is just not true. Again, I have an F rating from the NRA because I have voted for a number of things they don’t like.’ [Brunch With Bernie, 5/8/15] 1988 Election Bernie Sanders said his failure to receive the endorsement of Vermont sportspeople in 1988 “might” have cost him the election. “I said that BEFORE the election. The Vermont sportspeople, as is their right, made their endorsement. They endorsed Peter Smith. They endorsed Paul Poirier. I lost that election by about three and one-half percentage points, a very close election. Was my failure to get that endorsement pivotal? It might have been.” [Steven Rosenfeld, Making History in Vermont, p. 38, 1992] 1990 Election 1990: The NRA Helped Elect Sanders To Congress. “Some say that Sanders first won his seat in the House because Peter Smith, the Republican incumbent he defeated, supported a ban on assault weapons. ‘There was absolutely no doubt in that ‘90 vote that the NRA got [Sanders] elected, and he owed them,’ Chris Graff, a former Vermont bureau chief for the Associated Press, told Paul Heintz of the Vermont paper Seven Days in 2012.” [Washington Post, 5/13/15] 1990: Sanders Was Supported By The Sportsmen’s Alliance For Vermont’s Environment. “The Sportsmen’s Alliance for Vermont’s Environment [...] some Vermont hunting enthusiasts formed an important part of the coalition that elected Sanders, Smith observed. The ex-congressman also cited the role played by the NRA’s national office, which spent some $20,000 on Vermont TV and radio ads in the closing days of the 1990 campaign. Along with at least five statewide mailings organized by the NRA, these spots urged a vote for Sanders, Smith recounted.” [Seven Days, 4/11/91] 1990: Bernie Sanders Was Told By The Vice President Of A Sportsmen’s Organization, He Would Receive Their Backing In The General Election. “What was happening with sportsmen, I asked. Bernie said that George McNeil, who lived in Poultney and was vice president of SAVE (Sporting Alliance for Vermont’s Environment), told him that SAVE would back Philbin in the primary, then us in the general election. ‘The issue is not guns, it’s integrity.’” [Steven Rosenfeld, “Making History in Vermont: the Election of a socialist to Congress,” 1992, P.6] National Rifle Association “Set Its Sights” On Defeating Sanders’ Republican Opponent In 1990. “So the National Rifle Association set its sights on the Republican congressman, spending a million dollars in the 1990 election to defeat Smith and others who backed the bill. It worked. Smith lost to a gunrights supporter who subsequently voted against the Brady Handgun Bill, which mandated federal background checks for many gun purchasers. That guy's name? Bernie Sanders.” [Seven Days Vermont, 12/19/12] NRA “Threw Their Weight Behind Sanders.” “Further, in what brought about an odd pairing, supporters of the rights of gun owners - notably the National Rifle Association - threw their weight behind Sanders, a gun control proponent. They abandoned Smith because he voted in Congress for a gun control bill after promising at home to oppose such measures.” [Boston Globe, 11/7/90] National Rifle Association Spent Between $18,000 And $20,000 Against Smith. “The "they" was the National Rifle Association, Smith says. And, in the 1990 election, the NRA brought a precipitous end to Smith's congressional career, he says. The group used a direct-mail and advertising campaign and spent an estimated $ 18,000 to $ 20,000 against him. He was defeated, 113,562 to 79,893, by Bernard Sanders.” [Newsday, 4/16/91] NRA Paid For Anti-Smith Radio Ads. “Smith, just back from Capitol Hill after the lengthy budget battle, is encountering opposition from gun groups angry because he backed a measure to ban the sale of certain semiautomatic rifles. The National Rifle Association is airing anti-Smith radio spots and circulating bumper stickers.” [Associated Press, 11/1/90] NRA Distributed ‘Dump Peter Smith’ Bumper Stickers. “The National Rifle Association is launching a negative advertising campaign against Rep. Peter P. Smith, R-Vt.., in hopes of defeating him at the polls on Nov. 6 – an effort the Smith camp says is likely to ‘backfire.’ […] Last week the NRA began distributing ‘Dump Peter Smith’ bumper stickers in Vermont. […] Sportsmen in Vermont say that the NRA delivered about 10,000 of the bumper stickers at a cost of $700. They were paid for by the NRA Political Victory Fund.” [Times Argus, 10/26/90] NRA Spent $20,000 On TV And Radio Ads During 1990 Congressional Race. “The Sportsmen’s Alliance for Vermont’s Environment [...] some Vermont hunting enthusiasts formed an important part of the coalition that elected Sanders, Smith observed. The ex-congressman also cited the role played by the NRA’s national office, which spent some $20,000 on Vermont TV and radio ads in the closing days of the 1990 campaign. Along with at least five statewide mailings organized by the NRA, these spots urged a vote for Sanders, Smith recounted.” [Seven Days, 4/11/91] NRA Sent Out Letters And Made Phone Calls Urging Voters To Reject Smith, Thereby Supporting Sanders. “Among them is the unlikely support that Sanders - a socialist who disparages the two-party system, wants to slash military spending and redistribute wealth apparently will get from conservative gun enthusiasts. The National Rifle Association and statewide hunters' groups are sending out letters, manufacturing stickers and placing phone calls urging voters to reject Smith because he voted for a ban on semiautomatic rifles such as the AK47 after he promised the NRA that he would oppose gun controls.” [Boston Globe, 10/21/90] NRA: Bernie Sanders Was “At Least As Good, If Not Better, Than Mr. Smith” On Guns. “‘We don’t like everything that Mr. Sanders has to say about firearms,’ [NRA director of federal lobbying James] Baker said. ‘But he’s been up front about it. He’s at least as good, if not better, than Mr. Smith … We don’t know what we’ll do for him (Sanders) … But this is really more about Mr. Smith than it is about Mr. Sanders.’” [Times Argus, 10/26/90] New York Times: “Even Though Sanders Supports Gun Control, The National Rifle Association Endorsed Him.” “Even though Mr. Sanders supports gun control, the National Rifle Association endorsed him after Mr. Smith voted for controls on semiautomatic assault-type weapons after earlier promising to oppose such measures.” [New York Times, 11/20/90] 1990: Bernie Sanders Characterized His Opponent Reneging On His Promise To The NRA As Not An Issue Of “Guns” But One Of “Integrity.” “What was happening with sportsmen, I asked. Bernie said that George McNeil, who lived in Poultney and was vice president of SAVE (Sporting Alliance for Vermont’s Environment), told him that SAVE would back [Smith’s opponent] in the primary, then us in the general election. ‘The issue is not guns, it’s integrity.’ Bernie then enthusiastically recounted Smith’s illfated assault rifle press conference in March 1989 where he called for a ban on several semi-automatic weapons after promising the National Rifle Association that he’d oppose all forms of gun control.” [Steven Rosenfeld, “Making History in Vermont: the Election of a socialist to Congress,” 1992, P.6] NRA Left Open The Possibility They Would Donate To Sanders, But Sanders Said He Would Not Accept Any Money From The Organization. “As for Smith’s opponent, independent Bernard Sanders, [NRA director of federal lobbying James] Baker said he could expect some pre-election help from the NRA, but he wouldn’t be specific about what he meant. […] Baker left open the possibility that the NRA would contribute money to Sanders’ campaign. […] [Sanders] said he would not accept any money from the NRA.” [Times Argus, 10/26/90] University Of Vermont Professor Garrison Nelson Said That “Bernie Let The NRA Do His Dirty Work On That One To Sink Smith.” “Still, people recall that Sanders, then the four-term mayor of Burlington, was cautious not to step in. “Bernie let the NRA do his dirty work on that one to sink Smith. He played it very close to the vest,” said Garrison Nelson, a professor at University of Vermont who has known Sanders for around four decades.” [Politico, 6/18/15] Former Congressman Peter Smith Said “What The NRA Was Buying With Their Support For Bernie Sanders Was A Closed Mind.” “Former congressman Peter Smith said he lost to Sanders last November, in part, because of the efforts of the NRA. [...] ‘What the NRA was buying with their support for Bernie Sanders was a closed mind,’ Smith declared in a telephone interview from Washington, where he now heads a commission on post-secondary education. ‘What they want is people who won’t think carefully about a problem.’“ [Seven Days, 4/11/91] 1990: Bernie Sanders’ GOP Opponent Accused Him Of Using The NRA Playbook To Attack Him. “Smith knew he was going to get hammered by Philbin, and he was ready for it. He leaned forward, glanced at Philbin and Bernie, and composed himself to lash back with a mix of earnestness and anger. ‘I just look Tim Philbin and Bernie Sanders in the eye and say what you are saying is absolute political garbage,’ he said, his brow furrowed. ‘Now Tim, I know you come from a long tradition and you believe it. Bernie, I have to say, I respect you. But I am surprised to see you buying the national NRA strategy.’” [Steven Rosenfeld, “Making History in Vermont: the Election of a socialist to Congress,” 1992, P.40] Bernie Sanders’s Opponent Blamed The NRA’s Efforts For Sanders’s Victory In Their Race For The House Of Representatives. “In the end, he said it was the National Rifle Association’s last-minute mailings and advertising, coupled with having to spend the entire month of October in Washington, D.C., working on the budget that hurt him the most.” [Rutland Herald, 11/7/90] Bernie Sanders’s Strong Performance In Rutland County Was Attributed To Support From Sportsmen, Who Aimed To Oust Incumbent Rep. Peter Smith Over His Switch To Supporting A Ban On Semi-Automatic Weapons. “The most dramatic turnaround for Sanders was in the western part of Rutland County, and that was attributed to gun owners’ anger over Smith’s change of stance over gun control for semi-automatic weapons. ‘I think the sportsmen’s anger at Smith for what they perceived as lying to them helped us out in western Rutland County towns,’ said Kevin Jones, Sanders campaign coordinator for the county. John McShane of the Poultney Fish and Game Club said the sportsmen’s group was one factor. ‘That was the beginning of the opposition to Peter Smith and I think it built from there,’ said McShane, who supported Sanders. ‘It raised the credibility issue in my mind, and that was the problem Smith had getting re-elected.’” [Rutland Herald, 11/8/90] 1990: NRA “Endorsed” Bernie Sanders After The GOP Incumbent Voted For A Semiautomatic Assault-Type Weapons Ban. “Mr. Sander's Congressional campaign, supported by an extensive grassroots organization, was propelled by a backlash against Mr. Smith, a freshman Representative who seemed to change positions on two pivotal issues: gun control and the Federal budget. Even though Mr. Sanders supports gun control, the National Rifle Association endorsed him after Mr. Smith voted for controls on semiautomatic assault-type weapons after earlier promising to oppose such measures.” [New York Times, 11/12/90]  Sanders Won Election To Congress Largely On His Opposition To “Federal Gun-Control Measures.” “After eight years as Mayor, [Bernie Sanders] made another unsuccessful run for statewide office, this time the state’s lone Congressional seat. He defeated the incumbent, Peter Smith, with the help of one of the more curious coalitions in Vermont’s history. The coalition was formed largely in reaction to the stumbling of Mr. Smith, a Republican serving his first term. Mr. Smith had said he would oppose gun control, but he agreed to sponsor legislation that would have banned certain types of assault weapons. Conservative Republicans abandoned him, joining liberal voters to form a solid majority for Mr. Sanders, who said he would not support Federal gun-control measures. ‘If timing is everything in politics, this was perfect timing,’ Vermont’s former Governor, Madeleine M. Kunin, said when Mr. Sanders was elected to Congress.” [New York Times, 8/18/91] The Gun Coalition Was “Thought To Have Played A Role In Throwing The Election To Sanders” In 1990. “The sportsmen’s coalition, Hoffman said, will lobby hunters and gun owners, distribute leaflets and anti-Sanders bumper stickers, and make telephone calls to get out the vote. The coalition is an umbrella group its members include the National Rifle Association, the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen Clubs, and the Sporting Alliance for Vermont’s Environment. Leaders of those organizations said in May, when Sanders voted for the weapons ban, that it would cost him support. But the accusation of political dishonesty echoed back even further, to the U.S. House campaign of 1990. Then, pro-gun groups accused Republican Rep. Peter Smith of having broken his promise to oppose gun control. They worked to defeat him, and are thought to have played a role in throwing the election to Sanders. Sanders never has had the endorsement of gun groups, although some individual sportsmen have supported him.” [Burlington Free Press, 8/26/94] Sanders Touted His Consistency, Saying His Position On Gun Control “Should Not Come As A Surprise To Anybody.” “Sanders said in an interview Friday that it was most important to note what he called his consistency on the issue. ‘When I ran for Congress in 1990, that’s exactly what I said, so it should not come as a surprise to anybody. One of the reasons that people lose faith with politicians is that before an election they say one thing and after the election they say something different,’ Sanders said.” [Sunday Rutland Herald and Times Argus, 3/31/91] Other Burlington Free Press Editorial: Rep. Bernie Sanders’ Opposition To A Seven-Day Waiting Period For Handgun Purchases Was “A Cheap Way” For Him To Endear Himself “To The NRA Audience.” “Rep. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., said last week he will oppose a seven-day waiting period for handgun purchases. Welcome to the “I’m afraid of the NRA” club, Bernie. The club already has two distinguished Vermont members, Sens. James Jeffords and Patrick Leahy. They earned their memberships the same way Sanders did – with their unwillingness to inconvenience the purchasers of lethal weapons. […] A seven-day waiting period won’t end gun crimes, but the wait will make it more difficult for criminals to buy guns. That’s an important symbolic beginning to what will be a long campaign for other limits on the arsenal of weapons with which Americans have armed themselves. […] But the NRA is a powerful enemy. Opposing the waiting period is a cheap way for a socialist, liberal Democrat and a liberal Republican to endear themselves to the NRA audience.” [Burlington Free Press opinion, 4/3/91] A Spokeswoman For Bernie Sanders Said It Would Be “Utterly Absurd To Suggest For One Moment That Bernie’s Not A Friend Of Hunters.” “Sanders’ spokeswoman struck back at Wennberg, whom she accused of seeking publicity to help him win a close Republican primary next week. Debbie Bookchin said it was ‘utterly absurd to suggest for one moment that Bernie’s not a friend of hunters.’” [Burlington Free Press, 9/9/92] 1991: Rep. Bernie Sanders Came “Under Anonymous Attack By The Same Group That Assailed Congressman Peter Smith [In 1990] For Modifying His Position On Gun Control.” “Already Sanders has been under anonymous attack by the same group that assailed Congressman Peter Smith last year for modifying his position on gun control.” [Rutland Herald editorial, 3/29/91] Sanders Managed To Earn Support, At Various Points In His Career, Of Gun Rights Supporters, Police And Veterans Groups. ““Bernie basically has been able to appeal to groups that no one assumed would support socialists,” said Nelson — including gun-rights supporters, police during his time in Burlington and veterans’ groups as a senator. (Sanders, as chairman of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, helped craft and pass a bipartisan, multi-billion dollar legislation to reform the Veterans Affairs Department.)” [Politico, 6/18/15] The NRA “Has Largely Turned On Sanders,” Who Received Poor Grades From The NRA And Gun Owners Of Vermont. “The NRA has largely turned on Sanders — his most recent grade from the group is a D- and he has received an F before. And Ed Cutler, president of Gun Owners of Vermont, said gunrights group in the state just don’t trust him. “We, in Vermont, consider him anti-gun,” he said.” [Politico, 6/18/15] 1994: NRA Ran Ads Against Sanders. “The Vermont senator is “pro-gun, and pro-hunting,” and opposed the Brady Bill to because he thought handgun wait times should be decided by states. The National Rifle Association gave Sanders a major assist in one race went it targeted his opponent. But by 1994, the NRA turned on Sanders, distributing “Bye, Bye Bernie” bumper stickers and running ads against him.” [MSNBC, 5/28/15] 2012: NRA Backed Sanders’s Republican Opponent For Senate, But Did Not Plan To Work Actively On His Behalf. “Republican U.S. Senate candidate John MacGovern has won the backing of the National Rifle Association in his bid to unseat Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., but an NRA spokeswoman said Thursday her group isn't planning to work actively on MacGovern's behalf - for now. "I don't know what the decision is on that," said the spokeswoman, Jacqueline Otto. "We make decisions based on campaign developments." Otto said MacGovern scored an A on a candidate survey, and the NRA took into account MacGovern's votes when he was a Massachusetts lawmaker in the 1980s. Sanders got a D- rating.” [Burlington Free Press, 10/5/12] 2012: Gun Owners Of America Endorsed Sanders’s Republican Opponent For Senate. “U.S. Senate Candidate John MacGovern (R) received high marks from the NRA and Gun Owners of America; U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) grade was failing. […] MacGovern also has won the backing of the Gun Owners of America. He scored an A on that' group's survey, while Sanders received an F.” [Addison Eagle, 10/8/12] Sanders Voted For NRA Sponsored Amendment To Counterterrorism Bill. “The House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly today to approve an amendment by the National Rifle Association that eliminated what both critics and supporters said were the central provisions of a broad counterterrorism bill. By a bipartisan vote of 246 to 171, the House approved an amendment knocking out provisions to make it easier to deport illegal aliens suspected of terrorism, to expand the law enforcement and wiretap powers of the Federal Government and to enable the authorities to crack down on fund raising in the United States by foreign terrorist groups. […] The amendment was supported by 178 Republicans, 67 Democrats and Representative Bernard Sanders, the independent from Vermont. It was opposed by 54 Republicans and 117 Democrats.” [New York Times, 3/14/96] Sanders Voted Against An NRA Backed Amendment To McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform That Made An Exception For Soft Money Advertising About The Second Amendment. “By contrast, they worked intensely to defeat numerous other changes proposed by the GOP leadership. One, backed by the powerful National Rifle Association, would have suspended the restrictions on soft money advertising for "any matter pertaining to the Second Amendment," which guarantees the right to bear arms. It was narrowly defeated, 219-209.” [Associated Press, 2/13/02; H Amdt 420 to HR 2356, Vote #24, 2/13/02] Sanders Praised The NRA For Their Opposition To Media Deregulation. “Sanders also lauded the National Rifle Association and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops last week for their opposition to further deregulation of media ownership currently being considered by the Federal Communications Commission. How often does that happen? "Very rarely," Sanders says. "Occasionally, but very rarely." He wants FCC chief Michael Powell to delay a June 2 vote on the issue and hold public hearings around the country instead.” [Boston Globe, 5/25/03] FCC Ruling To Relax Media Ownership Rules Was Opposed By Diverse Groups Including NRA, PTC And NOW. “Sanders argues that last week's FCC decision poses a threat to American democracy because it allows "a tiny handful of media conglomerates to increase their ownership and control over what the American people see, hear and read." […] Sanders said opposition to the recent FCC ruling has come from groups as diverse as the National Rifle Association, the conservative Parents' Television Council and the National Organization for Women.” [Burlington Free Press, 6/10/03] Bernie Sanders Voted For Confirmation Of Elena Kagan To The Supreme Court, A Vote Opposed By The National Rifle Association. “Elena Kagan was confirmed Thursday as the 112th justice to serve on the Supreme Court bench, in a significant victory for the Obama administration and women's rights groups, and a significant defeat for the National Rifle Association. Kagan was approved on a 63-37 vote, earning the support of 56 Democrats (including Wisconsinites Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl), Vermont Independent Bernie Sanders, Connecticut Independent Joe Lieberman, and five Republicans who had already announced their support for her.” [Capital Times, 8/6/10] Statements On Gun Violence Sanders Called For A “Comprehensive Approach” To Addressing Mass Violence. ““No knowledgeable person believes that there is one easy, 15-second-soundbite answer to this crisis. We need a comprehensive approach in which a number of issues must be seriously addressed. Among those issues are…” [Sanders press release, 12/17/12] Sanders Said We Must “Tone Down” Violence In Media That “Desensitizes” Children To Killing. ““First, we have to tone down the incredibly high level of violence which permeates our media culture and which desensitizes children and others to the killing of human beings.” [Sanders press release, 12/17/12] Sanders Said That Violent Video Games Were Not Acceptable And Encouraging Mass Shootings. “And the third part of this thing is we are just a country where the media, where these video games are just, you know just, perpetrating gratuitous violence for our kids which is just not acceptable, and I think the media is gonna have to take some responsibility for that as well.” [Brunch with Bernie, 12/28/12] Sanders Said We Must Improve Mental Health Care. ““Second, we must greatly expand and improve our mental health capabilities so that individuals and families in need of psychological help can find that help when they need it. Incredibly, there are major proposals before Congress right now which would substantially cut back on the availability of that help – making a bad situation much worse.” [Sanders press release, 12/17/12] Sanders Said We Must Make Sure “Highly Destructive Weapons” Do Not Fall Into The Wrong Hands. ““Third, while well over 99 percent of gun owners are law-abiding citizens who use their weapons legally and responsibly, there are clearly some who do not. In that regard, we must make certain that highly destructive weapons do not fall into the hands of people who should not have them.”” [Sanders press release, 12/17/12] Newtown Sanders Called Newtown Shooting “An Unspeakable And Unimaginable Tragedy” And Said The Nation “Must Do Everything We Can To Put An End To the Epidemic Of Mass Killings.” ““Newtown, Conn., and our entire country have experienced an unspeakable and unimaginable tragedy. As President Obama has stated we, as a nation, must do everything we can to put an end to the epidemic of mass killings that we have seen in recent years,” Sen. Bernie Sanders said on Monday. “No knowledgeable person believes that there is one easy, 15-second-soundbite answer to this crisis. We need a comprehensive approach in which a number of issues must be seriously addressed.”” [Sanders press release, 12/17/12] Sanders’s Office Did Not Respond To Questions From Local Paper On Support For Gun Control Measures After Newtown Shooting. “Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and other members of Vermont's congressional delegation did not respond Monday to questions from the Free Press on whether or not they support new gun control measures following last week's mass murders in a Newtown, Conn., elementary school. The Burlington Free Press requested live interviews with Leahy, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., and asked in emails sent to each official whether they have plans to lead gun control efforts following the shootings. Other questions included what changes to federal law they think are needed, whether they believe individuals should be able to own and use military-style assault weapons and expanded ammunition clips, and what each member of Congress has done in the past to protect citizens from easily accessible firearms. None of the officials was available Monday for such a conversation, their offices said. Instead, the members of Congress issued statements or, in Leahy's case, made a public address.” [Burlington Free Press, 12/18/12] Sanders On Newtown: Assault Weapons Are On Part Of The Problem Because Millions Of Americans Already Own Them; We Have To Deal With Mental Health. “Other issue obviously that's out there, everybody's heart was broken, could not believe what happened a couple of weeks ago in Newtown, Connecticut. It is just a nightmare, it's a parent's worst, worst fear. And it's an issue we have to deal with. We have seen too much of this mass violence, mass killings, but it is...you know and I support, and I voted for a ban on assault weapons, that's not the issue. That's part of the issue. But we gotta go beyond that, we have to understand that today there are millions and millions of Americans who already own these Bushmasters, these AK-15 weapons. We have got to deal with the issue of mental health.” [Brunch with Bernie, 12/28/12, 4:00] Sanders Was “Particularly Tight-Lipped” On Gun Control Issues, And Refused To Grant Local Reporter An Interview On Subject For Two And A Half Months After Newtown Shooting. “Sanders’ loquaciousness has its limits. When the conversation shifts away from bread-and-butter economic issues, his answers become curt. On the issue of gun violence, he is particularly tight-lipped. Indeed, he refused to grant an interview to Seven Days on the subject for two and a half months after last December’s deadly school shooting in Newtown, Conn.” [Seven Days Vermont, 3/13/13] Charleston CNN: Sanders Called “The Charleston Shooting A "Hateful Killing" But Did Not Tie It To A Call For Gun Control.” “On Thursday, Sanders issued a statement calling the Charleston shooting a "hateful killing" but did not tie it to a call for gun control. His campaign did not respond to a request for comment from CNN on his position on gun control on Thursday.” [CNN, 6/18/15] Politico: Sanders Statement On Charleston Did Not Mention Gun Control. “Sanders didn’t ignore the tragedy in Charleston, though there was an uncomfortable moment when his rally outside the Capitol for bolstering union retiree benefits overlapped briefly with a prayer vigil nearby for the victims of the shooting at the historically black church. […] The statement did not mention guns…” [Politico, 6/19/15] Asked For Comment, Sanders Campaign Manager Offered A “Less Than Forceful Call” For Addressing Gun Violence. “The statement did not mention guns and when asked for further comment, Sanders’ campaign manager Jeff Weaver offered a less-than-forceful call for addressing the issue of gun violence: “This sick and tragic attack is an example of why we need to ensure that guns do not end up in the hands of dangerous people. We also ask ourselves how we rid our country of the repugnant racist views which apparently fueled this killer’s depraved act against our fellow Americans while they were in the sanctuary of a house of God.”” [Politico, 6/19/15] Sanders Statement On Charleston Shooting Was Missing Mention Of Gun Violence Or Gun Control. “What was missing: Absent in both are any mention or even subtle allusion to gun violence or control. Clinton, meanwhile, began a campaign speech in Las Vegas on Thursday with a blunt statement on the matter. "How many people do we need to see cut down before we act?" she asked, according to Time, on stage to address the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials.”” [Mic, 6/18/15] Trayvon Martin March 2012: Sanders Declined To Comment On Trayvon Martin Case, But Criticized Stand Your Ground Laws As “Open[ing] Up The Flood Gates” For Aggression. “I don’t want to get too involved in that particular case, which is now under investigation. Everybody knows that self-defense is a timehonored tradition in this country. Somebody comes breaking into your house, do you have a right to defend yourself? Of course you do. But this stand your ground business opens up the opportunity, somebody walks by you and looks at you in a bad way, somebody walks by you and says something to you, and above and beyond that it just opens up the floodgates for people to be extremely extremely aggressive, and that certainly appears to in this Martin case in Florida.” [Brunch With Bernie, 3/30/12, 33:15] Sandy Hook Sanders Said Sandy Hook Shooting Tragedy Merited A “Serious Discussion…No Question About It.” “99.9 percent of people who own guns use them safely. But I think that what happened today in Connecticut and what happened a couple of weeks ago in Oregon and what’s happening too often in this country requires a serious conversation of how we deal with this issue. What I worry about is every time one of these horrible incidents hits the front page, some other unstable human being begins to think that this makes sense to do. So I think we need a serious discussion, and we need to deal with this issue no question about it.” [Brunch With Bernie, 12/14/12, 13:50] Bernie Sanders Advocated A Focus On Mental Health To Prevent Tragedies Like The One At Sandy Hook. “There are lawyers who will argue this till the cows come home. I think, bottom line, in my state and throughout this county we have millions of people how hunt and enjoy hunting, target practice, who are absolutely responsible citizens. On the other hand you have guns and very powerful weapons in the hands of mentally unstable people who should not have those weapons. So I think we have got to be--we need to have a national conversation of how we go forward. How we make sure people who should not have guns don't have guns. How we make sure that people who are so mentally isolated get the help they need before they get these guns.” [Brunch with Bernie, 12/14/12] Sanders: “I Don't Know That You Hold The Gun Manufacturer Responsible For Something A Obviously Deranged Person Does.” “I don't know that you hold a gun manufacturer responsible for what obviously a deranged person does. The issue is what is the best way forward to prevent these types of horrible occurrences? How do we make sure the guns do not get into the hands of people who are mentally ill? How do we make sure that people own guns which are only designed to kill people not to be used for hunting or target practices? So I mean there's a lot to be discussed and I think we've got to do something. We don’t want to read about this every month. So, it is an issue we’re going to have to address.” [Brunch with Bernie, 12/14/12] Aurora 2012: In The Wake Of Aurora Shooting, Sanders Maintained Gun Control Policy Should Be Made “At The State Level.” “With the debate over gun control again simmering in the wake of the largest mass shooting in U.S. history in Aurora, Colo., on July 20, the three members of Vermont’s Congressional delegation reiterated their beliefs that individual states should maintain their ability to shape their own firearm laws…. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.: ‘In my view, decisions about gun control should be made as close to home as possible — at the state level. If the Vermont Legislature and the governor want to go forward with gun control they have the opportunity to do that, though I’m not aware that there is any great inclination in Vermont to do so. If the state of Colorado, where a terrible tragedy has taken place, wanted to go forward on gun control, they also have the right to do that.’” [Addison County Independent, 8/2/12] 1980s: Opposed Picketing Of GE Plant Producing Guns 1980s: Sanders Disagreed With Tactic Of Picketing Burlington GE Plant That Produced Machine Guns, Leading To A Break With Peace Movement Activists. “In the course of the last five years, Sanders has had two separate breaks with movement activists over tactical questions. One involves the peace community's picketing of the GE plant in Burlington that manufactures Gatling guns. A couple of years ago Sanders disagreed with the tactic of civil disobedience in front of the plant, and for the call to force GE to convert the plant into making something productive. Sanders' point was working people didn’t have much choice about where they worked--especially in a place like Vermont, where minimum-wage jobs are the fastest-growing sector of the economy. By planning a civil-disobedience campaign directed toward the worker's at GE the peace movement could not effectively win over large numbers of workers. In fact, what might happen is that the workers in the plant frustrated with the bombardment of a moral appeal, might react against the demonstrators.” [Solidarity Bulletin Discussion, Volume 2, Number 10, Nov. 1986] Sanders Defended Decision Not To Side With Peace Activists Against GE Production Of Vulcan Min-Gun Because It Employed 2,000 Union Workers. “GADFLY: What does it mean to you morally to have to take positions that oppose those you believe in? For example not being able to take a strong stand on GE’s production of the Vulcan min-gun an issue that began in 1983 […] SANDERS: […] The issue of GE is a good example of where my politics differ with those of some of the left or peace movement. My concern with what is going on at GE, is that I don’t believe that the closing down of the GE plant here in Burlington, and the throwing of two thousand people out of work and the replacement of that plant in the south with non-union labour, is going to be a very positive development in terms of building an anti-war movement.” [The Gadfly, 12/1/87] Sanders Said Activists Can “Lose Sight Of What The Real Issue Is” – Who Has And Is Using Power. “The way to stop the war machine is to change the government. I think people lose sight of what the real issue is. The real issue is power, who has it and who is using it. And what we know, is of course that is not being discussed. […] The issue is not to me all of the good causes, there are thousands of good causes out there from save the whales on up. And they are all right, and they are all good. What has got to develop is a mass movement, which seeks to change the control of the economy from billionaires from corporate executives, from banks from large corporations, to a democratic type of society.” [The Gadfly, 12/1/87] HEALTH CARE Sanders: “Even Assuming That It Were $15 Trillion Over 10 Years .  .  . [Americans] Would No Longer Be Paying Private Health Insurance.” “‘The point is, we haven’t finished the proposal yet,’ Sanders said, when asked about the details of his health-care plan. A recent report in the Wall Street Journal quoted an estimated that a plan Sanders has supported in the past that would cost $15 trillion over 10 years. Sanders said that missed the point. ‘Even assuming that it were $15 trillion over 10 years . . . [Americans] would no longer be paying private health insurance’ at the same time, so they’d be saving money that way, Sanders said.” [Washington Post, 10/1/15] Sanders Said The Wall Street Journal Forgot To Say That Under His Health Care Plan Individuals And Business Would Not Have To Pay For Health Care Premiums. “NAIR: Because right now, you've seen estimates. People are saying the estimate for The Wall Street Journal is $18 trillion to cover. SANDERS: But what The Wall Street Journal said and we responded to it is that that included 15 billion dollars for national health care program. What they forgot to say is that you would not be paying and businesses would not be paying for private health insurance. So, in other words, right now if you're paying $12,000 a year for Blue Cross/Blue Shield, you would not be paying that. In fact, every study indicated that we pay more per capita for healthcare than any nation on earth. We would lower that goal.” [This Morning, CBS News, 9/18/15] Universal Health Care Sanders: “It Is Time For A Medicare For All Single-Payer Healthcare System.” “As president, Sen. Sanders would fight for a Medicare for All single-payer healthcare system to make healthcare a right for all Americans. If the United States joined every major country on earth and enacted a universal healthcare program, women would benefit the most. Today, women have much higher healthcare expenses than men and pay a greater portion of their healthcare costs out of their own pockets. Women make up twothirds of the low-wage workforce and only about 23 percent of low-wage jobs provide health insurance. It is time for a Medicare for All single-payer healthcare system.” [Issue Pages, Bernie 2016, Accessed 10/1/15] Sanders Supported Enacting A Medicare For All Single-Payer Healthcare System. “Guaranteeing healthcare as a right of citizenship by enacting a Medicare for all single-payer healthcare system. It’s time for the U.S. to join every major industrialized country on earth and provide universal healthcare to all.” Issue Pages, Bernie 2016, Accessed 10/1/15] Sanders Op-Ed: Drug Costs Were Too High Because Pharmaceutical Companies Lobbied To Keep Them High. “Our drug costs are out of control because that's the way the pharmaceutical companies want it. Other countries have national health insurance like the Medicare For All plan I have proposed, and these national plans are able to negotiate better prices. In this country, however, drug lobbyists have been able to block Medicare from negotiating better prices on behalf of the American people.” [Bernie Sanders, Des Moines Register, 9/20/15] Sanders Declined To Answer Why Vermont’s Leaders Failed In Their Attempt To Implement SinglePayer. “NORAH O`DONNELL: That is true. You are calling for a single payer health care system but your home state of Vermont tried that in 2011 and the Democratic governor said we can`t afford it and so they rolled it back. Your own state can`t even carry it through. How is America going to do it? SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: Because every other country in the world in one way or another does it. I live a hundred NORAH O`DONNELL: Then why couldn`t Vermont figure it out? SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: Well, you have to ask the government for that. I`m not the governor of the state of Vermont.” [This Morning, CBS News, 9/18/15] Sanders Said That Single-Payer Was “The Most Cost-Effective Way To Provide Health Care.” “The truth of the matter is right now, as a nation, we spend far, far more on health care per person than do the people of any other nation and yet we continue to have about 30 million people who have no health insurance, many more who are underinsured and we pay, again, by far the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. No question to my mind that moving toward a Medicare for all single payer program is the most cost-effective way to provide health care to all of our people.” [Transcript via Federal News Service, Andrea Mitchell Reports, MSNBC, 9/15/15] Sanders Planned To Introduce Legislation To Provide A Medicare-For-All, Single-Payer System. “Ultimately, Sanders said, Congress should uncouple research and development costs from drug prices by rewarding innovation with a prize. ‘The skyrocketing prices of prescription drugs are an example of the web of bureaucracy and red tape in the American health care system. What we need is a national health care system that puts people ahead of profits and health ahead of special interests,’ said Sanders, who will soon introduce legislation to provide a Medicare-for-all, single-payer system to provide health care for all Americans.” [Press Release, Sen. Bernie Sanders, 9/1/15] Sanders Criticized Walker’s Health Care Proposal, Said It Was “A Return To A Broken System.” “Scott Walker wants to kick people off of their healthcare. He’s wrong. We need Medicare for all, not a return to a broken system.” [Twitter, Bernie 2016, 8/18/15] Sanders: “We Need To Expand Medicare To Cover Every Man, Woman And Child As A SinglePayer National Health Care Program.” “Addressing a rally outside the Capitol to mark the 50th anniversary of Medicare, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today announced that he will introduce legislation to provide Medicare-for-all health insurance. ‘We need to expand Medicare to cover every man, woman and child as a single-payer national health care program,’ Sanders told a rally held by National Nurses United in a park near the Capitol.” [NJ Today, 7/30/15] Sanders: “Until We Put Patients Over Profits, Our System Will Not Work For Ordinary Americans.” “Sanders’ proposal also would rein in skyrocketing prices for prescription drugs. Americans pay pharmaceutical companies nearly twice for the exact same drugs manufactured by the exact same companies in other countries. ‘This is unacceptable,’ Sanders said. ‘Until we put patients over profits, our system will not work for ordinary Americans.’” [NJ Today, 7/30/15] Sanders Said That He Viewed Health Care As A Fundamental Right That Should Be Removed From The Market Economy. “Ezra Klein: What is the underlying principle there? What are the situations where you look at a given area of the economy and say, "That's something we should turn over to the market," or, "That's something we should possibly federalize"? Bernie Sanders: Good questions. Health care, to my mind, is a right of all people. That's what I believe. I think every man, woman, and child is entitled to health care, and that right exists in virtually every other major industrialized country on Earth. We are the odd guys out there. Despite the modest gains of the Affordable Care Act we have 35 million people who still have no health insurance, and, more importantly, millions more are underinsured with high copayments and high deductibles. I think a Medicare-for-all, full-single-payer approach is the way to do it. I believe in Medicare for all people, and I think that is not an area where private insurance companies should be functioning, because once you have private insurance companies their goal is to make as much money as possible, not to provide quality care. In terms of health care, yeah, we should have a public health-care system guaranteeing health care to all people in a cost-effective way. I think a Medicare-for-all, full-single-payer approach is the way to do it.” [Vox, 7/28/15] In Response To The Supreme Court Ruling On King v Burwell, Sanders Advocated For A Single Payer System. “Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) issued the following statement on Thursday after the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in the case of King v. Burwell to uphold the Affordable Care Act: […] “What the United States should do is join every other major nation and recognize that health care is a right of citizenship. A Medicare-for-all, single-payer system would provide better care at less cost for more Americans.”” [Press Release, Sen. Bernie Sanders, 6/25/15] Sanders Said America Could Get To Single Payer, But “I’m Not Going To Tell You We’re Going To Get It Tomorrow.” “JOHN RALSTON: Do you think – A lot of people would say, you know, Bernie Sanders he says great stuff but it’s not realistic, we’ll never get that in this country. SEN BERNIE SANDERS: I don’t agree, I’m not going to tell you we’re going to get it tomorrow. Look, you have to answer the question or anyone has to answer the question that in this great country we have 35 million people who are uninsured, more who are underinsured, high copayments and deductibles and yet we’re the only major country on Earth that doesn’t guarantee health care for all people.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, “Ralston Live,” PBS, 6/22/15] Sanders Said He Would Create A “Mass Movement” Of Middle Class Americans To Defeat Congressional Republican Opposition To A Single-Payer, Universal “Medicare-For-All.” “DIANE REHM: “As president, would you push for a single-payer plan nationally? And once again, with a Republican Congress in power, how would or could you make that happen?” BERNIE SANDERS: “…I do believe in Medicare-for-all, single-payer program, administered at the statewide level.” DIANE REHM: “But how would you do it? How would you get that through?” BERNIE SANDERS: “Okay, Diane, the main point that I've been making in this campaign is that no president, not Bernie Sanders, not Hillary Clinton, not anybody, is going to accomplish what the middle class of this country needs, unless there is a mass movement of people who say enough is enough, government has got to start representing us. When we raise public consciousness, when we educate, when we organize so that when we bring a bill on the floor to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, millions of people are on the telephone telling their Republican representatives they better vote for that, or there's going to be a very short term, and they're going to be out of office.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Diane Rehm Show, 6/10/15] Sanders Is An Advocate Of A Medicare-For-All Single-Payer Health Care Program. ”In terms of health care, I am an advocate of a Medicare-for-all single-payer program. I voted for the Affordable Care Act, not because I think it is the end place as to where we should be, but because I was able to get a major provision in it that greatly expanded primary health care -- which is helping many millions of people today.” [Reddit, 5/19/15] Sanders Called For “Medicare-For-All Single-Payer System.” “The United States must move toward a Medicare-for-all single-payer system. Health care is a right not a privilege.” [@BernieSanders, 5/14/15] Sanders Introduced Single Payer Health Care Legislation. “I re-introduced a legislation, a single-payer legislation, which would provide healthcare to every man, woman, and child in this country as a right through state-administered single-payer program. If we do that, you will save, per capita, substantial sums of money. As I hope everybody knows, our very dysfunctional and complicated and wasteful healthcare system now spends almost twice as much per person on healthcare as do the people of any other country.” [Brunch with Bernie, 12/16/13] Bernie Sanders Looked To Quebec’s “Socialized” Health Care System As An Example. According to Vanguard Press, “Hospital officials have told Sanders and community health workers in the past that MCHV isn’t obligated to meet all the community’s health needs. In response, Sanders is pointing to Quebec’s socialized health care system, which ‘provides free medical care to all residents of the province and which is funded through a progressive tax system.’ The Quebec approach, says Sanders ‘might well be the kind of approach we would like to develop here.’” [Vanguard Press, 10/2/81] Sanders Opposed House Legislation That Would Cease Medicare Payments for ErectileDysfunction Drugs. According to Seven Days, “It received little local press, but last week Rep. Bernie Sanders' firm support was not enough to stop the U.S. House from ceasing Medicare payments for erectile-dysfunction drugs like Viagra and Cialis.” [Seven Days, 6/29/05] Sanders Said That The Cuban Healthcare System Is “Cost-Effective” And “High Quality.” “I happened to have the opportunity to meet with a whole lot of folks in the Cuban health care system. In a country that has many many problems they’re doing terrible with housing, they’re doing terrible with agriculture, they actually do very well in terms of their healthcare system. They spend a fraction of what we spend per person, and yet their life expectancy rates and infant mortality rates are close to where we are. And the reason for that is they rely a lot on primary healthcare, they produce a whole lot of doctors, people walk into the doctors office without having to worry about paying a penny, they get the care they need, prescription drugs are free, and that lays the ground work for a very cost effective high quality system.” [Brunch With Bernie, 2/14/12, 34:00] Sanders Voted For The Affordable Care Act Bernie Sanders Voted For The Affordable Care Act. On December 24, 2009, Bernie Sanders voted for the Patient Protect and Affordable Care Act. The bill passed 60-39. [HR 3590, Senate Vote #396, 12/24/2009] Sanders Called Affordable Care Act A “Romney Type Program” And Criticized Conservative Democrats For Weakening The Bill Sanders Called Obamacare A "Good Republican Romney Type Program." "But let me be very clear. I voted for Obamacare. But to be very honest with you, I'm not going to argue with anybody who says that it is too complicated. I am an advocate of a Medicare for all single payer program. I think Obamacare is a good Republican Romney type program, which has worked in Massachusetts. It's a moderate program which address some needs." [Crossfire, CNN, 9/24/13] Sanders Said Conservative Democrats Made The Affordable Care Act A “Much Weaker Bill.” “VELSHI: Would you, Senator, go as far as to say that this is comprehensive health care reform or just a bill on the way there? SANDERS: No. This is a bill heavily influenced by the insurance companies, the drug companies. We have no Republican support. Conservative Democrats made it into a much weaker bill. So I'm not going to be here to tell the American people this is a great bill. It ain't. Does this bill do some really good things? Thirty million more people with insurance, insurance reform, doing away with pre-existing conditions, disease prevention, community health centers? Yes, it does a lot of good things for tens and tens of millions of Americans. On the other hand, it is a lot weaker than I would have preferred to see.” [CNN, 12/21/09] Sanders Said Some Conservative Democrats Would Be Working With Republicans Against Health Care Reform. “"What, am I gonna sit here and tell you Democrats are perfect, they are immune from money, pressure? Of course they're not," Sanders said. "We have some wonderful Democrats who are fighting to do the right thing, but you have some conservative Democrats who will be working with Republicans," he added.” [The Atlantic, 6/9/09] Sanders Said Passing A Single Payer Plan Was Difficult Because Not Every Member Of The Democratic Caucus Was Prepared To Stand Up To Insurance Companies. “MR. SCHULTZ: -- that is what just boggles my mind. We have right now a political moment in this country. The president has high approval ratings. You have the people out there. Town hall after town hall I hear it. They want single payer. You're close to the super-majority, depending on how, you know, some of the independent -- SEN. SANDERS: But Ed, what are you forgetting in that equation? MR. SCHULTZ: Well, I'm forgetting the filibuster, I guess. SEN. SANDERS: And you're forgetting the power of the insurance companies -- MR. SCHULTZ: Yeah, that's right. SEN. SANDERS: -- the huge amounts of money they spend, the power of the drug companies. And if you think that every member of the Democratic caucus is prepared to stand up to those guys, you're mistaken. That's the sad reality.” [The Ed Show, MSNBC, 4/28/09] Sanders: “There Are 60 People In The Democratic Caucus And You Have Some Conservatives Who Are Saying No [To Public Option], I Won't Do It. I Won't Do It.” “SEN. SANDERS: This is not anywhere near as strong a bill as I would like. Of course there should be a public option to provide competition to the private health insurance companies so that we can control skyrocketing costs. In my view, there should not be, as the Senate bill does, a tax on health-care benefits. There should be a reimportation prescription drug bill which lowers the outrageously high costs of prescription drugs all over this country. We should have all of those things. The reality is, after all is said and done, there are no Republicans who are supporting this. There are 60 people in the Democratic Caucus and you have some conservatives who are saying no, I won't do it. I won't do it. So the choice that we're left with is kill the bill now, continue the process by which 45,000 Americans die every year because they don't get access, or pass something and try to improve it in years to come.” [Morning Joe, MSNBC, 12/22/09] Sanders Did Not Understand Why Every Democrat Was Not Willing To At Least Vote For Cloture On A Plan That Included A Public Option. “SANDERS: Absolutely. We`ve got 60 votes. And while I can understand that there may be some Democrats who don`t want to vote for final passage of legislation that has a strong public plan, every single one of those 60 votes should go to stop the Republican filibuster. Republicans have broken all time worlds records in the number of filibusters they brought forth. They are a do-nothing party. Every member of the Democratic caucus should say, sorry, you can`t destroy our effort to bring health care to every American.” [The Ed Show, 7/6/09] Sanders Said It Was “100 Percent Right” That Some Democrats Were In The Pockets Of Insurance Companies. “MR. SCHULTZ: Well, I'll tell you what, I'm with you, Senator. I don't know why the Democrats aren't going full speed ahead on this. And there are some Democrats that are just in the pockets of some insurance companies that I think, you know, what are you going to do? And the point is, there's real change here. There's a real opportunity for change here. We seem to be -- SEN. SANDERS: Ed, you're 100 percent right.” [Ed Show, MSNBC, 4/28/09] Sanders Said That A Number Of Members Of The Democratic Caucus Had Never Been Serious About Strong Health Care Reform. “SANDERS: Well, Keith, let’s be clear. What should have been understood and what the dynamic of this is, is you have 60 people in the Democratic Caucus. And a number of them, in my view, have never been serious about strong health care reform. And, in fact, from the very beginning, that should have been understood and we say, "You know what? We don`t have 60 votes."” [MSNBC, 12/17/09] Sanders Said That With 51 Votes, The Senate Could Pass A Significant Health Care Reform Bill, But Still Less Comprehensive Than He Would Like. “OLBERMANN: Can you expand, Senator, on something you told reporters yesterday. The quote was, "Reconciliation is absolutely an appropriate way -- or route, rather, to go." […] We`re going to have 51 votes to do something that is significant, maybe not as broad, maybe not as comprehensive. But there is a heck of a lot that you can do with 51 votes so that we don`t have to compromise every other day and, I think, look kind of foolish before the American people. I think that was an understanding that should have occurred at the very beginning of this process. The truth is: we don`t have 60 votes for strong health care reform which takes on the insurance companies, which takes on the drug companies. We should have known that from the beginning.” [MSNBC, 12/17/09] Sanders Said A More Progressive Option Would Struggle Because Of The Power Of Big Money Interests Sanders: “Right Now In Congress, The Big-Money Interests Have So Much Power That Single Payer Would Just Be A Huge, Huge Struggle, Which He Probably Could Not Win.” “MR. SCHULTZ: Do you think, finally, these people who have double-digited us on rate increases, the pharmaceutical manufacturers, the HMOs, the insurance companies -- the president seems to be trusting the fox that's guarding the hen house. What do you think? SEN. SANDERS: Well, I think he understands -- I don't know what's in his heart; I can't tell you that. I think he understands that right now in Congress, the big-money interests have so much power that single payer would just be a huge, huge struggle, which he probably could not win, and he chooses not to do that struggle.” [The Ed Show, MSNBC, 5/14/09] Sanders Said Getting Medicare For All Would “Be Very Tough Sledding To Get” Due To Power Of Private Insurance Companies. “MR. SCHULTZ: Joining me now is Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Senator, can you tell our audience tonight -- thanks for joining us -- but can you tell us what this public option is? SEN. SANDERS: No, I can't. Nobody can, because we're not there now. I would hope that the public option would mean Medicare for anybody who wanted to join us, and that is that you have the equivalent of Medicare for anybody of any age who chooses that option. Frankly, that is going to be very tough sledding to get that, because if you have that, people will gravitate to that system -- MR. SCHULTZ: You bet. SEN. SANDERS: -- and private insurance will go down. And private insurance companies have enormous power, as you've indicated, here in Washington, D.C., as do the drug companies.” [The Ed Show, MSNBC, 5/14/09] Sanders Said “Pro-Public Option [Lobbyists] Are Greatly Outnumbered” On Capitol Hill. “MR. SCHULTZ: So how many lobbyists are on the Hill working offices in favor of a public option, as opposed to those who were trying to strike it out of the bill? SEN. SANDERS: Well, the pro-public option are greatly outnumbered. We have many organizations who are fighting the fight that the American people want. Ed, what we can't forget is what polls show is -- the last New York Times poll, 72 percent of the American people wanted a public option; 90 percent of the Democrats wanted a public option. I think about half the Republicans did. It is incomprehensible that there should be any question about whether we have that. The real solution, of course, is a single-payer national health care program, which is the only way, by the way, that you can provide universal, comprehensive, cost-effective health care to all of our people.” [The Ed Show, MSNBC, 7/6/09] Sanders, On Why Public Option Could Not Pass: “We Should Not Be Naive About What Goes On In Washington.” “SANDERS: And then, if we end up with 52 or 53 votes in the Senate, to pass a strong bill, strong bill, with among other things, a public option to compete with the private insurance companies, that`s good enough for me. SHUSTER: In other words, Democrats vote the way you want, but at least allow an up or down vote to take place. If that fails, why will it fail? SANDERS: Well, you know, in my own view, we should not be naive about what goes on in Washington. And that is the reason we pay the highest prescription drug taxes in the world, the reason we are the only country in the industrialized world that does not have a national health care program is largely attributable to the enormous power and money of the insurance companies, and the drug companies, who in the last ten years have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in lobbying and campaign contributions.” [Countdown, MSNBC, 7/1/09] Sanders Introduced Single Payer As A Substitute Amendment To Affordable Care Act – Even Though He Acknowledged It Would Not Pass Sanders Proposed Single Payer Amendment Even Though He Knew It Had No Chance Of Passing. “Sanders, an advocate for a more radical, single-payer solution to the nation's health care problems, said he will offer an amendment calling for a single-payer system even though he knows it has no chance of passage. A single-payer system is one in which the government is the sole source of financing for health care services. "It will lose," he said in an interview. "What I am trying to do, and we have language in the bill to provide the option to states to go forward so they can consider a single-payer system. ... As long as you get the waivers that are necessary to go forward, that's all I want."” [Burlington Free Press, 11/20/09] Sanders Acknowledged That His Single Payer Amendment Would Not Pass. "Sanders acknowledged that his amendment would not pass. "As a result of the power of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, this amendment will not pass or even get very many votes. Nonetheless, given the view of millions of us that a single-payer approach is the only way this country will ever provide comprehensive, cost-effective health care to all its citizens, this is an important step forward.” [Sanders Press Release, 12/15/09] Sanders Believed That Sometime In The Future, The Country Would Understand That The Only Way To Provide Comprehensive Health Care To All Was Through A Single Payer Plan. “At the end of the day - not this year, not next year, but sometime in the future - this country will come to understand that if we are going to provide comprehensive quality care to all of our people, the only way we will do that is through a Medicare-for-all, single-payer system, and I am glad to be able to start that debate by offering this amendment."” [Sanders Press Release, 12/15/09] Sanders Said His Medicare-For-All Single-Payer Bill “Was Going To Lose” In Congress. “I introduced a Medicare-for-all single-payer bill. It was going to lose, Chris -- maybe five votes, maybe 10 votes. They wanted to read 700 pages of that bill and just obstruct any kind of progress that we're making.” [Hardball, MSNBC, 12/22/09] Sanders Agreed That He Introduced The Single Payer Amendment “Just To Raise Hell, Just To Have Fun.” “SANDERS: I introduced a Medicare-for-all single-payer bill. It was going to lose, Chris -maybe five votes, maybe 10 votes. They wanted to read 700 pages of that bill and just obstruct any kind of progress that we're making. MR. MATTHEWS: Knowing that that was a long shot to begin with, just to raise hell, just to have fun. SEN. SANDERS: Right. Absolutely. Well, also to make sure that we slow down things. They have broken the all-time world's record for filibusters as well as for other dilatory practices. It's never been done the way they have done it. And it's very clear. They've got nothing to offer.” [Hardball, MSNBC, 12/22/09] Sanders On His Single Payer Amendment, “I Am Not Naïve. I Know That We Will Lose That Vote.” “Senator BERNIE SANDERS (Independent, Vermont): I will be offering on the floor of the Senate, I believe for the first time in history, a national single payer program and I look forward to getting a vote on that. I am not naive. I know that we will lose that vote.” [NPR, 12/16/09] Sanders Said Single Payer Health Care Plan Had Five Votes In The Senate. “SEN. SANDERS: Let me just say this: If you want the solution which the rest of the world has -- comprehensive, universal health care for all -- cost effectively, you need a Medicare-for-all-single- payer system. MR. O'DONNELL: I agree. SEN. SANDERS: We got five votes for that. Five votes for that in the U.S. Senate.” [Morning Joe, MSNBC, 12/22/09] Sanders Was Promised A Vote On Single Payer Plan, But Had To Withdraw His Amendment When Republicans Used It As A Procedural Tactic To Waste Debate Time Sen. Reid Had Promised Sanders A Vote On His Single Payer Plan. “Reid had promised Sanders a vote on his proposal on single-payer health care, an idea popular with members of the Democratic Party's left wing. But as soon as it came up on the floor, Republican Tom Coburn of Oklahoma objected to the routine procedural move of dispensing with the reading of the amendment. Senate clerks then droned through the lengthy document for more than two hours.” [CQ, 12/16/09] Republican Senator Used Reading Of Sanders’s Bill As A Procedural Tactic To Waste Floor Time. “Senate Republicans set off a round of procedural warfare Wednesday in an attempt to keep Democrats from passing a health care bill before Christmas. […] The back and forth began when Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., objected Wednesday morning to a routine request to waive the reading of a 767-page amendment by Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., that would create a single-payer health care system. Sanders' amendment was highly unlikely to be adopted, but its reading out loud gobbled up almost three hours of increasingly scarce floor time. One GOP leadership aide said he expected the entire reading of the bill to take "a long time," while another noted that just the amendment's table of contents, which is six pages in length, took a clerk 17 minutes to read.” [CQ, 12/16/09] Sanders Stopped The Reading By Withdrawing The Amendment. “At 2:45 p.m., however, an angry Sanders stopped the read-a-thon by announcing he was withdrawing his amendment. Coburn shouted "regular order," but Benjamin L. Cardin, D-Md., who was presiding over the Senate, ruled that "the senator has that right" and said that the amendment had been withdrawn.” [CQ, 12/16/09] Sanders Said He Tried To Get “At Least A Debate” On His Single Payer Plan, But Was Filibustered. “SEN. SANDERS: Look, let me be very clear. I happen to believe in a Medicare-for-all, single-payer program. And I tried to get at least a debate on that on the floor, which was filibustered. This is not anywhere near as strong a bill as I would like. Of course there should be a public option to provide competition to the private health insurance companies so that we can control skyrocketing costs. In my view, there should not be, as the Senate bill does, a tax on health-care benefits. There should be a re- importation prescription drug bill which lowers the outrageously high costs of prescription drugs all over this country. We should have all of those things.” [Morning Joe, MSNBC, 12/22/09] Sen. Coburn Said Democrats Did Not Want A Vote On Sanders’ Single Player Plan. “SEN. COBURN: Well, let's talk about the tactic. Number one is Senator Sanders is a very honest liberal and he believes that government ought to be in charge of health care. I thought the American people ought to know what was in that bill, so that's number one. Number two, is most of the Democrats didn't want to vote on that bill. So they were happy he withdrew it. Number three is had we gotten past midnight, they never would have made a vote before Christmas day.” [Campbell Brown, CNN, 12/22/09] Sanders Said He Was Disappointed Congress Did Not Vote On Medicare-For-All Single-Payer System. “I was very excited and millions of people were excited that finally for first time in American history, a Medicare-for-all single- payer system was going to be introduced on the floor of the Senate, which in my view is the only way that we will ever provide comprehensive, universal, cost-effective health care for all of our people. And I was disappointed, very disappointed, as many people were that we couldn't get a vote on that.” [Situation Room With Wolf Blitzer, CNN, 12/16/09] Sanders Said He Would Fight For A Strong Public Option Because “We’re Not Going To Get” A Single Payer Plan Sanders Said “We’re Not Going To Get” Single Payer, So We Have To Fight For The “Strongest Possible Legislation.” “I’ll tell you something: I am a strong advocate of a Medicare for all single-payer system. And I -- the more I see discussion out here, the more I believe that is the only way, in the end of the day, that you’re going to have universal comprehensive and cost effective health care. But we`re not going to get that, unfortunately. So, what we have got to do is fight for the strongest possible legislation that we can, which includes a very strong public option, which is the only way that I know you`re going to get cost containment and that you`re going to give people a choice about going outside of a private insurance company at a time when many people have misgivings about what private insurance companies are doing.” [MSNBC, 11/16/09] Sanders Was Convinced That His Health Care Plan Would One Day Become Law Sanders Said That He Was “More Than Aware” That His Amendment Would Not Pass, But Was “Absolutely Convinced” It Would Eventually Become The Law. “A clearly angry Sanders came to the floor to withdraw his amendment. "The best the Republicans can do is try to bring the U.S. Senate to a halt," he said. "I was more than aware the amendment would not win. I knew that. But I am absolutely convinced this legislation or legislation like it will eventually become the law of the land." [CQ, 12/16/09] Sanders: “The Single-Payer Approach Is The Only Way We Will Ever Have A Cost-Effective, Comprehensive Health Care System In This Country.” “‘In my view, the single-payer approach is the only way we will ever have a cost-effective, comprehensive health care system in this country,’ said Sanders. ‘One of the reasons our current health care system is so expensive, so wasteful, so bureaucratic, so inefficient is that it is heavily dominated by private health insurance companies whose only goal in life is to make as much money as they can.’” [Press Release, John Conyers, 7/30/10] Sanders Advocated For A Strong Public Option, And Said It Could Be Passed Through Reconciliation Sanders: “The House Public Option Is A Weak One, And The Senate One Is A Weaker One. We Have Got To Make It Stronger.” “MR. SANCHEZ: What do you think of the House version? Because Robert Reich, who a lot of folks respect, certainly on the left, he says it's already been diluted so much, it's going to be meaningless. Do you agree with that? The public option, I'm talking about. SEN. SANDERS: That's right. That's what I'm saying. The House public option is a weak one, and the Senate one is a weaker one. We have got to make it stronger. People need the choice. Look, at the end of the day, you just don't want to give money to the private insurance companies and say, look, I want you to provide insurance for this guy, and it's okay if you raise your rates exponentially, because we, the dumb taxpayers, are just going to keep giving you the money. That doesn't make a lot of sense.” [CNN, 11/23/09] Sanders Said Senate Could Get 50 Votes For Public Option Under Reconciliation. “MR. SCARBOROUGH: Let's start with something that the White House has suggested won't be on the table today, and that's the public option. A few days ago, Robert Gibbs said it was dead. Do you think that's a mistake? Do you think that you could still find 50 votes for the public option in the Senate? SEN. SANDERS: I think the president is wrong. I think it is a public mistake. I think the people, for all the right reasons, distrust private insurance companies. I think they want to look to a Medicare-type public option. I think they should have that choice. And second of all, at a time when health-care costs are soaring, vis-avis that 39 percent increase in California and all over the country, what a public option can do is keep private insurance companies honest, give people an option, hold them accountable. So I think the president is wrong and I think we should go forward, and I think we could get the 50 votes that we need under reconciliation.” [Morning Joe, MSNBC 2/25/10] Sanders: “I Think We Do Have 50 Votes In The Senate For A Public Option.” “MR. BUCHANAN: I think people will start talking about a failed president, to be quite frank. But let me ask Senator Sanders this. Senator, if you're going to go for reconciliation, you only need 50 votes and Joe Biden. And if you're going to do that, why not -- why is the president not going for the public option, if all he needs if 51 votes, in effect? Has he been intimidated? Has Harry Reid been intimidated, when he gave up that big $85 billion plan to go for 15 billion (dollars)? Intimidated by Massachusetts, intimidated by the polls that show folks don't want it, intimidated by the polls showing Republicans are gaining? SEN. SANDERS: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Now, Pat, I don't agree with you. I think the polls have been overwhelming in support of a public option. Harry Reid supports a public option. I think we do have 50 votes in the Senate for a public option. And frankly, I don't know why the president has not put it in, and I hope that we can inject it. I think it's a very important part of health-care reform.” [Morning Joe, MSNBC 2/25/10] Sanders Said Public Option Could Be Achieved Through Reconciliation. “MS. MADDOW: Is the public option really alive again, or is this premature resurrection here? SEN. SANDERS: No, we can do it, but we have to understand it's not just the public option. Through reconciliation, we now have the power to lower premiums that currently exist in the Senate bill. We can do better. We can fill and do away with the donut hole. We can do away with the tax on health-care benefits, which I think is a bad policy decision.” [The Rachel Maddow Show, MSNBC, 2/17/10] Sanders Said He Could Move Public Option Through Congress “Pretty Quickly.” “MS. MADDOW: If you were to take up the public option and those other measures that you just described under budget reconciliation, how long would it take before there could be a vote? How complicated is that process that you just described? SEN. SANDERS: We can move it. We can move that pretty quickly.” [The Rachel Maddow Show, MSNBC, 2/17/10] Sanders Said U.S. Could Pass Major Education Reform In Same Bill As Public Option. “And let me tell you something else. In addition to that, committees have instructions right now so that we can pass major education reform in the same bill. And what we could do is substantially increase Pell grants to make college more affordable, put a hell of a lot of money into child care and school construction. You could do that right now under the instructions that we're operating under for reconciliation.” [The Rachel Maddow Show, MSNBC, 2/17/10] Sanders: “We Can Combine Health Care And Education. That's What Reconciliation Would Allow Us To Do Now.” “MS. MADDOW: So you're saying you could add expansion of Pell grants, extensions or expansion of child-care help and school construction funds to the existing health-reform bill? You could pass it all at once? SEN. SANDERS: Yes. We can combine health care and education. That's what reconciliation would allow us to do now. After we pass that, we can come back for reconciliation and we can deal with infrastructure. We can deal with the transformation of our energy system away from fossil fuels to energy efficiency and sustainable energy.” [The Rachel Maddow Show, MSNBC, 2/17/10] … But Did Not Introduce A Public Option Near The End Of Debate Because He Concluded It Could Undermine The Entire Process Sanders Spokesman Said That Despite Believing Majorities In Both Chambers Supported A Public Option, Sanders Came To Believe Offering Such An Amendment Would Undermine The Entire Process.” “A statement by Will Wiquist, a Sanders spokesman, confirmed the report. "Bernie is a strong supporter of a public option and will continue to work to create a system that provides competition for private insurance companies as a way to hold down skyrocketing premiums," Wiquist said by e-mail. "He thinks majorities in the House and Senate would support a public option." "Given the very delicate situation at this time and the challenge facing Speaker Pelosi as she rounds up votes, Bernie and other senators have concluded that offering a public option amendment now could undermine the entire process."” [Burlington Free Press, 3/19/10] Harry Reid Convinced Sanders That Adding A Public Option During Conciliation Would “Destabilize A Very Sensitive Situation.” “Some senators were reluctant to use the reconciliation process, which is reserved for the most crucial situations, fearing a backlash from Republicans shut out of the process. Others wanted changes to the bill. A coalition of liberal senators led by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont wanted an amendment returning the public option. Reid convinced them, Sanders said, that it might “destabilize a very sensitive situation.” The majority leader promised a vote on the public option after health care reform became law. “Harry Reid is not a charismatic leader, let’s be clear about that,” Sanders said. “But his sense of decency, which you see day after day … his decency comes out.”” [Las Vegas Sun, 3/28/10] Sanders Did Not Think The Affordable Care Act Was A Strong Enough Bill Sanders: “Look, In Terms Of This Health-Care Bill, Chris, I'm Not Going To Tell You It's The Greatest Thing In The World.” “Look, in terms of this health-care bill, Chris, I'm not going to tell you it's the greatest thing in the world. I believe in a Medicare-for-all single-payer bill. A lot in this bill -- I think we should have a strong public option. There are other components of this bill that I don't like. But you know what? At the end of the day, just doing community health centers, you're going to have 25 million more people who have access to primary health care --” [Hardball, MSNBC, 12/22/09] Sanders: “If Anyone Wants To Tell Me This Is Not A Particularly Strong Piece Of Legislation, You Know What? I Agree With Them.” “MR. SCHULTZ: All right, you're going to be targeted, along with some other liberal senators like Senator Brown, from the progressive groups to not be there in the end because there is not competition; there's not the public option. How do you feel about that? SEN. SANDERS: Well, this is how I feel. If anyone wants to tell me this is not a particularly strong piece of legislation, you know what? I agree with them.” [The Ed Show, MSNBC, 12/21/09] Sanders: “If Anyone Wants To Tell Me That The Senate Bill Is Inferior To The House Bill Because It Taxes Health-Care Benefits Rather Than Progressive Taxation, I Agree With Them.” “And if anyone wants to tell me that we should have had a public option to provide competition for the private insurance companies who are going to laugh all the way to the bank, I agree with them. And if anyone wants to tell me that the Senate bill is inferior to the House bill because it taxes health-care benefits rather than progressive taxation, I agree with them. And if anyone wants to tell me we should have passed prescription drug reimportation to lower the cost of prescription drugs for everybody in America, I agree with them.” [The Ed Show, MSNBC, 12/21/09] Sanders Said We Needed To Make The Affordable Care Act Better And Stronger, But You Could Not Ignore That It Expanded Health Care Accessibility Across The Country. “SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, VERMONT: The answer is yes, and the answer is the day after it`s passed, we have to go back and make it better and stronger. But your point is right. Let`s not -- let`s not ignore the reality that 31 million more Americans are going to get health insurance. Let`s not ignore the reality we`re going to expand community health centers all over this country. Another 18 million people are going to be able to walk in the door. Health care, dental care, low-cost prescription drugs, mental health counseling, let`s not forget about the insurance reforms, the obscenity, the immorality, of insurance companies telling families that they can`t get insurance because they had cancer two years ago. That`s gone.” [The Ed Show, 3/15/10] Sanders Said The Health Care Law Was “Better Than Nothing.” “Sanders offered similar qualified support. "I am more than aware this bill is nowhere near as strong as it should be. For me, the bottom line is, if we fail now, how many more years will it take Congress to get back to it." He added, "Is this better than nothing? My answer is that it is." Both senators spoke on the Senate floor Monday about the provisions in the package of amendments offered Saturday that they considered critical improvements.” [Burlington Free Press, 12/22/09] Sanders Said Affordable Care Act was “Not Anywhere Near As Strong A Bill As I Would Like To See.” “VELSHI: But it brought your vote over because you're one of those people who said you wouldn't support this bill, particularly a bill that didn't have a public option. This doesn't have a public option. SANDERS: This bill -- this bill -- you're right. This bill is not anywhere near as strong a bill as I would like to see. I want to see a Medicare for all, single-payer. I want to see a strong public option. I don't want to see taxes on working people's health benefits. I want see re-importation of prescription drugs so that we can lower the cost of prescription drugs.” [CNN, 12/21/09] 2013: Sanders: “I Don't Think The Affordable Care Act Went Far Enough.” “I am a strong supporter of a Medicare for all, a single-payer program. I don't think the Affordable Care Act went far enough.” [Congressional Record Volume 159, Issue 138, S7253, 10/7/13] 2014: Sanders Called Gains Of Affordable Care Act “Modest.” “People ask that today, despite the modest gains of the Affordable Care Act, how does it happen that the United States is the only major country on Earth that doesn't guarantee health care to all people as a right? We have 40 million people uninsured, even more paying large copayments and premiums. Why don't we join the rest of the world and guarantee health care to all of our people?” [Congressional Record Volume 160, Issue 129, S5495, 9/10/14] 2015: Sanders Called Gains Of Affordable Care Act “Modest.” “Today, despite the modest gains of the Affordable Care Act--legislation I supported--40 million Americans continue to have no health insurance and we remain the only major country on Earth that does not guarantee health care to all people as a right.” [Congressional Record Volume 161, No. 41, S1422, 3/11/15] 2015: Sanders Called Gains Of Affordable Care Act “Modest.” “Today, the United States safely remains the only major country on Earth that does not guarantee health care to all people as a right. Today, despite the modest gains in the Affordable Care Act, we still have about 40 million Americans who lack health insurance and millions more who are underinsured.” [Congressional Record Volume 161, No. 48, S1679, 3/23/15] 2015: Sanders Called Gains Of Affordable Care Act “Modest.” “Let me begin by saying that despite the modest gains of the Affordable Care Act, there remain in this country 35 million Americans who have no health insurance. That means that when they get sick, they may not be able to go to the doctor or they may end up going to the emergency room at very high cost.” [Congressional Record Volume161, Issue 161, No. 54, S2194, 4/15/15] Sanders: “By Far, [The Affordable Care Act] Is Not A Perfect Piece Of Legislation.” “Let me be very clear. I voted for the Affordable Care Act. I will be the first to say that the Affordable Care Act has many problems and, in fact, in many ways, it did not go anywhere near as far as it should have gone. By far, it is not a perfect piece of legislation.” [Concurrent Resolution On The Budget, Fiscal Year 2016, S1686, 3/23/15] Sanders: “There Are Tens Of Millions Of People--Even After The Affordable Care Act--Who Lack Any Health Insurance.” “Today, as a nation, we are the only major country on Earth that doesn't guarantee health care to all of its people as a right. Today there are tens of millions of people--even after the Affordable Care Act--who lack any health insurance.” [Congressional Record Volume 160, Issue 32, S1146, 2/26/14] Sanders Said The Affordable Care Act Was “Very, Very Complicated” And He Wanted Something “Simpler, Less Bureaucratic, More Cost Effective.” “NIEDELMAN: Why not work within the Affordable Care Act if it survives the latest Supreme Court decision? SANDERS: Well, I voted for the Affordable Care Act and played an important role in creating many, many hundreds of community health centers all over this country and I'm very concerned about primary healthcare. I think the Affordable Care Act is a very, very complicated piece of legislation. I want something that is simpler, less bureaucratic, more costeffective.” [My Champlain Valley, 5/31/15] … But Said That It Was Important To Recognize The Good In The Bill And Continue The Fight Sanders Said To Simply Kill The Bill Was Not Acceptable. “MR. MATTHEWS: Yeah. SEN. SANDERS: -- 20,000 new primary health-care doctors and dentists that we desperately need, 30 million more people getting insurance. All right, it is not the end of the world. We've got to -- the day after this is passed, we've got to improve it. But to simply try to kill this bill and leave 45,000 people every single year dying, that to me is just not acceptable.” [Hardball, MSNBC, 12/22/09] Sanders: “Let Us Not Underestimate The Good In This Bill. Let’s Continue The Fight.” “SANDERS: The answer is, pass this bill and make it better the day after. I believe that at the end of the day what we need is a Medicare for all single-payer system. This is far from that. But that fight continues. SCHULTZ: Yes. SANDERS: So, this is a step forward. And let us not -- let us not underestimate the good in this bill. Let`s continue the fight.” [The Ed Show, MSNBC, 3/15/10] Sanders Said The Choice Was Either To Kill The Bill Or “Pass Something And Try To Improve It In Years To Come.” “The reality is, after all is said and done, there are no Republicans who are supporting this. There are 60 people in the Democratic Caucus and you have some conservatives who are saying no, I won't do it. I won't do it. So the choice that we're left with is kill the bill now, continue the process by which 45,000 Americans die every year because they don't get access, or pass something and try to improve it in years to come.” [Morning Joe, MSNBC, 12/22/09] Sanders Said That Because Of Flaws In Health Care Bill, We Would Have To Return To Health Care Debate “In A Reasonably Short While.” “SEN. SANDERS: Very good point. And the answer is, this is what happens, and this is not insignificant: 45,000 people a year die in this country because they don't have access to doctors, they don't have health insurance. We can address that problem today. But your question is a very good question. Long-term, is it sustainable for individuals who are paying premiums, or for the government, when we're continuing to see health-care costs soaring? And the answer is no, it is not. That is why, in my view, in a reasonably short while we're going to be back here. And I hope -- I hope, with the support of the American people -- Congress has the guts to take on the insurance companies and the drug companies and tell them we cannot continue to pay, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs or for health care. That is going to be a hell of a fight.” [Morning Joe, MSNBC, 12/22/09] Sanders Called For A Single Payer Health Care System That Goes Beyond The “Modest Gains” Of The Affordable Care Act. “The United States remains the only major country on earth that does not guarantee health care for all as a right. Despite the modest gains of the Affordable Care Act, 35 million Americans continue to lack health insurance and many more are under-insured. Yet, we continue paying far more per capita for health care than any other nation. The United States must join the rest of the industrialized world and guarantee health care to all as a right by moving toward a Medicare-for-All singlepayer system.” [Sanders Remarks, 5/27/15] Sanders Said Affordable Care Act Had “Some Very Important Provisions” But Did Not Go Far Enough To Fix US Health Care System. “As I've stated many times, I think the Affordable Care Act has some very important provisions in it, ending this obscenity called pre-existing conditions, making sure that young people, 26 years of age and younger, can get into their parents' health insurance program, reducing prescription drug costs for seniors, ending discrimination against women, and in fact expanding Medicaid and allowing more people to get affordable care through the exchanges. Those are good things, but at the end of the day, we should also be aware that after all of the successes of Obamacare, we still have many many millions of people in this country who have no health insurance, we will still have a situation where we are spending by far the highest cost in the world per capita on healthcare than any other nation.” [Brunch with Bernie, 4/4/14] Sanders Said Obamacare Was “A Step Forward,” But He Advocated For A Single Payer System. “So we are spending more, we still have so many people uninsured, we have people under-insured with high premiums, high deductibles, so Obamacare, in my mind, is a step forward, but I believe we have to go forward to a Medicare for all single-payer system, a simple system, that will greatly reduce administrative costs, open the door to every American citizen, and provide healthcare to them all in a much more cost effective way than we are currently doing. So that is an issue that is out there. Obamacare is a step forward, we've got to go a lot further than that.” [Brunch with Bernie, 4/4/14] Sanders Said The Supreme Court Decision To Uphold The Affordable Care Act Was A “Good Day” For Americans, But The United States Ultimately Needed To Do Move To A Single Payer System. “The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the Affordable Care Act. Sen. Bernie Sanders welcomed the ruling. "Today is a good day for millions of Americans who have pre-existing conditions who can no longer be rejected by insurance companies. It is a good day for families with children under 26 who can keep their children on their health insurance policies. It is a good day for women who can no longer be charged far higher premiums than men. […] In my view, while the Affordable Care Act is an important step in the right direction and I am glad that the Supreme Court upheld it, we ultimately need to do better. If we are serious about providing high-quality, affordable healthcare as a right, not a privilege, the real solution to America's health care crisis is a Medicare-for-all, single-payer system. Until then, we will remain the only major nation that does not provide health care for every man, woman and child as a right of citizenship.” [Sanders press release, 6/28/12] … And Supported Fixes To The Affordable Care Act Sanders Voted For The Affordable Care Act, Said That It “Has A Lot Of Negatives To It, Including The So-Called Cadillac Tax.” “EDITORIAL BOARD: (Inaudible) in the amendment, what would you change? SANDERS: I voted for the Affordable Care Act. […] Now, the bill in my view is much too complicated. The bill has a lot of negatives to it, including the so-called Cadillac tax.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Des Moines Register, 9/3/15] Sanders Supported Eliminating The Cadillac Tax In The ACA. “Here in Nevada, the most powerful union, the 55,000-member Culinary Workers Union Local 226, is in no hurry to endorse before it hears where candidates stand on its most important issue at the moment: repealing the “Cadillac tax” in President Obama’s health-care law. […] Speaking to reporters here after his closed-press remarks to the AFL-CIO, Sanders said he supports the effort to eliminate the excise tax on health benefits earned by union members in collective bargaining agreements. During her speech, Clinton pointed to signs held by activists saying “Fix Obamacare” and said she is looking at the issue.” [Washington Post, 8/18/15] Sanders Supported Doc Fix. “We need to deal with this so called doctor's fix for doctor's reimbursement rates for Medicare.” [Brunch with Bernie, 2/7/12] Criticized Affordable Care Act Roll Out Sanders Criticized Affordable Care Act Roll Out. “This week, also, we have some news about the Affordable Care Act, so-called Obamacare, and the interesting point there is that despite the horrendous roll out, it's hard for me to understand how they couldn't get their website in running order, but they didn't. Despite enormous amounts of bad publicity and 24/7 attacks by the Republican Party, it turns out that millions and millions of Americans are in deep need of health insurance and affordable health insurance.” [Brunch with Bernie, 4/4/14] Sanders Said Private Insurance Companies Benefitted Too Much With Affordable Care Act Sanders Said That Affordable Care Act Was Not The Bill He Wanted, Adding That Insurance Companies Were “Going To Be Laughing All The Way To The Bank.” “The insurance companies are going to make out like bandits. The drug companies are going to make out like bandits. No question about that. This is not a strong bill, it is not the bill I want. But on the other hand, tens of millions of Americans are finally going to get health insurance. There’s going to be more primary health care access, there are a lot of good things. But I’m not going to argue with you, the insurance companies are going to be laughing all the way to the bank.” [Morning Joe, MSNBC, 12/22/09, 4:00] Sanders Said Private Insurance Companies Would Not Have Competition Without Public Option. “Right now, with the withdrawal of the public option, what that means is that the private insurance companies are not going to have any competition. And they are going to be able, it seems to me, to be able other continue to raise their rates as high as they want, which is what they have been doing for many years.” [Situation Room With Wolf Blitzer, CNN, 12/16/09] Sanders: “We Must End The Private Insurance Company Domination Of Health Care In Our Country.” “Most Americans do believe all of us should have health care coverage and that nobody should be left out of the system. The real debate is how we accomplish that goal in an affordable and sustainable way. In that regard, I think the evidence is overwhelming that we must end the private insurance company domination of health care in our country and move toward a publicly funded, single-payer, Medicare-for-all approach.” [Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 84, Pgs. S6240-S6241, 6/8/09] Sanders Thought States Needed More Flexibility Than Affordable Care Act Allowed Sanders Said States Should Have More Flexibility In Implementing Health Care Reform Than Allowed In Affordable Care Act. “The beauty of our Federalist system: 50 States-every State has a good idea. I think if we maintain standards that are high and give States flexibility, this can improve the health care reform bill we passed last year.” [Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 15, 2/2/11] Sanders Said States Should Have Right To Create Medicare-For-All Programs Different From Affordable Care Act. “That is to say, that if a State in this country, the State of Vermont, the State of Alaska, any other State, can maintain the high standards for quality health care and coverage that the national health care bill did, then that State should be given significant flexibility to perhaps do it in their own way and do it more cost effectively. I should tell you that in the State of Vermont, our new Governor is a supporter of a Medicare-for-all single-payer program. There are other States that want to move in a different direction, maintaining high standards but doing it perhaps in a different way than has been proposed by the national legislation. In my view, they should have that right.” [Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 15, 2/2/11] Sanders Said He Was Not Voting For Affordable Care Act Just A Week Before Senate Vote Sanders: “As Of This Point I Am Not Voting For The [Health Care] Bill.” “CAVUTO: While I have you here, senator, and I know you don't have much time. Excuse my voice. But on health care, you are very dead set against taking out a public option. And it looks like they have for the time being. Would you not vote for that then? SANDERS: Well, I'm struggling with this and as of this point I am not voting for the bill and here's why. CAVUTO: I'm sorry, sir, you're not voting for it? SANDERS: As of this moment. I'm going to do my best to make this bill a better bill. A bill that I can vote for. But I have indicated both to the White House and the Democratic leadership that my vote is not secure at this point.” [Cavuto, Fox Business Network, 12/16/09] Headline: “The Other Independent Who Could Sink Health Care” [CNN, 12/17/09] Sanders Said It Was “Not For Sure” That He Would Vote For Affordable Care Act. “So what I am right now doing is working with the White House, working with the Democratic leadership to try to make this bill as strong as I can. And, right now, I have made it clear that at this point it is not for sure that I will vote for that bill unless it becomes significantly better.” [Situation Room With Wolf Blitzer, CNN, 12/16/09] Sanders: “I Am Not There Yet In Terms Of Seeing This Bill At This Moment As A Bill That I Can Support.” “Liberals face somewhat of a paradox. Some want the Senate to pass a bill, and then seek changes during the process of merging the House and Senate versions. And they don't want to kill the overhaul outright and ruin their best chance in a generation to pass such a bill. At the same time, they are angry at the shape it is taking. ‘I am not there yet in terms of seeing this bill at this moment as a bill that I can support,’ Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, another independent, said Wednesday.” [Wall Street Journal, 12/18/09] Sanders Said He Was “Not There Yet” On Affordable Care Act. “O'DONNELL: Other issues like the bill's cost. And Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is frustrated that a public option was dropped. Senator BERNIE SANDERS: Trying to make this a better bill so that I can vote for it. But I'm not there yet.” [NBC Nightly News, 12/17/09] Sanders Said He Was “Very, Very Reluctant” To Support Health Care Legislation That Did Not Include Public Option. “A public option provides competition to the private insurance companies. It keeps them honest. Without that, I worry very, very much that individuals in the government will be spending a fortune in the next eight years. So that's why we need a strong public option, and I'm very, very reluctant to support any legislation that does not have that.” [Morning Meeting, MSNBC, 11/23/09] Harry Reid Added More Funding For Community Health Centers As A “Sweetener” For Sanders To Ensure His Vote Roll Call: “Reid Included Language For The Vermont Delegation - Boosting Funding For Community Health Centers At The Behest Of Sen. Bernie Sanders.” “Reid also included other sweeteners for Democratic lawmakers, particularly liberals who have had many of the top priorities - like a public insurance option and Medicare expansion - stripped from the final product. For instance, Reid included language for the Vermont delegation - boosting funding for community health centers at the behest of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who was particularly vocal and fought mightily for a single-payer health care system, and agreeing to Sen. Patrick Leahy's (D-Vt.) request to increase Medicaid payments to the state.” [Roll Call, 12/21/09] Las Vegas Sun: “The State Of Vermont Also Received Medicaid Enhancements, Which Republicans Immediately Criticized As Another Sweetener.” “The state of Vermont also received Medicaid enhancements, which Republicans immediately criticized as another sweetener. Sen. Bernard Sanders of Vermont, the Independent Democrat, had been among those greatly disappointed by the loss of the public option plan. But the Medicaid enhancement for Vermont, and also Massachusetts, allows those states to receive additional federal support even though they have already greatly expanded their Medicaid programs from their state coffers.” [Las Vegas Sun, 12/19/09] Sanders: “One Of The Reasons I Voted For The Senate Bill Was That We Were Able To Get In An Amendment… To Expand Community Health Centers And The National Health Service Corps.” “Windham County could be home to the state’s newest community health center, after Sen. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., was able to increase the health center funding in the final version of the Senate health care bill that passed early Monday morning. ‘One of the reasons I voted for the Senate bill was that we were able to get in an amendment for $10 billion over five years to expand community health centers and the National Health Service Corps,’ said Sanders on Monday.” [Brattleboro Reformer (Vt.), 12/21/09] Sanders, On Receiving “Pet Project” In Exchange For Vote On Health Care Bill: “I Mean, That Is What The Democratic Process Is About, And Sometimes It's Pretty Messy.” “VELSHI: What do you say -- I know you said that what you argued for to get into this bill does help all Americans. What do you say to those people out there who for better or for worse are cynics about the process and felt that this deal-making waters down the bill and gave people pet projects in their own states? SANDERS: Well, I think there's some validity in that concern. But, you know, what do you think goes on here every single day? I mean, that is what the Democratic process is about, and sometimes it's pretty messy. But I would also tell you what also goes on here is the Wall Street and the banks and the insurance companies and the drug companies spend huge amounts of money to influence the political process. And we got to take a hard look at that and demand campaign finance reform to take the power away from some of these guys. So you got a process in D.C. which is not great. It was probably worse under the Republicans, but it's not great right now, and we need to improve it.” [Campbell Brown, CNN, 12/21/09] Sanders Said Discretionary Funding For Community Health Center Program Was Cut Since Affordable Care Act Was Enacted. “I believe that community health centers are the answer we are looking for to make health care work for everyone, and I am very grateful for the language included in this Budget that recognizes the value of health centers. As the Senator knows, since enactment of the Affordable Care Act, budget cuts have significantly reduced discretionary funding for the Community Health Center Program. Current service levels for the Community Health Center Program have been maintained only by redirection of the ACA's mandatory expansion funding--which is not authorized beyond the year 2015.” [Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 42, S2137, 3/21/13] Sanders Said Community Health Centers Benefitted Other States More Than Vermont. “Sanders obtained about $10 billion to fund community health centers, though he makes the point that those health centers are across America, not just in Vermont. I spoke to Senator Sanders a short time ago and I asked him if all this deal making didn't make it seem as if votes were being bought. SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I), VERMONT: You're talking about a program that benefits people in 50 states. Actually it benefits my state less than most other states because we're far advanced in the community health center. We save taxpayers' money because we keep people out of the emergency room and we give them primary health care. Now you tell me why that's such a bad deal. It has support from Republicans and has suspect from George W. Bush. John McCain supported a community health center.” [CNN, 12/21/09] Sanders Said What Brought Him Over To The Bill Was Not Money For Vermont, But That The Community Health Center Provision Significantly Improved The Bill. “VELSHI: So what happens? What happens if it wasn't this bill, if this wasn't this money that Vermont gets a piece of, what brought you over? SANDERS: Well, let's get the facts right. Vermont gets a little. This is not a Vermont bill. This is a national bill. Usually the criticism is somebody got all this money for his own state. This is for 50 states in America. Other states will benefit a lot more than Vermont. What brought me over is that among other things this provision significantly improves the bill. It makes a bill worth supporting rather than killing the whole bill and allowing 45,000 people a year to continue to die.” [CNN, 12/21/09] Sanders Said That The Expansion Of Community Health Centers Persuaded Him Into Voting For the ACA. “I believe very strongly that the Federally Qualified Community Health program is one of the most important public health programs that we have in this country. Our primary healthcare system is collapsing in America. This amendment is going to create 20,000 new primary healthcare doctors and dentists and nurses at a time when we desperately need them. That was an important factor in helping vote for this bill.” [Morning Joe, MSNBC, 12/22/09, 1:30] Prescription Drugs Sanders Introduced Legislation To Allow Prescription Drug Importation. “I was the first member of the United States Congress when I was in the House to take on the pharmaceutical industry and tell people in my state and around the country, you know what, let's go to Canada and we can buy prescription drugs at a significantly lower price than we can in the United States. I have introduced legislation which says, not only are we not going to cut Social Security.” [CNN, New Day, 5/6/15] Sanders Sponsored Bill To Allow Prescription Drug Importation From Canada. “Amends provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act set forth in the Medicine Equity and Drug Safety Act of 2000 to: (1) direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to promulgate regulations permitting pharmacists and wholesalers to import Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved prescription drugs from Canada (currently, from Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, Switzerland, South Africa, the countries in the European Union and the European Free Trade Association, or other countries designated by the Secretary); and (2) exclude an infused or intravenously injected drug or a drug that is inhaled during surgery. Prohibits discrimination in the sale of prescription drugs by manufacturers to pharmacists or wholesalers, requiring: (1) terms as favorable as those provided to foreign purchasers; and (2) full access to drugs permitted to be imported.” [HR 4614, introduced 4/25/02] Sanders Said Americans Pay The Highest Prices For Prescription Drugs In The World. “And then, on top of all that, we end up spending almost twice as much per capita on healthcare, and…we pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs.” [Bernie Sanders at Johns Hopkins, 6/3/15] Sanders Introduced Bill To Save Taxpayer Money When Buying Generic Drugs Through Medicaid. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) on Monday introduced a bill aimed at lowering the taxpayer burden for rising generic drug prices. Brand-name drug manufacturers are required by law to pay a rebate to Medicaid when their drug prices rise faster than inflation. Sanders and Cummings’s bill would extend this requirement to generic drug manufacturers. […]”Our bill will extend the same price protections that already apply to brand name drugs to generic drugs purchased under Medicaid — and it will save $1 billion in taxpayer funds in the process.”“ [The Hill, 5/18/15] Sanders Proposed Bill That Would Limit How Quickly Pharmaceutical Companies Could Hike Generic Drug Prices. “On Monday, Sanders, who is also running for the Democratic presidential nomination, rolled out a proposal that would place strict limits on how quickly pharmaceutical companies could hike generic drug prices. Specifically, drug manufacturers would have to pay a rebate back to Medicaid if their drug prices grew faster than inflation. Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) is introducing the same bill in the House.” [Vox, 5/19/15] Generic Drug Manufacturers Would Be Required To Reimburse Medicaid For Growth In Prices Above Inflation. “Instead, it would require generic drug manufacturers to give Medicaid, the program that covers low-income Americans, a rebate for any growth in drug prices above and beyond overall inflation. Drug companies will almost certainly oppose this idea, as it would cut into their profits — and, they'll argue, into their development of generic drugs. Sometimes they will cite a shortage of raw materials as a reason for the price hikes, and would likely point to that as reasons why they couldn't produce the drugs for less.” [Vox, 5/19/15] Sanders Voted Against 2012 Food And Drug Safety Innovation Act, Which Reauthorized FDA Industry User Free Agreements. “With little bickering and no effort to repeal the Obama administration’s health reform law, the Senate passed the massive Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act on Thursday well ahead of schedule. The vote was 96-1. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) was the only no vote. The $6.4 billion, five-year reauthorization of FDA-industry user fee agreements partially funds the agency’s review of drugs and medical devices, which would have expired at the end of September without action.” [Politico, 5/24/12] Bill Was A Top Priority Of The Pharmaceutical Industry. “But notwithstanding the election-year and health care politics that dominate Congress, the bill sailed through with hardly a complaint. In part, that’s because it’s the No. 1 priority for the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. And in part, it’s because legislators on both sides have had a lot of input for a long time.” [Politico, 5/24/12] Sanders Voted Against Bill Because It Did Not Address Problems Faced By Americans Paying Too Much For Prescription Drugs. “The most pressing prescription drug issue in our country today is that Americans pay, by far, the highest prices in the world for their medicine and millions of people cannot afford the medications their doctors prescribe. I voted against this bill because it does far too little to address this crisis while it perpetuates a prescription drug system that continues to fail the American people." [Sanders press release, 5/24/12] Sanders Voted Against Final Passage Of 2007 Prescription Drug User Fee Amendments, While Hillary Clinton Voted For. The bill “would overhaul the Food and Drug Administration and reauthorize FDA drugmaker fees for expedited review of new pharmaceutical products. Clinical trials by drug companies would have to be registered in a publicly available database. The bill would require disclosure of potential conflicts of interest by drug review board members and FDA advisory board members. It also would create a drug surveillance system to track problems with drugs once they are in the open market and impose new limits on certain consumer advertisements for prescription drugs. The FDA also would have the power to fine foodmakers for failing to report contaminated food.” The bill passed 93-1. [CQ Vote Report; S 1082, Vote #157, 5/7/07] Sanders Voted Against The Bill Because It Did Not Legalize Drug Importation. “The no vote was cast by Senator Bernard Sanders, independent of Vermont, an outspoken critic of the pharmaceutical industry who said he was "extremely disappointed" that the bill did not legalize imports.” [New York Times, 5/10/07] 2004: Sanders Said That The Pharmaceutical Industry Had “Bought Off The White House.” “The pharmaceutical industry year after year is the most profitable industry in this country, and they in fact, and they in fact could care less about the needs of the American people. And very sadly, being an Independent I can say this: it seems obvious to me that the pharmaceutical industry has bought off the White House, many leaders in the United States Congress with huge campaign contributions, and all kinds of lobbying.” [Prescription Drug Importation, 02/24/04, 00:21:45] 2001: Sanders Criticized President Bush’s “Very Weak” Health Care Proposal That “Fail[ed] To Address The Real Cause Of The Prescription Drug Crisis.” “I must express serious disappointment that the President has put forward a very weak proposal that fails to address the real cause of the prescription drug crisis. Key elements of the President’s plan ensure that it will provide only limited or no relief for millions and millions of seniors throughout this country. The President’s plan includes no guaranteed benefit, so that the help that low-income seniors receive will vary from state to state, as will the amount of copayments and deductibles that they will have to pay. If we ask President Bush today to tell us exactly what the benefits will be, he cannot state that.” [C-SPAN, 1/31/01, 2:34] Sanders: Without Cost Containment Measures, Bush’s Proposals Would Be “Little More Than A Giveaway” To Pharmaceutical Companies. “The plan also lacks the critical element of any serious prescription drug solution: cost containment. At the heart of everything is the fact that our people are paying far more than they should for the drugs that they need. President Bush’s proposal has nothing to say about that. And without any effect of cost containment, programs that the President is proposing are little more than a giveaway to the large pharmaceutical companies.” [C-SPAN, 1/31/01, 3:18] 2001: Sanders Proposed Prescription Drug Program That He Claimed Would Cap All Out-OfPocket Expenses For Seniors At $1,600 A Year. “Now, let me talk for a moment about the proposal that many of us are working on. And that is a serious plan that provides serious relief from the outrageously high cost of prescription drugs in this country. Under the Progressive Caucus Medicare Extension of Drugs to Seniors Meds Plan, seniors will get the kind of coverage and cost containment they need, and all Americans, even those who are not on Medicare will benefit. Meds is a voluntary program within the Medicare system. Under Meds, when fully phased in over five years, our clearly and nationally defined benefits will result in no senior in this country having to pay more than $1,600 out-of-pocket per year. President Bush would leave them paying $6,000.” [C-SPAN, 1/31/01, 6:36] Sanders’ Meds Plan Would Require Medications Be Sold At The Best Price Possible And Close Loopholes From 2000 Reimportation Bill. “We are serious about taking on the pharmaceutical industry with all of their lobbyists, with all of their campaign contributions. Briefly stated, the first cost containment program item is to plug the loopholes in last year’s reimportation bill. So that the prescription drug distributors and pharmacists can in fact purchase prescription drugs that are FDA approved from any country on earth. Second of all, Meds would require that any medication sold under the program be made available at the best price that drug companies offer anyone else. [...] Finally, our proposal includes reasonable pricing language that requires the drugs developed at taxpayer expense be sold at a reasonable prices to the consumers who pay to develop them.” [C-SPAN, 1/31/01, 8:11] Sanders: FDA Approval Of Prescription Drugs Would Significantly Lower Costs. “Number one, Dennis just said this, why should the American people pay twice of what the Italians pay for the same exact drug? [...] Why not FDA approve prescription drugs? You do that and make sure you have real competition around the world, we can lower the cost of prescription drugs to every American and the United States government thirty to fifty percent.” [C-SPAN, 1/31/01, 33:14] Sanders Proposed Using Bulk Purchasing To Lower Costs For Large Government Purchases Of Prescription Drugs. “Number two, every corporation in America knows that you use and you leverage bulk purchasing. General Electric pays a lower price than the corner grocery store–the corner store–for what it purchased, because it purchases a massive amount. The United States Government purchases huge amounts of prescription drugs through the DOD, the VA, Medicaid–why don’t we use the bulk purchasing capabilities to do that?” [C-SPAN, 1/31/01, 33:47] Sanders Wanted To Attach Reasonable Pricing Guarantees To Subsidies Going To The NIH’s Research And Development Of Drugs. “The United States government, every year, spends billions and billions of dollars to develop new drugs through the NIH. And then what we do is that after we develop the drug, we give it over to the private company, and then they sell it to our people at any price they want. If you have reasonable pricing attached to that type of subsidy, you could save substantial sums of money.” [C-SPAN, 1/31/01, 34:22] Drug Patents Sanders Sponsored A Bill To Eliminate Drug Patents, And Instead Incentivize Drug Innovation With A Federal Prize. “Medical Innovation Prize Act of 2005 - Prohibits any person from having the right to exclusively manufacture, distribute, sell, or use a drug, a biological product, or a manufacturing process for a drug or biological product in interstate commerce, notwithstanding current Federal laws providing otherwise, including laws governing patent rights or exclusive marketing periods. Establishes the Fund for Medical Innovation Prizes. Requires the Board of Trustees for the Fund to award prize payments for medical innovations relating to a drug, biological product, or manufacturing process for a drug or biological product.” [HR 417, introduced 1/26/05] Sanders Sponsored Bill To Eliminate Patent For HIV/AIDs Treatments, And Instead Incentivize New Drugs With A Federal Prize. “Denies any person the exclusive right to manufacture, distribute, sell, or use in interstate commerce a qualifying treatment for HIV/AIDS, or to a manufacturing process for such a treatment, including the exclusive right to rely on health registration data or the 30-month stay-of-effectiveness period for Orange Book patents. Prescribes remuneration, in the form of prize payments from a Prize Fund for HIV/AIDS, in lieu of such market exclusivity. Exempts from this elimination of exclusive rights any dual use product that is a qualifying treatment for HIV/AIDS which also has a significant use for other diseases, but only with respect to its use for other diseases. Applies the elimination of exclusive rights with respect to a qualifying HIV/AIDS treatment even in a dual use product. Establishes the Prize Fund for HIV/AIDS. Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to designate a Prize Fund Director to administer the Fund.” [S 1138, introduced 5/26/11] Sanders Introduced A Bill To Ensure That Drug Approval Process Does Not Violate Medical Ethics. “Sen. Bernie Sanders, a chief opponent of the health reform law's 12-year data exclusivity period for biosimilars, is calling on FDA to embrace legislation that would create a system for the biosimilar sponsor to pay for access to the innovator data, he said in a letter sent Tuesday (Nov. 2) to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg. Sanders (I-VT) says that the 12-year data exclusivity provision forces companies to conduct unethical clinical trials in order to obtain the necessary data to market a cheaper alternative to the innovator product. Such a scenario, he says, violates Article 20 of the Helsinki Declaration, which states that "physicians must immediately stop a study when risks are found to outweigh the potential benefits or when there is conclusive proof of positive and beneficial results." […] The Sanders legislation -the Ethical Pathway Act -- would establish a negotiating system for the innovator manufacturer to receive compensation for providing its data early. First, the two parties would attempt to find a reasonable compensation scheme that accounts for the clinical costs; the risk of an investigation, including similar investigations that did not result in a marketable product; federal grants and tax credits; anticipated market share; and revenue during the exclusivity time period.” [Inside Health Reform, 11/10/10; S 3921, introduced 9/29/10] Doctors Sanders Said That Insurance Companies, Surgeons And Medical Specialists, And Drug Companies Were Profiting While Average Americans Had Trouble Affording Care. “In the U.S. today, the private insurance companies are making enormous profits, surgeons and medical specialists are extremely wealthy, the drug companies are making billions while the average American is having a harder and harder time affording basic health care.” [Speech dictated by Bernie Sanders to Richard Sugarman, 10/23/87] Sanders Said That Insurance Companies Were Just “Middlemen” For Doctors, Who Are “A Bunch Of Thieves” “Ripping This Country Off.” “Sanders emphasized that the workers should take into account which company in the long run would do the most to establish cost containment. He admitted he used to think all insurance companies were “bad guys,” but now realizes they are just “middlemen.” The real culprits, Sanders said, are doctors. “The medical profession is a bunch of thieves who are ripping this country off,” he said.” [Burlington Free Press, 6/19/82] Dental Care Sanders: “We Are In A Major Crisis In Primary Healthcare… We Have A Major Crisis In Affordable Dental Care In America.” “And then on top of that we have the issue of student debt. I will not forget, having spoken last year, a young woman in Vermont. Her crime in life was that she wanted to go to medical school and to be a primary care physician with low-income people. And that’s exactly the kind of physicians we now…we are in major crisis in primary healthcare. She got out of medical school $300 thousand in debt. That’s the debt she’s having to pay off. And then, just last week, I was in Iowa and I was talking about dental care. We have a major crisis in affordable dental care in America: many people don’t have access to dental care they can afford. We need more; we need thousands and thousands of dentists.” [Bernie Sanders at Johns Hopkins, 6/13/15] Sanders Introduced Bill To Ensure Medicare And Medicaid Cover Dental Services And Extend Federal Funding To Improve Dental Care Nationally. “Comprehensive Dental Reform Act of 2012 - Amends titles XVIII (Medicare) and XIX (Medicaid) of the Social Security Act to cover dental services. Increases the federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP) for funding under Medicaid for dental services. […] Amends the Public Health Service Act to establish, revise, and extend funding for grant programs for: (1) educating nondental medical and other professionals about oral health care; (2) providing dental services in hospital emergency rooms or in community settings; (3) providing scholarships and education loans for dental therapists and oral health professional students; (4) providing comprehensive oral health services to low-income individuals and individuals in underserved areas; (5) building, operating, or expanding dental clinics in schools; (6) funding research by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to prevent and manage oral health diseases; and (7) providing rural health clinics with mobile and portable, comprehensive dental services, including dentures, and outreach for senior-care facilities and facilities that provide federal health care and nutrition benefits for women and children.” [S 1522, introduced 9/18/13] Sanders Sponsored Dental Health Improvement Act. [HR 4476, 4/17/02] Bernie Sanders: “Dental Care Is Yooge... You Go Around This State, And You Will Find A Lot Of People With No Teeth. It Is Their Badge Of Poverty.” “‘Dental care is yooge,’ Sanders boomed into the phone. This has been a leitmotif of my visit -- Sanders’s crusade to improve dental health among Vermont’s rural poor. He views this as an employment and economic issue. ‘How many employers are going to hire someone who doesn’t have teeth?’ he asks. ‘You go around this state, and you will find a lot of people with no teeth. It is their badge of poverty.’ Improving dental care for the poor is a classic Sanders issue: unsexy and given to practical solutions and his obsessive attention. Sanders sees bad dental care among the poor as a ‘pothole issue’ in Vermont, meaning it is pervasive and something that government should be active in fixing (like potholes). Teeth are tangible, especially when they hurt.” [New York Times Magazine, 1/21/07] Community Health Centers And Primary Care Sanders Introduced Bill To Provide Funding For Programs To Expand Access To Primary Care Physicians. “Expanding Primary Care Access and Workforce Act - Amends the Public Health Service Act to appropriate funds for scholarship and student loan repayment programs for primary care providers. Amends the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 to provide appropriations for the National Health Care Workforce Commission and extend provisions related to community health centers and the Family Nurse Practitioner Residency Training Program. Extends payments and development grants for Teaching Health Centers, the Nurse Faculty Loan Program, the Primary Care Residency Expansion Program, and Area Health Education Centers.” [S 2229, introduced 4/9/14] Mental Health Sanders Called For Expansion Of Mental Health Services To All Americans, Regardless Of Income. “The Senate health committee held a hearing Thursday on access to mental health services in America. It’s an issue brought into sharper focus after mass killings at Newtown, Conn., and other American communities. “We must make sure that mental health services are available to all Americans regardless of income,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders, a member of the committee. “Today for low- and middle-income people living in rural areas it is especially difficult to find timely, affordable care.”” [Sanders press release, 1/24/13] Sanders Said American Health Security Act Would Provide Every American With Health Care Coverage, Including Dental Care, Mental Health Care And Low Cost Prescription Drugs. “The only long-term solution to America's healthcare crisis is a single-payer national healthcare program. […] Congressman Jim McDermott and I have introduced the American Health Security Act. Our bill will provide every American with healthcare coverage and services through a state-administered, single-payer program, including dental and mental health coverage and low-cost prescription drugs. It would require the government to develop national policies and guidelines, as well as minimum national criteria, while giving each state the flexibility to adapt the program as needed. It would also completely overhaul the health coverage system, creating a single federal payer of state-administered health plans.” [Bernie Sanders, The Guardian, 10/7/13] Sanders Said We Must Improve Mental Health Care As Part Of A “Comprehensive Approach” To Addressing Mass Violence. “No knowledgeable person believes that there is one easy, 15-secondsoundbite answer to this crisis. We need a comprehensive approach in which a number of issues must be seriously addressed. Among those issues are […] Second, we must greatly expand and improve our mental health capabilities so that individuals and families in need of psychological help can find that help when they need it. Incredibly, there are major proposals before Congress right now which would substantially cut back on the availability of that help – making a bad situation much worse.” [Sanders press release, 12/17/12] Sanders Praised Federal Grant Funding For Expanded Mental Health Services At Burlington Community Health Center. “The Community Health Center of Burlington will be awarded a $250,000 grant to expand their mental health services, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) announced today. The Burlington center is one of 221 Federally Qualified Health Centers in 47 states that will receive a total of $55 million in funding for mental and behavioral health service expansion. This funding from the Health Resources and Services Administration comes from $11 billion in health center funding that Sanders helped to secure in the Affordable Care Act.” [Sanders press release, 7/31/14] Alternative Medicine Sanders Introduced Bill To Amend Federal Employees Health Benefits Program To Include Alternative Medicine. “Amends Federal civil service law to cover under the Federal Employees Health Benefits program any services provided by a licensed or certified chiropractor, an acupuncturist, a massage therapist, a naturopathic physician, or a midwife other than a nurse midwife whose services are currently covered, without supervision or referral by another health practitioner.” [HR 2360, introduced 6/24/99] Sanders Commended The VA And DOD For Offering Access To Alternative Medicine. “[Patients at the VA hospitals] are being given the opportunity to get involved in complementary and alternative medicine. [...] There is obviously a very important role for pharmaceuticals to play in our treatment, they save lives every single day, but that healthcare is more than just taking medication; that there are approaches toward wellness, there are approaches toward disease prevention, and there are ways to try to unite mind and body to make us healthier and stronger. And I applaud the VA and the DOD for doing that.” [Brunch With Bernie, 4/30/14, 5:54] Medicare Sanders Cautioned President Obama From Voucherizing Medicare. “And I would hope that the President remains strong on this issue and reflects in fact, what the vast majority of the American people want to see. They do not want to see Medicare savaged, perverted into a voucher program.” [SoundCloud, Bernie Sanders, Audio Clip: “2011: Income Inequality,” Accessed 6/8/15] Sanders Advocated For Lawsuits Against Doctors And Pharmaceutical Companies That Were “Ripping Off Medicare And Medicaid.” “There is an enormous amount of Medicare fraud. There’s no question about it. Sometimes it’s small companies, sometimes it’s doctors, sometimes it’s pharmaceutical companies that are ripping off both Medicare and Medicaid. And you’re right in saying, I know with the pharmaceutical industry, some of the settlements with some of the biggest drug companies have resulted in settlements rather than acknowledgment of guilt. And I am troubled by that. If you’re ripping off the Federal government intentionally, you should be found guilty, they should take you to court, you should be fined, and whether or not you should be able to continue to sell your products to the Federal government is a question that should be considered.” [Brunch With Bernie, 3/1/13, 28:20] Sanders Introduced Medicare Extension of Drugs to Seniors (MEDS) Act of 2001. [HR 1512, introduced 4/4/01] Medicaid Sanders Cautioned President Obama From Cutting Medicaid. “And I would hope that the President remains strong on this issue and reflects in fact, what the vast majority of the American people want to see. […] They do not want to see terrible cuts in Medicaid.” [SoundCloud, Bernie Sanders, Audio Clip: “2011: Income Inequality,” Accessed 6/8/15] Medicaid Expansion Sanders Criticized Republican Governors And Legislators Who Blocked Medicaid Expansion. “Now, the bill in my view is much too complicated. The bill has a lot of negatives to it, including the socalled Cadillac tax. But this bill has provided health insurance to many millions of Americans, who otherwise would not have had that. In states like Kentucky, the number of uninsured have gone way, way down. I am disappointed that there are a number of Republican states that have refused to expand the Medicaid program to eligible people. And as a result of that, there are going to be thousands of people that will die who should not have died because of those Republican governors and legislatures have refused to do that.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Des Moines Register, 9/3/15] Sanders Said That People Would Needlessly Die In States That Did Not Expand Medicaid. ““It is simply very hard for me to understand, quite honestly, how legislatures and governors, not just in South Carolina but in many states of this country, are rejecting the opportunity to simply get health insurance when in fact virtually all of the costs are coming from the federal government,” Sanders said in a one-onone interview with POLITICO. “People in South Carolina and other states will die because they do not have access to healthcare because of the expansion of Medicaid.”” [Politico, 8/22/15] Sanders Said That, For Many, Opposition To Medicaid Expansion Was Tied To Dislike Of Obama. “Asked how much of that opposition is fueled by a personal dislike of Obama, Sanders didn’t hold back. “I think, what, for many of these people, their dislike is that this is an initiative that came from President Obama,” Sanders said. “If President Obama pushed that, it’s something that they have got to reject. And I think that is wrong. I think they should be worrying more about working people, low-income people in their states than their feelings about President Obama.”” [Politico, 8/22/15] Sanders Supported Medicaid Expansion In South Carolina. “"In SC over 200,000 people would gain health insurance if the governor & legislature here would approve the expansion," @BernieSanders” [Twitter, Elizabeth Landers (CNN), 8/21/15] Sanders Criticized South Carolinian Politicians For Opposing Medicaid Expansion. “@BernieSanders knocks SC pols: "it is wrong" to allow a "rigid, right-wing" philosophy to stand in way of healthcare for thousands.” [Twitter, Jamie Self (The State), 8/21/15] Sanders Criticized Gov. Haley And The State Legislature For Refusing To Expand Medicaid In S.C. “On health care, he said it was “tragically wrong” for Gov. Nikki Haley and the state Legislature to refuse to expand Medicaid coverage for 200,000 poor and working families under the Affordable Care Act. “Don’t punish the people of your own state,” Sanders said, because of “your dislike of President Obama.”” [Press Release, Bernie 2016, 8/22/15] Sanders Sponsored American Health Security Act Of 2013 2013: Sanders Sponsored S. 1782, American Health Security Act Of 2013. [S 1782, introduced 12/9/13] Sanders Said American Health Security Act Would Provide Every American With Health Care Coverage, Including Dental Care, Mental Health Care And Low Cost Prescription Drugs. “The only long-term solution to America's healthcare crisis is a single-payer national healthcare program. […] Congressman Jim McDermott and I have introduced the American Health Security Act. Our bill will provide every American with healthcare coverage and services through a state-administered, single-payer program, including dental and mental health coverage and low-cost prescription drugs. It would require the government to develop national policies and guidelines, as well as minimum national criteria, while giving each state the flexibility to adapt the program as needed. It would also completely overhaul the health coverage system, creating a single federal payer of state-administered health plans.” [Bernie Sanders, The Guardian, 10/7/13] S 1782 Would Automatically Enroll Individuals At Birth Or At Time Of Legal Immigration. “Each State health security program shall provide a mechanism for the enrollment of individuals entitled or eligible for benefits under this Act. The mechanism shall— (1) include a process for the automatic enrollment of individuals at the time of birth in the United States and at the time of legal immigration into the United States or other acquisition of resident status in the United States; (2) provide for the enrollment, as of January 1, 2015, of all individuals who are eligible to be enrolled as of such date; and (3) include a process for the enrollment of individuals made eligible for health care services under subsections (b) and (c) of section 102.” [S 1782, Sec 103] S 1782 Prohibited Charging Individuals For Any Benefits Covered By The Act. “(b) Prohibition Of Balance Billing.— As provided in section 531, no person may impose a charge for covered services for which benefits are provided under this Act.” [S 1782, Sec 201] Legislation Would Eliminate Other Federal Health Programs S 1782 Would Eliminate Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, Federal Employees Health Benefit Program and TRICARE. “SEC. 106. RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING FEDERAL HEALTH PROGRAMS. (a) Medicare, Medicaid And State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).— (1) IN GENERAL.— Notwithstanding any other provision of law, subject to paragraph (2)— (A) no benefits shall be available under title XVIII of the Social Security Act for any item or service furnished after December 31, 2014; (B) no individual is entitled to medical assistance under a State plan approved under title XIX of such Act for any item or service furnished after such date; (C) no individual is entitled to medical assistance under an SCHIP plan under title XXI of such Act for any item or service furnished after such date; and (D) no payment shall be made to a State under section 1903(a) or 2105(a) of such Act with respect to medical assistance or child health assistance for any item or service furnished after such date. […] (b) Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.—No benefits shall be made available under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, for any part of a coverage period occurring after December 31, 2014. (c) TRICARE. —No benefits shall be made available under sections 1079 and 1086 of title 10, United States Code, for items or services furnished after December 31, 2014.” [S 1782, Sec 106] S 1782 Would Not Impact Medical Benefits Of Veterans Or Native Americans. “(d) Treatment Of Benefits For Veterans And Native Americans.—Nothing in this Act shall affect the eligibility of veterans for the medical benefits and services provided under title 38, United States Code, or of Indians for the medical benefits and services provided by or through the Indian Health Service.” [S 1782, Sec 106] S 1782 Would Repeal The State Exchanges Created Under The Affordable Care Act. “SEC. 107. REPEAL OF PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE STATE EXCHANGES. Title I of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111–148) (and the amendments made by title I) is repealed.” [S 1782, Sec 107] S 1782 Appropriated All Funds Previously Granted To Medicare, Medicaid, Federal Employee Health Benefits, And TRICARE To The American Health Security Trust Fund. “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, there are hereby appropriated to the Trust Fund for each fiscal year (beginning with fiscal year 2015) the amounts that would otherwise have been appropriated to carry out the following programs: (A) The Medicare program, under parts A, B, and D of title XVIII of the Social Security Act (other than amounts attributable to any premiums under such parts). (B) The Medicaid program, under State plans approved under title XIX of such Act. (C) The Federal employees health benefit program, under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code. (D) The TRICARE program (formerly known as the CHAMPUS program), under chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code. (E) The maternal and child health program (under title V of the Social Security Act), vocational rehabilitation programs, programs for drug abuse and mental health services under the Public Health Service Act, programs providing general hospital or medical assistance, and any other Federal program identified by the Board, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, to the extent the programs provide for payment for health services the payment of which may be made under this Act.” [S 1782, Sec 801] Benefits Were Determined In Part By Appointed Federal Board S 1782 Would Include “Comprehensive Benefits” Including… “SEC. 201. COMPREHENSIVE BENEFITS. (a) In General.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of this title, individuals enrolled for benefits under this Act are entitled to have payment made under a State health security program for the following items and services if medically necessary or appropriate for the maintenance of health or for the diagnosis, treatment, or rehabilitation of a health condition…” [S 1782, Sec 201] Hospital Services “(1) HOSPITAL SERVICES.—Inpatient and outpatient hospital care, including 24-hour-a-day emergency services.” [S 1782, Sec 201] Primary Care “(2) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES.—Professional services of health care practitioners authorized to provide health care services under State law, including patient education and training in self-management techniques. (3) COMMUNITY-BASED PRIMARY HEALTH SERVICES.—Community-based primary health services (as defined in section 202(a)).” [S 1782, Sec 201] Preventative Services “(4) PREVENTIVE SERVICES.—Preventive services (as defined in section 202(b)).” [S 1782, Sec 201] Long Term And Chronic Care Services “(5) LONG-TERM, ACUTE, AND CHRONIC CARE SERVICES.— (A) Nursing facility services. (B) Home health services. (C) Home and communitybased long-term care services (as defined in section 202(c)) for individuals described in section 203(a). (D) Hospice care. (E) Services in intermediate care facilities for individuals with an intellectual disability.” [S 1782, Sec 201] Prescription Drugs “(6) PRESCRIPTION DRUGS, BIOLOGICALS, INSULIN, MEDICAL FOODS.— (A) Outpatient prescription drugs and biologics, as specified by the Board consistent with section 615. (B) Insulin. (C) Medical foods (as defined in section 202(e)).” [S 1782, Sec 201] Dental Services “(7) DENTAL SERVICES.—Dental services (as defined in section 202(h)).” [S 1782, Sec 201] Mental Health Care. “(8) MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT SERVICES.—Mental health and substance abuse treatment services (as defined in section 202(f)).” [S 1782, Sec 201] And Other Care. “(9) DIAGNOSTIC TESTS.—Diagnostic tests. (10) OTHER ITEMS AND SERVICES.— (A) OUTPATIENT THERAPY.—Outpatient physical therapy services, outpatient speech pathology services, and outpatient occupational therapy services in all settings. (B) DURABLE MEDICAL EQUIPMENT.—Durable medical equipment. (C) HOME DIALYSIS.— Home dialysis supplies and equipment. (D) AMBULANCE.—Emergency ambulance service. (E) PROSTHETIC DEVICES.—Prosthetic devices, including replacements of such devices. (F) ADDITIONAL ITEMS AND SERVICES.—Such other medical or health care items or services as the Board may specify.” [S 1782, Sec 201] NOTE: The bill provides definitions of health services that were not explored in this research. S 1782 Prohibited Selling Insurance That Duplicated Benefits Covered By The Act. “(c) No Duplicate Health Insurance.—Each State health security program shall prohibit the sale of health insurance in the State if payment under the insurance duplicates payment for any items or services for which payment may be made under such a program.” [S 1782, Sec 201] State Programs Could Provide Benefits In Addition To Those Specified By The Act At The Cost Of The State. “(d) State Program May Provide Additional Benefits.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed as limiting the benefits that may be made available under a State health security program to residents of the State at the expense of the State.” [S 1782, Sec 201] Employers Could Provide Benefits In Addition To Those Specified By The Act. “(e) Employers May Provide Additional Benefits.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed as limiting the additional benefits that an employer may provide to employees or their dependents, or to former employees or their dependents.” [S 1782, Sec 201] S 1782 Protected Supplemental Health Coverage Provided For Under A Collective Bargaining Agreement. “(f) Taft-Hartley And MEW Benefit Plans.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a health plan may be provided for under a collective bargaining agreement or a MEWA if such plan is limited to coverage that is supplemental to the coverage provided for under the State-based American Health Security Program and available only to employees or their dependents or to retirees or their dependents.” [S 1782, Sec 201] S 1782 Established An American Health Security Standards Board, Comprised Of The Secretary Of HHS And Six Other Individuals Appointed By The President. “SEC. 401. AMERICAN HEALTH SECURITY STANDARDS BOARD. (a) Establishment.—There is hereby established an American Health Security Standards Board. (b) Appointment And Terms Of Members.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Board shall be composed of— (A) the Secretary of Health and Human Services; and (B) 6 other individuals (described in paragraph (2)) appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.” [S 1782, Sec 401] At Least One Board Member Was Required To Have A Nursing Background, And Only Three Members Could Be Of The Same Political Party. “(2) SELECTION OF APPOINTED MEMBERS.—With respect to the individuals appointed under paragraph (1)(B): (A) The members shall be chosen on the basis of backgrounds in health policy, health economics, the health professions, and the administration of health care institutions. (B) The members shall provide a balanced point of view with respect to the various health care interests and at least 2 of them shall represent the interests of individual patients. (C) At least 1 member shall have a nursing background. (D) Not more than 3 members shall be from the same political party. (E) To the greatest extent feasible, the members shall represent the various geographic regions of the United States and shall reflect the racial, ethnic, and gender composition of the population of the United States.” [S 1782, Sec 401] Board Would Determine Available Eligibility And Benefits. “IN GENERAL.—The Board shall develop policies, procedures, guidelines, and requirements to carry out this Act, including those related to— (A) eligibility; (B) enrollment; (C) benefits;” [S 1782, Sec 401] Board Would Determine National And State Funding Levels, As Well As Amount Of Payments To Providers. “IN GENERAL.—The Board shall develop policies, procedures, guidelines, and requirements to carry out this Act, including those related to— […] (F) national and State funding levels; (G) methods for determining amounts of payments to providers of covered services, consistent with subtitle B of title VI;” [S 1782, Sec 401] Board Would Determine “Medical Necessity And Appropriateness” Of Services. “IN GENERAL.— The Board shall develop policies, procedures, guidelines, and requirements to carry out this Act, including those related to— […] (H) the determination of medical necessity and appropriateness with respect to coverage of certain services;” [S 1782, Sec 401] Board Could Negotiate Drug Prices On Behalf Of The State Programs. “(b) Prices.—For each such listed prescription drug or biological covered under this Act, for insulin, and for medical foods, the Board shall from time to time determine a product price or prices which shall constitute the maximum to be recognized under this Act as the cost of a drug to a provider thereof. The Board may conduct negotiations, on behalf of State health security programs, with product manufacturers and distributors in determining the applicable product price or prices.” [S 1782, Sec 615] Board Could Negotiate Medical Device And Equipment Prices On Behalf Of The State Programs. “(c) Prices.—For each such listed item covered under this Act, the Board shall from time to time determine a product price or prices which shall constitute the maximum to be recognized under this Act as the cost of the item to a provider thereof. The Board may conduct negotiations, on behalf of State health security programs, with equipment and device manufacturers and distributors in determining the applicable product price or prices.” [S 1782, Sec 616] S 1782 Required That At Least 50 Percent Of Medical Residents Were Primary Cared Residents. “(1) GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION.—By not later than 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, at least 50 percent of the residents in medical residency education programs (as defined in subsection (e)(2)) are primary care residents (as defined in subsection (e)(4)).” [S 1782, Sec 701] Board Would Set A Specific Number Of Employed Registered Nurses, Midlevel Care Practitioners, And Dentists To Ensure Adequate Supply. “(2) REGISTERED NURSES.—To ensure an adequate supply of registered nurses, there shall be a number, specified by the Board, of registered nurses employed in the health care system as of January 1, 2017. (3) MIDLEVEL PRIMARY CARE PRACTITIONERS.—To ensure an adequate supply of primary care practitioners, there shall be a number, specified by the Board, of midlevel primary care practitioners (as defined in subsection (e)(3)) employed in the health care system as of January 1, 2017. (4) DENTISTRY.—To ensure an adequate supply of dental care practitioners, there shall be a number, specified by the Board, of dentists (as defined in subsection (e)(1)) employed in the health care system as of January 1, 2017.” [S 1782, Sec 701] Midlevel Practitioners Included Nurse Practitioners And Physicians Assistants. “(3) MIDLEVEL PRIMARY CARE PRACTITIONER.—The term “midlevel primary care practitioner” means a clinical nurse practitioner, certified nurse midwife, physician assistance, or other nonphysician practitioner, specified by the Board, as authorized to practice under State law.” [S 1782, Sec 701] States Were Required To Develop And Administer Plan, Cover Excess Costs Sanders Said The Healthcare System Should Be Administered At The State Level, Not In Washington. And eventually we will have a national healthcare system in this country; I hope administered at the state level, not in Washington, which will end the absurdity and the horror of 48 million people not having any health insurance at all. So I hope that Vermont will lead the nation in that direction. [Senator Bernie Sanders on Government Shutdown, 9/27/13, 25:00] Under S 1782, States Were Required To Plan A State Health Program Or Join With One Or More Neighboring States For A Regional Program. “(1) IN GENERAL.—Each State shall submit to the Board a plan for a State health security program for providing for health care services to the residents of the State in accordance with this Act. (2) REGIONAL PROGRAMS.—A State may join with 1 or more neighboring States to submit to the Board a plan for a regional health security program instead of separate State health security programs.” [S 1782, Sec 404] If A State Failed To Submit A Plan, The Board Would Develop A Plan For The State. “(4) STATES THAT FAIL TO SUBMIT A PLAN.—In the case of a State that fails to submit a plan as required under this subsection, the American Health Security Standards Board Authority shall develop a plan for a State health security program in such State.” [S 1782, Sec 404] Under S 1782, Federal Government Would Cover Between 81 And 91 Percent Of The Cost Of Each State Health Program, Depending On A Formula Weighing State Attributes. “(b) Federal Contribution Percentage.—The Board shall establish a formula for the establishment of a Federal contribution percentage for each State. Such formula shall take into consideration a State’s per capita income and revenue capacity and such other relevant economic indicators as the Board determines to be appropriate. In addition, during the 5-year period beginning with 2012, the Board may provide for a transition adjustment to the formula in order to take into account current expenditures by the State (and local governments thereof) for health services covered under the State health security program. The weightedaverage Federal contribution percentage for all States shall equal 86 percent and in no event shall such percentage be less than 81 percent nor more than 91 percent.” [S 1782, Sec 604] Spending Above Budget In A Given Year Would Be Funded By State Revenues. “(d) Effect Of Spending Excess Or Surplus.— (1) SPENDING EXCESS.—If a State exceeds its budget in a given year, the State shall continue to fund covered health services from its own revenues.” [S 1782, Sec 604] S 1782 Capped Administrative Costs For State Projects At Three Percent Of Total Expenditures. “(2) LIMIT ON CLAIMS PROCESSING AND BILLING EXPENDITURES.—Each State health security budget shall provide that State administrative expenditures, including expenditures for claims processing and billing, shall not exceed 3 percent of the total expenditures under the State health security program, unless the Board determines, on a case-by-case basis, that additional administrative expenditures would improve health care quality and cost effectiveness.” [S 1782, Sec 603] S 1782 Allowed For Up To One Percent Of The States Budgets For First Two Years Of The Program To Be Allocated Toward Workers Assistance For Administrative Workers Who Were Laid Off As A Result Of Implementation Of The Act. “(3) WORKER ASSISTANCE.—A State health security program may provide that, for budgets for years before 2017, up to 1 percent of the budget may be used for purposes of programs providing assistance to workers who are currently performing functions in the administration of the health insurance system and who may experience economic dislocation as a result of the implementation of the program. […] SEC. 905. EFFECTIVE DATE OF TITLE. The amendments made by this title shall take effect January 1, 2015.” [S 1782, Sec 603] National Health Care Spending Growth Was Limited To A Percentage Of GDP Under S 1782, National Health Care Budget Growth Was Limited To Average Annual Percentage Increase In GDP Over The Previous Three Years. “(2) NATIONAL HEALTH SECURITY SPENDING GROWTH LIMIT.—For purposes of this subtitle, the national health security spending growth limit described in this paragraph for a year is (A) zero, or, if greater, (B) the average annual percentage increase in the gross domestic product (in current dollars) during the 3-year period beginning with the first quarter of the fourth previous year to the first quarter of the previous year minus the percentage increase (if any) in the number of eligible individuals residing in any State the United States from the first quarter of the second previous year to the first quarter of the previous year.” [S 1782, Sec 601] Imposed Health Care Income Tax On All Families, Excise Tax on Employers, And Financial Transaction Tax 2015: Sanders Said “Of Course Taxes Would Go Up To Pay For Health Care.” “Sanders acknowledges that his health-care proposal would require higher taxes, but Americans would come out ahead, he says. “Yes, of course taxes would go up to pay for health care,” Sanders says. “But you know what would go down? Private insurance. You would not be paying private insurance. So if I said to you, ‘Well, you’re not going to pay Blue Cross $12,000 a year but you’re going to pay $10,000 more in taxes, are you going to be crying? No.”” [Christian Science Monitor, 6/11/15] Sanders Single Payer Health Care Plan S 1782 Imposed A Health Care Income Tax. “SEC. 59B. HEALTH CARE INCOME TAX. “(a) Imposition Of Tax.—In the case of an individual, there is hereby imposed a tax (in addition to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) equal to the applicable amount with respect to the taxpayer for the taxable year.” [S 1782, Sec 812] S 1782 Added 2.2% Health Care Income Tax On Individual Incomes Under $200,000 Or Joint Incomes Under $250,000. ““(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of a taxpayer not described in paragraph (2), the applicable amount with respect to any taxable year shall be determined in accordance with the following table: “If taxable income is: Not over $200,000 The applicable amount is: 2.2% of taxable income […] (2) JOINT RETURNS AND SURVIVING SPOUSES.—In the case of a joint return or a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)), the applicable amount with respect to any taxable year shall be determined in accordance with the following table: “If taxable income is: Not over $250,000 The applicable amount is: 2.2% of taxable income.” [S 1782, Sec 812] 2013: Average Health Insurance Premium For Employer Sponsored Family Coverage Was $16,029. In 2013, the average total family premium (in dollars) per enrolled employee at private-sector establishments that offer health insurance was $16,029. [Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2013] 2013: Average Total Employee Contribution For Family Coverage Was $4,421. In 2012, the average total employee contribution (in dollars) per enrolled employee for family coverage at private-sector establishments that offer health insurance was $4,421. [Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2013] 2013: The Median Household Income Was $52,250. “Real median household income in the United States showed a statistically significant increase between the 2012 ACS and the 2013 ACS (see Table 1).4 The 2012 U.S. median household income was $51,915, and the 2013 U.S. median household income was $52,250. (See Table 1.)” [US Census Bureau, 9/2014] 2013: Average Employee Health Care Contribution Was 8.5% Of Median Household Income. 2012: Over Half The Population Spent Less Than $200 Out Of Pocket On Health Care Expenses. “Over half of the population spent $200 or less (including about a quarter of the population with no out-of-pocket health expenses) in 2012. At the other end of the spectrum, about 15% of people spent more than $1,000 out-of-pocket on health care services.” [Peterson-Kaiser Health System Tracker, 12/17/14] 2012: 85% Of The Population Spent Less Than $1,000 Out Of Pocket On Health Care Expenses. [Peterson-Kaiser Health System Tracker, 12/17/14] S 1782 Added 3.2% Health Care Income Tax On Individual Income Between $200,000 And $400,000 Or Joint Income Between $250,000 And $400,000. ““(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of a taxpayer not described in paragraph (2), the applicable amount with respect to any taxable year shall be determined in accordance with the following table: “If taxable income is: Over $200,000 but not over $400,000 The applicable amount is: $4,400, plus 3.2% of the excess over $200,000 […] (2) JOINT RETURNS AND SURVIVING SPOUSES.—In the case of a joint return or a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)), the applicable amount with respect to any taxable year shall be determined in accordance with the following table: “If taxable income is: Over $250,000 but not over $400,000 The applicable amount is: $5,500, plus 3.2% of the excess over $250,000.” [S 1782, Sec 812] S 1782 Added 4.2% Health Care Income Tax On Individual And Joint Income Between $400,000 And $600,000. ““(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of a taxpayer not described in paragraph (2), the applicable amount with respect to any taxable year shall be determined in accordance with the following table: “If taxable income is: Over $400,000 but not over $600,000 The applicable amount is: $10,800, plus 4.2% of the excess over $400,000 […] (2) JOINT RETURNS AND SURVIVING SPOUSES.—In the case of a joint return or a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)), the applicable amount with respect to any taxable year shall be determined in accordance with the following table: “If taxable income is: Over $400,000 but not over $600,000 The applicable amount is: $10,300, plus 4.2% of the excess over $400,000.” [S 1782, Sec 812] S 1782 Added 5.2% Health Care Income Tax On Individual And Joint Income Over $600,000 ““(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of a taxpayer not described in paragraph (2), the applicable amount with respect to any taxable year shall be determined in accordance with the following table: “If taxable income is: Over $600,000 The applicable amount is: $19,200, plus 5.2% of the excess over $600,000 […] (2) JOINT RETURNS AND SURVIVING SPOUSES.—In the case of a joint return or a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)), the applicable amount with respect to any taxable year shall be determined in accordance with the following table: “If taxable income is: Over $600,000 The applicable amount is: $18,700, plus 5.2% of the excess over $600,000.” [S 1782, Sec 812] S 1782 Included An Additional 5.4% Tax On High Income Individuals. “General Rule.—In the case of a taxpayer other than a corporation, there is hereby imposed (in addition to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) a tax equal to 5.4 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $1,000,000. “(b) Taxpayers Not Making A Joint Return.—In the case of any taxpayer other than a taxpayer making a joint return under section 6013 or a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)), subsection (a) shall be applied by substituting ‘$500,000’ for ‘$1,000,000’.” [S 1782, Sec 813] S 1782 Imposed An Excise Tax Of 6.7 Percent Of Wages On Employers. “(c) Health Care.—In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on every employer an excise tax, with respect to having individuals in his employ, equal to 6.7 percent of the wages (as defined in section 3121(a)) paid by him with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121(b)).” [S 1782, Sec 811] S 1782 Included An 0.02 Percent Tax On Financial Security Transactions. “(1) IN GENERAL.— Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the rate of such tax shall be equal to 0.02 percent of the fair market value of the security. “(2) SWAPS.—In the case of a security described in subsection (d)(1)(D), the rate of such tax shall be equal to 0.02 percent of the fair market value of the underlying property with respect to, or the notional principal amount of, the derivative financial instrument involved in such transaction. “(3) SHORT-TERM DEBT INSTRUMENTS.—In the case of a covered transaction with respect to a security described in subsection (d)(1)(C) which has a fixed maturity date not more than 1 year from the date of issue, the rate of such tax shall be equal to 0.02 percent of the fair market value of such security.” [S 1782, Sec 821] Tax Included An Exception For Retirement Accounts And Certain Mutual Fund Transactions. “(2) EXCEPTION FOR RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS, ETC.—No tax shall be imposed under subsection (a) on any covered transaction with respect to any security which is held in any plan, account, or arrangement described in section 220, 223, 401(a), 403(a), 403(b), 408, 408A, 529, or 530 (including assets held in a segregated asset account described in section 817 as part of any such plan, account, or arrangement). (3) EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN MUTUAL FUND TRANSACTIONS.—No tax shall be imposed under subsection (a) on any covered transaction…“ [S 1782, Sec 821] 2011 Version 2011: Sanders Sponsored S. 915, American Health Security Act Of 2011. [S 915, introduced 5/9/11] Legislation Appropriated Specified Tax Receipts For The Affordable Care Act To The American Health Security Trust Fund. “The Program amends the tax code to create the American Health Security Trust Fund and appropriates to the Fund specified tax revenues, current health program receipts, and tax credits and subsidies under the Affordable Care Act.” [Massachusetts Nurses Association press release, 5/10/11] Legislation Included New Taxes, Including A Health Care Income Tax, Employer Payroll Tax, A Surcharge On High Income Individuals, And A Financial Transaction Tax. “The tax revenues include a new health care income tax, an employer payroll tax, a surcharge on high income individuals, and a tax on securities and other financial transactions. Transaction taxes include language consistent with other labor efforts around the globe to more fairly fund programs of social uplift.” [Massachusetts Nurses Association press release, 5/10/11] Under Legislation, All Funds Would Be Distributed To The States, Who Could Chose To Administer Their Own Program Or Have A Federal Board Administer It. “The federal government would collect and distribute all funds to the states and administrative expenses would be capped at three percent. Each state would have the choice to either administer its own program or have the federal Board administer it.” [Massachusetts Nurses Association press release, 5/10/11] Administrative Expenses Would Be Capped At Three Percent. “The federal government would collect and distribute all funds to the states and administrative expenses would be capped at three percent. Each state would have the choice to either administer its own program or have the federal Board administer it.” [Massachusetts Nurses Association press release, 5/10/11] Legislation Would Provide “Strong Minimum Standards” For Health Care Programs. “Their twin bills would provide better care for more patients at less cost by eliminating the middle-man role played by private insurance companies that rake off billions of dollars in profits. The American Health Security Act of 2011 would provide federal guidelines and strong minimum standards for states to establish and administer single-payer health care programs.” [Sanders press release, 5/10/11] 2009 Version 2009: Sanders Sponsored S. 703, American Health Security Act Of 2009 To Establish A “Single Payer, State-Administered Health Care System.” [S. 703, introduced 3/25/09; Sanders press release, 6/2/09] Sanders’s Legislation Would Be Paid For With Existing Sources Of Health Care Spending, “Along With Some Tax Increases” That Would Be Less Than Current Out-Of-Pocket Expenses. “The system would be paid for through existing sources of government health care spending along with some tax increases, which advocates say would be less than what people pay now in co-pays or out-of-pocket expenses.” [Barre-Montpelier Times Argus, 10/29/09] Sanders’s Legislation Would Be Managed On The State Level, Similar To Medicaid. “The system would guarantee health care coverage to every citizen. Benefits would include funding for primary care, mental health care and dental. Benefit packages would be managed on the state-level, similar to the operation of Medicaid.” [Arizona Capitol Times, 4/3/09] Funding For Sander’s Legislation Would Come From Federal Government, But Program Would Be Administered By States. “Under the American Health Security Act of 2009: […] Funding would come from the federal government, but the program would be administered by the states.” [The Nation, 3/30/09] Sanders’s American Health Security Act Limited Total National Health Care Spending As A Percentage Of GDP. “Proposals centered on "cost containment" -- which usually really means expenditure containment -- work by limiting patients' access to health care. If the goal is to reduce spending without regard to patients' well-being, the government can easily contain health care costs by making higher spending illegal. The American Health Security Act (S. 703), introduced by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Representative Jim McDermott (D-WA), would take this approach by establishing a Canadian-style system with a "global budget" and by banning private insurance and private health spending. S. 703 would explicitly limit total national health care spending to the 2008 level plus the GDP growth rate. It would prevent health spending from ever increasing as a share of GDP, except during a recession when the health budget would remain constant.” [Heritage Foundation, 9/21/09] CBO Estimated The Measure Would Save $400 Billion Annually. “The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the measure would save the country $400 billion annually by reducing the number of uninsured and removing the administrative costs of other government-sponsored health care programs already on the books.” [Arizona Capitol Times, 4/3/09] Sanders’s Legislation Would “Eliminate The Role Of Private Insurance Companies” And “Create A Public Fund To Insure” All US Residents. “Introduced in the early spring, Sanders' American Health Security Act of 2009 would eliminate the role of private insurance companies in health care and create a public fund that would insure all residents of the United States” [Barre-Montpelier Times Argus, 10/29/09] Sanders’s Legislation Would Allow Patients To Seek Care From The Doctor Or Hospital Of Their Choice. “Under the American Health Security Act of 2009: Patients could seek care from the doctor or hospital of their choice.” [The Nation, 3/30/09] Sanders’s Legislation “Would Guarantee Health Care Coverage To Every Citizen.” “The system would guarantee health care coverage to every citizen. Benefits would include funding for primary care, mental health care and dental. Benefit packages would be managed on the state-level, similar to the operation of Medicaid. […] Sanders' bill, which draws heavily on legislation proposed by the late Sen. Paul Wellstone, a Democrat from Minnesota, is similar to a measure proposed in February by Rep. Jim McDermott, a Democrat from Washington. The bill's toughest opponents are key Democratic Senators Max Baucus, a Democrat from Montana, and Edward Kennedy, a Democrat from Massachusetts, both of whom have filed bills that would preserve the central role of private insurance companies in the nation's health care system” [Arizona Capitol Times, 4/3/09] Sanders’s Legislation Would Automatically Enroll Every US Citizen. “Imagine a health care plan that covered pretty much any medical cost incurred inside or outside of a hospital, from emergency room visits to preventative care - plus dental care, mental health and substance abuse treatment, physical therapy and all the prescription drugs one can eat. In March, US Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt, introduced such a plan, the "American Health Security Act." It would automatically enroll every US citizen in a federally regulated, state-run medical insurance program- a so-called "single payer" plan. It is not the health care plan Congress is about to pass.” [Santa Fe Reporter, 7/15/09] Sanders’s Legislation “Would Also Create A National Health Service Corps To Combat The Nation's Physician Shortage By Training An Additional 24,000 Health Professionals.” “Sen. Bernie Sanders, Democrat from Vermont and sponsor of the American Health Security Act of 2009, announced his intentions to file the bill earlier this month during the president's health care reform summit. It was filed March 25. The system would guarantee health care coverage to every citizen. Benefits would include funding for primary care, mental health care and dental. Benefit packages would be managed on the state-level, similar to the operation of Medicaid. The measure would also create a National Health Service Corps to combat the nation's physician shortage by training an additional 24,000 health professionals. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the measure would save the country $400 billion annually by reducing the number of uninsured and removing the administrative costs of other government-sponsored health care programs already on the books.” [Arizona Capitol Times, 4/3/09] Sanders “Introduced The First Senate Bill In Years Calling For A Single-Payer Health Care System.” “Single-payer groups earned headlines in March by accusing the White House of excluding them from the first health care forum, and they eventually won seats […] Other supporters also are raising their voices. This month, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a self-described socialist, introduced the first Senate bill in years calling for a single-payer health care system. And the 77-member Congressional Progressive Caucus made its demands clear in a letter sent this month to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.” [Politico, 4/28/09] American Health Security Act Was Also The Title Of Bill Clinton’s 1993 Health Care Proposal, Championed By Hillary Clinton. “Concern over Hillary Clinton's role has "all abated," adds Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, where she appears this afternoon. "She has established her qualifications." As chief saleswoman of the president's American Health Security Act, Hillary Clinton becomes just the third first lady - after Eleanor Roosevelt and Rosalynn Carter - to testify before Congress.” [USA Today, 9/28/93] Sanders Has Been Promoting A State Based Health Care Plan Since 1991 1991: Sanders Sponsored The National Health Care And Cost Containment Act To Create A Universal Health Care Program Though State Based Insurance Plans. “Title I: Federal Contributions and Payments - Requires an annual Federal payment comprising payments under the Medicare and Medicaid programs (titles XVIII and XIX respectively of the Social Security Act) and a payment in the form of a block grant to States which have been certified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services as having established a universal, comprehensive health plan which meets the terms and conditions set forth in title II of this Act. Title II: State Health Care Insurance Plans - Outlines criteria concerning administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability, and accessibility that the State's health care insurance plan must satisfy in order to receive the Federal payment under title I of this Act. Title III: Budget-Neutral Financing of the Federal Block Grant - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to impose a surtax, on both the regular income tax and the minimum tax, to replace revenues used for block grants under this Act. Creates in the Treasury the National Health Care Block Grant Trust Fund to finance the block grants made available under title I of this Act.” [HR 2350, introduced 6/4/91] 1995: Sanders Proposed Establishing State-Based, Single-Payer Health Care Plan. “The seventh bill in the Progressive Promise is The Cradle-To-Grave Health Care Act, which require a vote on sense-ofthe-Congress resolution against cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; to establish a statebased, single-payer health care plan that provides cost-effective, comprehensive and affordable health care for all Americans, including long-term care and prescription drug coverage; and to stress disease prevention and health promotion in our communities.” [Rep. Bernard Sanders, Congressional Record, 1/26/95] 2009: Sanders Sponsored S. 703, American Health Security Act Of 2009 To Establish A “Single Payer, State-Administered Health Care System.” “Sen. Bernie Sanders, a member of the Senate health committee, has introduced three major health care proposals. The first would establish a singlepayer, state-administered health care system. Another would expand the community health center program to provide access to care for every American and help train more health care professionals to serve in underserved regions. The third would authorize five states to move forward on providing universal coverage tailored to their state.” [S. 703, introduced 3/25/09; Sanders press release, 6/2/09] 2011: Sanders Sponsored S. 915, American Health Security Act Of 2011, To Establish State Based Programs To Provide Health Care Services. “Establishes the State-Based American Health Security Program to provide every U.S. resident who is a U.S. citizen, national, or lawful resident alien with health care services. Requires each participating state to establish a state health security program. Eliminates benefits under: (1) titles XVIII (Medicare), XIX (Medicaid), and XXI (Children's Health Insurance) (CHIP, formerly known as SCHIP) of the Social Security Act; (2) the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program; and (3) TRICARE. Repeals provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) related to health insurance coverage, including provisions concerning state health insurance exchanges. Requires each state health security program to prohibit the sale of health insurance in that state that duplicates benefits provided under the program.” [S 915, introduced 5/9/11] Promoted Single Payer System Over Affordable Care Act Sanders Said Affordable Care Act Was A “Modest Step Forward” But “Much More Needs To Be Done.” “What should the US be doing to improve this abysmal situation? President Obama's Affordable Care Act is a start. It prevents insurance companies from denying patients coverage for pre-existing conditions, allows people up to age 26 to stay on their parents' insurance, sets minimum standards for what insurance must cover and helps lower-income Americans afford health insurance. When the marketplace exchanges open for enrollment on Tuesday, many Americans will find the premiums will be lower than the ones they're paying now. Others will find the coverage is much more comprehensive than their current plans. Most importantly, another 20 million Americans will receive health insurance. This is a modest step forward. But if we are serious about providing quality care for all, much more needs to be done.” [Bernie Sanders, The Guardian, 10/7/13] Sanders Said A Single Payer System Would Cut Down On Billing And Administrative Costs. “Such a single-payer system would address one of the major deficiencies in the current system: the huge amount of money wasted on billing and administration. Hospitals and independent medical practices routinely employ more billing specialists than doctors – and that's not the end of it. Patients and their families spend an enormous amount of time and effort arguing with insurance companies and bill collectors over what is covered and what they owe. Drug companies and hospitals spend billions advertising their products and services. Creating a simple system with one payer, covering all Americans, would result in an enormous reduction in administrative expenses. We would be spending our money on healthcare and disease prevention, not on paper-pushing and debt collection.” [Bernie Sanders, The Guardian, 10/7/13] Sanders Said A Single Payer System Would Expand Employment Opportunities And Lift A Financial Weight Off Businesses. “Further, a single-payer system will expand employment opportunities and lift a financial weight off of businesses encumbered by employee health expenses. Many Americans remain at their current jobs because of the decent health insurance provided by their employer. Without the worry of losing benefits, those Americans will be free to explore other, more productive opportunities as they desire. For business owners, lifting the burden of employee healthcare expenditures will free them to invest in growing their businesses.” [Bernie Sanders, The Guardian, 10/7/13] Sanders: “The Major Function Of A Private Health Insurance Company Is Not To Provide Health Care; It Is To Deny Health Care.” “"The major reason that our current health care system is so expensive has much to do with the role that private insurance companies play," Sanders said. "The function of a private health insurance company is not to provide health care; it is to deny health care. Every dollar of premium that a health insurance company does not spend on health care needs is a dollar more in profits."” [Sanders press release, 6/3/09] 2014: Sanders Introduced Single Payer Bill Knowing It Would Fail As A Symbolic Way To Provide Advocates With A Cause To Rally Around. “[...] I brought that bill out, and I think maybe we’ll have a hearing on it, because I think it’s important for the American people to be able to see legislation which could provide healthcare to every man, woman, and child and do it in a much more cost-effective way than what we have right now. When I introduced that bill, I had no illusions that it was going to pass, nor did I have any illusions that we’re going to have a whole lot of co-sponsors. But the reason it’s out there is to give single payer advocates something to rally around.” [Brunch With Bernie, 4/18/14, 41:36] Single Payer Health Care In Vermont Sanders Supported Allowing States Attempt To Establish Single Payer Health Care Systems. “What we are talking about is a conservative idea. Give states the flexibility to go forward we’re not asking for one penny more of federal money, not one penny more. And why the Congress and the president would not say, OK Vermont you do it, and if it succeeds the rest of the country will learn from you. If it doesn’t succeed, congratulations you’re on your own.” [SoundCloud, Bernie Sanders, Audio Clip: “2013: Let States Do Single Payer,” Accessed 6/9/15] Sanders Sponsored Bill To Allow States To Obtain Waivers From The Affordable Care Act If They Implement A State Plan That Provides Comparable Health Coverage. “State Leadership in Health Care Act - Amends the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) to allow states to apply for a waiver of specified requirements under PPACA with respect to health insurance coverage within that state due to implementation of a state plan that provides comparable coverage for plan years beginning in 2014 (currently, 2017).. Permits the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) or the Secretary of the Treasury to deny waivers only if: (1) the state plan does not meet requirements for granting a waiver; (2) the Secretary of HHS or Treasury notifies the state in writing of the requirements that the state plan did not meet and provides the state with information used in making such a determination; and (3) the state is given an opportunity to appeal.” [S 4057, introduced 7/17/15] 2007: Sanders Sponsored Bill To Allow States To Establish Universal Health Care Programs. “Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a state-based Universal Health Care Coverage Commission to participate in the review of state applications for planning and demonstration grants for the development of a cost-effective delivery system of universal, comprehensive health care with simplified administration. Authorizes such grants. Requires a state plan to provide: (1) coverage of all eligible state residents, without regard to employment status, income, health status or preexisting condition, or location of residency within the state; and (2) health benefits that are at least actuarially equivalent to the standard Blue Cross/Blue Shield preferred provider option service benefit plan under the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program.” [S 2031, introduced 9/7/07] Sanders Hoped That Eventual Popularity Of Single Payer System In Vermont Would Become The Catalyst For Similar Programs Across The Country. “The answer: They didn't. But the state of Vermont will. On May 26, Gov. Peter Shumlin of Vermont is expected to sign legislation that will create universal coverage in the state-eventually. Vermont will use subsidies from the Affordable Care Act to help create a Canada-style system. And its system, or so the theory goes, will become so popular and cheap that the rest of America will want to copy it. "Many of our Republican colleagues say they don't trust the federal government," said Sanders. They don't want the federal government getting involved in health care issues across the country. And what Jim and I are saying is, OK. Let the states be the laboratories of democracy. Maintaining certain minimal standards, let those states that choose go forward and a different direction. It may well be that Vermont will lead the country. And if the Vermont experience works well, as I believe it will, I think you're going to look at other states, and they're going to say, "Gee, they're covering all their people. They're doing it at lower costs!" It may be the state of Washington, or the state of California. And then eventually you might have a universal health care system across the country.” [Slate, 5/11/11] Sanders Said Vermont Program Could Be A “Model” To The Nation. “Vermont is leading the nation in development of a health care system that would provide better care for more people at less cost. “If Vermont can pass a strong single-payer system and show it works well, it will not only be enormously important to this state, it will be a model,” Sen. Bernie Sanders told Vermont Life. “If we do it and do it well, other states will get in line and follow us … and we will have a national system.” The new magazine article said Sanders has been a leading advocate for a single-payer system since his days at mayor of Burlington in the 1980s.” [Sanders press release, 2/21/13] Sanders Said That If Vermont Can Have A Successful Single Payer System, The Rest Of The Nation Can Have The Same. “It is my hope that the state of Vermont will lead the nation in a very new direction in healthcare. And it’s appropriate that we do it. We’re a small state; we have about 630,000 people. We have a bunch of very good hospitals; we have a lot of good medical personnel. And to answer [the caller’s] question, this is what I believe. I think if Vermont can show that a single payer system, which guarantees health care to all people, which takes the burden off of business, which gives people freedom of choice with regards to doctors and hospitals, etc. And which is cost effective. If we can prove it in Vermont, I have not the slightest doubt that other states would be saying that they want to do the same thing.” [Senator Bernie Sanders on Government Shutdown, 9/27/13, 24:30] Vermont Shelved Its Plan To Create A Single-Payer Health Care System Due To Cost. “Just a few years ago, lawmakers in this left-leaning state viewed President Obama’s Affordable Care Act as little more than a pit stop on the road to a far more ambitious goal: single-payer, universal health care for all residents. Then things unraveled. The online insurance marketplace that Vermont built to enroll people in private coverage under the law had extensive technical failures. The problems soured public and legislative enthusiasm for sweeping health care changes just as Gov. Peter Shumlin needed to build support for his complex single-payer plan. Finally, Mr. Shumlin, a Democrat, shelved the plan in December, citing the high cost to taxpayers. He called the decision ‘the greatest disappointment of my political life.’” [New York Times, 6/9/15] Sanders On Single Payer In Vermont: ““It's Not That It Hasn't Worked Out, It Hasn't Been Implemented.” “Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) says that single-payer healthcare did not fail in Vermont and could be revived, amid speculation that flailing efforts in that regard could hurt his 2016 presidential hopes. […] “It's not that it hasn't worked out, it hasn't been implemented,” he said. “So I think that in Vermont, many of us, including the governor, are planning about how we go forward.” Sanders added that the debate is “certainly not finished,” but declined to elaborate further. His office did not respond to a request to expand on his comments.” [The Hill, 2/16/15] In Order To Implement Single Payer System, Vermont Needed To Add A 11.5 Percent Business Tax And A Personal Income Tax Hike Of Up To 9.5 Percent. “When Shumlin signed a bill to set the singlepayer process in motion in 2011, it was seen as a nascent success story for advocates of the system. […]Instead, the plan has fizzled. The 2011 bill did not set out the details of how to pay for the plan. In December of last year, facing the need for an 11.5 percent tax on all Vermont businesses, and personal income tax hikes of up to 9.5 percent in order to pay for the plan, Shumlin called it off.” [The Hill, 2/16/15] Even With Tax Increases, Program Was Expected To Run Deficits. “And even those tax increases might not have been enough. The governor’s office estimated the Green Mountain Care program would run deficits of $82 million by 2020 and $146 million in 2021. Shumlin said he feared the tax increases would harm businesses and the economy.” [Boston Globe, 1/25/15] Shumlin Said Increased Taxes “Might Hurt Our Economy.” ““It is not the right time for Vermont” to pass a single-payer system, Shumlin acknowledged in a public statement ending his signature initiative. He concluded the 11.5 percent payroll assessments on businesses and sliding premiums up to 9.5 percent of individuals’ income “might hurt our economy.”” [Politico, 12/20/14] Governor Shumlin Said That “Economic Shock” Was Too Much For Him To “Responsibly Support” Passage Of Single Payer. “In December of last year, facing the need for an 11.5 percent tax on all Vermont businesses, and personal income tax hikes of up to 9.5 percent in order to pay for the plan, Shumlin called it off. “The risk of economic shock is too high at this time to offer a plan I can responsibly support for passage in the legislature,” Shumlin said in announcing his decision.” [The Hill, 2/16/15] Single Payer Program Would Have Doubled The Size Of Vermont’s Budget In The First Year. “But reality hit last month. Governor Peter Shumlin released a financial report that showed the cost of the program would nearly double the size of the state’s budget in the first year alone and require large tax increases for residents and businesses. Shumlin, a Democrat and long-time single-payer advocate, said he would not seek funding for the law, effectively tabling the program called Green Mountain Care.” [Boston Globe, 1/25/15] Shumlin’s Framework For Single Payer Exempted Multi-State Businesses, And It Was “Unclear” How Federal Health Care Programs Would Be Integrated Into The State Plan. “Vermont’s public failure is especially frustrating to single-payer advocates because, they note, the Shumlin framework, which had gotten approval of the state legislature minus that key financing element, wasn’t really a true single-payer plan. Notably, large businesses that operate in multiple states would have been exempt. And it was unclear whether or how enrollees in federal plans like Medicare and TRICARE could be integrated into the state’s plan.” [Politico, 12/20/14] Exemptions Cut Funding While Adding Administrative Complexity, Eliminating The Potentially Cost-Saving Simplicity Of A Single Payer Program. “Those exemptions cut into the funding base while adding administrative complexity, eliminating one of the potential costsaving elements of single-payer: simplicity. “There are some practical problems in the idea of state-based policy,” Coates said, acknowledging the huge federal role in financing and regulating health care.” [Politico, 12/20/14] Ezra Klein: A Health Care System That Followed International Best Practices Would Direct Government Or Insurers Collectively To Set Rates, But Did Not Need To Eliminate Private Insurers. “A health-care system that followed international best practices would direct the government to set rates. Or it would let insurers band together and negotiate rates collectively -- a practice called “all-payer rate setting.” But it wouldn’t need to eliminate private insurers. It’s good for consumers to have a choice of insurers, who have real incentives to innovate and devise better ways to keep customers healthy and costs down. It’s health-care providers -- not insurers -- who have too much power in the U.S. system.” [Ezra Klein, Washington Post, 1/13/14] As Mayor, Sanders Dispatched A Task Force To Canada To Learn About Health Care System. “Eight years later, single-payer blipped on the radar screen in Burlington. The city’s wild-haired and obstreperous socialist mayor, Bernie Sanders, dispatched a task force to look to Canada’s governmentrun system for ideas on how to tamp down health care costs.” [Vermont Life, 2/21/13] As Mayor, Sanders Said He Knew Single Payer Was “Not A Likely Outcome” But It Was Important To Work Toward That Goal. “Sanders, who was the single-payer activists’ biggest political ally, said he knew then that a single-payer system was not a likely outcome at that time, but working toward that goal and educating people about alternatives was important. “The purpose was to say to the United States and Vermont, we’re behind the rest of the world in terms of guaranteeing health care as a right,” Sanders said. He would continue to draw attention to single-payer throughout his political career, as mayor, as U.S. representative and as U.S. senator.” [Vermont Life, 2/21/13] Supported HR 676, Expanded And Improved Medicare For All Act 2003: Sanders Co-Sponsored HR 676, Expanded And Improved Medicare For All Act. [HR 676, cosponsored 4/22/04] HR 676 Would “Create A Publicly Finance, Privately Delivered Health Care Program” By Expanding And Improving The Existing Medicare Program To All US Residents. “Rep. John Conyers and the Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) were expected to hold a morning press conference today to unveil legislation creating a single-payer health system for the United States. According to a PNHP background paper, the bill would "create a publicly financed, privately delivered health care program that uses the already existing Medicare program by expanding and improving it to all US residents, and all residents living in US territories." PNHP estimates a single-payer system will save $150 billion in paperwork costs and $50 billion in prescription drug costs in the first year alone.” [White House Bulletin, 2/4/03] HR 676 Was Financed By Repealing The 2001 Bush Tax Cuts. “In addition, PNHP estimates the employer contribution to the payroll tax will drop from over eight percent to slightly more than three percent, while "95% of families will pay less for health care under national health insurance than they do today." The group would help finance their plan by repealing the Bush tax cuts. […] A repeal of the Bush tax cut of 2001.“ [White House Bulletin, 2/4/03] HR 676 Covered All “Medically Necessary Services.” “This program will cover all medically necessary services, including primary care, in patient care, outpatient care, emergency care, prescription drugs, durable medical equipment, long term care, mental health services, dentistry, eye care, chiropractic, and substance abuse treatment. Patients have their choice of physicians, providers, hospitals, clinics, and practices.” [White House Bulletin, 2/4/03] HR 676 Prohibited Private Insurers From Duplicating Benefits, But Allowed Private Coverage Of Additional Benefits Like Cosmetic Surgery. "This program will cover all medically necessary services, including primary care, in patient care, outpatient care, emergency care, prescription drugs, durable medical equipment, long term care, mental health services, dentistry, eye care, chiropractic, and substance abuse treatment. Patients have their choice of physicians, providers, hospitals, clinics, and practices." [White House Bulletin, 2/4/03] HR 676 Would Convert Health Care Businesses To A Not-For-Profit System Over 15 Years. “The conversion to a not-for-profit health care system will take place over a 15 year period, through the sale of US treasury bonds; payment will not be made for loss of business profits, but only for real estate, buildings, and equipment.” [White House Bulletin, 2/4/03] 2005: Sanders Co-Sponsored HR 676, Expanded And Improved Medicare For All Act. [HR 676, cosponsored 6/7/05] 2005 Version Of HR 676 Was Paid For By Increased Income Tax On Top Five Percent Of Income Earners, A Modest Payroll Tax, And A Small Tax On Stock And Bond Transactions. “Authorizes appropriations and provides for appropriated sums to be paid for: (1) by vastly reducing paperwork; (2) by requiring a rational bulk procurement of medications; (3) from existing sources of Government revenues for health care; (4) by increasing personal income taxes on the top five percent income earners; (5) by instituting a modest payroll tax; and (6) by instituting a small tax on stock and bond transactions.” [HR 676, introduced 2/8/05] 2006: Sanders Did Not Co-Sponsor Rep. Dingell And Sen. Kennedy’s Medicare For All Act. [HR 4683, introduced 2/1/06] HR 4863 Expanded Medicare Availability To All Americans, Allowed Individuals To Choose Between Medicare And Private Health Care Plans. “Recently, leading House Democrats introduced the "Medicare for All Act," H.R. 4683, a bill that would make healthcare coverage available to every American by expanding the Medicare program to those under age 65. This legislation would give people the option of choosing health insurance coverage through Medicare or any of the plans available to Members of Congress, the President of the United States, and Federal employees.” [Dingell press release, 2/6/06] 1991: Introduced Single Payer Health Care Legislation Sanders Sponsored The National Health Care And Cost Containment Act To Create A Universal Health Care Program. “Title I: Federal Contributions and Payments - Requires an annual Federal payment comprising payments under the Medicare and Medicaid programs (titles XVIII and XIX respectively of the Social Security Act) and a payment in the form of a block grant to States which have been certified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services as having established a universal, comprehensive health plan which meets the terms and conditions set forth in title II of this Act. Title II: State Health Care Insurance Plans - Outlines criteria concerning administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability, and accessibility that the State's health care insurance plan must satisfy in order to receive the Federal payment under title I of this Act. Title III: Budget-Neutral Financing of the Federal Block Grant - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to impose a surtax, on both the regular income tax and the minimum tax, to replace revenues used for block grants under this Act. Creates in the Treasury the National Health Care Block Grant Trust Fund to finance the block grants made available under title I of this Act.” [HR 2350, introduced 6/4/91] 1995: Sanders Proposed Establishing State-Based, Single-Payer Health Care Plan. “The seventh bill in the Progressive Promise is The Cradle-To-Grave Health Care Act, which require a vote on sense-ofthe-Congress resolution against cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; to establish a statebased, single-payer health care plan that provides cost-effective, comprehensive and affordable health care for all Americans, including long-term care and prescription drug coverage; and to stress disease prevention and health promotion in our communities.” [Rep. Bernard Sanders, Congressional Record, 1/26/95] Sanders Proposed Stressing Disease Prevention And Health Promotion. “The seventh bill in the Progressive Promise is The Cradle-To-Grave Health Care Act, which require a vote on senseof-the-Congress resolution against cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; to establish a state-based, single-payer health care plan that provides cost-effective, comprehensive and affordable health care for all Americans, including long-term care and prescription drug coverage; and to stress disease prevention and health promotion in our communities.” [Rep. Bernard Sanders, Congressional Record, 1/26/95] The Day After President Clinton’s Health Care Speech Before Congress, Sanders Advocated For A Single-Payer Health Care System. “Every person in this room–every person here–agrees that universal comprehensive health care, as the President indicated, is what we must strive for. But it is our belief, and my belief, that the only way in which we are going to provide high-quality, comprehensive health care to every man, woman, and child in this country is through a simple system: the Canadian single-payer system.” [C-SPAN, 9/23/93, 7:14] Sanders Said A Single-Payer System Would Offer “Quality Care” And “Freedom Of Choice” Without Spending More On Health Care. “It seems to me that the way that we can really save significant amounts of money is to stand up to the pharmaceutical industry, and only a single-payer system can do that. To eliminate the 1500 private insurance companies that are costing us some $80 or $90 billion a year in administrative waste. To finally tell some physicians that they cannot make all of the money that they like. And if we do that through a single-payer system, through a simple system which gives a little card to every person, allows them to go to any doctor they want, complete freedom of choice, any hospital that they want–In my view, and I think the views of all of us, we can provide quality care, freedom of choice, to every man, woman, and child in this country without spending a penny more than the $900 billion a year we’re spending.” [C-SPAN, 9/23/93, 8:04] Hillarycare Bernie Sanders On Health Reform: “I Disagreed With Clinton’s Plan, It Was Too Complicated, Too Cumbersome.” “Mr. Speaker, not only are real wages going down. There is another crisis that, certainly, this Congress is not dealing with, and in fact is making a very bad situation worse. That is that one-third of all Americans do not have adequate medical insurance, and the number is growing. Two years ago in this House, we dealt with that goal. I disagreed with Clinton’s plan, it was too complicated, too cumbersome, but at least he had a vision that said that every man, woman, and child in America should have health insurance. Now that that debate is over, the situation which was bad then is worse today. More Americans lack health care than was the case a few years ago. More Americans have inadequate health insurance, large deductibles, large copayments than was the case several years ago.” [Rep. Sanders floor remarks, 11/13/95] Bernie Sanders: "[President Bill] Clinton Must Acknowledge That He Cannon Please The Insurance Company Executives If He Truly Wants To Provide Comprehensive Health Care For All Without Increasing Costs.” “Third, he must fight for a single-payer, state-administered national health care system that guarantees comprehensive health care to all Americans. Clinton must acknowledge that he cannon please the insurance company executives if he truly wants to provide comprehensive health care for all without increasing costs.” [Bernie Sanders, Vermont Times, 6/24/93] Bernie Sanders On President Bill Clinton’s Health Care Proposal: “[President Bill Clinton] Deserves An Enormous Amount Of Credit For Finally Raising This Issue Of The Crisis In Health Care And The Disintegration Of Our Health Care System To The Level That It Deserves To Be Raised.” “REPORTER: Congressman, you heard the President what did you think? SANDERS: Well, I think the president did an excellent job defining the problems and he deserves an enormous amount of credit for finally raising this issue of the crisis in health care and the disintegration of our health care system to the level that it deserves to be raised.” [CSPAN, 9/22/93] Bernie Sanders: “[President Bill Clinton’s Health Care] Proposal… Gives An Enormous Amount Of Responsibility And Power To The Largest Insurance Companies In America.” “SANDERS: And most importantly, unfortunately the President’s [health care] proposal still gives an enormous amount of responsibility and power to the largest insurance companies in America. I myself personally don’t believe that you’re going to have a cost effective system which is going to be run as the President’s plan proposes by very, very large insurance companies.” [CSPAN,9/22/93] Bernie Sanders Met With Hillary Clinton To Advocate For Single-Payer Health Care While She Was Chair To The Clinton Administration’s Task Force On National Health Care Reform. “One of Bill Clinton’s first acts in office in January of 1993 was to appoint his wife to chair the administration’s Task Force on National Health Care Reform. Sanders had convened his own, much-smaller task force pushing single-payer health care for Vermont, and he began trying to pull Hillary Clinton in that direction. In February, Sanders requested a meeting with Hillary, ‘to bring in two Harvard Medical School physicians who have written on the Canadian system,’ according to the records of the administration’s task force. Those physicians were Stephanie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein, leading advocates for singlepayer health care.” [Politico, 6/17/15] Hillary Clinton At Bernie Sanders Meeting On Single-Payer Health Care System: “You Make A Convincing Case, But Is There Any Force On The Face Of The Earth That Could Counter The Hundreds Of Millions Of The Dollars The Insurance Industry Would Spend Fighting That?” “In February, Sanders requested a meeting with Hillary, ‘to bring in two Harvard Medical School physicians who have written on the Canadian system,’ according to the records of the administration’s task force. Those physicians were Stephanie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein, leading advocates for single-payer health care. They got their meeting at the White House that month, and the two doctors laid out the case for single-payer to the first lady. ‘She said, ‘You make a convincing case, but is there any force on the face of the earth that could counter the hundreds of millions of the dollars the insurance industry would spend fighting that?’’ recalled Himmelstein. ‘And I said, ‘How about the president of the United States actually leading the American people?’ and she said, ‘Tell me something real.’” [Politico, 6/17/15] Bernie Sanders, In A Meeting With President Bill Clinton, Urged Him To “Get Out Into The Country More To Sell His [Health Care] Plan Himself Rather Than Letting The Press Define It.” “On the eve of the trip, Sanders scored a meeting with the president in Washington. The task force’s record of the meeting speaks to the complexity of his relationship to the Clintons. ‘Accounts were that it was cordial, focusing more on process than substance. He urged the President to get out into the country more to sell his [health care] plan himself rather than letting the press define it. Given the sensitivities within the delegation, the Senators may be somewhat jealous of this meeting. In addition, there have been reports that the Congressman will be participating in an event on Saturday critical of both the welfare and health care reform efforts of the Administration.’” [Politico, 6/17/15] SCHIP Opposed SCHIP Creation Bill Because Of Tax Cuts For The Wealthy Sanders Voted Against Legislation Creating SCHIP, Permitting Tax-Free Medical Savings Accounts, And Restoring Supplemental Security Income And Medicaid Benefits To Legal Immigrants. The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) is a federal-state program that provides health coverage to certain uninsured low-income children and pregnant women in families that have annual income above Medicaid eligibility levels, but have no health insurance. It was established as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. According to the he Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the program has “helped to reduce the rate of uninsured children to a record low of 7% in 2012.” The program has roughly 8.1 children enrolled in the program, “increasing their access to needed health care, and reducing the financial burdens and stress on families associated with meeting children’s health care needs.” On July 30, 1997, Bernie Sanders opposed adopting the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 conference report. That legislation included $24 billion in block grants to help states improve health coverage for uninsured children, funded in part by a federal tobacco tax increase of 15 cents per pack over five years and restored Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Medicaid benefits to certain legal immigrants. The legislation also permitted up to 390,000 Medicare beneficiaries to establish tax-free medical savings accounts. Unlike Sanders, President Clinton supported the measure. The majority of House Democrats supported the proposal. [CRS, 3/20/05; Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, accessed 7/25/15; Mathematica Policy Research and the Urban Institute, 8/1/14; H R 2015, Vote #345, 7/30/97; CQ Almanac, 1997; CQ Floor Votes, 7/30/97; see also: “Reconciliation Package: Spending Cuts,” CQ Press, 1997] Sanders Criticized The Idea Of Reaching Balanced Budgets, Said They Would Result In Cuts To Programs That Benefited Working Families. “REP. SANDERS: You [Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan] and Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Armey are in agreement on that issue. That's your position. Thank God that members of the Congress do not agree with you. My last question is that in the last 20 years, and I think even you acknowledge this, there has been enormous shift of wealth that has gone from the working class, the middle class to upper-income people. And yet as I understand it, while you on one hand tell us you want to move this country toward a balanced budget and have been a major advocate of such programs as lowering the CPI for senior citizens in Social Security, you have also advocated, as I understand it, repealing the entire capital gains tax, which would largely, overwhelmingly benefit upper-income people. So you're telling us today you oppose raising the minimum wage for low-income workers; you support eliminating the capital gains tax, which largely benefits the rich, and then you want us to move toward a balanced budget. And if we do those things, it'll require major cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, education, I suspect, Social Security, which benefits working families. How can you tell us you want to move toward a balanced budget and then give huge -- continue to give huge tax breaks to the rich?” [Sanders Remarks, House Banking and Financial Services Committee, 7/22/97] Democrats Including Rep. Gephardt Voted Against The Balanced Budget Act, Claimed Its Tax Cuts Primarily Benefited The Rich. “Earlier today, by a vote of 85 to 15, with Vice President Al Gore presiding, the Senate passed a companion bill that would balance the Federal budget by 2002. The House had approved that measure on Wednesday on a 346-to-85 vote. "The final Congressional passage of the balanced budget bill is the achievement of a generation and a triumph for every American," said President Clinton, who started his day by sitting down to a White House breakfast with Speaker Newt Gingrich. Michael D. McCurry, the White House press secretary, said the leaders discussed "ways in which bipartisan cooperation can continue." The tax cut passed in the House on a vote of 389 to 43. "I thought there would be 20 more 'No' votes," Mr. Gingrich told reporters afterward. "People want taxcuts. We won the argument." Later, the Speaker watched from the Senate floor as that chamber approved the tax-cut bill 92 to 8, with the opposing votes coming entirely from Democrats. The opposition to the tax bill in the House came from the only independent, Representative Bernard Sanders of Vermont; a lone Republican, Representative Tom Campbell of California; and 41 Democrats, including the minority leader, Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, who complained that, among other things, most of the tax cuts benefited the rich.” [New York Times, 8/1/97] Sanders Lost The Tax Break For A Retirement Fund Due To The Balanced Budget Act. “Six sponsors of the legislation or their spouses are among the 2 million members of the $ 200 billion Teachers Insurance Annuity Association-College Retirement Equity Fund, best known as TIAACREF. TIAA-CREF lost its 79-year-old tax exemption in the recently enacted Balanced Budget Act. Eliminating the tax break will bring an estimated $ 1.2 billion to the Treasury over the next 10 years. […] Three other co-sponsors or their spouses also have TIAA-CREF accounts. The lawmakers, and amounts they or their spouses have invested, are Reps. Bob Clement, D-Tenn., $ 100,000-$ 200,000; Constance A. Morella, R-Md., $ 250,000-$ 500,000; and Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., $ 1,000-$ 15,000.” [Associated Press, 8/21/97] Sanders Supported 2007 SCHIP Reauthorization As Part Of FY2008 Budget Sanders Voted For SCHIP Reauthorization As Part Of FY 2008 Budget Resolution. “The Fiscal Year 2008 Senate Budget Resolution recognizes that providing for our children’s health care should be one of our nation’s most important priorities. The Budget Resolution rejects the inadequate funding level proposed by the President and instead provides up to $50 billion for the reauthorization of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). These additional SCHIP funds will expand coverage of the estimated six million children eligible but not enrolled in either SCHIP or Medicaid, and maintain coverage for all currently enrolled children.” [Democratic Policy Committee, 3/20/07; S Con Res 21, Senate Vote #114, 3/23/2007] Sanders Supported 2007 SCHIP Reauthorization Sanders Voted For House Passage Of 2007 Authorization Of SCHIP. On August 2, 2007, Bernie Sanders voted yes on Senate Vote #307. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would reauthorize the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) at $60.2 billion for five years, expanding the program by $35.2 billion. To offset the cost of the expansion, it would increase the tax on cigarettes by 61 cents to $1 per pack and raise taxes on other tobacco products. It also would cover children in households with incomes up to 300 percent of the federal poverty line. For a single parent with two children, that would be $51,510 a year, and for a family of four it would be $61,950. It also would phase out coverage of adults under SCHIP by Oct. 1, 2009. The bill would provide $100 million in new grants to fund state outreach and enrollment efforts and allocate $49 million for a demonstration project to streamline the enrollment process for low-income children already eligible for coverage. [CQ Floor Votes; HR 976, Vote #307, 8/2/07] Sanders Voted For Conference Report Of 2007 Reauthorization Of SCHIP. On September 27, 2007, Bernie Sanders voted yes on Senate Vote #353. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Reid, DNev., motion to concur in the House amendments to the Senate amendments to the bill that would reauthorize the State Children's Health Insurance Program at nearly $60 billion over five years, expanding the program by $35 billion. To offset the cost of the expansion, it would increase the tax on cigarettes by 61 cents to $1 per pack and raise taxes on other tobacco products. It would provide coverage to pregnant women and dental coverage to children enrolled in the program. States would have to meet new requirements before being allowed to expand eligibility beyond 300 percent of poverty. It also would authorize $100 million to fund state outreach and enrollment efforts and establish a contingency fund for states with funding shortfalls due to increased enrollment. [CQ Floor Votes; HR 976, Vote #353, 9/27/07] Sanders Denounced President Bush’s Veto Of SCHIP Renewal. “The office of Sen. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., has issued the following news release: Vermont's Congressional Delegation - Sen. Patrick Leahy (D), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I), and Rep. Peter Welch (D) - issued the following reaction to President Bush's veto of legislation renewing the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). […] Sanders said, "We are the only country in the industrialized world that does not provide health care for all people. The idea that Bush would veto this legislation to provide health care for children is beyond comprehension. He has hundreds of billions of dollars for tax breaks for the rich and to pay for the war in Iraq, but apparently he can't find the funding to provide health insurance for millions of children in families that need help."” [Press Release, Sen. Bernard Sanders, 10/3/07] Sanders Praised Congress’ Vote To Reauthorize And Expand SCHIP. “The legislation protects insurance coverage for 6.6 million children currently enrolled in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and provides coverage for an additional 4 million children without insurance. The bill overturns a pending Bush administration rule change that could threaten to cut coverage for hundreds of thousands of kids now covered under SCHIP. That change, announced in August, would tighten restrictions on states like Vermont that cover children above 250 percent of the federal poverty level and would mean more than 2,000 Vermont kids would lose their health coverage. The bipartisan bill also reverses another Bush administration rule change announced this summer that would cost Vermont more than $20 million each year by barring states like Vermont from using Medicaid funds for rehabilitation services for students with disabilities in kindergarten through the 12th grade.” [Press Release, Sen. Bernard Sanders, 10/3/07] Sanders Criticized Bush Administration Rule Change On SCHIP, Said It Would Cause More Than 2,000 Vermont Children To Lose Health Coverage. “The bill overturns a pending Bush administration rule change that could threaten to cut coverage for hundreds of thousands of kids now covered under SCHIP. That change, announced in August, would tighten restrictions on states like Vermont that cover children above 250 percent of the federal poverty level and would mean more than 2,000 Vermont kids would lose their health coverage.” [Press Release via US Fed News, Sen. Bernard Sanders, 10/3/07] Sanders Voted For Second Attempt At 2007 Reauthorization Bernie Sanders Voted For Second Attempt At 2007 Reauthorization Of SCHIP After Bush Veto. On November 1, 2007, Bernie Sanders voted yes on Senate Vote #403. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would reauthorize the State Children's Health Insurance Program at nearly $60 billion over five years, expanding the program by $35 billion. To offset the cost of the expansion, it would increase the tax on cigarettes by 61 cents, to $1 per pack, and raise taxes on other tobacco products. The bill would limit program eligibility to families earning three times the federal poverty level or less. It also would require the Social Security Administration to verify the citizenship of all applicants and require states to phase out coverage of childless adults by the end of 2008. [CQ Floor Votes; HR 3963, Vote #403, 11/1/07] Bush Vetoed Second Attempt At 2007 Reauthorization. “Lawmakers sent Bush a version of the bill in September that reflected the Senate measure, and he promptly vetoed it. After an override attempt in the House failed, Democrats made a second try. They sent Bush a revised bill that they hoped would garner some GOP support. But when Bush vetoed the second bill, Democrats put off a vote until 2008, when they came no closer to an override.” [CQ Almanac, 2007] Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 Passed Senate By Unanimous Consent. This act extended SCHIP funding through March 31, 2009. [S 2499, passed Senate 12/18/07] Sanders Voted To Expand Tribal Access To SCHIP Bernie Sanders Voted To Expand Tribal Access To SCHIP. On February 26, 2008, Bernie Sanders voted yes on Senate Vote #32. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would revise and extend through fiscal 2017 the central law directing federal delivery of health services to American Indians and Alaska Natives. It would expand Indian health organizations' access to the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). It also would expand tribal access to Medicaid and require annual reports on the Indian community's enrollment in SCHIP and Medicaid programs. The bill would authorize programs to support the recruitment and retention of Indians entering the health professions and providing health services. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #32, 2/26/2008] Sanders Voted For 2009 SCHIP Reauthorization Bernie Sanders Voted For 2009 Reauthorization Of SCHIP. On January 29, 2009, Bernie Sanders voted yes on Senate Vote #31. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would reauthorize the State Children's Health Insurance Program over four-and-a-half years and increase funding by $32.8 billion. To offset the cost of the expansion, it would increase the federal tax on cigarettes to 62 cents per pack and raise taxes on other tobacco products. The measure would remove a five-year waiting period for the SCHIP program for new, legal immigrants, including pregnant women, and loosen citizenship and eligibility documentation requirements. The bill would limit program eligibility to families earning three times the federal poverty level or less and would require states to phase out coverage of childless adults. [CQ Floor Votes; HR 2, Vote #31, 1/29/09] Sanders Supported Preserving CHIP As Part Of Affordable Care Act Sanders Urged Senate Finance Committee To Preserve CHIP In Health Care Reform Legislation. “The office of Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., has issued the following news release: U.S. U.S. Senators Bob Casey (D-PA), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Daniel Akaka (D-HI), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Bernie Sanders (IVT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Roland Burris (D-IL) today sent a letter urging the Senate Finance Committee to preserve the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). The current version of the Senate Finance Committee's health care bill would dismantle the successful program. The senators urged adoption of an amendment to the Finance bill that would continue CHIP. "CHIP is not broken," the senators wrote. "We should not be moving 14.1 million children from a successful program, rather we should, as the President has said, 'build upon what works.'"” [Press Release via US Fed News, Sen. Bob Casey, 9/24/09] Sanders Voted For Affordable Care Act, Which Funded CHIP Through FY2015 And Continued Authority For the Program Through 2019 “The Affordable Care Act extends funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) through FY 2015 and continues the authority for the program through 2019.” [Medicaid.gov, accessed 9/9/15; Senate Vote #396, 12/24/2009] Record In Burlington Sanders Decried The Millions Of Dollars Spent On Physician Training Programs At The University Of Vermont Over Funding For Public Health, Preventative Care And Nurses. “Is it acceptable, for example, that decisions made for the largest hospital in the state, the hospital that consumes 40% of the health care dollars spent in the state of Vermont, are made by a self-selecting Board of Trustees behind closed doors? How much imput does the public have into the development of health priorities? How much imput [sic] do nurses and other health care workers have? Some of you may, or may not, know that the state of Vermont contributes some $6 million dollars a year to the UVM Medical School. What do the taxpayers get out of that subsidy for physician training? Do we need more physicians in Vermont? Do we need them in Chittenden County? Do we need more high priced specialists or should we be spending more money for public health and preventative [sic] care? Instead of spending $6 million dollars on physician training, should we be spending some of that money for nurses?” [Bernie Sanders Speech, undated (1980s)] Sanders Urged No Budget Increase From The Medical Hospital Of Vermont. “I am here today to urge you to recommend that their [sic] be no budget increase for the Medical Center Hospital of Vermont. I make this request for two basic reasons:” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Hospital Data Council, 8/20/87] NOTE: Document was cut off after one page, and did not list his reasons. Sanders Said Blue Cross Had Not Stood Up For Low Income And Elderly People, But That He Had Observed Signs Of Change Toward Policies To Contain Health Care Costs. “Have they stood up for the low income people and the elderly people who cannot afford higher and higher health care costs? In truth, they have not. They have allowed themselves, far too much, to be dominated by the medical establishment. I am happy to say, however, that within the last few years I have observed signs of change within Blue Cross and an increased understanding that their role within the state cannot simply be as a bill collector for hospitals and doctors. As one of the subscribers to Blue Cross, the City of Burlington will do what it can to work with Blue Cress in the battle to contain health care costs.” [Blue Cross Blue Shield Announcement, 9/8/87] Sanders Questioned What Taxpayers Got Out Of Their Subsidy To The UVM Medical School. “The taxpayers in the state of Vermont contribute approximately $6 million a year to the UVM Medical School. What do we get out of it? Or are we just graduating more doctors, who become more specialists, who may move out of state, and who charge higher and higher rates?” [Blue Cross Blue Shield Announcement, 9/8/87] Sanders Questioned Self-Selection Of Hospital Trustee Boards And Closed Door Trustee Meetings. “Can we allow hospital boards of trustees to self-select their members who wield tremendous power over health care in the state and allow them to continue to meet behind closed doors?” [Blue Cross Blue Shield Announcement, 9/8/87] Sanders Called For More Aggressive Action To Encourage Physicians To Underserved Areas And More General Practitioners Compared To Specialists. “Should we not be acting more aggressively in terms of geographical location of physicians and the very large number of specialists in our state compared to general practicioners [sic]?” [Blue Cross Blue Shield Announcement, 9/8/87] Sanders Said The Legislature Should Demand That Large And Wealthy Corporations Operating In Vermont, Like McDonalds And Burger King, Provide Health Coverage For Their Workers. “Does it make sense that large employers like the City of Burlington, the State, UVM, GE and IBM provide decent health care packages for their employees as part of their contractual obligations, while the McDonald’s, the Burger Kings, and many other companies in the service industry provide little or nothing for their employees. Clearly, the Legislature is going to have to demand that the large and wealthy corporations that function in the state of Vermont, provide, in one form or another, health coverage for their workforce. The taxpayers should not be asked to pay for that program, nor should hospitals or doctors be forced to subsidize it.” [Blue Cross Blue Shield Announcement, 9/8/87] Sanders Said Burlington Created A Zero Or Low Interest Revolving Loan Program To Help Low And Moderate Income People Do Repair And Upkeep On Their Homes. “One very successful program that we have developed and improved over the years has been the Horne Improvement Program, which started in 1983. This is a zero or low-interest revolving loan program which helps low and moderate income people do basic repairs and upkeep on their homes. (We've also loaned money to apartment owners to fix up rental units ... and afterward to keep rents stable for people living in those apartments.)” [Home Improvement Program, 8/6/87] Sanders Announced He Would Expand Affordable Loan Program For Home Improvements To Cover All Of Burlington. “Today I am announcing that the City is expanding the eligibility area for these loans to cover the entire city. We feel that we have accomplished a great deal in the target areas, and that now we want to reach out to people--especially the elderly in our community--to enable them to do basic maintainance [sic], weatherizing, and safety repairs as well.” [Home Improvement Program, 8/6/87] Sanders Said It Was Unacceptable That Hospital Board Of Trustee Meetings Were Private, And Called For Legislature To Mandate Meetings Be Open To Public. “It seems to me unacceptable that hospitals, most of whom receive substantial public dollars through Medicaid and Medicare, should be allowed to hold their Board of Trustees meetings behind closed doors. Decisions made by these Boards are extremely important to the communities involved, and the public and media should be allowed to attend these meetings. I will ask that the Legislature mandate that hospital meetings be open to the public.” [Bernie Sanders Statement, Health Care Issues For the Vermont State Legislative Session, 9/30/87] Sanders Said That Public Officials, Including Governor, Should Be Members Of Hospital Board Of Trustees. “Far too often, the composition of the board of trustees is often lopsided in that the membership consists of upper income people. State law should mandate that consumer advocates and representatives from the elderly population also sit on hospital boards. It also seems appropriate to me that when tens of millions of dollars of public money is being spent by hospitals, that public officials, accountable to the people, should also be on boards of trustees. In my view, the Governor of the State of Vermont should most certainly be an automatic member of the MCHV Board of Trustees. Representatives from boards of aldermen and town boards of selectman should sit on the boards of hospitals as well.” [Bernie Sanders Statement, Health Care Issues For the Vermont State Legislative Session, 9/30/87] Sanders Called On Legislature To Mandate That A Minimum Amount Of Hospital Budget Go Toward Free Care Services For People In Need. “Lastly, in terms of hospitals, there is no question in my mind that if hospitals claim to be charitable, that they must in fact provide a significant amount of free care to people in need. The 1.3% of its budget that MCHV provides out of its budget for free care is totally unacceptable. I will ask the legislature to mandate a minimum amount for each hospital to contribute to free care services.” [Bernie Sanders Statement, Health Care Issues For the Vermont State Legislative Session, 9/30/87] Sanders Called For Public Hearings Into Efficacy Of Public Appropriations Toward Medical School Students. “How many of the medical school students that we subsidize remain to practice in Vermont. How many of them are general practicioners [sic] on the front lines of health care? And how many of them become specialists charging rates that many of us can't afford? How many of these subsidized physicians practice in community health centers, in women's health centers, in our schools, or senior centers? In short, what do taxpayers receive for this subsidy? I will be calling upon the Legislature to hold public hearings on this appropriation so that the public can understand what it is getting. Based on the results of those hearings, the Legislature might find it wise policy to place some of that money into other areas of public health such as preventive programs, nurse training, visiting nurse groups, etc.” [Bernie Sanders Statement, Health Care Issues For the Vermont State Legislative Session, 9/30/87] Sanders Said Legislature Should Explore “Grossly Inadequate” State Funding For Mental Health Care. “Other areas that are clearly going to need exploration by the Legislature are the following: a. the grossly inadequate funding for mental health needs;” [Bernie Sanders Statement, Health Care Issues For the Vermont State Legislative Session, 9/30/87] Sanders Said Legislature Should Explore Use Of Data To Combat Improper Health Care Spending. “Other areas that are clearly going to need exploration by the Legislature are the following: […] b. increasing the scope and authority of the Hospital Data Council to combat improper spending and excessive hospital competition” [Bernie Sanders Statement, Health Care Issues For the Vermont State Legislative Session, 9/30/87] Sanders Said Legislature Should Explore Increasing Wage For Workers At Long Term Care Facilities.“Other areas that are clearly going to need exploration by the Legislature are the following: […] c. increasing wage levels for front-line workers at long-term care facilities” [Bernie Sanders Statement, Health Care Issues For the Vermont State Legislative Session, 9/30/87] Sanders Said Legislature Should Explore Increasing Support For Nurse Training. “Other areas that are clearly going to need exploration by the Legislature are the following: […] d. increasing support for nurse training” [Bernie Sanders Statement, Health Care Issues For the Vermont State Legislative Session, 9/30/87] Sanders Said Legislature Should Explore Increasing Income Eligibility For Medicaid. “Other areas that are clearly going to need exploration by the Legislature are the following: […] very importantly, increasing the income eligibility [sic] for Medicaid services in Vermont.” [Bernie Sanders Statement, Health Care Issues For the Vermont State Legislative Session, 9/30/87] HOUSING Low Income Sanders Promised To Restore Federal Funding For Subsidized Housing, Which Had Fallen By Over $20 Billion During The Reagan Era. “Sanders promised to fight to restore federal funding for subsidized housing which has fallen from $30 billion in 1980 to less than $8 billion in 1988. He also said that communities which adopt bold programs for affordable housing--such as requiring to be built along with high-priced units-- lower-priced housing should receive extra federal support for housing.” [Press Release, Sanders for Congress, 7/28/88] Record In Burlington Sanders Said That Lack Of Affordable Housing Would Continue Until The Federal Government Funds Construction. “The severe lack of affordable housing will continue until the federal government once again accepts its responsibility to fund the construction of low and moderate income housing.” [Bernie Sanders, Burlington Free Press, 12/30/87] Sanders Supported Inclusionary Zoning To Ensure Affordable Housing For All Income Levels. “That important issue is inclusionary zoning. On two occasions the Republicans and Democrats defeated a plan that would have demanded that developers who build expensive housing also build affordable housing. As Progressives, we believe that this City must be inhabited by people of all income levels, not just the wealthy. An inclusionary zoning ordinance will help us accomplish that goal and will be reintroduced. We look for widespread community support on this issue and hope that our Republican and Democratic colleagues on the Board will support it next time.” [Bernard Sanders and Gene Bergman Statement, 12/11/87] Sanders Announced That Burlington’s Retirement System Would Extend A Line Of Credit To The Burlington Community Land Trust To Provide Affordable Housing. “We are announcing today that the City of Burlington's Retirement System, which in the last 6 years has grown from about $10 million to approximately $28 million, has agreed to provide a $1 million line of credit to the Burlington Community Land Trust for mortgages to enable that non-profit organization to provide affordable housing to people in our area.” [Press Statement, 4/8/87] Sanders Said That Investment Would Improve Housing And Improve Local Economy, While Giving A Fair Rate Of Return To The Retirement Board. “I am very happy to announce that after lengthy discussion and negotiations the City's Retirement Baord [sic] has agreed to invest $1 million in affordable housing here in Burlington, clearly an area of major social need. Not only will this money improve our housing stock, in terms of affordable housing, but it will also improve jour local economy through the creation of new jobs in the construction area. Correctly, as is their fiduciary responsibility, the Retirement Board will be receiving a fair rate of return on this loan, which certainly is a concept we strongly support.” [Press Statement, 4/8/87] Burlington Community Land Trust Won A UN Award For Innovative Approaches To Crisis In Affordable Housing. “The fact that the Retirement Board is working with the Community Land Trust is a doubly exciting concept, because the Land Trust has shown itself to be an innovative method of helping us protect affordable housing. Last year, the Burlington Community Land Trust received an award from the United Nations for its innovative approaches to the crisis in affordable housing. At present, the Land Trust has under its control or management 27 units of housing.” [Press Statement, 4/8/87] Sanders Introduced Bill To Establish A Trust Fund To Expand Affordable Low Income Housing. “National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act of 2001 - Establishes the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund in the Treasury to promote the development, rehabilitation, and preservation of affordable and safe low-income housing.” [HR 2349, introduced 6/27/01] In Burlington, Sanders Mayoral Administration Introduced Non-Profit Land Trust Aimed At Keeping Housing Costs Low. “The community land trust now being organized not only would create low-cost housing, it would preserve it, [Burlington Community and Economic Development Office Director Peter A.] Clavelle said. Under traditional housing programs, homes that are rehabilitated with federal money eventually find their way onto the open market, where they become too expensive for low- or middle income people, he said. The land trust would buy buildings and land. The buildings would be sold under terms advantageous to the buyer, but. the land trust would retain ownership of the land and lease it to the homeowner. An agreement would prevent the homeowner from realizing excessive profits from the sale of the land, and the trust, as owner of the land, could veto any sale. Furthermore, the trust would have first option to buy the building, he said.” [Burlington Free Press, 12/17/83] 1983: Sanders Administration Used $525,000 In Federal Funds To Provide Low-Interest Loans Through Burlington’s Housing Rehabilitation Program. “Standing on the corner of North Street and Elmwood Avenue, Jack Northrup indicates surrounding properties that could benefit from Burlington's new housing rehabilitation program. […] ‘For every couple of dollars you put in this area,’ says Northrup, a Burlington minimum housing inspector and housing rehabilitation specialist, ‘someone down the street will be shamed into’ fixing up their property. Roughly $525,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) money is available for the loan program. $250,000 was available as of August I and the remainder when the King Street Loan Guarantee fund comes due later this year.” [Unknown Newspaper, 8/14/83-8/21/83] Sanders Supported Efforts By The Burlington Planning Committee To Expand Affordable Housing. “Number 2, I am proud that the Planning Commission has passed and sent to the Board of Aldermen for their approval a "mini Act 250" ordinance that will give the City far greater authority over development than we've ever had before. Further, tonight, the Planning Commission continues its important discussions on an inclusionary zoning ordinance which will mandate that a certain percentage of affordable housing be built in projects with expensive housing. My own view is that for every expensive unit of houising built, an affordable one should be built.” [Statement, Office of the Mayor, Bernard Sanders, 2/9/89] Anti-Sanders Flyer Urged UVM Students To Vote No On Question #4 To “Send Bernie A Message” Because The Proposal Would Reduce Housing Opportunities For Students. An anonymous antiSanders flyer contained the following: “Send Bernie a message. VOTE NO! on Question #4. This socalled ‘just cause’ law will not help students. It will reduce the number of apartment units available to students and drive up student rents.” [Anti-Sanders flyer, 1988] Electric Rates Sanders Introduced Bill To Allow States To Set Electric Rates. “Let the States Innovate on Sustainable Energy Act of 2010 - Amends the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) to allow a state legislature or regulatory authority to set the rates for a sale of electric energy by a facility generating electric energy from renewable energy sources pursuant to a state-approved production incentive program under which the facility voluntarily sells electric energy and an electric utility is required to purchase such energy at a specified rate.” [S 3923, introduced 9/29/10] Energy Efficiency Sanders Sponsored Bill To Promote Energy Efficiency In Residential Buildings. “Amends the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act with respect to energy efficient mortgages. Directs the Secretaries of Housing and Urban Development and of Veterans Affairs to establish jointly an energy efficient mortgage pilot program to promote the purchase of new and existing energy efficient residential buildings and the installation of cost-effective improvements in existing residential buildings. Authorizes appropriations.” [HR 5186, introduced 5/14/92] Sanders Introduced Comprehensive Energy Conservation Act for the 21st Century. Sanders introduced HR 3274, a bill that among its provisions: “Amends the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981, the Energy Conservation and Production Act, and the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to provide increased funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, weatherization assistance, and State energy grants, respectively. Increases funding for the Energy Star program. Raises average fuel economy standards for passenger automobiles and light trucks. Amends the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 to set forth a Federal renewable portfolio standard that requires every retail electric supplier to submit Renewable Energy Credits to the Secretary of Energy according to prescribed annual percentages of the total electric energy sold by the supplier to electric consumers during the calendar year.” [HR 3274, introduced 11/9/01] Sanders Said That He “Led The Effort To Double LIHEAP Funding.” “LIHEAP [Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program] is a very important program for Vermont and I’m happy to tell you that I led the effort to double LIHEAP funding from $2.2 billon to about $5 billion. But in the last few years that has been chipped away and chipped away.” [Brunch With Bernie, 10/19/12, 22:00] Cities Sanders Opposed Mega-Mall Because Suburban Sprawl Would Be An “Environmental Disaster” For Vermont. “The City is actively opposing the construction of the Pyramid Company's mega-mall in Willison. We believe that suburban sprawl and the growth of huge shopping centers throughout the state will be an environmental disaster for Vermont. If we're not careful, we can weck the vitality of our small and large cities as well as the scenic beauty of rural areas.” [Bernie Sanders, Burlington Free Press, 12/30/87] Sanders Said Cities Were “Part Of Vermont’s Special Beauty.” “Cities are part of Vermont's special beauty. They are the products of generations who have committed energy, talent, and millions of public dollars to their creation. Cities, small and large, form the economic, educational, and cultural centers of their areas. Cities are where people meet, do business, go to school, buy necessities, eat, drink and be merry, and where many Vermonters find personal fulfillment and live out the majority of their lives.” [Bernard Sanders, Vermont Environment Includes Cities, Too, 12/9/87] Sanders Said Developing Alternatives To The Property Tax Was Important To Preserving Vermont’s Special Urban Environments. “Here are some ways to preserve and enhance Vermont's special urban environments: First, and perhaps most important to me, is allowing cities to responsibly develop alternatives to the property tax. We must have both home rule authority and more respect from the Legislature in raising revenues for our own pressing problems.” [Bernard Sanders, Vermont Environment Includes Cities, Too, 12/9/87] Sanders Said Cities Needed Financial Help From The State To Properly Manage Growth. “Cities, as well as small towns, need financial help from the state if we are to tackle in a serious way the challenge of properly managing growth. Burlington is attempting to do a major study of our capacity for future growth; the price tag for this study is well over $100,000. This is an area where state technical and financial assistance could play an important role, for any town attempting such a crucial study. Burlington will find a way to pay for this, but many towns and cities may refuse to do this necessary work because of the high cost.” [Bernard Sanders, Vermont Environment Includes Cities, Too, 12/9/87] Sanders Said Cities Needed Authority To Impose Impact Fees To Require That Economic Development Occurred Responsibly. “Cities, where much of the state's growth occurs, need authority to impose impact fees; "linkage" programs must also be established on a regional basis. Major economic developments, for example, which create primarily low-paying jobs, must be required to address the demand that those jobs make on an increasingly limited stock of affordable housing. Currently, there is no clear authority for cities to impose these quite legitimate demand.” [Bernard Sanders, Vermont Environment Includes Cities, Too, 12/9/87] Sanders Said State Agencies Should Develop Programs To Evaluate The Environmental Health Of Cities And Towns. “State agencies should develop a program to evaluate the overall environmental health of Vermont's cities and villages with an eye toward better understanding of both the strengths, needs and vulnerable points in those cities. I suspect that we would see common threads in successful, dynamic, and environmentally healthy cities that other towns and cities could profit from. I also suspect that problems would be identified which could be addressed on a statewide basis.” [Bernard Sanders, Vermont Environment Includes Cities, Too, 12/9/87] IMMIGRATION Opposed “Open Borders,” Saying That Immigrant Labor Hurt American Workers Sanders Said That “Open Borders” Was “A Koch Brothers Proposal” And A “Right-Wing Proposal.” “Ezra Klein: You said being a democratic socialist means a more international view. I think if you take global poverty that seriously, it leads you to conclusions that in the US are considered out of political bounds. Things like sharply raising the level of immigration we permit, even up to a level of open borders. About sharply increasing ... Bernie Sanders: Open borders? No, that's a Koch brothers proposal. Ezra Klein: Really? Bernie Sanders: Of course. That's a right-wing proposal, which says essentially there is no United States.” [Vox, 7/28/15] Sanders Said That Open Borders “Would Make Everybody In America Poorer.” “Bernie Sanders: Open borders? No, that's a Koch brothers proposal. Ezra Klein: Really? Bernie Sanders: Of course. That's a right-wing proposal, which says essentially there is no United States. ... Ezra Klein: But it would make ... Bernie Sanders: Excuse me ... Ezra Klein: It would make a lot of global poor richer, wouldn't it? Bernie Sanders: It would make everybody in America poorer —you're doing away with the concept of a nation state, and I don't think there's any country in the world that believes in that.” [Vox, 7/28/15] Sanders Said That Eliminating Immigration Controls Would Hurt Working Class Americans. “Bernie Sanders: You know what youth unemployment is in the United States of America today? If you're a white high school graduate, it's 33 percent, Hispanic 36 percent, African American 51 percent. You think we should open the borders and bring in a lot of low-wage workers, or do you think maybe we should try to get jobs for those kids? I think from a moral responsibility we've got to work with the rest of the industrialized world to address the problems of international poverty, but you don't do that by making people in this country even poorer.” [Vox, 7/28/15] Sanders Said That “Wall Street And All Of Corporate America” Supported Immigration Reform In Order To Depress American Wages, “And I Strongly Disagree With That.” “JAVIER PALOMAREZ: I’d like to ask a quick follow-up. Recently, I think, you criticized a portion of the Gang of Eight bill for wanting to raise the cap of H-1B visas from 65,000 to over 200,000. SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Yes. JAVIER PALOMAREZ: On that portion of the bill, you do not agree? SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Here’s the story. [...] But here’s where I do have concerns. There is a reason why Wall Street and all of corporate America likes immigration reform. And it is not that they are staying up nights worrying about undocumented workers in this country. What I think they are interested in is seeing a process by which we can bring lowwage labor of all levels into this country to depress wages in America, and I strongly disagree with that.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, 7/30/15] Sanders Said That If The U.S. Had An Open Borders Policy, “There Is No Question In My Mind That That Would Substantially Lower Wages In This Country.” “ALEX SEITZ-WALD, MSNBC: (Inaudible) which is a pro-immigration reform group backed by tech companies [FWD.us] and tech entrepreneurs responding to your Vox interview yesterday, very tough statement. They say in the headline that you are wrong on immigrants, they say that your statements are troubling, that you falsely pit immigrants as obstacles to tackling unemployment and are just plain wrong. So how do you respond to that and do you think that immigrants can take jobs from Americans? SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Well you’ve got to be careful about defining the word immigrants. What they are talking about is completely opening up the border. That was the question. Should we have a completely open border so that anybody can come into the United States of America? If that were to happen, which I strongly disagree with, there is no question in my mind that that would substantially lower wages in this country.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, 7/30/15] Sanders Said That An Open Borders Policy Would Adversely Impact Youth Unemployment, Especially For Hispanics And African-Americans. “SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Well you’ve got to be careful about defining the word immigrants. What they are talking about is completely opening up the border. That was the question. Should we have a completely open border so that anybody can come into the United States of America? If that were to happen, which I strongly disagree with, there is no question in my mind that that would substantially lower wages in this country. When you have 36% of Hispanic kids in this country who can’t find jobs and you bring a lot of unskilled workers into this country, what do you think happens to that 36% of kids who are today unemployed, 51% of African-American kids? I don’t think there’s any candidate for president, none, who thinks that we should open up the borders and not see that as having a negative impact.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, 7/30/15] Sanders Said “I Don’t Think There’s Any Candidate For President, None” Who Supported Completely Open Borders And Would Not Believe That It Would Have “A Negative Impact.” “I don’t think there’s any candidate for president, none, who thinks that we should open up the borders and not see that as having a negative impact. So to my mind is, what do we do and how do we address the problem of 11 million undocumented people in this country today? We move aggressively to a path towards citizenship. We move as fast as we can to legal status. We provide protection for those people. But to simply open the borders of America, do you think there is any candidate for president who thinks that that makes sense? I don’t think so, nor do I.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, 7/30/15] Sanders Said That He Did Not Believe Legal Immigration Should Be Restricted, Did Not Answer Question About Whether He Believed That Economists Were Wrong That Immigration Improved The Economy And Created Jobs. “JAVIER PALOMAREZ: Elise Foley with the Huffington Post. ELISE FOLEY: I actually wanted to follow up on Alex’s question. Just more narrowly than open borders, since as you said nobody’s even really proposing that. Do you believe economists are wrong that say that--excuse me, that say that immigration improves the economy and actually can create American jobs? Do you believe that that’s wrong? And do you think that legal immigration should be restricted? SEN BERNIE SANDERS: Do I think that illegal immigration should be ELISE FOLEY: Legal. SEN BERNIE SANDERS: No I don’t. No. The question that I was asked is essentially an open border and I certainly do not agree with that. My father was an immigrant. Immigrants have built this country. Javier’s dad was--dad an immigrant?” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, 7/30/15] Sanders Said That It Was Inaccurate To Compare His Immigration Rhetoric To Trump’s Rhetoric. “JR: You were recently asked about open borders. And you said it was a right-wing idea, that it would make everybody poor in America. But one article said that you sounded like Donald Trump. BS: That’s, you know, this is… JR: But that suggestion that, immigrants would take jobs from Americans. BS: No, no, no. We have to be very careful about this one.” [America with Jorge Ramos, Fusion, 8/4/15] Sanders Said That No Candidate Supported Open Borders And That “Open Borders Is Not A Good Thing.” “BS: My father was an immigrant. I believe absolutely in a comprehensive immigration reform. I think we have to bring 11 million undocumented people out of the shadows. But do I believe, does any member of Congress believe, does any Presidential candidate believe, that you simply open the borders, and you have millions of people who are unskilled coming into this country. Does anybody believe that? JR: No candidate wants open borders, but the suggestion that immigrants will lower wages and take away American jobs is wrong. You know it’s wrong. BS: Yes, I know. But that was the question that I was responding to. Some journalist-- what about open borders? This is not a good thing. The answer is no. Open borders is not a good thing.” [America with Jorge Ramos, Fusion, 8/4/15] Sanders Refused To Commit To A Plan For Unlimited Immigration Between The U.S., Canada And Mexico; He Would Consider It But He Said That “It Depends On The State Of The Economy.” “JR: As a Democratic socialist would you support the idea of an immigration agreement between the U.S., Canada and Mexico similar to the one the Europeans have, with no visas, with the European community? BS: That is something I would have to look at. I can’t give you an answer right now. JR: So you would consider the possibility of… BS: I would consider anything. […] JR: So you would consider the possibility of the free flowing of workers between Canada, U.S. and Mexico? BS: I will look at all ideas with regard to immigration. It depends on the state of the economy. I don’t want to make any specific commitments now.” [America with Jorge Ramos, Fusion, 8/4/15] Opposed Guest Worker Programs And Increased Visas Sanders Said He Was Concerned With Business Community Members Who Argued For Guest Workers Programs. “Many in the business community have argued for guest worker programs as the answer to the immigration issue. This concerns me very much. As the Southern Poverty Law Center has documented, guest workers have been routinely cheated out of wages; held virtually captive by employers who have seized their documents; forced to live in unspeakably inhumane conditions; and denied medical benefits for on-the-job injuries. That is unacceptable.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, National Association of Latino Elected Officials, 6/19/15] Sanders Opposed Raising The Cap On H-1B Visas Because He Believed That It Would Increase The Number Of Low-Wage Workers, Which He Claimed Would Exacerbate Youth Unemployment. “JAVIER PALOMAREZ: I’d like to ask a quick follow-up. Recently, I think, you criticized a portion of the Gang of Eight bill for wanting to raise the cap of H-1B visas from 65,000 to over 200,000. SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Yes. JAVIER PALOMAREZ: On that portion of the bill, you do not agree? SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Here’s the story. [...] But here’s where I do have concerns. There is a reason why Wall Street and all of corporate America likes immigration reform. And it is not that they are staying up nights worrying about undocumented workers in this country. What I think they are interested in is seeing a process by which we can bring low-wage labor of all levels into this country to depress wages in America, and I strongly disagree with that. I mentioned to you, a moment ago, that unemployment rates for kids in this country, high school kids––White 33%, Hispanic 36%, African American 51%––I quite frankly do not believe that we should be bringing in significant numbers of unskilled workers to compete with those kids, that’s my view. I want to see these kids get jobs. And as part of that immigration bill, by the way, passed a couple of years ago, I managed to get a billion-and-a-half dollar program in it, for youth in this country to get jobs, okay?” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, 7/30/15] Sanders Was Generally Skeptical That High-Tech Firms Needed Increased High-Skill Immigration And Believed That Some Companies Wanted The Increase So That They Could Unfairly Pay Foreign Workers Lower Wages Than American Workers. “So that is my view. I see it as two separate wars. Each one being––here’s the story. You have many corporations that say, “Well, you know, I can’t get the high-tech guys that I need.” Right? That’s what they say. I think in some cases, that’s probably true. There may be a specialty, they can’t find that worker. But on the other hand, I’ve talked to too many people in the high-tech industry, and you know what? There are hundreds of people in this country who would like to do that work. What these corporations are doing is going outside of the country, so they can pay people from Russia, Eastern Europe, lower wages than they can American high-tech people. I think that that’s wrong.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, 7/30/15] Sanders Wanted High-Tech Firms To Do “Exhaustive” Searches For Domestic Workers Before Recruiting Foreign Workers. “But on the other hand, I’ve talked to too many people in the high-tech industry, and you know what? There are hundreds of people in this country who would like to do that work. What these corporations are doing is going outside of the country, so they can pay people from Russia, Eastern Europe, lower wages than they can American hightech people. I think that that’s wrong. So what a company has got to do, to my mind, is say, “Okay, look. We’ve looked all over New York State, we’ve looked all over California. We just cannot find any high-tech worker, any engineers, any computer people. Therefore, we’ll go out of the country.” Fine. But first of all, you’ve got to make sure that you’ve gone through an exhaustive process to make sure that people in this country can get those jobs. That is my concern.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, 7/30/15] Sanders: Expansion Of Temporary Guest Worker Programs “Is Not The Answer To The Immigration Issue.” “Many in the business community have argued for a massive expansion of temporary guest worker programs as the answer to the immigration issue. That is not the answer. As the Southern Poverty Law Center has documented, guest workers are routinely cheated out of wages, held virtually captive by employers who seize their documents, forced to live in inhumane conditions and denied medical treatment for on-the-job injuries.” [Issue Pages, Bernie 2016, Accessed 8/25/15] Sanders Supported Continuing Guest Worker Programs For The Agricultural Industry, But Said That Guest Worker Programs Generally Were Abused. “The Vermont Senator reiterated his support for stronger oversight of guest worker programs, which he said should continue to exist in some sectors like agriculture, but are plagued by widespread abuse. “We have situations all over this country where companies are going abroad rather than looking to hire people in their own communities,” he said. "I think the vast majority of the American people would agree with me that a company should first look for American workers."” [Bloomberg, 8/6/15] As President, Sanders Would “Authorize And Substantially Increase Funding For The Legal Services Corporation To Provide Legal Services To Guest Workers.” “AS PRESIDENT, SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS WILL: [...] Authorize and substantially increase funding for the Legal Services Corporation to provide legal representation to guest workers who have been abused by their employers. Further, employers should be required to reimburse guest workers for housing, transportation expenses and workers’ compensation.” [Issue Pages, Bernie 2016, Accessed 8/25/15] As President, Sanders Would “Substantially Increase Prevailing Wages That Employers Are Required To Pay Guest Workers.” “AS PRESIDENT, SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS WILL: [...] Substantially increase prevailing wages that employers are required to pay temporary guest workers. If there is a true labor shortage, employers should be offering higher, not lower wages.” [Issue Pages, Bernie 2016, Accessed 8/25/15] Sanders Acknowledged The Need For “A Path To Citizenship For Undocumented Workers”; Was Concerned About “Guest Worker Programs” Hurting American Workers. “SEN. SANDERS: Let's be clear. Number one, I voted for the 2013 comprehensive immigration reform legislation... JONATHAN KARL: Which was blocked -- but I'm asking you about the one that actually had a chance... SEN. SANDERS: Let me finish -- and I will give you the answer. And the answer is absolutely we need a path to citizenship for undocumented workers. We need to take people out of the shadows. What my concern then was, and remains, is with these guest worker programs, which you're reading about, where you have folks in high tech industries getting fired while corporations are bringing people from Russia and other countries into the United States to replace American workers and to drive wages down.” [This Week, CNN, 8/2/15] Praised By Right Wing Sources; Compared To Donald Trump SUBHEADLINE: “Bernie’s To The Right Of Marco Rubio On Visa Expansion.” [U.S. News And World Reports, The Run 2016, 7/30/15] Daily Caller: Sanders’ Immigration Comments “Puts The Populist Left-Wing Candidate Oddly Close To The Rhetoric Of Donald Trump.” “Sanders’ frank response puts the populist left-wing candidate oddly close to the rhetoric of Donald Trump, who has surged in the Republican primary contest in large part thanks to his severe denunciations of illegal immigration.” [Daily Caller News Foundation, 7/28/15] Daily Caller: Sanders’ Immigration Comments Rhetorically Distanced Himself From Clinton. “It also puts distance, at least rhetorically, between him and Hillary Clinton, who has distinguished herself on immigration mostly by promising to go further than President Obama on the issue.” [Daily Caller News Foundation, 7/28/15] IJReview: Sanders Made His Views On Open Borders “Perfectly Clear,” Calling It A “Koch Brothers Proposal.” “Although Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ immigration policy is broadly praised by immigration advocates, he hasn’t emphasized immigration on the campaign trail, prompting Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (D-Ill.) to muse last month: “I don’t know if he likes immigrants because he doesn’t seem to talk about immigrants.” But Sanders made at least one aspect of his immigration views perfectly clear in an extensive interview with Vox’s editor Ezra Klein, calling open borders a “Koch brothers proposal”.” [IJReview, 7/28/15] Rep. Steve King: “Bernie Sanders Is Closer 2 My Position On Immigration Than A Wing Of GOP. Avowed Socialist Is Opposed 2 Open Borders.” “Bernie Sanders is closer 2 my position on immigration than a wing of GOP. Avowed socialist is opposed 2 open borders.” [Twitter, Rep. Steve King, 7/29/15] Washington Examiner: Sanders “Most Emphatically Did Not Go Along” With Supporting Open Borders. “As a socialist moving up in the Democratic presidential polls, Bernie Sanders raises the expectations of many on the Left. Some assume Sanders believes what they believe and are disappointed if they discover he does not. In a newly-published interview, Vox founder Ezra Klein, an advocate of an open-borders immigration policy, asked a question virtually inviting Sanders to agree with Klein about allowing any and all would-be immigrants to come to the United States. Sanders most emphatically did not go along.” [Washington Examiner, 7/29/15] Criticism Of Sanders’s Opposition To Immigrant Labor New York Sun Editorial Called Sanders’ Immigration Comments To Vox “A Whirlpool Of Ignorance.” “It is such a whirlpool of ignorance that we don’t know where to start. But let’s start with the fact that the hunger for more immigration into America is not a confection of the Koch Brothers, however heroic they may be. It is one of the enumerated reasons for our declaring independence from the British tyrant, George III. The Declaration complained that George ‘has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither.’” [Editorial, New York Sun, 7/29/15] New York Sun Editorial: “Immigration is not a Koch Brothers scheme.” “Does Senator Sanders not know this? Immigration is not a Koch Brothers scheme. It is a scheme of the patriots who pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to create our revolution. Mr. Sanders, of all people, should know that it also happens to have been a cause of the American socialists, particularly Meyer London, the second socialist ever elected to the Congress. London, whose portrait still hangs in the offices of the Jewish Daily Forward in Lower Manhattan, was an early opponent of immigration restrictions being brought in early in the 20th century.” [Editorial, New York Sun, 7/29/15] New York Sun Editorial: “…Bernie Sanders Has Blundered On A Scale With Donald Trump.” “Good for Vox for nailing him on the point. We were alerted to it, incidentally, by the Future of Capitalism Web site. The Vox scribe who wrote up the Sanders interview, Dylan Matthews, recalled that one proponent of at least the principle of open borders was Robert Bartley, now gone alas but then the editor of the Wall Street Journal, which today is the most eloquent tribune of a free market, welcoming immigration policy. Let us see now what Secretary Clinton and the Democrats will do with the question on which Bernie Sanders has blundered on a scale with Donald Trump.” [Editorial, New York Sun, 7/29/15] Alida Garcia, FWD.us: Sanders Doubling Down On His Immigration Positions Was “Sad.” “After a day's worth of criticism on his #immigration stance #BernieSanders just doubled down at the Hispanic Chamber interview in DC. Sad.” [Twitter, Alida Garcia (FWD.us), 7/30/15] U.S. Hispanic Chamber Of Commerce (USHCC) President And CEO Javier Palomarez Disagreed With Sanders’ Comments The Effects Of Open Borders, Said That The USHCC Believed That Immigrants Would Work In Some Jobs That Americans Would Not Take. “Still, Sanders's economic arguments fell flat with Javier Palomarez, president and CEO of the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, who moderated the event. "I think he's a bit off the mark," said Palomarez. "I think he's likening allowing more immigrants coming into the country to taking American jobs. Our position is that some of these jobs [are some] that some of our young people wouldn't take. We don't see young people lining up to pluck chickens."” [Washington Post, 7/30/15] Palomarez Said That He Appreciated That Sanders Was Honest About Supporting Protectionism, Said “He Didn’t Try To Bullshit His Way Through His Response.” “Palomarez, who was hosting vetting sessions with some of Sanders's rivals, said he appreciated that the senator was at least honest about his protectionism. "He didn't try to bullshit his way through the response, frankly. I appreciated that very much."” [Washington Post, 7/30/15] Immigration Rights Activist Denise Lupita Romero: Sanders Was Wrong To Be Against Open Borders. “Looking forward to speaking to you all on the issues that the Immigrant Rights Movement tonight. Immigrants are facing targeted discrimination, detention and deportation as a result of the policies that the Democrats themselves have championed while ignoring the root cause of migration and the need to tear down borders. Why is Bernie against open borders when advocates and activists have largely called on politicians to stop border enforcement on the basic argument that no human being is illegal, that borders are danger to our communities ability to move around and stay safe from violence in their home countries. He is defending the use of borders on a nationalistic argument that many progressives and socialists condemn because we have seen nationalism used to ramp up war and violence.” [Facebook, Denise Lupita Romero, 7/28/15] Immigration Rights Activist Denise Lupita Romero: Sanders Defended National Borders While “Many Progressives And Socialists Condemn” Them. “Why is Bernie against open borders when advocates and activists have largely called on politicians to stop border enforcement on the basic argument that no human being is illegal, that borders are danger to our communities ability to move around and stay safe from violence in their home countries. He is defending the use of borders on a nationalistic argument that many progressives and socialists condemn because we have seen nationalism used to ramp up war and violence.” [Facebook, Denise Lupita Romero, 7/28/15] FWD.Us President Todd Schulte Said That Sanders’ Views On Immigration Were “Troubling” Because “He Accepts The Utterly False Premise That Our Economy Is Zero-Sum.” “I hope you’ll take the time view this interview with Vox that Senator Bernie Sanders recorded about immigration. It’s troubling – because at a high level, he accepts the utterly false premise that our economy is zero-sum, and putting forward the totally-debunked notion that immigrants coming to the U.S. are taking jobs and hurting Americans – specifically young people, Latinos, and African-Americans.” [Statement, Todd Schulte (President of FWD.us), 7/29/15] Schulte Said That Sanders’ Views On Immigration Were “Troubling” Because He Was “Putting Forward The Totally-Debunked Notion” That Immigrants Stole American Jobs. “I hope you’ll take the time view this interview with Vox that Senator Bernie Sanders recorded about immigration. It’s troubling – because at a high level, he accepts the utterly false premise that our economy is zero-sum, and putting forward the totally-debunked notion that immigrants coming to the U.S. are taking jobs and hurting Americans – specifically young people, Latinos, and African-Americans.” [Statement, Todd Schulte (President of FWD.us), 7/29/15] Schulte Said Sanders’ Views Were “Just Plain Wrong;” Claimed That Immigrants Created Jobs. “Here’s the issue: when Senator Sanders falsely pits immigrants as an obstacle to tackling unemployment, he’s just plain wrong. The economic data is clear that immigrants create American jobs – and it’s exactly the sort of backward-looking thinking that progressives have rightly moved away from in the past years.” [Statement, Todd Schulte (President of FWD.us), 7/29/15] Schulte Said That Sanders Views Were “Exactly The Sort Of Backward-Looking Thinking That Progressives Have Rightly Moved Away From In The Past Years.” “Here’s the issue: when Senator Sanders falsely pits immigrants as an obstacle to tackling unemployment, he’s just plain wrong. The economic data is clear that immigrants create American jobs – and it’s exactly the sort of backwardlooking thinking that progressives have rightly moved away from in the past years.” [Statement, Todd Schulte (President of FWD.us), 7/29/15] Schulte Said That He Hoped That Sanders Would Clarify His Comments And Answer Whether Immigrants Created Jobs And Grew The Economy. “I hope Senator Sanders will clarify his comments and answer the following question: does he believe that increasing the ease with which hardworking immigrants come to this country – whether they’re working in agriculture, opening small businesses, or medical research – drives economic growth and creates jobs for all Americans?” [Statement, Todd Schulte (President of FWD.us), 7/29/15] Reason: Sanders Opposed Relaxing Immigration Controls “Because That’s Something Rightwing Corporate Billionaire Support.” “Sen. Bernie Sanders calls himself an internationalist democratic socialist, wants a $15 an hour minimum wage, would make college tuition “free,” likes single-payer healthcare… and utterly opposes relaxing stringent immigration laws because that’s something rightwing corporate billionaires support.” [Reason, “Hit & Run” Blog, 7/28/15] Reason: Sanders Wrongly Claimed That Immigrants Would Take The Jobs Of Working Americans. “To his credit, Klein pushed back by pointing out that the poor people of the United States are actually quite wealthy when compared with the poor people of other countries. But Sanders maintained that his first obligation as a senator from Vermont was to defend American workers from the scourge of foreigners taking their jobs.” [Reason, “Hit & Run” Blog, 7/28/15] Reason: Sanders Was “Arguing In Bad Faith” By Claiming That The Koch Brothers Supported Completely Open Borders. “Sanders is arguing in bad faith, however, to suggest that his opponents— the Koch brothers, among them—want a completely open border.” [Reason, “Hit & Run” Blog, 7/28/15] Reason: Sanders’ “Demagoguery” On Immigration Was “Intended To Make Supporters Of A More Welcoming Immigration System Sound Crazy.” “Sanders is arguing in bad faith, however, to suggest that his opponents—the Koch brothers, among them—want a completely open border. Very few people involved in immigration policy are actively trying to erode all territorial distinctions between the United States and Mexico. Framing the issues this way, as Sanders does, is demagoguery intended to make supporters of a more welcoming immigration system sound crazy.” [Reason, “Hit & Run” Blog, 7/28/15] Reason: Sanders Had A Long History Of Fighting Immigration Reform, Arguing That Immigrants Decreased American Workers’ Wages, Despite Arguments From Economists That Immigrants Increase Wages And Creates Jobs. “Sanders has a long history of fighting efforts to reform immigration laws on the grounds that immigrants hurt the economy and depress American workers’ wages. But as Reason’s Shikha Dalmia has long-argued, this view is at odds with the consensus among economists that more immigration is better for the economy, has a positive effect on wages, and creates jobs.” [Reason, “Hit & Run” Blog, 7/28/15] Reason: Regarding Immigration, Sanders’ “Hatred Of The Rich Outweighs Concern For The Material Well-Being Of The World’s Poor.” “Sanders has a long history of fighting efforts to reform immigration laws on the grounds that immigrants hurt the economy and depress American workers’ wages. But as Reason’s Shikha Dalmia has long-argued, this view is at odds with the consensus among economists that more immigration is better for the economy, has a positive effect on wages, and creates jobs. But for “internationalist” socialist Democrat Sanders, hatred of the rich outweighs concern for the material well-being of the world’s poor.” [Reason, Hit and Run Blog, 7/28/15] Foundation For Economic Education: Sanders’ “Revealing” Immigration Comments “Jumped Out As A Particularly Baffling Eruption Of Economic Illiteracy, Political Tribalism, Xenophobic Nationalism, And General Silliness.” “Ezra Klein has a revealing interview with Senator Bernie Sanders today at Vox. Sanders’ views on immigration jumped out as a particularly baffling eruption of economic illiteracy, political tribalism, xenophobic nationalism, and general silliness.” [Foundation for Economic Education, 7/28/15] Foundation For Economic Education: Sanders’ Claim That Open Borders Would Make Americans Poorer Was “Patently Untrue.” “[Sanders:] “It would make everybody in America poorer.” This is patently untrue, but it also ignores Klein’s question: “It would make a lot of global poor richer, wouldn’t it?” The answer to that is absolutely yes. Because the United States has better capital, infrastructure, and institutions than most other countries, labor is enormously more productive here. As a result, identical workers can earn 280% more here than in Mexico; workers from Yemen and Nigeria, 1300% more; Haitians, 2200% more.” [Foundation for Economic Education, 7/28/15] Foundation For Economic Education: “If Sanders Really Cared About Global Poverty,” He Should Support Increased Immigration. “If Sanders really cared about global poverty and taking a more “international view,” he ought to support allowing poor people to improve their lives by moving to where they have the best opportunities.” [Foundation for Economic Education, 7/28/15] Foundation For Economic Education: “Sanders Wants Blame Immigrants For The Problem Of Youth Unemployment That Is Being Caused By The Policies He Is Pursuing.” “[Sanders:] “You know what youth unemployment is in the United States of America today? If you’re a white high school graduate, it’s 33 percent, Hispanic 36 percent, African American 51 percent.” First, this is just false. Unemployment for teens is about 16% for whites, 21% for Hispanics, and 32% for African Americans. For ages 16-24, it's 12% for whites, 15% for Hispanics, and 23% for African Americans. That's still not good, so let's ignore the fact he's making stuff up and take his point at face value. You know what would help reduce youth unemployment? Abolishing the minimum wage that prices unskilled young workers out of labor market. Or reforming a corrupt, failing public school system that leaves disadvantaged young people in dropout factories: out of school, out of work, and out of luck. But no, Sanders wants to blame immigrants for the problem of youth unemployment that is being caused by the policies he is pursuing.” [Foundation for Economic Education, 7/28/15] Foundation For Economic Education: Sanders’ View On Immigration Reflect A “Zero Sum Fallacy,” When In Fact, Immigration Creates Jobs That Wouldn’t Otherwise Exist. ““You think we should open the borders and bring in a lot of low-wage workers, or do you think maybe we should try to get jobs for those kids?” Finally, the senator falls for the zero-sum fallacy. There’s not a fixed number of jobs out there. The economy is a dynamic, organic system that creates jobs in response to supply and demand. The dramatic increase in women’s participation in the labor force over the last 60 years did not drive men out of the job market; the economy adapted to the increased supply by creating jobs. Women didn’t take men’s jobs, and immigrants don’t take Americans’ jobs. Immigration creates jobs that wouldn’t otherwise exist.” [Foundation for Economic Education, 7/28/15] Jeff Spross: Sanders’ Argument That Unions Could Raise Wages In Service Industry Undermined His Claim That Immigrants Depressed Wages Because Service Industry Unions Included Immigrants. “There's a plausible economic story one can tell in which big influxes of immigrants drive down American wages, especially at the low end. But evidence that story is actually occurring has been scant. (Granted, throwing America's borders wide open would lead to far greater levels of immigration than anyone's had a chance to study.) But more deeply, is there an inevitable connection between higher immigration and depressed living standards? Or can the dynamic be avoided? Elsewhere in the Vox interview, Sanders inadvertently hit on evidence it can, when he observed that culinary and hotel workers in Las Vegas have secured high wages and health benefits. Sanders' point was simply that service sector jobs can be made into highly compensated jobs. But those are also the types of workers immigrants supposedly compete with. And the way they succeeded in Las Vegas suggests how wages and jobs for more vulnerable Americans could be boosted even if America was absorbing way more immigrants. What happened in Las Vegas was that the union movement cornered the market on those particular forms of labor.” [The Week, Jeff Spross, 7/29/15] Dylan Matthews: “I Was Disappointed, If Not Surprised, At The Visceral Horror With Which Bernie Sanders Reacted To The Idea” Of Open Borders. “So I was disappointed, if not surprised, at the visceral horror with which Bernie Sanders reacted to the idea when interviewed by my colleague Ezra Klein. "Open borders?" he interjected. "No, that's a Koch brothers proposal." The idea, he argued, is a right-wing scheme meant to flood the US with cheap labor and depress wages for native-born workers. "I think from a moral responsibility, we've got to work with the rest of the industrialized world to address the problems of international poverty," he conceded, "but you don't do that by making people in this country even poorer."” [Vox, Dylan Matthews, 7/29/15] Dylan Matthews: Sanders’s View On Open Borders Were Empirically And Morally Wrong. “There are two problems with Sanders's view on this, one empirical and one moral. He's wrong about what the effects of an open-border policy would be on American workers, and he's wrong in treating Americans' lives as more valuable and worthy of concern than the lives of foreigners.” [Vox, Dylan Matthews, 7/29/15] Dylan Matthews: “I Don’t Doubt That Sanders Thinks He Takes Equality Serious […] But If He Does, Then His Views On Immigration Must Change.” “I don't doubt that Sanders thinks he takes equality seriously. I'm sure he thinks he's an egalitarian. I'm sure he believes that Nigerian lives and Bangladeshi lives and Haitian lives matter. But if he does, then his views on immigration must change.” [Vox, Dylan Matthews, 7/29/15] President Of FWD.us: Sanders Views On The Role Of Immigrants Were “Very Disappointing” And “Verifiably False;” Sanders Wrongly Believed That The Economy Was Zero-Sum And That Immigrants Hurt American Workers. “Don't get distracted by straw man argument over zero immigration levels in @SenSanders interview-the real issue is his false views 1/2 On the role of immigrants themselves - very disappointing to see his verifiably false comments that immigrants are taking jobs away 2/3 Sadly @SenSanders lands clearly in the camp that fails to understand the economy isn't zero sum & believe immigrants hurt US workers 3/3” [Twitter, Todd Schulte (FWD.us), 7/29/15, 7/29/15, 7/29/15] Studies Show That Immigrants Raise Wages And Expand Opportunities For Americans Brookings: Immigrants Raise Wages And Expand Opportunities For Americans. "Despite concerns that competition from immigrants might harm employment prospects for native-born Americans, recent economic research suggests that, on average, immigrants raise wages and expand employment opportunities for Americans." [Brookings, 8/2/13] Brookings: Lower Skilled Immigrant Workers Expand Opportunities For Higher Skilled Americans, Particularly Women. "How is this possible? The answer lies in the way that the economy evolves to incorporate immigrants. For instance, less-skilled immigrants working in, say, agriculture, construction, or household services, appear to improve the wages and earnings of Americans by expanding the capacity of American businesses and farms, increasing the responsibility and pay of American foremen and supervisors, and providing expanded opportunities for higher-skilled Americans, particularly women, to pursue higher-paying careers." [Brookings, 8/2/13] Brookings: On Average, Immigrants Tend To Boots American Wages. "Economists find that, on average, previous waves of immigrants tended to boost American wages. In fact, studies have shown that immigration has caused small but positive gains in wages of American-born workers of between 0.1 percent and 0.6 percent between 1990 and 2006." [Brookings, 8/2/13] Brookings: High Skilled Immigrants Benefit American Innovation, Which Is Historically The Most Important Contributor To Growth In Living Standards. " Perhaps most importantly, the wage analysis fails to account for the effect of immigration, especially high-skilled immigrants, on innovation, which is likely to benefit all Americans. Historically, innovation is the most important contributor to the growth in living standards by boosting the productivity of workers and businesses. It is difficult to tease out the precise effects of high-skilled immigration on innovation in the data, however, but the CBO estimates that the productivity of the workforce will be roughly 0.7 percent higher by 2023 and 1 percent by 2033 than it would have otherwise been in those years." [Brookings, 8/2/13] Center for American Progress: As New Immigrants Come Into The Country, The Number Of Manufacturing Jobs Offshored Decreases. "Research shows, for example, that as new immigrants come into the country, the number of jobs offshored in the manufacturing sector decreases. By ensuring that more manufacturing jobs stay in the United States, not only do native-born manufacturing workers benefit, but the demand for services that the manufacturing industry relies upon—such as the transportation of manufacture goods throughout the United States—also remains high. Thus the “upstream” jobs held by native-born workers in industries associated with manufacturing are also better off as a result of immigration." [Center for American Progress, 8/29/13] Center for American Progress: As Immigrants Enter The Labor Market, African and Hispanic Americans Move Up Into Higher Skilled, Higher Paying Jobs. "Research finds that as immigrants enter the labor market, African Americans respond to these changes in the workforce by moving up to higher-skilled—and presumably higher-paying—jobs. In fact, African Americans are three times more likely to transition to higher-skilled jobs as a result of immigration than non-African American workers. Recent evidence similarly shows that an increase in immigration of the magnitude implied by S. 744 would increase the earnings of more educated Hispanic women and men by 1.1 percent and 2.25 percent, respectively." [Center for American Progress, 8/29/13] Center for American Progress: Immigrants Are Disproportionately Likely To Be Small Business Owners, Creating New Jobs For American Workers. "Not only are immigrants unlikely to take jobs away from the native born, but they can also create new jobs for American workers. According to the 2010 American Community Survey, there were 900,000 small-business owners among current immigrants— close to 18 percent of all incorporated business owners. Yet in the same year, immigrants accounted for just 16 percent of the workforce. The entrepreneurial nature of immigrants, however, is not being fully realized, given that there are 8 million undocumented workers." [Center for American Progress, 8/29/13] Women Entering The Workforce Did Not Result In Mass Unemployment For Men – “The Economy Adjusted, And We’re All Better Off For It.” “Alternately, think about what happened in the 1960s and '70s as more and more women joined the workforce in the United States. Was the result mass unemployment for men, as women took all their jobs? Of course not — the economy adjusted, and we're all better off for it. "Would we really be a richer society if we kept half the population stuck at home?" Caplan asks. "Isn’t it better to take people who have useful skills and let them do something with it, than to just keep them locked up someplace where their skills go to waste?"” [Vox, 9/13/14] Rarely Addressed Immigration On The Campaign Trail; Changed Stump Speech Amid Pressure June 2015: Sanders Rarely Talked About Immigration Reform On Campaign Trial. “Sanders, meanwhile, hasn’t been emphasizing immigration. […] He didn’t mention immigration in his speech, which had fourteen different policy sections and lasted about a half hour. The senator rarely talks about it on the stump; at a recent town hall in D.C., he said that while immigration was an important issue, it wasn’t as central as the other issues he discusses far more.” [Politico, 6/3/15] Sanders Advisor Implied Sanders Did Not Think Immigration Reform Was A Top Issue Facing Our Country. “The senator rarely talks about it on the stump; at a recent town hall in D.C., he said that while immigration was an important issue, it wasn’t as central as the other issues he discusses far more. “If people are going to get to know him, they need to get to know him on the basis on what he believes are the biggest issues facing our country,” said top Sanders adviser Tad Devine — meaning campaign finance reform, income inequality and climate change.”” [Politico, 6/3/15] Bloomberg Politics: Immigration Was Not A Major Part Of Sanders’ Platform, Despite It Being A Major Issue For Iowa Democratic Caucus-Goers. “But his exchange with Medina highlights a potential weak spot in his campaign: Immigration hasn't been a major part of his platform, and 82 percent of likely Iowa Democratic caucus-goers said in a Bloomberg Politics/Des Moines Register poll in May that they want candidates to spend a lot of time talking about the issue.” [BloombergPolitics, 6/14/15] Sanders: “You Can’t Talk About Everything Every Time… We’re Now In The Phase Of Our Campaign That We Are Going To Talk About” Immigration Reform. “JON RALSTON: Let’s talk about immigration, which is something you don’t talk that much about in your campaign. In fact, there’s been some things written about it but you talked a lot about it to an audience that obviously wants to hear about it. You’re smiling, why are you smiling? SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Well, you know, there are a lot of things; you can’t talk about everything every time. We talk about huge issues, immigration is one of the huge issues and we’re now in the phase of our campaign that we are going to talk about that. And let me just very simply tell you what I’ve just told the Latino elected officials, that obviously when we have 11 million undocumented workers in this country, the vast majority of them who are working hard, who are honest people, they deserve a path toward citizenship. I voted for the comprehensive immigration bill in the Senate two years ago. I’m disappointed that the House has not even begun to address that issue. And that’s something that I will fight for.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, “Ralston Live,” PBS, 6/22/15] Headline: “Bernie Sanders Tweaks Stump Speech Amid Pressure” [Politico, 6/12/15] Bloomberg Politics: Sanders Added Immigration As A Topic In His Stump Speech After Criticism That He Ignored It. “After Sanders's first formal rally in Burlington, Vermont, last month, observers noted he didn't mention immigration or policing issues. On Thursday, Representative Luis Gutiérrez, an Illinois Democrat and Hillary Clinton supporter, said he didn’t know if “the socialist—I can’t remember his name—from Vermont...likes immigrants” because he hadn’t heard Sanders talking about them. On Friday, Politico noted that Sanders had added a section on the issue to his stump speech in Des Moines. “We need a rational immigration process, not the Republican alternatives of self deportation or some other draconian nonsolution,” Sanders said Friday, adding that he supported President Barack Obama’s efforts to do through executive action what Congress hasn’t done legislatively.” [BloombergPolitics, 6/14/15] After Coming Under Attack For Ignoring Immigration Issues, Sanders Added New Passage To His Stump Speech. “After coming under attack this week for ignoring immigration issues, Bernie Sanders answered back Friday by inserting new passages on the issue into his stump speech.” [Politico, 6/12/15] Liberal Activists Worried Not About Sanders’ Positions, But His Level Of Interest In Immigration Or Racial Justice Issues. “Other liberals have argued that Sanders simply doesn’t show enough interest in immigration and racial justice issues. “To be crystal clear, the problem wasn’t Sanders’s bona fides on those issues; his record shows consistent support for both immigration and criminal justice system reform. Rather, it was the sense that he didn’t think to mention them in such a critical address,” Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas wrote in a recent op-ed for The Hill in reference to his launch speech.” [Politico, 6/12/15] Sanders Campaign Disputed Notion That He Was Not Committed To Immigration Or Racial Justice Issues. “The Sanders camp bristles at the notion that he isn’t sufficiently committed to matters of such concern to the left. “He has talked about these topics before and will again,” said spokesman Michael Briggs, who didn’t address whether Sanders had changed his speech due to increased pressure.” [Politico, 6/12/15] Supported Comprehensive Immigration Reform As President, Sanders Would Sign Comprehensive Immigration Reform “To Bring Over 11 Million Undocumented Workers Out Of The Shadows.” “AS PRESIDENT, SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS WILL: [...] Sign comprehensive immigration reform into law to bring over 11 million undocumented workers out of the shadows. We cannot continue to run an economy where millions are made so vulnerable because of their undocumented status.” [Issue Pages, Bernie 2016, Accessed 8/25/15] Sanders Supported Comprehensive Immigration Reform. “SANDERS: Well, I have - I haven't seen her position in detail, but what I believe is, you know, we have 11 billion undocumented people in this country. I voted for a comprehensive immigration reform. I support comprehensive immigration reform. And that's what we should do.” [CNN, New Day, 5/6/15] Sanders Said Many Undocumented Immigrants Came To The US Because Employers Wanted To Exploit Them For Cheap Labor. “You know, when you talk about crime, my guess is that a lot of the illegal immigration in this country came because a lot of employers in this country, with a wink and a nod from state and federal government, said hey, we want cheap labor coming in from abroad. We can exploit these workers. I was in Florida talking to tomato workers, people who pick the tomatoes in this country. People who are undocumented, exploited, ruthlessly, as a matter of fact.” [Diane Rehm Show, 6/10/15] Sanders Said The Issue Of Immigration Is A Separate Issue From The Issue Of National Security. “Host: So how much does the immigration debate play a role when it comes to national security, or do you believe that to be separate? Sanders: I think that’s primarily a separate issue, not a national security issue.” [WMUR-TV Interview with Senator Bernie Sanders, 03/20/15, 06:35] Path To Citizenship Sanders Supported Granting Legal Status To Undocumented Immigrants And Granting A Path To Citizenship. “SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Here’s the story. When we talk about––to my mind, and argue with me if you want, but here’s the way I look at it. You’re the host, you can do whatever you want. (Laughter) I see two issues. I see the absolute need to provide legal status and protection to the undocumented people who are in this country right now, some 11 million people, and a path to citizenship. I would go faster, frankly, than the bill passed in the Senate would. And I would not tie it to construction of the border and all that stuff, the border wall.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, 7/30/15] Sanders Called For A Path To Citizenship For Undocumented Immigrants. “So, I think the fact is that people are here right now, the vast majority of them, are working hard or they're paying taxes, vast majority of them are law abiding. And if the alternative is to say we're throw out 11 million people in this country, it ain't gonna happen, it shouldn't happen. I don't believe it should happen. I believe that we need a path toward citizenship. It's not overnight. It's a path toward citizenship for those folks who are law abiding and that is what I believe.” [Diane Rehm Show, 6/10/15] Sanders Supported A Full Path To Citizenship “Over A Period Of Years.” “CUOMO: Full path to citizenship or qualified? SANDERS: Over a period of years, a full path of citizenship. CUOMO: So over a period of years and then you make the adjustments within it? SANDERS: Right.” [CNN, New Day, 5/6/15] Sanders Said He Wanted To Establish A Path To Citizenship. “Immigration? “People in this country want a path toward citizenship and I want to establish that path.”“ [Bloomberg, 5/6/15] Sanders Said There Should Be A Path To Citizenship, But That Undocumented Immigrants “Should Not Be Granted Amnesty.” “I suspect that perhaps as soon as next week the issue of immigration will come to the Senate floor, we will see what happens there. There are a number of complicated pieces of legislation dealing with an umber of issues. One of them is what do we do with 11 million people who are in this country, worked in this country, but are here without documentation. I think there’s a growing sentiment among the American people that there should be a path towards citizenship for these folks. Many of them are working, many of them are law abiding, but that they should not be granted amnesty and they should go to the end of the line in terms of citizenship. But it is important for the country that we take these people out of the shadows. In many cases they’re living in fear and being exploited economically.” [Brunch With Bernie, 4/19/13, 2:00] Border Wall Sanders Opposed Tying The Construction Of The Border Wall To Comprehensive Immigration Reform. “SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Here’s the story. When we talk about––to my mind, and argue with me if you want, but here’s the way I look at it. You’re the host, you can do whatever you want. (Laughter) I see two issues. I see the absolute need to provide legal status and protection to the undocumented people who are in this country right now, some 11 million people, and a path to citizenship. I would go faster, frankly, than the bill passed in the Senate would. And I would not tie it to construction of the border and all that stuff, the border wall.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, 7/30/15] 2013: Bernie Sanders Voted For Immigration Reform That Included Path To Citizenship Bernie Sanders Supported 2013 Comprehensive Immigration Reform. In 2013, Bernie Sanders voted for the comprehensive immigration reform. The bill passed 63-32 [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #168, 6/27/2013; New York Times, 6/27/13] As Passed By Senate, Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill Included Path To Citizenship. “The U.S. Senate gave final approval Thursday to a roughly 1,200-page bill that promises to overhaul immigration laws for the first time since 1986, creating a path to citizenship for millions of undocumented residents while ratcheting up security along the Mexican border.” [CNN, 6/28/13] Bernie Sanders Congratulated Senate Committee For Drafting Immigration Reform That Included Path To Citizenship. “Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today congratulated the Senate Judiciary Committee for drafting an immigration reform bill that would provide a path to citizenship for 11 million immigrants in the United States and help their children become citizens.” [Sanders press release, 6/4/13] Bernie Sanders “Leading The Critique From The Left, Supporting A Path To Citizenship.” “Senator Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent who caucuses with Democrats, has been leading the critique from the left, supporting a path to citizenship for immigrants who are in the country illegally, but speaking out against "an all-out effort" by employers "to bring in cheap labor" through work visas. He is also publicly uncommitted on the measure.” [Boston Globe, 5/31/13] Bernie Sanders “Generally Agrees” That Most Undocumented Immigrants Should Be Given A Path To Citizenship. “Sanders generally agrees with President Obama that most of the undocumented immigrants in the country now should be given a path to citizenship. He voted for the senate immigration bill in 2013, which would have increased border security and issued a provisional immigrant status to millions of undocumented residents once some significant security metrics had been met.” [PBS, 4/30/15] Sanders Supported DREAM Act And Creating A Status For Agricultural Workers. ““I’m a strong supporter of immigration reform, and of the need to provide a pathway to citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants. I very strongly support the DREAM Act, and will continue to strongly support it. I very strongly believe, as someone who knows what’s going on in the dairy industry in Vermont, that there’s no question we need to create a status for immigrant workers in agriculture,” Sanders said in a recent interview with Washington Post reporter Dylan Matthews.” [Burlington Free Press, 6/3/15] Sanders Supported Providing Legal Status To Foreign Workers On Family Farms. “I strongly support providing legal status to foreign workers on family farms. Dairy farmers in Vermont and the owners of apple orchards in my State have told me that without these workers, they would go out of business, and it is obviously true in many parts of this country.” [Congressional Record, 6/13/13] Sanders Supported 2013 Comprehensive Immigration Reform Provisions Giving Legal Status To Agricultural Workers. “I strongly support a number of the provisions that deal with agriculture. Some years ago I was in Immokalee, FL, a place that I suspect has some of the most exploited workers in America. They pick the tomatoes which go to the fast-food restaurants throughout this country. I can tell everyone that in the State of Vermont, we have dairy farms that are now dependent on foreign labor, and it is important that we treat those workers with dignity and give them legal status. It is extremely important to have an approach which provides legal status for agricultural workers.” [Congressional Record, 6/4/13] Sanders Strongly Supported “The Concept Of Immigration Reform.” “As the son of an immigrant-my dad came to this country at the age of 17 from Poland--I strongly support the concept of immigration reform, and I applaud the Judiciary Committee and all of those people who have been working hard on this legislation.” [Congressional Record, 6/13/13] Sanders Supported Much Of 2013 Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill, Including Pathway To Citizenship And DREAM Act, But Did Not Support Expansion Of Guest Worker Program. “There is much in this bill I support. I support the pathway to citizenship. I support the DREAM Act. I support providing legal status to the foreign workers who are working in agriculture. We have to have strong border security. I support that effort. Let me tell my colleagues what I do not support. What I do not support is that at a time when nearly 14 percent of Americans do not have a full-time job, at a time when youth unemployment is somewhere around 16 percent and kids from California to Maine are desperately seeking employment, I do not support the huge expansion in the guest worker program that will allow hundreds of thousands of entry-level guest workers to come into this country.” Sanders Supported Pathway to Citizenship. “I strongly support a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants in this country. Bringing undocumented workers out of the shadows and giving them legal status will make it more difficult, among many other things, for employers to undercut the wages and benefits of all workers and will be good for our entire economy--a very important step forward.” [Congressional Record, 6/13/13] Sanders Supported DREAM Act. “I strongly support the DREAM Act to make sure the children of illegal immigrants who were brought into this country by their parents years ago are allowed to become citizens.” [Congressional Record, 6/13/13] Sanders Supported Securing The Border And Preventing Employers From Hiring Undocumented Workers. “We also need to make sure, as Senator McCain has just elaborated, that our borders are more secure and prevent unscrupulous employers from hiring those who have come here illegally.” [Congressional Record, 6/13/13] Sanders Said There Was No Need For Additional Border Security Funding Because There Had Been “Great Progress” On Reducing Illegal Immigration. “I think everybody wants to make sure that the border is secure. And the good news is that in recent years actually a lot better job. It’s tough to do. But we have made I think everybody recognizes great progress along the border, I think if you talk to the governors of Arizona and Texas, they will tell you that illegal immigration has been significantly reduced. What the Republicans want to do now is put billions and billions and billions of dollars as Charles has indicated, into border security. We’re already spending a lot of money, they want to spend many many many times more.” [Brunch With Bernie, 6/21/13, 19:30] OPPOSED GUEST WORKER PROVISIONS While Sanders Voted For The 2013 Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill, He Opposed The Guest-Worker Provision. “In contrast to the failed 2007 push, labor and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in 2013 struck an agreement for lower-skilled immigrant workers — a landmark deal that was key to the Senate proposing and passing its comprehensive bill in June that year. But even though he ultimately voted for it, Sanders wasn’t too keen on guest-worker plan in 2013, either. The new program, Sanders argued, would “allow large corporations to import hundreds of thousands of blue-collar and white-collar workers from overseas.” And for good measure, Sanders also ripped a section in the sweeping bill that would have bolstered the number of high-skilled immigrant workers into the country — a less contentious provision.” [Politico, 6/19/15] 2013: Sanders Criticized The Guest Worker Provision For Allowing “Large Corporations To Import Hundreds Of Thousands Of Blue-Collar And White-Collar Workers From Overseas.” “But even though he ultimately voted for it, Sanders wasn’t too keen on guest-worker plan in 2013, either. The new program, Sanders argued, would “allow large corporations to import hundreds of thousands of blue-collar and white-collar workers from overseas.” And for good measure, Sanders also ripped a section in the sweeping bill that would have bolstered the number of high-skilled immigrant workers into the country — a less contentious provision.” [Politico, 6/19/15] Sanders Was Not Sure He Would Vote For 2013 Comprehensive Immigration Reform Because He Was “Nervous” About The Guest Worker Provision. “Supporters of the bill would surely like but can’t yet count on the vote of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. “We will see what happens,” Sanders said Monday afternoon. “There is a lot in the bill that is very good,” he said, but added, “what I’m nervous about are some of the guest worker provisions.” Sanders wants immigration reform. The question is whether he will find enough to like in the compromise by the time the floor debate concludes to overcome his distaste for provisions added to pick up support from some Republicans.” [Burlington Free Press, 6/3/13] Sanders Worried It Would Be Too Easy For Businesses To Bring In Foreign Workers Even Though Unemployment Was High. “Speaking in an interview Monday afternoon, Sanders explained his concern that the bill would make it too easy for businesses to bring in foreign workers at a time when employment remains high.” [Burlington Free Press, 6/3/13] Bernie Sanders “Supports A Path To Citizenship” But Objects “To Big Corporations Using The Bill As A Way To Lower Wages.” “Sen. Bernie Sanders supports a path to citizenship and he supports the DREAM Act. He strongly objects, however, to big corporations using the bill as a way to lower wages and benefits for American workers.” [Sanders press release, 6/11/13] 2013: Sanders Criticized The Guest Worker Program For “Making It Harder For U.S. Citizens To Find Jobs.” ““Like any piece of complicated legislation, there are aspects of this bill which I strongly support and others I disagree with,” Sanders after he voted to pass the 2013 bill. “One of the areas I have serious concerns about and want to see improved as the bill progresses is the huge increase in guestworker programs. At a time when unemployment remains extremely high, these programs bring hundreds of thousands of skilled and unskilled workers into our economy making it harder for U.S. citizens to find jobs.”” [Politico, 6/19/15] Sanders: Expansion Of Guest Worker Programs “Makes No Sense To Me. “At a time when nearly 14 percent of the American people do not have a full-time job, at a time when the middle class continues to disappear, and at a time when tens of millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages, it makes no sense to me that the immigration reform bill includes a massive increase in temporary guest worker programs that will allow large corporations to import and bring into this country hundreds of thousands of temporary blue-collar and white-collar guest workers from overseas. That makes no sense to me.” [Congressional Record, 6/13/13] Sanders Said That In Some Cases, Guest Workers Could Depress The Wages Of American Workers. “Now the negative of all of this is that it is clear to me that there are some employers that are not really reaching out to immigrants because they can’t find America labor, but simply to bring in workers for lower wages and push down the wage scale and that’s going on as well. So we want to be careful that that does not happen.” [Brunch With Bernie, 4/19/13, 4:00] Sanders Questioned Need For More Temporary Visas When Domestic Unemployment Was So High. “We are talking about an immigration reform bill from the Judiciary Committee that could increase the number of low-skilled guest workers by as much as 800 percent over the next 5 years and could more than triple the number of temporary white-collar guest workers coming into this country. During the next 5 years, H-1B high-skilled visas could go from 85,000 to as many as 230,000. The number of H-2B lowskilled visas could go from 65,000 to as many as 325,000. The new W visa program for low-skilled workers could go as high as 200,000. The first question the American people and Members have to ask is, is unemployment throughout America in States such as Arizona, Oklahoma, Vermont, Michigan so low right now that we desperately need more and more foreign workers to fill jobs Americans cannot fill?” [Congressional Record, 6/4/13] Sanders: “In Too Many Cases” H Visa Program Were Being Used To Drive Down Wages And Benefits. “In too many cases, the H-2B program for lower skilled guest workers and the H-1B for highskilled guest workers are being used by employers to drive down the wages and benefits of American workers and to replace American workers with cheap labor from abroad.” [Congressional Record, 6/13/13] Sanders Said That Unskilled Guest Workers Arriving Through H1B And H2B Programs Detracted From Youth Employment. “I just have my doubts as to whether or not these guest worker programs, the H1B Program, the H2B Program, you want to bring hundreds of thousands of new guest workers into this country to compete with people who are already not making in many cases a living wage or not finding a job at all. So really do we need people to come from Eastern Europe to serve as lifeguards or to serve as ski instructors in America or to serve as front desk people or to serve as cooks or waitresses or waiters when you have kids in this country who need those summer jobs in order to pay for college. I have my doubts about that.” [Brunch with Bernie, 6/7/13, 5:00] Sanders Opposed Provision In 2013 Immigration Reform Bill Allowing More High-Skilled Immigrant Workers Into The U.S. “But even though he ultimately voted for it, Sanders wasn’t too keen on guest-worker plan in 2013, either. The new program, Sanders argued, would “allow large corporations to import hundreds of thousands of blue-collar and white-collar workers from overseas.” And for good measure, Sanders also ripped a section in the sweeping bill that would have bolstered the number of high-skilled immigrant workers into the country — a less contentious provision.” [Politico, 6/19/15] Sanders Was Concerned Corporate America Was Using 2013 Immigration Reform Bill To Continue Their Efforts To Lower Wages. “One of my major concerns is that corporate America is sort of using immigration reform as a means to continue their effort to lower wages in the United States of America, and we must not allow that to happen.” [Congressional Record, 6/4/13] Sanders Proposed Amendment To 2013 Immigration Reform Bill That Would Prohibit Companies Announcing Mass Layoffs From Receiving Guest Worker Visas. “The second amendment I will be filing today is with Senators Grassley and Harkin. That amendment would prohibit companies that have announced mass layoffs over the past year from hiring guest workers unless these companies can prove their overall employment will not be reduced as a result of these mass layoffs. In other words, what we are seeing is a very clear trend. Large corporations are throwing American workers out on the street, and they are bringing in foreign workers to do those very same jobs.” [Congressional Record, 6/13/13] Sanders Proposed Similar Amendment To 2007 Immigration Reform Bill. “Madam President, the amendment I am offering today, along with Senator Grassley, is a pretty simple amendment. What it would do is it would prohibit companies that have announced mass layoffs from receiving new visas of any kind, unless these companies comuld prove that overall employment at their companies would not be reduced by these layoffs. In other words, we are calling their bluff, and we are saying: You can't lay off large numbers of American workers and then tell us you desperately need workers, professionals from abroad.” [Congressional Record, 6/7/07, 3:07:26] Sanders Said That Guest Workers, Especially In Agriculture, Need Better Legal Protections. “In this country, legally, there are a large number of folks that come to do work that ostensibly American employers cannot find Americans to do. I think that in some cases that’s true and in some cases that’s not true so it’s a very important issue. And I think what you want out of that, and what I’m working on, is to enable employers to be able to find those categories of workers where in fact you can’t find American workers. And I think that in agriculture, I was some years ago involved with tomato workers in Amakly, Florida. And all of that work is done by foreign labor, virtually all of it. And it is hard work, it is work where wages are not particularly good. And a lot of workers are being exploited and in some cases being exploited ruthlessly. So how you create a mechanism for those folks living and working in this country legally and not be exploited, have legal rights, is a very important issue.” [Brunch With Bernie, 4/19/13, 2:45] Southern Poverty Law Center Said Some Guest Workers Were “Held Virtually Captive By Employers.” “This report, updated in February 2013, details the systematic exploitation of foreign workers who come to this country for temporary jobs under the nation's H-2 guestworker program. Based on dozens of legal cases and interviews with thousands of guestworkers, it documents how guestworkers are routinely cheated out of wages, forced to mortgage their futures to obtain low-wage, temporary jobs, and held virtually captive by employers.” [SPLC, 2/18/13] SANDERS SUPPORT WAS “BOUGHT” BY A $1.5 BILLION YOUTH JOBS PROGRAM Sanders Said That 2013 Immigration Reform Bill Would Increase Youth Unemployment. “This immigration reform legislation increases youth unemployment by bringing into this country, through the J1 program and the H-2B program, hundreds of thousands of low-skilled, entry-level workers who are taking the jobs young Americans need. At a time when youth unemployment in this country is over 16 percent and the teen unemployment rate is over 25 percent, many of the jobs that used to be done by young Americans are now being performed by foreign college students through the J-1 summer work travel program.” [Congressional Record, 6/18/13] Sanders Worried That Expansion Of The Guest Worker Program Would Lead To Unemployed American Young People Ending Up In “Antisocial Or Self-Destructive Activities.” “I do not support the huge expansion in the guest worker program that will allow hundreds of thousands of entry-level guest workers to come into this country. […] If young people--young high school graduates, for example--are unable to find entry-level jobs, how will they ever be able to develop the skills, the experience, and the confidence they need to break into the job market? And if they don't get those skills--if they don't get those jobs and that income--there is a very strong possibility they may end up in antisocial or self-destructive activities. Right now, on street corners all over this country, there are kids who have nothing to do. And what are they doing when they stand on street corners? What they are doing is getting into drugs, they are getting into crime, they are getting into self-destructive activity. We already have too many young people in this country using drugs. We already have too many young people involved in criminal activity. As a nation, we have more people in jail than any other country on Earth, including China. Let's put our young people into jobs, not into jails. As I have heard on this floor time and time again, the best antipoverty program is a paycheck. Well, let's give the young people of this country a paycheck.” [Congressional Record, 6/18/13] Sanders Successfully Fought To Include A $1.5 Billion Youth Jobs Program In The 2013 Immigration Reform Bill. “Sanders ultimately secured a sweetener in the final days of the 2013 immigration battle: a $1.5 billion youth jobs program that, on its face, appeared to have little to do with immigration. It would dole out that money to states to help 16- to 24-year-olds in the United States become employed, which Sanders proclaimed would help more than 400,000 young people. He argued that his youth jobs program was necessary to offset the immigrants coming here to do jobs that Sanders said the young Americans would otherwise do.” [Politico, 6/19/15] Regarding Sanders’ Vote On Immigration Reform, Ralston Jokingly Said “So It Costs A Billion And A Half Dollars To Get Bernie Sanders’ Vote?” “SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: “What I was successful in doing in this last bill, which you may or may not know, is getting what I think was a billion and a half dollar amendment passed which would make sure we would have jobs for kids in this country.” JON RALSTON: “So it costs a billion and a half dollars to get Bernie Sanders’ vote? I’m joking, I’m joking, Senator.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, “Ralston Live,” PBS, 6/22/15] Sanders Took Credit For Provision In 2013 Immigration Bill To Use “$1.5 Billion To Create Jobs For Kids In This Country,” Especially For Unemployed Youth. “In the last bill, what I was able to do, by the way, at a time when youth unemployment is unbelievably high in the United States, I was able to get language in, which puts $1.5 billion dollars to create jobs for kids in this country -- for AfricanAmerican kids, white kids, Hispanic kids, where the unemployment rate is very, very high.” [This Week, CNN, 8/2/15] Sanders Worried J-1 And H-2B Visas Took Away Jobs From American Youth. “Millions of Americans, including myself--and I suspect many Members of Congress--earned money when they were young at summer jobs or at part-time jobs when they were in college in order to pay for the cost of college. […] What I worry about very much is the degree to which those jobs will be available for young Americans as a result of the J-1 program and the H-2B program.” [Congressional Record, 6/13/13] Sanders Called Claim That H-2B Visas Filled Jobs No American Wanted Was A “Slap In The Face” To Young Americans. “Supporters of the temporary H-2B Guest Worker Program claim there are not enough Americans willing to do these types of jobs; that in essence what they are saying is the young American people are too lazy to work at these jobs. I do not accept that. I truly do not accept it. I think it is a slap in the face not only to our young people but to the many working people who do not have much in the way of an education and want to work so they can earn some money. It is a slap in the face to say to those people: No, we are going to have to bring people in from abroad to do those jobs, such as being a waiter, waitress, chambermaid, or lifeguard. These are not high-tech skilled jobs; these are jobs our young people can do and need to do.” [Congressional Record, 6/4/13] Sanders Argued That The J-1 Summer Visa Program Had “Morphed Into A Low-Wage Jobs Program.” “The J-1 program for foreign college students is supposed to be used as a cultural exchange program--a program to bring young people into this country to learn about our customs and to support international cooperation and understanding. That is why it is administered by the State Department. But instead of doing that, this J-1 program has morphed into a low-wage jobs program to allow corporations such as McDonald's, Dunkin Donuts, Disney World, Hershey's, and many other major resorts around the country to replace American workers with cheap labor from overseas.” [Congressional Record, 6/18/13] Sanders Worried The J-1 Visa Program Exploited Young People From Abroad. “I have a great concern about the transformation of the J-1 Program from being a program dealing with American culture to being one where corporations are exploiting young people from abroad to work in low-paying jobs in the United States.” [Congressional Record, 6/4/13] Sanders Introduced Legislation To Eliminate Employment Element Of J-1 Program. “So what I have done is introduced two pieces of legislation to address this issue. No. 1 basically says while I strongly support cultural programs--bringing young people here from abroad is a great idea--at this moment, with high unemployment, we cannot have those people competing with young Americans for a scarce number of jobs. So we eliminate the employment element of the J1 program.” [Congressional Record, 6/18/13] 2007: Sanders Voted Against Previous Attempt At Comprehensive Immigration Reform, But Voted To Allow A Path To Citizenship Sanders Voted Six Times To Block Immigration Reform From Consideration In The Senate Due To Concerns About Fraud In Guest Worker Program. “Seven of the dissenting votes came when the Senate considered an immigration reform bill in 2007, and most of them were cloture votes to advance debate of the proposal. Mr. Sanders voted no on six such votes in an attempt to block the bill from being voted on by the Senate, mainly because of concerns about fraud in guest-worker programs. Mrs. Clinton supported advancing the bill, which would have offered legal status to millions of undocumented immigrants and improved border security.” [New York Times, 5/28/15] 2015: Sanders Said He Did Not Regret Voting Against The 2007 Immigration Reform Bill. “JONATHAN KARL: Well, you've taken some heat on the issue of immigration. So I want to ask you, you voted against the 2007 immigration reform bill. That included a path to citizenship, that was the best chance in a generation to get a path to citizenship for those who were in this country, undocumented citizens -- undocumented immigrants in this country. Do you regret voting against that now in hindsight? SEN. SANDERS: No.” [This Week, CNN, 8/2/15] Bernie Sanders Voted To Kill Immigration Reform. On June 7, 2007 Bernie Sanders voted to kill the 2007 comprehensive immigration reform bill, which aimed to overhaul immigration policy while implementing tougher border security measures. It would have allocated some green cards on a meritbased system based on certain criteria. It also would have mandated that half of the green cards be allocated based on family relations. It created a temporary guest worker program that allowed workers to remain in the United States for up to six years, provided that they returned to their home country for a year after every two years they remained in the United States. [Vote #203, 6/7/07] Bernie Sanders Voted Against Final Chance to Pass Immigration Reform. On June 28, 2007, Bernie Sanders voted against invoking cloture on the bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill. [Vote #235, 6/28/07]  Bernie Sanders Voted For A Path to Citizenship For Undocumented Immigrants. Bernie Sanders voted against an amendment introduced by David Vitter that would have denied undocumented immigrants who were previously in the United States a path to citizenship. The amendment was rejected by the Senate 66-29. [AP, 5/25/07; Vote #180, 5/24/07] NOTE: A “nay” vote was a vote to allow a path to citizenship. HRC also voted nay. Sanders Opposed Comprehensive Immigration Reform Over Opposition To Guest Worker Program. “First is Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who voted against the 2007 comprehensive immigration reform bill over opposition to its guest worker program.” [Washington Post, 6/11/13] Sanders Felt Guest Worker Program Was A Way For Businesses To Avoid Increasing Wages For American Workers. “Opposing this view are most labor leaders, computer engineers and Congress members running the gamut from Grassley, a conservative, to Sen. Bernie Sanders, a left-leaning Vermont independent. They contend the jobs could be filled if employers increased wages and benefits to attract Americans, rather than looking overseas for what AFLCIO Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka describes as "vulnerable, indentured workers." […] Skeptics say increasing immigration is a way for employers to avoid increasing wages. "They want to defy the economic law of supply and demand," Sanders said at a Capitol Hill news conference last week. "Instead of paying better wages and benefits, they want to import cheaper workers."” [USA Today, 6/24/07] Sanders Said That The Guest Worker Program Would Lower Wages When America Needed To Increase Wages. “That wasn’t too far off from Sanders in 2007 — except that back then, he voted against the bill. “At a time when the middle class is shrinking, poverty is increasing and millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages it makes no sense to me to have an immigration bill which, over a period of years, would bring millions of ‘guest workers’ into this country who are prepared to work for lower wages than American workers,” Sanders said after that year’s bill died. “We need to increase wages in this country, not lower them.”” [Politico, 6/19/15] 2015: Sanders Said He Voted Against The 2007 Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill Because “There Was Too Much Emphasis On Bringing Low Wage Workers Into This Country.” “DAN MERICA, CNN: I want to ask you about the 2007 Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill you voted against. But at the time you said, I’m going to quote you, “the bill says we must strengthen our borders and not allow people to so easily come into the country, that is long overdue and it’s absolutely right.” Why did you say that back then, when now you’re saying that you wouldn’t tie immigration reform to building a wall or anything about border security? SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Well there’s the very significant difference in scope of what the recent bill does compared to what that bill does. My concern about the bill that I voted against has to do exactly with what Javier and I discussed a few moments ago. And that is that there was too much emphasis on bringing low wage workers into this country. Okay? What I want to see, and what is better about the recent bill is, number one: that there is a path towards citizenship, which is absolutely essential, and second of all that I was able to get a fairly significant amount of money into providing jobs for young people in this country. And that is the difference between, among other things, those two pieces of legislation.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, 7/30/15] Sanders Said The Premise That There Is A Category Of Jobs Americans Won’t Take Was “False” And Due To The Lack Of An Offer Of A Living Wage. “But also what this bill does not do is analyze effectively the impact of various aspects of this legislation--the guest worker program, H-1B program--on the lives of American workers. The basic premise under which this bill operates in those areas is a false one. What it says is there are jobs out there, large numbers of jobs, that American workers won't take. I think that is true to some degree, but this bill grossly exaggerates that problem. Because the truth is, if employers paid living wages for jobs, we would be very surprised at the number of people in this country who would be delighted to hold those jobs. But if people are going to pay starvation wages and not provide health care or other benefits, yes, it is true American workers may not gravitate to those jobs.” [Congressional Record, 6/7/07] Sanders Said Guest Worker Program Was The Other Side Of The Trade Issue. “Well, you raise a good point, in that this whole immigration guest worker program is the other side of the trade issue. On one hand you have large multinationals trying to shut down plants in the America, move to China and on the other hand you have the service industry bringing in low wage workers from abroad. The result is the same -- middle class gets shrunken and wages go down.” [Lou Dobbs Tonight, CNN, 6/21/07] Sanders Said That He Is “Strongly Opposed To” An Increase In H1-B Visas. “One of the aspects of this immigration buildup we have got to pay a very hard look at is this whole concept of guest worker programs and a substantial increase in the H1-B visa which I am strongly opposed to. The idea that in the United States of America today we need more people to come from other countries who will work at high tech jobs, whether it’s computer programming or other information technology jobs because we just don’t have the workers in America is absolute nonsense.” [C-SPAN, 6/21/07, 14:06] Sanders Was Concerned H-1B Visas Were Being Used To Replace American Workers With Foreign Workers Willing To Work For Lower Wages. “That sounds good on its face, and it may also have the benefit of being true in some cases, but there are those in this Chamber and across the country who are very concerned that in many instances the H-1B program is being used not to supplement American hightech workers when they might be needed but instead is being used to replace them with foreign workers who are willing to work for substantially lower wages.” [Congressional Record, 5/24/07] Sanders Said The H-1B Visa System Was “Working Against The Best Interests Of The American Middle Class.” “In my view, the H-1B system is working against the best interests of the American middle class. It is displacing skilled American workers, it is lowering our wages, and it is part of the process by which the middle class of this country continues to shrink. Meanwhile, it is creating huge profits for foreign companies that traffic in H-1B visas.” [Congressional Record, 5/24/07] Sanders Offered Amendment To Increase Cost Of H-1B Visa. “The amendment I am offering has two goals. First, raising the H-1B visa fee from $1,500 to $10,000 will go a long way in telling corporate America they are not going to be able to save money by bringing foreign professionals into this country, and they may want to look at the United States of America to find the workers that they need. If they have to pay $10,000, that will cut back on their margin.” [Congressional Record, 5/24/07] Sanders Said Congress Should Make It Easier To Create Decent Paying Jobs For American Workers Instead Of Allowing Corporations To Drive Wages Down By Importing People To Do Work Americans Should Be Doing. “I happen to think the Congress should be spending a lot more time discussing this issue and making it easier for us to create decent-paying jobs for American workers instead of allowing corporate interests to drive wages down by importing more and more people to do the work Americans should be doing and, conversely, exporting and outsourcing a lot of decent jobs.” [Congressional Record, 6/7/07] Sanders Criticized Tech Companies For Trying To Lower Wages In The Tech Industry. “What Microsoft, what Dell, what IBM are trying to do is to lower wages in the high tech area and in fact as the caller indicated they are succeeding.” [C-SPAN, 6/21/07, 14:35] Sanders Said 2007 Immigration Bill Was Designed To Lower Wages And Increase Corporate Profits. “This is not legislation designed to create jobs, raise wages, and strengthen our economy. Quite the contrary. This immigration bill is legislation which will lower wages and is designed to increase corporate profits. That is wrong, and that is not an approach we should accept.” [Congressional Record, 5/22/07] Sanders Was Concerned Provisions In Immigration Reform Bill Would Lower Wages For American Workers. “But, Mr. President, I wish to tell you there are areas in this bill where I have strong disagreement, and one is the issue of legal immigration, what we are doing in terms of bringing people into this country who, in my view, will end up lowering wages for American workers right now.” [Congressional Record, 6/6/07] Sanders Said That Largest Corporations Supported Immigration Reform Because It Was The Best Way To Keep Wages Low For Jobs Companies Are Not Able To Outsource. “Here is the point, and this is not a complicated point. Many of the largest corporations in this country are supporting this legislation. And you know why? It is not because they are staying up late at night worrying about some Mexican kid in Detroit or Chicago and what will be the future of that kid. They are not worrying about that. What they want to see is a continued influx into this country of cheap labor. They are not content with outsourcing millions of good-paying jobs. They are not content with fighting against working people who want to form unions. They are not content with their opposition, successful until recently, of keeping the minimum wage at $5.15 an hour for 10 years. That is not good enough. Now they are saying: Gee, we can't move Wal-Mart from America to China, we can't move hotels to China, we can't move restaurants to China, so what is the best way to continue keeping wages low for those workers?” [Congressional Record, 6/6/07] Sanders Said Corporations Like Wal-Mart Supported Immigration Reform Because It Increased Supply Of Low Wage Workers, Enabling Them To Keep Wages Low. “So the idea Wal-Mart and other similar-type companies would say: Gee, we can't find workers to do that work, is just plain wrong. What they want to do is have a surplus of workers coming into this country so wages do not go up. So instead of having to raise wages and benefits, in order to attract workers and retain workers, what you do is simply open the door and you bring in more and more cheap labor. That enables them to keep wages low.” [Congressional Record, 6/7/07] Sanders Said Tech Companies Who Claimed They Could Not Find American Workers Were Only Looking To Recruit Foreign Workers At Lower Wages. “So we have a situation where, on one hand, these companies say they cannot find highly skilled American workers while, on the other hand, they are eliminating thousands of American jobs. […] What they are seeing is companies saying: We do not want you. We want somebody from abroad who will work at lower wages than you. I think that must be very discouraging for so many of our young people.” [Congressional Record, 6/7/07] Sanders Offered Amendment To Immigration Reform Bill To Increase Scholarships For American Students In STEM Fields. “Secondly, to the degree it is true that the United States does not have a significant number of skilled workers in certain categories--and in certain categories that may well be true--this new revenue will be dedicated toward providing scholarships to students who are studying in areas where we currently lack professionals. Specifically, my amendment would create a new American Competitive Scholarship program at the National Science Foundation that would provide merit-based scholarships of up to $15,000 a year, and which are renewable for up to 4 years, to students pursuing degrees in math, science, engineering, medicine, nursing, other health care fields, and other extremely important fields vital to the competitiveness of this Nation. These new scholarships would create the incentive for the best and the brightest of American students to enter these fields where there is reputedly a shortage.” [Congressional Record, 5/24/07] Sanders Said Patriotism Was Becoming A “Dated Concept” For Companies Pushing For Globalization. “We would hope that companies in the United States would have just enough patriotism, maybe just a little bit of patriotism so they would work to hire qualified American workers. But if you look at the statements and conduct of some of these companies, you realize that patriotism, love of country is becoming a dated concept for those who are pushing extreme globalization.” [Congressional Record, 5/24/07] Sanders Called On Businesses To Raise Wages And Benefits Rather Than Looking To Expand Guest Worker Program. “It is the war being waged against the American middle class, the American standard of living, and, indeed, the American dream itself. […] Why do I raise that within the context of an immigration bill? I raise that because the argument of all the large corporations that are supporting this legislation is: My goodness, we have a crisis in America. It is that wages are going down. It is not that more and more Americans are losing their health care and their pensions. The crisis is, supposedly, there are all these jobs out there--jobs in teaching, psychology, nursing, hotels, restaurants--and we cannot find American workers to do those jobs. Let me tell the business community: Raise wages, provide decent benefits, and you are going to have all kinds of people flocking to those jobs.” [Congressional Record, 6/7/07] Sanders Encouraged Others To Question Why Corporate Interests Who Opposed “Anything That Makes Sense For The American Middle Class” Would Support Comprehensive Immigration Reform. “Now, in the midst of all of that, we have this immigration bill, a bill that would allow employers to hire hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of workers from other countries in both low-skilled jobs and high-skilled jobs. It is important to note--and this point has not been made often enough, but it is important to note many of the same corporate groups that supported […] disastrous trade agreements, that these same businesses that fought against an increase in the minimum wage […] same companies that have outsourced hundreds of thousands of jobs to […] low-wage countries, these same companies are supporting this legislation. Let's understand that, and let us ask why that is the case. Why are companies that opposed the minimum wage, that oppose the right of workers to form unions, that oppose anything that makes sense for the American middle class supporting this legislation?” [Congressional Record, 6/7/07] Sanders Questioned What Jobs Were Available For American Workers If Corporations Claim Guest Worker Program Necessary To Find Both Low Skilled And High Skilled Workers. “In other words, corporate America tells us they need a new guest worker program because they cannot find any Americans for construction jobs, for manufacturing jobs, hotel jobs, restaurant jobs. Then they tell us they need more foreign agricultural workers because no American is willing to break their back working in the fields, picking strawberries or lettuce for poverty-level wages and no health care. Then--this is what gets me--they tell us they need more H-1B visas because Americans are not smart enough to be computer professionals; engineers; university professors […] Now, if Americans will not take low-skilled jobs that pay poverty-level wages and, presumably, if they are not smart enough to do high-skilled jobs, I think the question we have to ask is: What kind of jobs are going to be available for the American people? Can't do low-skilled jobs; can't do high-skilled jobs. Hey, what is there for us?” [Congressional Record, 6/7/07] Sanders Introduced The Increasing American Wages and Benefits Act To Reform H-2B Visa Program. “The Increasing American Wages and Benefits Act would begin to reverse this downward economic trend for workers employed in construction, forestry, ski resorts, stone quarries, asphalt paving, hotels, restaurants, landscaping, housekeeping and many other industries by reforming the H-2B guestworker program. […] As documented by the AFL-CIO, Change to Win, the Southern Poverty Law Center and other groups, the H-2B program is frequently used by employers to drive down the wages and benefits of U.S. workers, while cheating H-2B workers out of earned benefits. These abuses have clearly undermined the legislative and regulatory intent of this temporary guest-worker program. The Increasing American Wages and Benefits Act would reform the H-2B program to ensure that workers receive the wages and benefits they deserve and prevent employers from abusing the system.” [Congressional Record, 9/26/07] Legislation Had Strong Support From Organized Labor. “I am proud that the Increasing American Wages and Benefits Act has the strong support of the AFL-CIO; the Service Employees International Union, SEIU; the International Brotherhood of Teamsters; the Southern Poverty Law Center; the Building and Construction Trades Department; the Laborers' International Union of North America; the United Food and Commercial Workers; the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; the Alliance of Forest Workers and Harvesters; the United Farmworkers of America; and the Farmworkers Support Committee.” [Congressional Record, 9/26/07] Sanders Supported 2007 Comprehensive Immigration Reform’s Approach To Secure Border, Hold Employers Accountable For Hiring Undocumented, And Path To Citizenship. “The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act is a long and complicated bill. It touches on a number of very important issues, and some of those issues I strongly agree with, no question. The time is long overdue that we control our borders. No question, the time is long overdue that we begin to hold employers--those people who are hiring illegal immigrants--accountable. Those items are long overdue, and we have to deal with them. This legislation does that. I support that. In my view, this bill is also responsible in how it deals with the very contentious and difficult issue of how we respond to the reality that there are some 12 million illegal immigrants in this country today. This bill carves out a path which eventually leads to citizenship, and that is something I also support.” [Congressional Record, 5/24/07] Sanders Said Provisions To Strengthen Border In 2007 Comprehensive Immigration Reform Were “Long Overdue” And “Absolutely Right.” “I fear that in this long and complicated immigration bill, sometimes we lose track of the impact of this bill on the lives of American workers. This bill deals in a reasonable way in terms of dealing with the very serious problem of illegal immigration. It says we must strengthen our borders and not allow people to so easily come into the country. That is long overdue, and it is absolutely right.” [Congressional Record, 6/7/07] Sanders Said 2007 Comprehensive Immigration Reform Provision To Hold Employers Accountable For Hiring Undocumented Workers Was “Extremely Important.” “It says finally we must begin to hold employers accountable for the illegal immigrants they are hiring, something the Bush administration has been very reluctant to do. That is extremely important.” [Congressional Record, 6/7/07] Sanders Said A Path To Citizenship Was The “Right Thing To Do.” “This bill also carves out a path to citizenship which, frankly, is the right thing to do.” [Congressional Record, 6/7/07] Supported Measures To Protect American Workers From Outsourcing Sanders Introduced Bill Prohibiting DHS From Approving Any Employer Petition For A Visa Authorization Unless They Certify They Have Not Recently And Will Not Soon Provide Notice Of A Mass Layoff. “Prohibits the Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS) from approving an employer petition for any visa authorizing employment in the United States unless the employer has certified to the Secretary of Labor that the employer: (1) has not provided a notice of a mass layoff during the 12-month period immediately preceding the alien's scheduled hiring date; and (2) does not intend to provide a notice of a mass layoff. States that if an employer provides a notice of a mass layoff after the approval of a visa any visas approved during the most recent 12-month period for such employer shall expire 60 days after the date on which such notice is provided and shall not be subject to judicial review.” [S 2804, introduced 11/19/09] Sanders Sponsored Bill To Increase Regulations On Businesses Using H-2B Visas. “Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to authorize: (1) the Secretary of Labor to enforce federal labor laws with respect to employers of H-2B nonagricultural temporary workers; and (2) a private right of action against such employers. Specifies employer actions to be taken to recruit U.S. workers prior to filing for admission of H-2B workers. Prohibits H-2B worker entry until the Secretary certifies that prevailing wages will be paid to such workers or to U.S. workers. Sets forth H-2B and U.S. worker protections. Directs the Secretary to establish an H-2B (employer) labor certification application fee. Establishes in the Treasury the H-2B Employment Certification Application Fee Account. Indentured Servitude Abolition Act of 2007 Requires foreign labor contractors and employers to inform foreign workers of specified employment terms and conditions at the time of recruitment. Requires that such information be provided in written form in English or in the language of the worker being recruited.” [S 2094, introduced 9/26/07] Sanders Sponsored A Bill To Prohibit Companies Who Laid Off A Greater Percentage Of American Workers Than Foreign Workers From Receiving Federal Assistance. “Directs each Federal agency that provides grants, loans, or loan guarantees to businesses to require, as a condition of such assistance, that the business provide annually information on: (1) the number of employees employed in the United States and its territories and the number employed outside the United States, as well as wage information on U.S. employees; and (2) the percentage of the workforce that has been laid off or forced to resign during the preceding year. Prohibits, until the situation is corrected, subsequent assistance to a business that lays off a greater percentage of workers in the United States or its territories than in other countries.” [HR 3888, introduced 3/3/04] Sanders Supported President Obama’s Executive Actions As President, Sanders Would Expand DACA “To Include The Parents Of Citizens, Parents Of Legal Permanent Residents, And The Parents Of DREAMERs.” “AS PRESIDENT, SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS WILL: [...] Expand President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program to include the parents of citizens, parents of legal permanent residents, and the parents of DREAMERs. We need to pursue policies that unites families and does not tear them apart.” [Issue Pages, Bernie 2016, Accessed 8/25/15] Sanders Said DACA Should Be Expanded To Parents Of Legal Residents And Parents Of Dreamers. “Until we can pass comprehensive immigration reform, we must be aggressive in pursuing policies that are humane and keep families together. This includes using executive action when its appropriate. While the Senate passed the bill and the House did not act, Pres. Obama did the right thing, DACA. It is right, it should be expanded to parents of legal residents and parents of dreamers. We should be pursuing policies that unite families, not those that tear people apart.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, National Council of La Raza Annual Conference (Kansas City, MO), 7/13/15] Sanders Said DACA Should Be Expanded To Include Parents Of Citizens, Permanent Residents And DREAMers. “Until we can pass comprehensive reform, we must be aggressive in pursuing policies that are humane and sensible and that keep families together. This includes taking measures that are currently available, including reforms through executive action. I strongly support the Administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. DACA a good first step, but should be expanded. Deferred action should include the parents of citizens, parents of legal permanent residents, and the parents of DREAMERs. We should be pursuing policies that unite families – not tear them apart.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, National Association of Latino Elected Officials, 6/19/15] Sanders Called For A “Rational Immigration Process” And Vowed To Continue President Obama’s Executive Action. “Sanders, who has been criticized recently for not talking enough about immigration issues, also added a section to his stump speech Friday calling for "a rational immigration process," voicing opposition to "the Republican alternatives of self deportation or some other draconian nonsolution." Sanders said he backed Obama's stance “to do through executive action what the Congress refuses to do through legislation.”” [Washington Post, 6/13/15] Campaign Manager Said Sanders Supported The President’s Use Of Executive Authority To Help Immigrants. “No, listen, he supported the President’s policies, you know, the use of as much executive authority as possible in terms of helping immigrants who have come to this country. Bernie is someone who is very much has a voting record in favor of supporting—finding a pathway to citizenship for immigrants here to America.” [Tad Devine, Bloomberg, With All Due Respect, 7/29/15] Bernie Sanders Supported Obama’s Executive Orders On Immigration. “In addition, Sanders has supported President Obama’s use of executive orders to waive deportation for some groups of immigrants, including those who were brought to the United States as children.” [PBS, 4/30/15] Bernie Sanders Supported President’s Use Of Executive Action In The Absence Of Action By Congress. “I think what the president is finally saying, look, immigration is a serious problem. We have got to do something. And if you guys don't do it -- remember, the Senate last year passed a reasonably good bill. What has the House done? Absolutely nothing. So what the president is saying, this country has problems. I'm going to go forward. If you pass legislation, I'll rescind the executive order. But do something, address problems.” [CNN, 11/17/14] Sanders: “Everybody Knows Executive Orders Are Not The Best Way To Do Things” But Republicans Have Not Wanted To Pass Immigration Reform. “SANDERS: I don't think it's leadership and I don't think it's compromise. The Republican Party is today a very different party than it was back then. That's just the simple reality. And you pay attention to this every day. Have you heard Republicans talking in a serious way about immigration reform? They have not. So the president again on all of these issues, he is sitting there and saying, we have problems. We have got to act. And what he has said over and over again is if you pass legislation, I'll rescind executive orders. Everybody knows executive orders are not the best way to do things. We know that. But you have a party now, I have to say this, which is really recalcitrant in terms of wanting to do much.” [CNN, 11/17/14] Bernie Sanders Said Obama “Should’ve Acted” On Executive Action, Contrasting Hillary Clinton In Iowa. “And Clinton has resisted taking a position on whether Obama should act unilaterally on deportations. Activists have pointed to the contrast at the Iowa Steak Fry in September, when Dream Action Coalition organizers confronted her on the ropeline about Obama's delay on executive action and she responded: "I think we have to elect more Democrats." Meanwhile, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who attended a town hall in Iowa that same weekend, told the group, "I believe [Obama] should've acted" on executive action when questioned about the president's delay -- much to the Dreamers' satisfaction.” [Politico, 11/3/14]  Activists Praise Sanders, Criticize Clinton On Immigration [The Hill, 9/15/14] Sanders: Obama Should Address Issue Because There Is No Reason To Believe House Republicans Will. “Sanders, meanwhile, told Reyes he understands the situation the president faces, but believes Obama should address the issue. "I believe he should have acted," Sanders says in the video, adding there is no reason to believe House Republicans will.” [Waterloo-Ceder Falls Courier, 9/16/14] DREAM Act As President, Sanders Would “Sign The DREAM Act Into Law.” “AS PRESIDENT, SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS WILL: [...] Sign the DREAM Act into law to offer the opportunity of permanent residency and eventual citizenship to young people who were brought to the United States as children. We must recognize the young men and women who comprise the DREAMers for who they are – American kids who deserve the right to legally be in the country they know as home.” [Issue Pages, Bernie 2016, Accessed 8/25/15] Sanders Said DREAMers Deserved The Right To Legally Live In The U.S. “We should recognize DREAMers for who they are—American kids who deserve the right to legally be in the country they know as home.” [Twitter, Bernie Sanders, 7/15/15] Sympathetic To Undocumented Workers Sanders Said “We Cannot Continue To Run An Economy Where Millions Are Made So Vulnerable Because Of Their Undocumented Status.” “But how many more Immokalees are out there? How many fields or factories are there where people – often without legal status – are used up and thrown away? We cannot continue to run an economy where millions are made so vulnerable because of their undocumented status. We have to ask ourselves. Whose interest is it in to keep undocumented workers in the shadows without the protection of the law?” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, National Association of Latino Elected Officials, 6/19/15] Vox: Sanders Was Sympathetic Towards Undocumented Immigrants In The U.S. But Critical Of Expanding Legal Immigration. “Bernie Sanders doesn't fit that mold. He's dovish on the treatment of unauthorized workers, but he's a hawk when it comes to expanding legal immigration.” [Vox, 7/30/15] Sanders Criticized Blaming Undocumented Immigrants For The Country’s Economic Problems. “So for a start, it was not undocumented people in this country whose greed and recklessness on Wall Street drove us into the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. It was not undocumented people in this country who got us into a war in Iraq that we should never have gotten into. It wasn’t undocumented people in this country who gave huge tax breaks to billionaires and are fighting to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. And I think they’re being used as a punching bag and I resent that.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Des Moines Register, 9/3/15] Sanders Said That When Undocumented Workers Were Exploited, All American Workers Suffered. “And to make a long story short, the impact of that was, along with a lot of other effort, to improve the wages and standard of living for these workers. Okay? I’m a Senator from Vermont, I did not have to do that. It didn’t get me any votes back home. But I did it because it was the right thing to do. Because when undocumented workers get (inaudible), it’s not only they who suffer, but it’s every worker in America.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, 7/30/15] Sanders Said That Having Millions Of Undocumented Workers In America “Living In The Shadows” Was Economically And Morally Unacceptable. “JAVIER PALOMAREZ: So on to Immigration. Now on immigration, our association views immigration reform as, frankly, an economic imperative that we think is critical for the continued wellbeing of our economy. So the question is, how do you propose that we harness the power of immigrants for our economy to continue to be the most competitive economy in the world? SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Good. Excellent question. For a start, I think economically and morally, it is unacceptable that we have millions of workers who are living in the shadows. And by the way, I am also the son of an immigrant. My dad came from Poland at the age of seventeen without any money at all.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, 7/30/15] Sanders Said That Deporting 11 Million Undocumented People Was “Ugly Beyond Belief.” “Here’s a story. I was just in Louisiana––New Orleans just on Sunday, actually. And at the end of my remarks, a group of young, Latino kids came up to me. Beautiful young lady, maybe sixteen, seventeen––tears in her eyes, saying that she is scared to death every day that she or a member of her family will be deported. Okay. So you have the moral issue of 11 million people in this country who are undocumented. Some of my Republican colleagues apparently think that the solution is, I guess, in the middle of night, to round up everybody and throw them out of the country. I mean, I think that anyone who is thinking about those kinds of ideas is ugly beyond belief.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, 7/30/15] Sanders Said That If Every Undocumented Worker Was Deported, The Economy Would Collapse, Especially The Agriculture And Construction Industries. “And let us also be clear on two points–– maybe you agree with me on this one, maybe you don’t. The first point is, I’m sure you do agree with me, if suddenly every undocumented worker in this country disappeared, the economy would collapse. Especially in agriculture, we all know that.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, 7/30/15] Sanders Said That “Illegal Employers” Employed Undocumented Workers And Sometimes Exploited Them. “No great secret, it would collapse. And in many other areas, construction. The second area is, you know people talk about illegal immigrants. Well, there’s such a thing as illegal employers as well. People do not come over the border and get jobs without the full expectation that their employer understands exactly what’s going on, will pay them under the table, and in fact, exploit them. And I find it very interesting that many of my law and order friends, politicians, ignore that simple reality. ” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, 7/30/15] Sanders Criticized “Many Of My Law And Order Friends, Politicians” For Looking Past Employers That Employed And Sometimes Exploited Undocumented Workers. “No great secret, it would collapse. And in many other areas, construction. The second area is, you know people talk about illegal immigrants. Well, there’s such a thing as illegal employers as well. People do not come over the border and get jobs without the full expectation that their employer understands exactly what’s going on, will pay them under the table, and in fact, exploit them. And I find it very interesting that many of my law and order friends, politicians, ignore that simple reality. ” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, 7/30/15] Sanders Said That Granting Undocumented Workers Legal Status Creates A Strong Economy And Stronger Families. “So to your point, the economy becomes stronger when people have legal status, when people do not have to worry about being picked up and deported, where families are separated. The economy becomes stronger when people are part of our workforce, earning decent wages, spending money, holding their heads up high.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, 7/30/15] Sanders Said America’s Agriculture System Would Probably Collapse Without Undocumented Workers. “We need to enact comprehensive immigration reform. Today we have 11 million people in this country, 99% of whom came to this country to improve their lives, to escape oppression, to escape poverty and violence. Today’s undocumented workers play an important role in this economy; without these folks, it is likely that our agriculture system would collapse.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, National Council of La Raza Annual Conference (Kansas City, MO), 7/13/15] Sanders Said Undocumented Workers Were Part Of The Fabric Of America. “We need to enact comprehensive immigration reform. Today we have 11 million people in this country, 99% of whom came to this country to improve their lives, to escape oppression, to escape poverty and violence. Today’s undocumented workers play an important role in this economy; without these folks, it is likely that our agriculture system would collapse. Undocumented workers are doing the extremely difficult work of tending to our crops and taking care of our children, they are part of the fabric for America.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, National Council of La Raza Annual Conference (Kansas City, MO), 7/13/15] Sanders Said Many Undocumented Immigrants Came To The US Because Employers Wanted To Exploit Them For Cheap Labor. “You know, when you talk about crime, my guess is that a lot of the illegal immigration in this country came because a lot of employers in this country, with a wink and a nod from state and federal government, said hey, we want cheap labor coming in from abroad. We can exploit these workers. I was in Florida talking to tomato workers, people who pick the tomatoes in this country. People who are undocumented, exploited, ruthlessly, as a matter of fact.” [Diane Rehm Show, 6/10/15] Sanders Said That He Identified With Undocumented Workers As Workers Who Were Easy For Businesses To Exploit. JON RALSTON: “What do you think about what’s going on with this so-called underground economy with, you talked about immigration, illegal immigrants being in the shadows in your speech. Where does that fit in?” SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: “I’ll tell you where it fits in. If you don’t have papers and you’re undocumented and you need a job, I can and will exploit you. That’s what happens. [...] And this is not only a bad thing for those workers, it’s a bad thing for every worker in America because that is what the race to the bottom is about. If I’m paying you nothing or very little, I don’t have to pay that legal worker over there very much at all. So that’s how it all ties together in my view. [Bernie Sanders Remarks, “Ralston Live,” PBS, 6/22/15] Sanders Said He Would Support A Guest Worker Program That Made Allotments For Workers With Uncommon Skills. JON RALSTON: “But you don’t want a guest worker program? Isn’t there a limbo in there that you’re creating, Senator?” SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: “I’m not against all guest worker programs. If a company, and guest worker is a big word, do you think we need, at a time when youth unemployment is over 30% in this country and we have 5 and a half million kids who are unemployed, dropped out of high school, or graduated high school with nothing to do, do you think it really makes a lot of sense to be bringing in large numbers of people to be doing jobs that these kids should be having in America? I don’t think so. On the other hand, if you are a business, and maybe there is a particular specialty that you cannot find here in America, although I have a feeling that many businesses don’t quite tell the truth about this, but if there is a particular worker in India or Russia or the United Kingdom who can help, or in Mexico, fine, that’s a different story.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, “Ralston Live,” PBS, 6/22/15] Sanders Believed That Many Guest Worker Programs Were Designed To Push Down Wages. “But much of these guest worker programs, frankly, in my view, are designed by corporations to push down wages in America. So instead of paying you $25 an hour, I’ll bring in someone and pay him or her $15 an hour.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, “Ralston Live,” PBS, 6/22/15] Sanders Believed That Consumers Opposed Buying Produce, Such As Tomatoes, Picked From Mistreated And Underpaid Workers. “In my view, the American consumer does not want the tomatoes they eat to be picked by workers who are grossly mistreated and underpaid.” [Twitter, Bernie Sanders, 6/23/15] Opposed Sending Unaccompanied Children Back To Home Countries Sanders Said That The Central American Migrant Children Crisis Was A “Refugee Crisis” And A “Moral Issue.” “SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, (D) VERMONT: No, I think it`s a good law. As you mentioned it was passed by George W. Bush. The goal of that law is to protect children from sexual trafficking. And that is something that we in fact should do. So what the law says of kids who are coming from faraway countries, not Mexico and not Canada. They have the right to get a hearing, to see if they are being really exploited sexually or otherwise. And if so, we can make a decision about what we do with them then. Right now, you know, I know it`s easy to blame everything on the President. The reality is, I think he`s thinking people understand. What you have is a disaster in countries like Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador. You have gangs, violent gangs killing children in those countries. And parents are sending their kids, where their kids are leaving this violence thinking they have a better shot going thousands of miles away from their home by themselves or being, you know, escorted by coyote types (ph) than staying -now, think about that for moment. SCHULTZ: Yeah. SANDERS: So what you got is a disaster back there. And we have not an immigration issue Ed. We have a refugee crisis, it is moral issue. What do you do when desperate children go huge amounts of distance away from their homes because they`re afraid of getting killed where they live?” [Transcript, MSNBC, “The Ed Show,” 7/16/14] Sanders Opposed Immediately Sending Central American Migrant Children Back To Their Home Countries. “[SANDERS:] And if so, we can make a decision about what we do with them then. Right now, you know, I know it`s easy to blame everything on the President. The reality is, I think he`s thinking people understand. What you have is a disaster in countries like Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador. […] So what you got is a disaster back there. And we have not an immigration issue Ed. We have a refugee crisis, it is moral issue. What do you do when desperate children go huge amounts of distance away from their homes because they`re afraid of getting killed where they live? SCHULTZ: Yeah. SANDERS: What do we do? Do you simply shove them back to where they came from? I don`t think that`s what America is supposed to be about.” [Transcript, MSNBC, “The Ed Show,” 7/16/14] Sanders Generally Supported Emergency Funding To Ensure That Migrant Children Were Housed Humanely. “SANDERS: So, the answer is, how do we work to prevent this crisis in Honduras so that parents can keep their children safety at home? SCHULTZ: Do you believe this is a good first step? The president wants $3.7 billion for an emergency fix? SANDERS: You know, whether it`s 3.7 or 3.2 or 4.1 I don`t know. But clearly what we have to do is make sure that children who are on our border are housed in humane ways, not such in dangerous ways, unhealthy ways, into rooms -- overcrowded rooms. So yes, I think what the president is doing is a movement in the right direction.” [Transcript, MSNBC, “The Ed Show,” 7/16/14] Sanders Said That Comprehensive Immigration Reform Would Not Have Completely Prevented The Migrant Children Crisis. “SCHULTZ: And Senator, the polling on this shows that the American people do want to address this. If Congress had passed comprehensive immigration reform, would it have dealt with this issue? SANDERS: I think perhaps, to some degree it would have. But Ed, let`s be clearer, you know, I think there are aspects of the immigration reform that would not have dealt with this issue. This is a country like Honduras holding a pot, being run by drug cartels, being run in areas by murderers, children fleeing. SCHULTZ: Yeah. SANDERS: It`s not an immigration issue. This is a refugee issue, of parents and kids prepared to do anything to flee that violence. SCHULTZ: And we`re seeing political games over this. SANDERS: And that is really pretty pathetic.” [Transcript, MSNBC, “The Ed Show,” 7/16/14] Sanders Opposed Repealing Or Altering The 2008 Victims Trafficking Act. “[SCHULTZ] For more let me bring in Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Senator, good to have you with us tonight, we always get a straight answer out of you. Do you think the 2008 victims trafficking act should be reformed, reversed, repealed, what do we do here Senator? SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, (D) VERMONT: No, I think it`s a good law. As you mentioned it was passed by George W. Bush. The goal of that law is to protect children from sexual trafficking.” [Transcript, MSNBC, “The Ed Show,” 7/16/14] New York Times: “Immigrant Surge Rooted In Law To Curb Child Trafficking.” “Now the legislation, enacted quietly during the transition to the Obama administration, is at the root of the potentially calamitous flow of unaccompanied minors to the nation’s southern border. Originally pushed by a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers as well as by evangelical groups to combat sex trafficking, the bill gave substantial new protections to children entering the country alone who were not from Mexico or Canada by prohibiting them from being quickly sent back to their country of origin.” [New York Times, 7/8/14] Rather Than Sending Children Back To Country Of Origin, Bill Required A Hearing And Consultation With An Advocate, As Well As Care From HHS. “Instead, it required that they be given an opportunity to appear at an immigration hearing and consult with an advocate, and it recommended that they have access to counsel. It also required that they be turned over to the care of the Department of Health and Human Services, and the agency was directed to place the minor “in the least restrictive setting that is in the best interest of the child” and to explore reuniting those children with family members.” [New York Times, 7/8/14] Introduced Legislation To End Immigrant Family Detention Sanders Introduced Legislation That Would End Immigrant Family Detention. “Sec. 10. End immigrant family detention. In 2014 the Obama Administration increased the detention of immigrant families apprehended at the border. Consequently, there was an expansion of family detention facilities. These detention facilities are located in Texas and Pennsylvania, two of which are owned and operated by private prison companies. This legislation will direct the Secretary of DHS to end the use of family detention immediately and provide ICE the discretion to utilize ATDs for immigrant families.” [Fact Sheet, Sen. Bernie Sanders, accessed 9/17/15] Sanders Introduced Legislation That Would “Require ICE To Improve The Monitoring Of Detention Facilities.” “Sec. 9. Require ICE to improve the monitoring of detention facilities. To ensure humane treatment of detainees, facilities would be inspected by the Secretary of Homeland Security at least annually and by an independent, third party auditor at least biannually. The Secretary would conduct additional routine inspections, including unannounced inspections. Information obtained from these inspections will be made public.” [Fact Sheet, Sen. Bernie Sanders, accessed 9/17/15] Sanders Said Immigrant Detention System Needed Reform. “As Sen. Bernie Sanders closes in on Hillary Clinton in the 2016 polls, he’s taking on another powerful foe: the private prison companies that detain thousands of immigrants every night. ‘Overall, we need bold change in our criminal justice system. A good first step forward is to start treating prisoners as human beings, not profiting from their incarceration,’ Sanders said in a statement announcing a comprehensive new criminal justice reform proposal.” [Fusion, 9/10/15] Sanders Said His Legislation Would End Mandatory Quota Of Immigrants Detained By ICE. “Sanders said his legislation ‘will end the mandatory quota of immigrants detained,’ referring to a bed mandate passed by Congress in 2009 that requires ICE to detain at least 34,000 people who are undocumented or seeking asylum each night. (Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson has said he believes the mandate is not a requirement to house 34,000 immigrant but rather that ICE should have that number of beds available.)” [Fusion, 9/10/15] Sanders Immigrant Detention Proposal Would Close Private Prisons That Detain Immigrants. “Roughly 23,000 immigrants are also held each night in private prisons that are contracted out to private prison corporations by the Bureau of Prisons. Under Sanders’ proposal all these facilities would be closed.” [Fusion, 9/10/15] #Not1More Campaign’s Tania Unzuenta Called Sanders’ Proposal A “Symbolic Bill.” “Immigrant rights groups have little hope for Sanders’ proposal and call it a symbolic bill. ‘Immigrants who are suffering in cruel detention centers need decisive action beyond symbolic bills. The best step any candidate can take is to urge the current President to enact the fixes now that they’re promising later,’ said Tania Unzueta, organizer for the #Not1More Campaign, an immigrant rights group.” [Fusion, 9/10/15] Familia QTLM: “We Don’t Need Symbolic Bills Being Introduced By Bernie Sanders Or Anyone Else.” “‘We don’t need symbolic bills being introduced by Bernie Sanders or anyone else,’ said Jorge Gutiérrez, the national coordinator for Familia QTLM, an immigrant rights organization that works with LGBT immigrants. ‘What we need is action now and President Obama can do that by ending the abuse and torture of transgender undocumented women in detention centers. The action that must be taken is clear, the current president can release all transgender women from detention centers,’ said Gutiérrez.” [Fusion, 9/10/15] National Day Laborer Organizing Network Director Said He Had Little Hope For Sanders’ Legislation. “Pablo Alvarado, the director of another immigrant rights group, the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, said it was meaningful to know where Sanders stands, but he too had little hope for the legislation. ‘Americans need to know the specific policy proposals of every candidate for president on issues of mass incarceration. That’s the very least they can do to engage the country in a dialogue about this new era of Jim Crow,’ said Alvarado.” [Fusion, 9/10/15] Voted To Allow Federal Funding To Sanctuary Cities Sanctuary Cities Allowed Undocumented Immigrants Who Were Arrested To Either Serve A Jail Sentence Or Pay Fines, And Then Were Released. “The policies and practices differ in the estimated 60 sanctuary cities around the country. That list includes major cities such as New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Houston. But generally, when someone has been, for instance, arrested for driving without a license and then identified as an illegal immigrant at a jail in a sanctuary city, they must serve jail time for state charges or pay related fines. Then, they are let go.” [Washington Post, 7/8/15] 2009: Sanders Voted To Kill An Amendment That Would Have Blocked Federal Funding To Sanctuary Cities. On October 7, 2009, Bernie Sanders voted yes on Senate Vote #316. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Menendez, D-N.J., motion to table (kill) the Vitter, R-La., amendment no. 2630 that would bar the use of Community Oriented Policing Services funds in the bill for jurisdictions that prohibit local law enforcement from cooperating with federal agencies looking for illegal immigrants. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #316, 10/7/2009] 2008: Sanders Voted To Kill An Amendment That Would Have Blocked Federal Funding To Sanctuary Cities. On March 13, 2008, Bernie Sanders voted yes on Senate Vote #69. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Dorgan, D-N.D., motion to table (kill) the Vitter, R-La., amendment no. 4309 that would allow an adjustment to the resolution to restrict Community-Oriented Policing Services funding from going to jurisdictions that prohibit local law enforcement from cooperating with federal agencies looking for illegal immigrants. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #69, 3/13/2008] 2007: Sanders Voted To Kill An Amendment That Would Have Blocked Federal Funding To Sanctuary Cities. On October 16, 2007, Bernie Sanders voted yes on Senate Vote #370. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Mikulski, D-Md., motion to table (kill) the Vitter, R-La., amendment no. 3277 that would prohibit the use of Community Oriented Policing Services funds in the bill for jurisdictions that prohibit local law enforcement from cooperating with federal agencies looking for illegal immigrants. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #370, 10/16/2007] Sanders Voted For A Conference Report That Contained The Illegal Immigration Reform And Nationality Act Of 1996. On September 28, 1996, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #455. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the conference report on the bill to appropriate more than $600 billion in new budget authority, including $382.3 billion in discretionary spending, for those Cabinet departments and federal agencies whose fiscal 1997 appropriations bills were never enacted. The measure incorporates all or part of six previously separate bills: Defense; Labor-HHSEducation, Interior, Treasury-Postal, Foreign Operations, and Commerce-Justice-State. Included in the bill is $1.1 billion to combat terrorism, $650 million disaster relief for fire-fighters in Western states, $400 million to assist Hurricane Fran victims, and $8.8 billion to combat illicit drug use. The bill includes $6.5 billion in increased spending requested by President Clinton, to be offset by $2.9 billion in broadcast spectrum sales, $3.1 billion in outlays from the Bank Insurance Fund and the Savings Association Insurance Fund, and a $1 billion reduction from the defense budget. The measure also includes a modified version of the conference report to restrict illegal immigration. The bill was originally the Fiscal 1997 Defense Appropriations bill. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #455, 9/28/1996] The Illegal Immigration Reform And Nationality Act Of 1996 Denied Many Immigrants Access To Public Benefits. “Known as H.R. 2202, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Nationality Act of 1996, the bill, approved earlier this week by the House, would severely limit undocumented immigrants' access to federal benefits, while attacking legal immigrants' access rights as well. This bill would approve an even greater denial of public aid to legal immigrants than the recently enacted welfare reform legislation.” [Business Wire, 9/27/96] The Immigration And Nationality Act’s Section 287(g) Allowed Federal Immigration Officials To Authorize And Train Local Officials To Identify And Detain Undocumented Immigrants. “As critics assail Arizona's new immigration law, saying it is wrong to put federal immigration duties in the hands of local law enforcement, observers note that the country has been down this road before. In 1995, the Immigration and Nationality Act's Section 287(g) allowed US immigration officials to train local law enforcement officers and authorize them to identity and – if necessary – detain immigration offenders. The program spread across the south of the United States from Florida to San Bernadino, Calif., to Arizona itself.” [Christian Science Monitor, 5/18/10] Justice Strategies Spokesperson Said That The 287(g) Program Failed And Harmed Public Safety. “In a 2009 report for Justice Strategies, Ms. Shahani concludes that “the 287(g) program has failed.… It has harmed, not served our public safety.” […] The Justice Strategies study comes to similar conclusions: that 287(g)'s central targets were traffic violators and day laborers – suggesting that it was less a crime-fighting tool then a means of rounding up illegal immigrants based on ethnicity. “The 287(g) program rests on a faulty assumption that the civil immigration mandate can be seamlessly absorbed into the crime-control mission shared by criminal-justice agencies,” writes Shahani.” [Christian Science Monitor, 5/18/10] Federation For American Immigration Reform Spokesperson Said That The 287(g) Program Was Very Successful. ““The 287(g) program has been enormously successful,” says Ira Mehlman, media director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). He says the program is used by more than 70 law enforcement agencies in 26 states and was responsible for identifying more than 160,000 “removable aliens” between January 2006 and January 2010.” [Christian Science Monitor, 5/18/10] Center For Immigration Studies: No Cities In Vermont Were Sanctuary Cities. According to a map of sanctuary cities across the continental United States obtained by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), no cities in Vermont appeared to be sanctuary cities. CIS cited “U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, October 2014” as its data. [Center for Immigration Studies, 7/15] Center For Immigration Studies Had Ties To Anti-Immigrant Groups Including Numbers USA And The Federation For American Immigration Reform; Its Tagline Was “Low Immigration, Pro Immigrant.” “Before taking a closer look at the disturbing data being passed around, it would be in everyone’s best interest to consider its source. The Center for Immigration Studies refers to itself as a nonprofit, nonpartisan, independent research organization, boasting the puzzling tagline “Low Immigration, Pro Immigrant.” One of CIS’s founders, John Tanton, a retired ophthamologist from Michigan and known anti-immgration activist, was also behind Numbers USA, an immigration reduction organization that, according to The New York Times, helped kill President George W. Bush’s attempt at comprehensive immigration reform in 2007. Another one of Tanton’s groups, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR, helped draft Arizona’s controversial SB-1070, permitting police to detain illegal immigrants. Numbers USA, FAIR, and CIS were all part of the effort that successfully defeated the DREAM Act in the Senate in 2010.” [Daily Beast, 5/15/14] Border Security Sanders Voted Against A 2005 Border Security Bill Sanders Voted Against Final Passage Of A Bill To Increase Border Security And Enforcement Of Immigration Law. On December 16, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #661. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would tighten border security and increase enforcement of immigration laws. It would designate unlawful presence, in addition to illegal migration as a criminal, rather than a civil, offense. It also would increase penalties for a variety of immigration- related crimes. It would create a mandatory program under which all employers would have to verify employees' work eligibility with the federal government. As amended, it would require the construction of security fencing, including lights and cameras, along certain ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #661, 12/16/2005] Legislation Was A Tough On Illegal Immigration Bill Republicans Hoped Would Please Their Base. “In the wake of this week's massive demonstrations, many House Republicans are worried that a tough anti-illegal-immigration bill they thought would please their political base has earned them little benefit while becoming a lightning rod for the fast-growing national movement for immigrant rights. House Republicans rushed through legislation just before Christmas that would build hundreds of miles of fence along the U.S.-Mexico border, require that businesses verify the legality of all employees' status through a national database, fortify border patrols, and declare illegal immigrants and those who help them to be felons. After more lenient legislation failed in the Senate last week, the House-passed version burst into the public consciousness this week, as hundreds of thousands of protesters across the country turned out to denounce the bill.” [Washington Post, 4/12/06] Sanders Has Supported Increased Border Patrols And Border Agents 1993: Sanders Voted For $60 Million For Increased Border Patrols. On July 1, 1993, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #318. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Hunter, R-Calif., amendment to provide an additional $60 million to the Immigration and Naturalization Service for increased border patrols. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #318, 7/1/1993] 1993: Sanders Voted For An Additional $60 Million For Increased Border Patrols. On July 20, 1993, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #342. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Separate vote at the request of Walker, R-Pa., on the amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole offered by Hunter, R-Calif., to provide an additional $60 million to the Immigration and Naturalization Service for increased border patrols. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #342, 7/20/1993] 1994: Sanders Voted To Authorize The Hiring Of 6,000 Additional Border Patrol Agents. On April 20, 1994, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #134. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Hunter, R-Calif., amendment to authorize the hiring of 6,000 Border Patrol agents and necessary support staff over the next five years. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #134, 4/20/1994] Sanders Voted To Increase Safeguards Along Us Borders By Hiring Additional Inspectors, Creating New Inspection Stations, Creating Suspected Terrorist Database, Among Other Measures. On May 8, 2002, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #131. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., motion to suspend the rules and concur with Senate amendments to the bill that would require additional security safeguards along U.S. borders. The bill would authorize the hiring of additional inspectors by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and allow salary increases for border agents and certain other personnel. It would authorize $150 million for technology upgrades at inspection stations, create a database of suspected terrorists that federal agencies could use to screen visa applicants, and require schools to tell government officials if foreign students do not report for class. The bill would ban residents of terrorist-sponsoring countries from receiving temporary visas. All visas, passports and other travel documents would be required to contain biometric data. Planes and passenger ships traveling from other countries would be required to give immigration officials lists of passengers and crew members before arriving. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #131, 5/8/2002] Sanders Voted To Instruct House Conferees To Include Highest Possible Funding For Additional Border Patrol Agents And Increase Funds for Immigration Enforcement Programs. On April 26, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #133. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Obey, D-Wis., motion to instruct House conferees to insist on a conference report that would include the highest possible funding for additional border patrol agents and increase funds for other immigration and law enforcement programs, and accept the Senate provision that future funding for military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq be included in the president's annual budget. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #133, 4/26/2005] Sanders Voted To Recommit Bill To Include Highest Possible Funding For Additional Border Patrol Agents And Increase Funds for Immigration Enforcement Programs. On May 5, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #160. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Obey, D-Wis., motion to recommit the bill to the conference committee with instructions to include Senate language that would provide for the highest levels of funding for immigration and customs enforcement. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #160, 5/5/2005] Sanders Voted For A Procedural Motion To Recommit A Border Security Bill To Increase The Number Of Immigration Agents, Detention Officers, And Detention Beds. On September 21, 2006, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #464. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., motion to table (kill) the Gutierrez, D-Ill., appeal of the ruling of the chair that the Gutierrez motion to recommit was not germane. The Gutierrez motion would recommit the bill to the Judiciary Committee with instructions to add language authorizing funds for 2,000 immigration agents, 250 detention officers, 250 U.S. Marshals, 25,000 detention beds and 1,000 investigators per year for fiscal 2007-2010. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #464, 9/21/2006] Sanders Voted For A Homeland Security Appropriations Bill That Included Billions For Border Security And Authorized The Hiring Of 2,000 Border Agents. On May 18, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #189. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would authorize $34.2 billion in fiscal 2006 for the Department of Homeland Security, including $6.9 billion for Customs and Border Protection and $2 billion for grants to state and local governments for terrorism preparedness. It also would authorize the hiring of 2,000 new border patrol agents and create an assistant secretary for cybersecurity to oversee the National Cyber Security Division and the National Communications System. The bill would refine the color-coded threat alert system by requiring any alerts or advisories to include information on appropriate protective measures and limit the scope to a specific region, locality, or economic sector. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #189, 5/18/2005] Sanders Voted To Increase Funding By $700 Million For Customs And Border Patrol. On March 16, 2006, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #56. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Sabo, D-Minn., amendment that would increase funding by $700 million for Customs and Border Patrol , $125 million for the Coast Guard and $400 million for Federal Emergency Management Agency. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #56, 3/16/2006] Sanders Is Less Supportive Of Physical Barriers On The US-Mexico Border 1996: Sanders Voted Against Cutting $12 Million For A 14 Mile Triple Layer Fence And Replacing It With $110 Million For Barriers And Roads. On March 20, 1996, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #71. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Beilenson, D-Calif., amendment to strike the bill's $12 million authorization for the construction of 14 miles of triple fencing along the San Diego border with Mexico and to replace the provision with new language authorizing $110 million for the Immigration and Naturalization Service to install additional barriers and roads. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #71, 3/20/1996] Sanders Voted To Recommit A Bill With Instructions To Ensure Protection Against Employer Discrimination And To Preserve Environmental Safeguards At Border Constructions Sites. On September 25, 1996, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #431. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Bryant, D-Texas, motion to recommit the conference report on the bill to restrict illegal immigration to the conference committee with instructions to ensure adequate protection against employer discrimination, and to preserve environmental safeguards at border construction sites. The bill makes it harder for job applicants to sue prospective employers for discrimination and waives environmental regulations to expedite construction of physical barriers at borders. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #431, 9/25/1996] 2005: Sanders Voted To Strike Language That Would Waive Laws Impeding The Construction Of Border Barriers. On February 10, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #29. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Farr, D-Calif., amendment no. 5 that would strike language in the bill that would authorize the Homeland Security secretary to waive laws impeding construction of physical barriers and roads designed to curb illegal border crossings, including the completion of a fortified fence along the U.S.-Mexico border close to San Diego, Calif. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #29, 2/10/2005] Sanders Voted Against Legislation To Authorize 700 Miles Of Fencing Along The US-Mexican Border. On September 14, 2006, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #446. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would require the Homeland Security Department to prevent the entry of terrorists, unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband along the nation's international borders. It would authorize the construction of approximately 700 miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexican border. The bill would require a study of implementing security systems along the U.S.-Canadian border and direct the agency to evaluate the ability of personnel to stop fleeing vehicles at the border. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #446, 9/14/2006] Sanders Voted No On A Supplemental Appropriations Bill That Would Grant Additional Funding For Border Security And Speed Completion Of A Fence. On May 5, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #161. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the conference report on the bill that would appropriate $82 billion in fiscal 2005 supplemental spending for military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan and for disaster assistance to victims of the December 2004 tsunami. The measure would provide $37.1 billion for military operations and maintenance, $17.4 billion for military personnel and $17.4 billion for procurement. It also would provide $635 million for border security, $907 million for disaster relief for countries affected by the tsunami and $1.7 billion for relief and reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan. The military death gratuity would increase to $100,000 from $12,420 for families of soldiers who died on active duty beginning Oct. 7, 2001. It also would establish national driver's license standards, stiffen asylum requirements and speed completion of a fence on the U.S.Mexico border. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #161, 5/5/2005] Sanders Voted Against Requiring The Construction Of Security Fencing Along Certain Parts Of The US-Mexico Border. On December 15, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #640. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Hunter, R-Calif., amendment that would require the construction of security fencing, including lights and cameras, along certain ports of entry along the U.S.Mexico border. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #640, 12/15/2005] Sanders Voted Against Passage Of A Bill To Authorize Constructing 700 Miles Of Fencing Along The US-Mexican Border. On September 14, 2006, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #446. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would require the Homeland Security Department to prevent the entry of terrorists, unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband along the nation's international borders. It would authorize the construction of approximately 700 miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexican border. The bill would require a study of implementing security systems along the U.S.-Canadian border and direct the agency to evaluate the ability of personnel to stop fleeing vehicles at the border. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #446, 9/14/2006] Sanders Voted Against An Amendment To Require Congressional Approval Of Border Security And Fencing Strategies From Homeland Security Department. On June 19, 2013, Bernie Sanders voted no on Senate Vote #156. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Lee, R-Utah, amendment no. 1208 that would require congressional approval of the Homeland Security Department's border security and fencing strategies within 30 days of receiving the department's report. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #156, 6/19/2013] Sanders Voted Against Consideration Of Amendment To Complete 700 Mile Border Fence. On May 27, 2010, Bernie Sanders voted no on Senate Vote #172. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: DeMint, R-S.C., motion to suspend Senate Rules to permit the consideration of the DeMint amendment no. 4177 that would require completion of a 700-mile southern border fence to restrain all pedestrian traffic. It also would instruct the Homeland Security secretary to submit a report to Congress within 180 days of the bill's enactment detailing progress towards the fence's completion. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #172, 5/27/2010] Sanders Voted Against Amendment To Require U.S. Mexican Border Fence To Be Completed By December 2010. On July 8, 2009, Bernie Sanders voted no on Senate Vote #220. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: DeMint, R-S.C., amendment no. 1399 to the Reid, D-Nev., substitute amendment no. 1373. The DeMint amendment would require the fence built along the U.S.-Mexican border to prevent pedestrian traffic and reach completion by Dec. 31, 2010. The substitute would provide $44.3 billion in fiscal 2010 for the Homeland Security Department and related programs, including $43 billion in discretionary spending. The total would include $16 billion for customs, border protection and immigration; $7.7 billion for the Transportation Security Administration, including fees; $8.9 billion for the Coast Guard, excluding mandatory spending; $1.5 billion for the Secret Service and $7 billion for FEMA. It also would prohibit funding after Jan. 4, 2010, for Loran-C, a land-based radio navigation system. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #220, 7/8/2009] Sanders Voted Against Creating A 60 Vote Point Of Order Against Any Appropriations Bill That Failed To Fully Fund A Border Fence. On April 2, 2009, Bernie Sanders voted no on Senate Vote #150. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Motion to waive the Budget Act with respect to the Conrad, D-N.D., point of order against the Sessions, R-Ala., amendment no. 969 that would create a 60-vote point of order against any appropriations legislation that fails to fully fund construction of Southwest border fencing. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #150, 4/2/2009] Sanders And Clinton Voted Against Amendment That Would Allow For Completion Of 700 Miles Of Border Fencing And Deployment Of 6,000 National Guard Troops To The Southern Border As Long As The Programs Did Not Increase The Deficit. On March 13, 2008, Bernie Sanders voted no on Senate Vote #60. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Sessions, R-Ala., amendment no. 4231 that would allow an adjustment to the resolution for increased border security and immigration enforcement, including programs that expand the zero tolerance prosecution policy for illegal entry, completion of 700 miles of border fencing and deployment of up to 6,000 National Guard members to the U.S. southern border, as long as the programs do not increase the deficit. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #60, 3/13/2008] Sanders And Clinton Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Required The Completion Of A 700 Mile Border Security Fence Before A Guest Worker Program Could Begin. On June 7, 2007, Bernie Sanders voted no on Senate Vote #202. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Coburn, ROkla., amendment no. 1311 to the Kennedy, D-Mass., substitute amendment no. 1150. The Coburn amendment would require completion of existing immigration laws, including the 700-mile border security fence, before the guest worker program could begin. The substitute would overhaul U.S. immigration policies and institute new border security measures, including an electronic verification system. It would allocate some green cards on a merit-based system based on certain criteria, including a high-demand occupation, proficiency in English and higher education degrees. Half of the green cards would be allocated based on family relations. It also would provide for a temporary guest worker program that would allow workers to remain in the United States for up to six years, provided that they return to their home country for a year after every two years they remain in the United States. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #202, 6/7/2007] Sanders And Clinton Voted For Amendment To Homeland Security Appropriations To Provide $3 Billion In Border Security Funding And Require Installation Of 700 Miles Of Border Fencing And 300 Miles Of Vehicle Barriers. On July 26, 2007, Bernie Sanders voted yes on Senate Vote #278. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Graham, R-S.C., amendment no. 2480 to the Byrd, DW.Va., substitute amendment no. 2383. The Graham amendment would provide $3 billion in emergency funding for border security and require the hiring of 23,000 Border Patrol agents. It would require the Homeland Security secretary to establish operational control over 100 percent of the U.S.-Mexico land border, including the installation of 700 miles of fencing and 300 miles of vehicle barriers. It also would require employment eligibility verification improvements for the removal and detention of visa overstays and those who have re-entered the United States illegally. The substitute amendment would provide $37.6 billion in fiscal 2008 for the Homeland Security Department, including $36.4 billion in discretionary spending. The total includes funding for the Coast Guard, the Transportation Security Administration and Customs and Border Protection, including funds for 3,000 new border patrol agents and $1 billion for border fencing, infrastructure, and technology. It also would bar federal pre- emption of more stringent state and local chemical security regulations. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #278, 7/26/2007] Sanders Voted Against Consideration Of A Bill To Authorize The Construction Of 700 Miles Of Fencing Along The U.S. Mexican Border. On September 14, 2006, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #444. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Sessions, R-Texas, motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate and possibility of amendment) on adoption of the rule (H Res 1002) to provide for House consideration of the bill that would authorize the construction of approximately 700 miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexican border, and direct the Homeland Security Department to evaluate the ability of personnel to stop fleeing vehicles at the border. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #444, 9/14/2006] Sanders Voted Against Consideration Of A Bill To Authorize Completion Of A Security Fence On The U.S. Mexico Border. On February 10, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #27. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the rule (H Res 75) to provide for House floor consideration of the bill that would tighten national standards for state driver's licenses and identity cards, make it more difficult for foreign nationals to claim asylum, and authorize the completion of a security fence along the U.S.-Mexico border. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #27, 2/10/2005] Sanders Voted Against Consideration Of A Bill To Authorize Completion Of A Security Fence On The U.S. Mexico Border. On February 9, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #23. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Question of whether the House should consider the rule (H Res 71) to provide for House floor consideration of the bill that would tighten national standards for state drivers' licenses and identity cards, make it more difficult for foreign nationals to claim asylum, and authorize the completion of a security fence on the U.S.-Mexico border. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #23, 2/9/2005] Sanders Voted Against Expediting Construction To Fill Gaps In A 14 Mile Barrier Between The US And Mexico In San Diego. On October 8, 2004, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #519. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Ose, R-Calif., amendment that would expedite construction to fill two gaps in the 14-mile barrier along the U.S.-Mexico border in San Diego, Calif. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #519, 10/8/2004] Sanders Was Not Supportive Of Measures Putting Border Security Before Other Reforms As President, Sanders Would “Oppose Tying Immigration Reform To The Building Of A Border Fence.” “AS PRESIDENT, SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS WILL: [...] Oppose tying immigration reform to the building of a border fence. Undocumented workers come to the United States to escape economic hardship and political persecution. Tying reform to unrealistic and unwise border patrol proposals renders the promise illusory for millions seeking legal status.” [Issue Pages, Bernie 2016, Accessed 8/25/15] Sanders Said He “Opposed Tying Immigration Reform To The Building Of A Border Fence.” “I also opposed tying immigration reform to the building of a border fence. Let me say what most people already know. Undocumented workers come to the United States to escape economic hardship and political persecution.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, National Association of Latino Elected Officials, 6/19/15] Sanders Voted Against An Amendment That Would Require 350 Miles Of Fence To Be Completed Before Applications For Legal Status From Undocumented Immigrations Could Be Processed. On June 18, 2013, Bernie Sanders voted no on Senate Vote #151. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Thune, R-S.D., amendment no. 1197 that would require 350 miles of double-layered fencing along the southern border be completed before the Homeland Security Department can begin processing applications for provisional legal status from illegal immigrants. It would require 700 miles of fencing be completed before such individuals can receive permanent resident status. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #151, 6/18/2013] Sanders Voted To Kill An Amendment That Would Require Effective Control Of The Border For Six Months Before Undocumented Immigrants With Provisional Legal Status Can Become Permanent Residents. On June 13, 2013, Bernie Sanders voted yes on Senate Vote #148. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Reid, D-Nev., motion to table (kill) the Grassley, R-Iowa, amendment no. 1195 that would require the Homeland Security Department to maintain effective control of the southern border for at least six months before it can offer provisional legal status to illegal immigrants currently living in the country. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #148, 6/13/2013] Sanders Voted For Cloture On Amendment To Require A Border Fence And Other Provisions Before Undocumented Immigrants With Provisional Legal Status Can Become Permanent Residents. On June 24, 2013, Bernie Sanders voted yes on Senate Vote #160. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Motion to invoke cloture (thus limiting debate) on the Leahy, D-Vt., amendment no. 1183 that would require the Homeland Security Department to complete certain security measures, including fencing along the southern border, more border agents and technology, and an entry-exit system at airports and seaports, before illegal immigrants who receive provisional legal status can become permanent residents. It also would prevent immigrants from claiming Social Security benefits for work they did while unauthorized and bar non-citizens from receiving public assistance. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #160, 6/24/2013] Sanders Voted To Kill An Amendment That Would Require A Fully Secure Border Before Undocumented Immigrants With Provisional Legal Status Can Become Permanent Residents. On June 20, 2013, Bernie Sanders voted yes on Senate Vote #159. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Reid, D-Nev., motion to table (kill) the Cornyn, R-Texas, amendment no. 1251 that would require the Homeland Security Department to certify that certain security standards, including a fully secure border, apprehension of 90 percent of illegal border crossers and a biometric screening system at all airports and seaports, are met before illegal immigrants could be granted permanent legal status. It also would authorize $5 billion over five years for additional border patrol agents and infrastructure improvements, including the construction of ports of entry. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #159, 6/20/2013] Sanders Voted To Increase Border Security Sanders Supported 2013 Comprehensive Immigration Reform With Strong Border Security Provisions. In 2013, Bernie Sanders voted for the comprehensive immigration reform that would overhaul U.S. immigration policies, create an incremental path to citizenship for most illegal immigrants in the country and institute new border security measures. It would require the Homeland Security Department to complete certain security measures, including 700 miles of fencing along the southern border, nationwide use of its E-Verify system and a biometric entry-exit system at all international airports and seaports, before illegal immigrants who receive provisional legal status can become permanent residents. It would make available $42.5 billion for additional border control agents, the 700-mile fence and monitoring technology, such as cameras and drones. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #168, 6/27/2013; New York Times, 6/27/13] 2013 Border Legislation Codified For The First Time The Use Of The National Guard To Secure The Border. “(a) In General- With the approval of the Secretary of Defense, the Governor of a State may order any unit or personnel of the National Guard of such State to perform operations and missions under section 502(f) of title 32, United States Code, in the Southwest Border region for the purposes of assisting U.S. Customs and Border Protection in securing the Southern border.” [S. 744, Passed 6/27/13] Sanders Voted For Cloture On Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill. On June 27, 2013, Bernie Sanders voted yes on Senate Vote #167. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Motion to invoke cloture (thus limiting debate) on the bill that would overhaul U.S. immigration policies, create a path to citizenship for most illegal immigrants in the country and institute new border security measures. It would require the Homeland Security Department to complete certain security measures before illegal immigrants who receive provisional legal status can become permanent residents. It also would create visa programs for agricultural and low-skilled workers and qualified entrepreneurs, as well as a program to allocate green cards on a meritbased system. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #167, 6/27/13] Sanders Voted For A Motion To Proceed On Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill. On June 11, 2013, Bernie Sanders voted yes on Senate Vote #147. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Reid, D-Nev., motion to proceed to the bill that would overhaul U.S. immigration policies and offer a path to citizenship for most illegal immigrants in the country and institute new border security measures, including a southern border fencing plan. The bill would authorize visa programs for temporary foreign workers and require electronic systems to verify employment eligibility and track visa holders. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #147, 6/11/2013] Sanders Voted For Cloture On Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill. On June 11, 2013, Bernie Sanders voted yes on Senate Vote #146. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Motion to invoke cloture (thus limiting debate) on the Reid, D-Nev., motion to proceed to the bill that would overhaul U.S. immigration policies and offer a path to citizenship for most illegal immigrants in the country and institute new border security measures. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #146, 6/11/2013] Sanders Voted To Increase Border Security Provisions In The Immigration Reform Bill And Bar Social Security Claims From Work Done As Undocumented Immigrants. On June 26, 2013, Sanders voted for an amendment to immigration reform that would require the Homeland Security Department to complete certain security measures before illegal immigrants who receive provisional legal status can become permanent residents. It would make available $30 billion for the department to hire 19,200 border control agents, $8 billion to build 700 miles of border fencing and $4.5 billion for technology such as cameras and drones. It would mandate starting removal proceedings for at least 90 percent of visa overstays, or individuals who enter the United States legally but who stay beyond the duration of their visas. It also would prevent immigrants from claiming Social Security benefits for work they did while unauthorized and bar non-citizens from receiving public assistance. [CQ; Senate Vote 163, 6/26/13] Border Surge Amendment To The Bipartisan Immigration Reform “Would Double The Number Of Border Patrol Agents Along The Southern Boundary, Pour $3 Billion Into New Technology, And Complete A 700-Mile Fence Along The Border.” The Senate on Wednesday passed the so-called border surge proposal that would dedicate tens of billions of dollars to securing the United States-Mexico border by employing more agents, adding more high-tech surveillance equipment and finishing hundreds of miles in fencing. The 69-29 vote propels the Senate closer to approving the comprehensive immigration reform bill by the end of the week. The border surge amendment from Republican Sens. Bob Corker of Tennessee and John Hoeven of North Dakota, clears the path to the 60 votes needed to end a filibuster on the overall bill. It would double the number of border patrol agents along the southern boundary, pour $3 billion into new technology, and complete a 700-mile fence along the border.” [Politico, 6/26/13] The Bill Would Double Border Agents To 40,000. “Federal agents on the U.S.-Mexican border would double to about 40,000 under a deal reached on Thursday in the Democratic-led Senate to draw more Republicans to a landmark immigration bill headed toward anticipated passage.” [Reuters, 6/20/13] “The Bill Also Requires The Establishment Of An Electronic Exit Checking System At Airports And Sea Ports In Order To Track The Movements Of Visa Holders.” [Washington Post, Wonkblog, 4/16/13] ABC: “The Senate Plan Would Impose The Toughest Border Security Measures In History…” [ABC, 6/12/13] The Border Security Amendment Was Estimated To Cut The Rate Of Illegal Immigration To The United States By As Much As 50 Percent. “The ‘border surge’ addition to the Senate Gang of Eight immigration bill would cut the rate of illegal immigration to the United States by as much as 50 percent, according to a congressional analysis released Wednesday. The original version of the Gang’s bill would reduce illegal immigration by 25 percent compared to what would happen under the status quo. But the ‘border surge’ amendment, written by Sens. Bob Corker [R-Tenn.] and John Hoeven [R-N.D.] would lower that anywhere between one-third and one-half of the current rate.” [Politico, 7/3/13] Sanders Voted For An Amendment To Add For Tribal Government Officials To A Border Oversight Task Force. On June 18, 2013, Bernie Sanders voted yes on Senate Vote #153. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Tester, D-Mont., amendment no. 1198 that would add four tribal government officials to a border oversight task force that would make recommendations to the Homeland Security secretary regarding immigration and border enforcement policies and programs. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #153, 6/18/2013] Sanders Voted For An Amendment To Add A Nevada Representative To A Southern Border Security Commission. On June 19, 2013, Bernie Sanders voted yes on Senate Vote #157. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Heller, R-Nev., amendment no. 1227 that would add a Nevada representative to a southern border security commission that would be established under the bill if the Homeland Security Department has not achieved control of the border within five years. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #157, 6/19/2013] Bernie Sanders Voted To Waive Budget Requirement With Respect To Immigration Reform Bill. On June 26, 2013, Bernie Sanders voted yes on Senate Vote #162. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Leahy, D-Vt., motion to waive the Budget Act with respect to any applicable points of order against the bill that would overhaul U.S. immigration policies, offer a path to citizenship for most illegal immigrants in the country and institute new border security measures. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #162, 6/26/2013] Sanders Voted Against Final Passage Of A Bill To Increase Border Security And Enforcement Of Immigration Law. On December 16, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #661. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would tighten border security and increase enforcement of immigration laws. It would designate unlawful presence, in addition to illegal migration as a criminal, rather than a civil, offense. It also would increase penalties for a variety of immigration- related crimes. It would create a mandatory program under which all employers would have to verify employees' work eligibility with the federal government. As amended, it would require the construction of security fencing, including lights and cameras, along certain ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #661, 12/16/2005] Legislation Was A Tough On Illegal Immigration Bill Republicans Hoped Would Please Their Base. “In the wake of this week's massive demonstrations, many House Republicans are worried that a tough anti-illegal-immigration bill they thought would please their political base has earned them little benefit while becoming a lightning rod for the fast-growing national movement for immigrant rights. House Republicans rushed through legislation just before Christmas that would build hundreds of miles of fence along the U.S.-Mexico border, require that businesses verify the legality of all employees' status through a national database, fortify border patrols, and declare illegal immigrants and those who help them to be felons. After more lenient legislation failed in the Senate last week, the House-passed version burst into the public consciousness this week, as hundreds of thousands of protesters across the country turned out to denounce the bill.” [Washington Post, 4/12/06] Bernie Sanders Voted Against Cloture On Immigration Reform Bill That Implemented New Border Security Measures, While Clinton Voted For. On June 28, 2007, Bernie Sanders voted against invoking cloture on the bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill, which would overhaul U.S. immigration policies, provide for a temporary guest worker program and institute new border security measures, including an electronic verification system. [CQ Vote Report; S 1639, Vote #235, 6/28/07] Sanders Voted Against Cloture On Immigration Reform Bill That Would Implement Tougher Border Security Measures, While Clinton Voted For. On June 7, 2007 Bernie Sanders voted to kill the 2007 comprehensive immigration reform bill, which aimed to overhaul immigration policy while implementing tougher border security measures. It would have allocated some green cards on a merit-based system based on certain criteria. It also would have mandated that half of the green cards be allocated based on family relations. It created a temporary guest worker program that allowed workers to remain in the United States for up to six years, provided that they returned to their home country for a year after every two years they remained in the United States. [S Amdt 1150 to S 1348, Vote #203, 6/7/07] Sanders Voted Against Ending Debate And Moving To Vote On Immigration Reform Bill, While Clinton Voted To Move To A Vote. The measure was agreed to 64-35. [New York Times, 5/28/15; S 1639, Vote #228, 6/26/07] Sanders Voted Against Ending Debate And Moving To Vote On Immigration Reform Bill, While Clinton Voted To Move To A Vote. The measure was rejected 45-50. [New York Times, 5/28/15; S Amdt 1150 to S 1348, Vote #206, 6/7/07] Sanders Voted Against Consideration Of A Bill To Increase Border Security At Border And Ports Of Entry. On December 16, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #646. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the rule (H Res 621) that would provide for House floor consideration of the bill that would increase security at international border and at ports of entry into the United States. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #646, 12/16/2005] Sanders Voted Against Consideration Of A Bill To Increase Border Security At Border And Ports Of Entry. On December 15, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #636. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the rule (H Res 610) that would provide for House floor consideration of the bill that would increase security at the international border and at ports of entry into the United States. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #636, 12/15/2005] Sanders Voted Against Final Passage On A Bill That Would Authorize Completion Of A Security Fence Along The U.S. Mexico Border. On February 10, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #31. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would tighten national standards for state driver's licenses and identity cards, make it more difficult for foreign nationals to claim asylum, and authorize the completion of a security fence along the U.S.-Mexico border. It would allow immigration judges to weigh the credibility of asylum applicants in a variety of proceedings and remove the annual cap of 10,000 refugees who may become permanent residents. It also would require the Homeland Security Department to include information on anyone convicted of using a false driver's license to board an airplane, in aviation security screening databases. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #31, 2/10/2005] Clinton And Sanders Voted For Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, Senate Passed Final Version By Voice Vote. “Makes FY 2004 appropriations for: (1) the Office of the Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security (salaries and expenses, and U.S. visitor and immigrant status indicator technology), (2) customs and border protection (salaries and expenses, automation modernization, and construction); (3) immigration and customs enforcement (salaries and expenses, Air and Marine interdiction, operations, maintenance and procurement); (4) Federal air marshals; (5) the Federal Protective Service; (6) the Transportation Security Administration (aviation security, maritime and land security, intelligence, research and development, and administration); (7) the U.S. Coast Guard (including a rescission of funds, operating expenses, environmental compliance and restoration, reserve training, acquisition, construction, and improvements, alteration of bridges, research, development, test, and evaluation, and retired pay); (8) the U.S. Secret Service (salaries and expenses); and (9) acquisition, construction, improvements, and related expenses.” [HR 2555, Senate Vote #306, 7/24/03; House Vote #515, 9/24/03] 2002: Clinton Voted To Create Department Of Homeland Security, Sanders Opposed. “The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296) transferred the functions, relevant funding, and most of the personnel of 22 agencies and offices to the new Department of Homeland Security created by the act. Appropriations measures for DHS have generally been organized into five titles: • Title I contains appropriations for the Office of Secretary and Executive Management (OSEM), the Office of the Under Secretary for Management (USM), the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the Office of the Chief Information Officer (CIO), Analysis and Operations (A&O), and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). • Title II contains appropriations for Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the Coast Guard (USCG), and the Secret Service. • Title III contains appropriations for the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), Office of Health Affairs (OHA) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).5 • Title IV contains appropriations for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the Science and Technology Directorate (S&T), and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC). • Title V contains general provisions providing various types of congressional direction to the department.” [HR 5005, Senate Vote 249, 11/19/02, House Vote #367, 7/26/02; CRS Report, “Department of Homeland Security, 2015 Appropriations, 11/20/14] Voted To Increase Border Patrol Agents Sanders Voted Against Waiving Budget Requirements To Provide Additional Grants For State And Local Law Enforcement Within 100 Miles Of The Border. On May 27, 2010, Bernie Sanders voted no on Senate Vote #167. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Motion to waive the Budget Act and budget resolutions with respect to the Schumer, D-N.Y., point of order against the Cornyn, R-Texas, amendment no. 4202 that would provide $300 million for grants to state and local law enforcement entities operating within 100 miles of the border. It also would provide $340 million for federal agencies to hire investigators and agents for the border region. The funding would be offset by rescinding unspent funds from the 2009 economic stimulus law. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #167, 5/27/2010] Sanders Voted Against Waiving Budget Act To Allow $350 Million To Deploy 6,000 National Guard Troops To The U.S. Mexico Border. On May 27, 2010, Bernie Sanders voted no on Senate Vote #165. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Motion to waive the Budget Act and budget resolutions with respect to the Schumer, D-N.Y., point of order against the McCain, R-Ariz., amendment no. 4214 that would provide $250 million to fund the deployment of 6,000 National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border, which would be offset by rescinding unspent funds from the 2009 economic stimulus law. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #165, 5/27/2010] Sanders And Clinton Voted For Amendment To Allow Deployment Of National Guard Troops On Northern And Southern Borders As Long As The Programs Did Not Increase The Deficit. On March 13, 2008, Bernie Sanders voted yes on Senate Vote #59. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Menendez, D-N.J., amendment no. 4259 that would allow an adjustment to the resolution for increased border security and immigration enforcement, including an increase in criminal and civil penalties against employers who hire undocumented immigrants and the deployment of National Guard troops to the northern or southern border, as long as the programs do not increase the deficit. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #59, 3/13/2008] Sanders Voted To Recommit A Bill With Instructions To Add 3,000 Additional Border Agents, 2,000 Additional Immigration And Customs Agents, And 25,000 Additional Detention Bills Each Year From Fiscal 2007 To Fiscal 2010. On September 14, 2006, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #445. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Thompson, D-Miss., motion to recommit the bill to the Homeland Security Committee with instructions to include language that would substitute language and authorize funds, including $5.3 billion in fiscal 2007, to achieve operational control of the U.S. borders, while leaving many of the details to the department. The language would also require the Homeland Security secretary to obtain operational control over international land and maritime borders of the United States through changes in workforce, security, surveillance and physical infrastructure, including adding 3,000 Border Patrol agents, 2,000 Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and 25,000 detention beds every year from fiscal 2007 through 2010. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #445, 9/14/2006] Clinton And Sanders Voted For Fiscal 2007 Homeland Security Appropriations That Included Funding For 1,000 New Border Patrol Agents. On July 13, 2006, Hillary Clinton voted yes on Senate Vote #203. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would provide $32.8 billion in fiscal 2007 for the Homeland Security Department, including $31.7 billion in discretionary spending. The total includes funding for the Coast Guard, the Transportation Security Administration, including assumed fees, and Customs and Border Protection, including funds for more than 1,000 new border patrol agents. It also would replace the current Federal Emergency Management Agency with a new U.S. Emergency Management Authority within the Homeland Security Department and elevate its legal status to require an act of Congress to change it. The agency administrator would be required to have at least five years of executive and management experience with significant experience in crisis management or a related field. [HR 5441, Senate Vote #203, 7/13/06; House Vote #509, 9/29/06] Bernie Sanders Voted For An Amendment To Bar The Use Of Funds To Provide A Foreign Government With Information Related To Private Volunteer Border Patrol Groups On The U.S. Mexican Border. On June 6, 2006, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #224. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Kingston, R-Ga., amendment that would bar the use of funds in the bill to provide a foreign government with information relating to the operations or location of the Minutemen or other private volunteer border patrol groups along the U.S.-Mexican border, unless the information sharing is required by an international treaty. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #224, 6/6/2006] Sanders Voted Against A Bill That Would Increase Training For Local Officers And Authorized Increased Funding For The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. On December 16, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #656. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Norwood, R-Ga., amendment that would require the Homeland Security Department to provide training at no cost to local and state law enforcement, authorize $1 billion each year for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program and require the department to submit for entry into the National Crime Information Database the names of certain categories of aliens. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #656, 12/16/2005] Sanders Voted To Recommit A Bill With Substitute Language That Would Require The Development Of A Comprehensive Border Security Plan With 12,000 Additional Agents And 100,000 Additional Detention Beds. On December 16, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #660. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Reyes, D-Texas, motion to recommit the bill to the Homeland Security and Judiciary committees with instructions to substitute language that would require the Department of Homeland Security to develop a comprehensive security strategy for all U.S. borders and ports, provide increased personnel including 12,000 additional Border Patrol agents, and provide 100,000 additional detention beds. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #660, 12/16/2005] Clinton And Sanders Voted For Conference Report Of Intelligence Overhaul That Included Approximately 10,000 Additional Border Patrol Agents Over 5 Years. On December 8, 2004, Hillary Clinton voted yes on Senate Vote #216. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the conference report on the bill that would reorganize 15 U.S. intelligence agencies and create a new director of national intelligence to oversee all U.S. intelligence activities and determine the intelligence budget. The director would be allowed to move no more than 5 percent of an agency's budget. The National Counterterrorism Center would serve as the primary organization for analyzing and integrating all U.S. intelligence pertaining to terrorism and counterterrorism. The measure would authorize approximately 10,000 additional border patrol agents over five years, and new programs and pilot projects to upgrade airport and airplane security. The FBI would be allowed to conduct surveillance and wiretaps on suspected terrorists who have no ties to any foreign country or entity. [S, 2845, Senate Vote #216, 12/8/2004; House Vote #544, 12/7/04; CQ Floor Votes] Sanders Voted Against House Passage Of An Intelligence Overhaul That Increased The Number Of Border Patrol Agents. On October 8, 2004, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #523. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would reorganize 15 U.S. intelligence agencies and create a national intelligence director who would give guidance on budgets. It also would create a national intelligence center and allow aliens to be deported without judicial review. The number of border patrol agents would increase from 10,000 to 20,000 over the next five years. The bill, as amended, would make attending a terrorist training camp a deportable offense and toughen penalties for those charged with financially aiding terrorist groups. [CQ Floor Votes; HR 10, House Vote #523, 10/8/2004] Penalties For Violating Security Of The Border Sanders Voted To Establish New Penalties For Those Involved In The Construction And Operation Of Illegal Tunnels Under The US Border. On September 21, 2006, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #469. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would establish new criminal penalties for individuals involved with the construction of illegal tunnels across the U.S. border. It would set a penalty of up to 20 years imprisonment for those convicted of knowingly constructing or financing a tunnel across the border and a penalty of up to 10 years in prison for those that permit the construction or use of such a tunnel on their land. Individuals convicted of using illegal tunnels to smuggle illegal immigrants, controlled substances, weapons of mass destruction or other illegal goods would be subject to twice the criminal penalty that they otherwise would face. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #469, 9/21/2006] Snaders Voted Against Ending Debate On Three Bill, Including One To Create New Penalties For Constructing Illegal Tunnels Under The U.S. Border. On September 21, 2006, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #461. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Gingrey, R-Ga., motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate and possibility of amendment) on adoption of the rule (H Res 1018) to provide for House consideration of three bills that would create new criminal penalties for constructing illegal tunnels under the U.S. border, allow the Homeland Security Department to detain illegal immigrants indefinitely in certain cases, and require expedited consideration of lawsuits against the federal government involving the enforcement of immigration laws. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #461, 9/21/2006] Bernie Sanders Voted Against Consideration Of A Bill Creating New Penalties For Constructing Illegal Tunnels Under The U.S. Border. On September 21, 2006, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #462. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the rule (H Res 1018) to provide for House consideration of three bills that would create new criminal penalties for constructing illegal tunnels under the U.S. border, allow the Homeland Security Department to detain illegal immigrants indefinitely in certain cases, and require expedited consideration of lawsuits against the federal government involving the enforcement of immigration laws. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #462, 9/21/2006] Sanders Voted For Numerous Appropriations Bills That Funded Border Security Sanders Voted For Conference Report Of Fiscal 2010 Homeland Security Appropriations That Included $10.1 Billion For Customs And Border Protection. On October 20, 2009, Bernie Sanders voted yes on Senate Vote #323. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the conference report on the bill that would provide $44.1 billion in fiscal 2010, including $42.8 billion in discretionary funds, for the Homeland Security Department and related activities. It would provide $10.1 billion for Customs and Border Protection; $7.7 billion for the Transportation Security Administration, not including offsetting fees; $10.1 billion for the Coast Guard; $1.5 billion for the Secret Service and $7.1 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. It would prohibit the transfer of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States except for prosecution; place detainees on the "no-fly" list; and bar the use of funds to provide them benefits. It also would extend the authorization of the E-Verify program for three years. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #323, 10/20/2009] Sanders Voted For Passage Of Fiscal 2010 Homeland Security Appropriations That Included $16 Billion For Customs And Border Protection. On July 9, 2009, Bernie Sanders voted yes on Senate Vote #229. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill would provide $44.3 billion in fiscal 2010 for the Homeland Security Department and related programs, including $42.9 billion in discretionary spending. The total would include $16 billion for Customs and Border Protection; $5.7 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement; $7.7 billion for the Transportation Security Administration, including fees; $10.2 billion for the Coast Guard, excluding mandatory spending; $1.5 billion for the Secret Service and $7.1 billion for FEMA. It also would prohibit funding after Jan. 4, 2010, for Loran-C, a land- based radio navigation system. As amended the bill would require the fence built along the U.S.-Mexican border to prevent pedestrian traffic and reach completion by Dec. 31, 2010. It would also permanently reauthorize the Homeland Security Department's E-Verify program and require federal contractors to check employee citizenship status in the E-Verify system. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #229, 7/9/2009] Sanders Voted For House Passage And Conference Report Of Homeland Security Appropriations That Included $5 Billion For Customs And Border Protection. [CQ Floor Voted; HR 4567, Vote #275, 6/18/04; Vote #530, 10/9/04] Bernie Sanders Voted Against Passage Of $21 Billion In Appropriations For U.S. Customs And Border Protection And U.S. Immigration And Customs Enforcement. On July 14, 2004, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #373. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Thomas, R-Calif., motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill that would authorize $21 billion in fiscal 2005-06 for the U.S. Customs and Border Protection bureau and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement bureau. It also would authorize $83 million for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and $127 million for the U.S. International Trade Commission in fiscal 2005 and 2006. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #373, 7/14/2004] Sanders Voted For House Passage And Conference Report Of Homeland Security Appropriations That Included $4.9 Billion For Customs And Border Protection. [CQ Floor Votes; HR 2555, Vote #310, 6/24/03; Vote #515, 9/24/03] Clinton And Sanders Voted For Treasury-Postal Appropriations That Included $28 Million For Additional Agents On The Canadian Border. On November 1, 2001, Hillary Clinton voted yes on Senate Vote #321. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the conference report on the bill that would provide $32.8 billion for the Treasury Department, Postal Service, Executive Office of the President and other federal agencies. The agreement would appropriate $392 million to the Internal Revenue Service for information technology upgrades. The U.S. Customs Service would receive $300 million for modernization and $28 million for additional agents along the Canadian border. The bill would increase pay for federal employees by 4.6 percent and maintain current law provisions that ban funding abortions under federal employee health plans but allow funding for contraceptives. [Senate Vote #321, 11/1/2001; House Vote #413, 10/31/01; CQ Floor Votes] 2004: Sanders Voted For Homeland Security Appropriations That Included Billions For Border Security. On June 18, 2004, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #275. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would provide $33.1 billion in fiscal 2005 for the Department of Homeland Security, including $2.5 billion previously enacted for Project Bioshield. It would provide $20.6 billion for security, enforcement and investigation activities, such as the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Coast Guard and the Secret Service. It also would provide $5.1 billion for the Transportation and Security Administration. It also would provide $4.1 billion for the Office of State and Local Coordination and Preparedness, including $3.4 billion for state and local homeland security grant programs. The bill, as amended, would prohibit the use of funds to privatize or contract out services provided by the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #275, 6/18/2004] Sanders Voted For Passage Of A Bill That Would Fully Fund Homeland Security, Including The Bureau Of Immigration And Customs Enforcement. On May 17, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #180. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would provide $31.9 billion in fiscal 2006 for the Homeland Security Department, including $22 billion for security, enforcement and investigation activities, such as the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Coast Guard and the Secret Service. It would provide $5.7 billion for the Transportation Security Administration and $3.6 billion for the state and local grant programs. It would withhold more than $310 million pending improvements in air cargo screening measures and deployment of more explosivedetection technologies at airports. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #180, 5/17/2005] 2004: Sanders Voted For A Homeland Security Appropriations That Included Billions For Border Security. On October 9, 2004, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #530. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the conference report on the bill that would appropriate $33.1 billion in fiscal 2005 for the Department of Homeland Security and related agencies. The bill includes $6.3 billion for customs and border protection; $5.2 billion for the Transportation Security Administration; $7.4 billion for the Coast Guard; $1.2 billion for the Secret Service and $5.5 billion for emergency preparedness and response, including $3.1 billion for the state and local programs. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #530, 10/9/2004] Sanders Voted For A Homelands Security Appropriations Bill That Included Billions For Border Security And Authorized The Hiring Of 2,000 Border Agents. On May 18, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #189. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would authorize $34.2 billion in fiscal 2006 for the Department of Homeland Security, including $6.9 billion for Customs and Border Protection and $2 billion for grants to state and local governments for terrorism preparedness. It also would authorize the hiring of 2,000 new border patrol agents and create an assistant secretary for cybersecurity to oversee the National Cyber Security Division and the National Communications System. The bill would refine the color-coded threat alert system by requiring any alerts or advisories to include information on appropriate protective measures and limit the scope to a specific region, locality, or economic sector. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #189, 5/18/2005] 2006: Sanders Voted Against The Conference Report On Homeland Security Appropriations That Included Billions For Border Security. On October 6, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #512. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the conference report on the bill that would appropriate $31.9 billion in fiscal 2006 for the Homeland Security Department and related agencies. The bill includes $6 billion for customs and border protection; $5.9 billion for the Transportation Security Administration, including fees; $7.8 billion for the Coast Guard; $1.2 billion for the Secret Service and $2.6 billion for response and recovery efforts conducted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #512, 10/6/2005] 2006: Sanders Voted For Homeland Security Appropriations That Included Billions For Border Security. On June 6, 2006, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #226. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would provide $33.1 billion in fiscal 2007 for the Homeland Security Department and related activities. The bill would include $7.7 billion for customs and border protection; $6.4 billion for the Transportation Security Administration, including fees; $8.1 billion for the Coast Guard; $1.3 billion for the Secret Service and $2.6 billion for response and recovery efforts conducted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. It would appropriate $3.4 billion for the state and local grant programs as well as change the formula-based grants distribution process to guarantee each state at least 0.75 percent of the total funding. The remaining funds would be distributed based on risk and need assessments. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #226, 6/6/2006] 2006: Sanders Voted For A Supplemental Appropriations Bill That Included $1.9 Billion For Border Security. On June 13, 2006, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #257. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the conference report on the bill that would appropriate $94.5 billion in emergency supplemental funding for fiscal 2006. It would provide $70.4 billion for defense and foreign aid and $19.8 billion for hurricane relief. It would provide $2.3 billion for pandemic flu preparations, and $1.9 billion for border security efforts. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #257, 6/13/2006] Sanders Appeared To Flip An On Intelligence Overhaul That Would Increase Border Agents Sanders Voted Against An Intelligence Overhaul That Increased The Number Of Border Patrol Agents. On October 8, 2004, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #523. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would reorganize 15 U.S. intelligence agencies and create a national intelligence director who would give guidance on budgets. It also would create a national intelligence center and allow aliens to be deported without judicial review. The number of border patrol agents would increase from 10,000 to 20,000 over the next five years. The bill, as amended, would make attending a terrorist training camp a deportable offense and toughen penalties for those charged with financially aiding terrorist groups. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #523, 10/8/2004] Sanders Voted Yes On A Conference Report Of Intelligence Overall That Increase The Number Of Border Patrol Agents. On December 7, 2004, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #544. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the conference report on the bill that would reorganize 15 U.S. intelligence agencies and create a new director of national intelligence to oversee all U.S. intelligence activities and determine the intelligence budget. The director would be allowed to move no more than 5 percent of an agency's budget. The National Counterterrorism Center would serve as the primary organization for analyzing and integrating all U.S. intelligence pertaining to terrorism and counterterrorism. The measure would authorize approximately 10,000 additional border patrol agents over five years, and new programs and pilot projects to upgrade airport and airplane security. The FBI would be allowed to conduct surveillance and wiretaps on suspected terrorists who have no ties to any foreign country or entity. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #544, 12/7/2004] Sanders Has Opposed Using The Military To Police The Border Sanders Voted Against An Amendment Allowing The Department Of Defense To Assign Up To 10,000 Military Personnel To Assist INS In Border Control Activities. On June 20, 1997, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #224. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Traficant, D-Ohio, amendment to allow the secretary of Defense to assign up to 10,000 military personnel to assist the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Customs Service in border control activities. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #224, 6/20/1997] Sanders Voted Against An Amendment Allowing The Department Of Defense To Assign Up To 10,000 Military Personnel To Assist INS In Border Control Activities. On September 5, 1997, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #368. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Traficant, D-Ohio, motion to instruct House conferees to insist upon House provisions to allow the secretary of Defense to assign up to 10,000 military personnel to assist the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Customs Service in border-control activities. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #368, 9/5/1997] Sanders Voted Against Allowing the Department Of Dense To Assign Members Of The Armed Forces To Assist INS In Monitoring And Patrolling The US Borders. On May 21, 1998, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #180. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Traficant, D-Ohio, amendment to authorize the Defense Department to assign members of the armed forces to assist the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Customs Service in monitoring and patrolling U.S. borders. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #180, 5/21/1998] Sanders Voted Against Allowing The Defense Department From Assigning Military Patrols To The Border Under INS And Customs. On May 18, 2000, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #197. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Traficant, D-Ohio, amendment that would allow the Defense Department to assign military patrols to the Immigration and Naturalization Service and Customs Service for the purpose of monitoring U.S. borders. The attorney general could request the assistance to prevent terrorists, drug traffickers and illegal aliens from entering the U.S. The Treasury secretary could request assistance for inspecting cargo, vehicles and aircraft. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #197, 5/18/2000] Sanders Voted Against Allowing The Military To Help INS And The Customs Service. On May 10, 2002, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #154. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Goode, I-Va., amendment that would allow the military to help the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the U.S. Customs Service if requested by either the attorney general or the secretary of the Treasury. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #154, 5/10/2002] Sanders Voted To Ban Members Of The Armed Forces From Directly Patrolling The Border In Order TO Keep Illegal Drugs Out Of The United States. On September 16, 1998, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #439. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Reyes, D-Texas amendment to the Traficant, D-Ohio amendment to ban members of the armed forces from directly patrolling U.S. borders as a part of the efforts to keep illegal drugs outside of the United States. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #439, 9/16/1998] Sanders Voted Against Allowing Assignment Of Military Personnel To Assist Border Patrol And Customs Service In Drug Interdiction And Counter-Terrorism Activities. On June 10, 1999, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #186. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Traficant, D-Ohio, amendment to allow the Department of Defense to assign military personnel to assist the border patrol and U.S. Customs Service in drug interdiction and counter-terrorism activities along U.S. borders. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #186, 6/10/1999] Sanders Voted Against Allowing Assignment Of Military Personnel To Monitor The US Border. On May 18, 2000, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #197. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Traficant, D-Ohio, amendment that would allow the Defense Department to assign military patrols to the Immigration and Naturalization Service and Customs Service for the purpose of monitoring U.S. borders. The attorney general could request the assistance to prevent terrorists, drug traffickers and illegal aliens from entering the U.S. The Treasury secretary could request assistance for inspecting cargo, vehicles and aircraft. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #197, 5/18/2000] 9/25/01: Sanders Voted Against Allowing Military Personnel TO Help Patrol Us Borders. . On September 25, 2001, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #356. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Traficant, D-Ohio, amendment that would set up a task force on counterterrorism and drug interdiction by either the Treasury or Justice departments and would allow military personnel to help patrol U.S. borders. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #356, 9/25/2001] Sanders Voted Against Assigning Military Personnel To Border Security In Situations Such As A Threat To National Security. On May 19, 2004, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #196. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Goode, R-Va., amendment no. 1 that would authorize the Defense secretary to assign military personnel to assist the Homeland Security Department with border security under certain circumstances such as a threat to national security. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #196, 5/19/2004] Sanders Voted Against Allowing The Assignment Of Military Personnel For Border Security Under Circumstances Such As National Security. On May 25, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #214. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Goode, R-Va., amendment that would authorize the Defense secretary to assign military personnel to assist the Homeland Security Department with border security under certain circumstances such as a threat to national security. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #214, 5/25/2005] Sanders Voted For A Defense Authorization Bill That Did Allow Military Personnel To Be Assigned To The Border In Circumstances Such As National Security. On May 11, 2006, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #145. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would authorize $512.9 billion for defense programs in fiscal 2007, including $50 billion in emergency spending for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill would authorize $85.9 billion for weapons procurement, $129.8 billion for operations and maintenance, $109.8 billion for personnel, $16.8 billion for military construction and family housing and $16.5 billion for weapons-related and environmental-cleanup activities of the Energy Department. It also would authorize $9.1 billion for the Missile Defense Agency. The bill, as amended, would authorize the Defense secretary to assign military personnel to assist the Homeland Security Department with border security under certain circumstances such as a threat to national security. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #145, 5/11/2006] 2006: Sanders Voted For A Homeland Appropriations Conference Report That Included Billions For Border Security. On September 29, 2006, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #509. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the conference report on the bill that would provide $34.8 billion in fiscal 2007 for the Department of Homeland Security and related activities. The bill would include $9.3 billion for customs and border protection, including fees; $6.4 billion for the Transportation Security Administration, including fees; $8.3 billion for the Coast Guard; $1.3 billion for the Secret Service and $2.5 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. It would appropriate $3.4 billion for the Office of Grants and Training, which deals with state and local grant programs, and change formula-based grants distribution to guarantee each state at least 0.75 percent of the total funding. The remaining funds would be distributed based on risk and need assessments. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #509, 9/29/2006] Deportations and Detentions Sanders Voted To Allow Indefinite Detentions Pending Deportations Sanders Voted For A Bill That Would Allow Undocumented Immigrants To Be Detained Indefinitely Pending Their Deportation. On September 21, 2006, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #465. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would set conditions under which illegal immigrants could be detained indefinitely pending their deportation, bar admission into the United States for gang members and allow alien members of certain gangs to be automatically eligible for deportation. The Homeland Security Department would be able to detain illegal immigrants indefinitely beyond the initial 90-day period pending their deportation. The bill also would authorize the agency to remove those detained immigrants. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #465, 9/21/2006] Sanders Voted Against Expanding Deportations Broadly Sanders Voted Against Expanding Deportations And Detentions Of Undocumented Immigrants Nationwide. On December 16, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #659. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Sullivan, R-Okla., amendment that would expand deportation for illegal immigrants who cannot prove that they have been in the United States for longer than one year to be applicable nationwide. It also would require federal authorities to detain all illegal immigrants reported to the Homeland Security Department by state and local authorities and require all non-citizens to be processed through the US- VISIT system. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #659, 12/16/2005] Sanders Voted To Remove A Section Of A Bill That Required Expedited Removal Of Aliens That Have Been In Country For Fewer Than Five Years. On October 8, 2004, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #517. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Smith, R-N.J., amendment that would remove the section of the bill that would require expedited removal of aliens that have been in the country for fewer than five years without a hearing or future review. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #517, 10/8/2004 Sanders Has Generally Supported Deporting Criminal Undocumented Immigrants With Some Exceptions Sanders Voted To Authorize INS To Screen Local Jails And Prisons For Undocumented Immigrants Before Arraignments And Enable Authorities To Immediately Deport Them After They Are Released. On November 4, 1997, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #571. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Gallegly, R-Calif., motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill to authorize the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to screen local jails and prisons for illegal aliens before their arraignment and enable law enforcement officials to deport criminal illegal immigrants immediately after they are released. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #571, 11/4/1997] 2005: Sanders Voted To Require The Government To Conduct A Study To Report The Connection Between Illegal Immigration And Gang Membership. On May 11, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #166. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Norwood, R-Ga., amendment that would require the Justice and Homeland Security departments to conduct a joint study and report to Congress within one year on the connection between illegal immigration and gang membership. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #166, 5/11/2005] Sanders Voted To Expedite Deportation For Aliens Who Commit Aggravated Felonies And To Crack Down On Alien Smuggling. On February 10, 1995, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #118. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill to provide for expedited deportation procedures of aliens who commit aggravated felonies and to crack down on alien smuggling. Provisions in the bill requiring that the federal government fully reimburse states for the costs of incarcerating illegal aliens, starting in fiscal 1996, were moved from this measure and added to the Prison Construction Bill (HR667). [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #118, 2/10/1995] Sanders Voted To Prevent Federal Government From Granting Any Kind Of Legal Immigration Status Until All Relevant Criminal Record And Terrorist Watch Databases Are Checked. On December 16, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #654. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Stearns, R-Fla., amendment that would prohibit the Homeland Security and Justice departments and courts from granting any kind of legal immigration status to an alien until all the relevant criminal records databases and terrorist watch lists are checked. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #654, 12/16/2005] Sanders Voted To Prohibit Deporting Aliens Convicted Of A Crime If The Entered Into A Plea Prior To April 1997 Or If They Requested Relief After June 2001. On July 18, 2001, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #242. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Jackson-Lee, D-Texas, amendment that would prohibit use of funds in the bill to deport aliens for conviction of a crime if they entered into a plea agreement before April 1997 or if they requested discretionary relief after June 25, 2001. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #242, 7/18/2001] Sanders Voted Against Increasing Penalties On Illegal Aliens Who Commit Violent Crimes Or Drug Trafficking Or Who Had Been Previously Deported. On May 11, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #165. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Goodlatte, R-Va., amendment that would add five years to any sentence for violent crime or drug- trafficking when the offender is an illegal alien. It would add 15 years to a sentence if the alien has previously been deported for criminal offenses and has re-entered the country. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #165, 5/11/2005] Sanders Voted Against Increasing Terrorist Related Grounds For Deportation. On October 8, 2004, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #516. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Green, RWis., amendment that would provide that all terrorist-related grounds of inadmissibility would also be grounds for deportation. It also would make it an inadmissible and deportable offense to attend a terrorist training camp, and it would strengthen the grounds of inadmissibility and deportability regarding monetary or material support to terrorist organizations. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #516, 10/8/2004] Sanders Voted Against Repatriating High Risk Refugees Sanders Voted To Prevent High Risk Refugees From Being Forcibly Repatriated. On May 24, 1995, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #353. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Smith, RN.J., amendment to the Bereuter, R-Neb., amendment to protect high-risk refugees from being forced to repatriate and authorize such sums as necessary for their admission and resettlement in the United States within the established immigration limits. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #353, 5/24/1995] Sanders Has Voted For And Against Detention Facilities Sanders Voted To Prohibit The Closing Of Any Immigration Detention Facility That Had Been Operational In 2005. On May 17, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #178. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Meeks, D-N.Y., amendment that would prohibit the use of funds in the bill to close any detention facility operated by or on behalf of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement that has been operational in 2005. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #178, 5/17/2005] Sanders Voted For An Amendment That Shifted $44 Million From INS Detention Facilities To Violent Crime Reduction Programs. On August 4, 1999, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #370. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Serrano, D-N.Y., amendment to increase funding for the Legal Services Corporation by $109 million to $250 million, offset by cuts including reducing funding for the Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund, FBI salaries, and salaries and expenses of the Federal Prison System and the federal judiciary system. The amendment also would increase funding for the Immigration and Naturalization Services' violent crime reduction programs by $44 million, offset by an equal reduction for Immigration and Naturalization Service detention facilities. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #370, 8/4/1999] Sanders Voted To Allow Some Immigrants To Remain In The US While Pursuing Legal Residency Sanders Voted To Extend A Law That Allowed Some Immigrants To Remain In The Country While Pursuing Legal Residency While Increasing Security Along US Borders. On March 12, 2002, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #53. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Sensenbrenner, RWis., motion to suspend the rules and adopt the resolution that would concur in House amendments to the Senate amendment to the bill (HR 1885) that would extend a law allowing some immigrants to remain in the country while pursuing legal residency and also increase security along U.S. borders. The section 245(i) extension would be through the earlier of Nov. 30, 2002, or four months after the Justice Department issues regulations carrying out the measure. The additional security provisions would include providing additional agents at entry points, requiring greater monitoring of those seeking and receiving entry, and banning residents of terrorist-sponsoring countries from receiving temporary visas. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #53, 3/12/2002] Sanders Voted Against Opposing An Amendment Permanently Extending A Statute Allowing Immigrants Who Overstayed Their Visa To Remain In The US While Seeking Legal Status After Paying A Fine. On October 29, 1997, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #541. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Rohrabacher, R-Calif., motion to instruct House conferees to disagree with the Senate amendment to permanently extend section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationalities Act, which permits immigrants who have illegally overstayed their visas to remain in the United States while seeking permanent legal status after paying a $1,000 fine. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #541, 10/29/1997] Sanders Voted To Create A Process For Undocumented Immigrants To Be Released Into Custody While Awaiting Court Appearance Sanders Voted To Create An Expedited Removal Process For Certain Undocumented Immigrants Where They Could Be Released Into Custody Of An Individual Or Group That Would Monitor Them And Ensure They Make Required Court Appearances. On December 15, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #639. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Jackson-Lee, D-Texas, amendment that would direct the Homeland Security Department to create a program under which certain illegal immigrants undergoing an expedited removal process could be released into the custody of an individual or group who would monitor them and ensure that they make required court appearances and not flee. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #639, 12/15/2005] Immigration Enforcement Sanders Has Consistently Voted Against Efforts To Restrict The Access Of Undocumented Immigrants To Government Benefits Sanders Voted Against Making Social Security Cards More Secure Against Counterfeit And Fraud. On March 20, 1996, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #72. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: McCollum, R-Fla., amendment to direct the Social Security Administration to improve the design and material of Social Security account number cards in order to secure them against counterfeiting and fraudulent use. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #72, 3/20/1996] Sanders Voted Against Prohibiting Undocumented Immigrants From Applying For Benefits Such As Food Stamps And Medicaid On Behalf Of Their US Born Children. On March 20, 1996, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #74. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Velazquez, D-N.Y., amendment to strike provisions in the bill which would keep undocumented aliens from applying for benefits, such as food stamps and Medicaid, on behalf of their U.S. born children. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #74, 3/20/1996] Sanders Voted Against Allowing States To Deny Public Education To Undocumented Immigrants. On March 20, 1996, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #75. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Gallegly, R-Calif., amendment to give states the option to deny public education to illegal aliens. The amendment allows parents to challenge the state's decision by proving that they are citizens or lawfully present in the U.S. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #75, 3/20/1996] Sanders Voted Against Final Passage Of A Bill To Limit Immigrants Access To Public Benefits And Impose New Rules Designed To Prevent Undocumented Immigrants From Eligibility For Employment. On March 21, 1996, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #89. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill to limit legal and illegal immigrants' access to public benefits, reduce the types of documents that can demonstrate eligibility for employment, increase penalties for fraudulent use of government-issued documents, and increase the number of border controls. The bill also would establish a voluntary pilot program in five of the seven states with the highest levels of illegal immigration, under which an employer could verify by a toll-free telephone call the employment eligibility of their workers. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #89, 3/21/1996] Sanders Voted Against The Conference Report On Bill To Limit Immigrants Access To Public Benefits And Impose New Rules Designed To Prevent Undocumented Immigrants From Eligibility For Employment. On September 25, 1996, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #432. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the conference report on the bill to restrict illegal immigration by increasing the the number of border agents, installing fences along the CaliforniaMexico border and making it easier to deport and detain illegal immigrants. The bill would deny legal immigrants federal benefits under means-based programs and make people who use them deportable. It would also impose income requirements of up to twice the poverty level for sponsors of legal immigrants. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #432, 9/25/1996] Sanders Voted Against Prohibiting Funding Under The Food Stamp Program From Being Used To Contravene Rules Requiring Applicants To Have An Affidavit From A Sponsor. On July 13, 2004, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #367. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Tancredo, R-Colo., amendment that would prohibit funds under the food stamp program from being used to contravene existing immigration law requiring that food stamp applicants have an affidavit of support by a sponsor. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #367, 7/13/2004] Sanders Voted Against An Amendment That Prohibit The Food Stamp Program From Contravening Existing Law To Require Sponsors Of Legal Aliens Be Financially Liable For Benefits Provided To Them. On June 8, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #237. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Garrett, R-N.J., amendment that would prohibit the use of funds under the food stamp program to contravene existing immigration law requiring that sponsors of legal aliens be financially liable for government benefits provided to the aliens. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #237, 6/8/2005] Sanders Voted Against An Amendment That Would Prevent The Food Stamp Program From Failing To Hold Sponsors Of Legal Aliens Financially Liable For Their Use Of Government Benefits. On May 23, 2006, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #189. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Garrett, R-N.J., amendment that would bar the use of funds under the food stamp program to contravene existing immigration law requiring sponsors of legal aliens to be financially liable for their government benefits. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #189, 5/23/2006] Sanders Voted Against Expediting Construction To Fill Gaps In A 14 Mile Barrier Between The US And Mexico In San Diego. On October 8, 2004, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #519. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Ose, R-Calif., amendment that would expedite construction to fill two gaps in the 14-mile barrier along the U.S.-Mexico border in San Diego, Calif. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #519, 10/8/2004] Sanders Has Consistently Opposed Federal Efforts To Increase Role Of Local And State Agencies In Immigration Enforcement Sanders Voted Against Requiring Public Medical Facilities To Provide INS With Identifying Information About Undocumented Immigrants They Treat. On March 20, 1996, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #73. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Bryant, R-Tenn., amendment to require public medical facilities, as a condition of receiving reimbursement for their services, to provide the Immigration and Naturalization Service with identifying information about illegal aliens they treated. This information would only have to be provided for individuals 18 and older. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #73, 3/20/1996] Sanders Voted Against Prohibiting Federal Funding To State Or Local Governments That Restrict Exchanging Information With INS On An Individual’s Citizenship Or Immigration Status. On June 24, 2003, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #309. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Tancredo, R-Colo., amendment that would prohibit the use of any funds to assist state or local governments that have restrictions on exchanging information with the Bureau of Immigration and Customs on an individual's citizenship or immigration status. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #309, 6/24/2003] Sanders Voted Against Prohibiting Law Enforcement Grants To State And Local Entities That Restrict Exchanging Information With Federal Government On An Individual’s Citizenship Or Immigration Status. On July 22, 2003, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #409. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Tancredo, R-Colo., amendment that would prohibit the use of funds for law enforcement assistance grants to any state or local government entity that restricts its officials from transmitting information regarding an individual's citizenship or immigration status to or from the Department of Homeland Security. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #409, 7/22/2003] Sanders Voted Against Prohibiting Federal Funding To State Or Local Governments That Restrict Exchanging Information With INS On An Individual’s Citizenship Or Immigration Status. On June 18, 2004, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #270. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Tancredo, R-Colo., amendment that would prohibit the use of funds to assist state or local governments that have restrictions on exchanging information with the Bureau of Immigration and Customs on an individual's citizenship or immigration status. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #270, 6/18/2004] Sanders Voted Against Funding To Enforce A Law That Prohibited Localities From Refusing To Allow Offices To Provide Information On Individual Citizenship Status To Federal Officers. On July 8, 2004, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #341. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: King, R-Iowa, amendment no. 23 that would provide $1 million to enforce an existing law that prohibits localities from refusing to allow their officers to provide information to the federal government on the citizenship or immigration status of an individual. The spending would offset by reducing Justice Department salaries and expenses by $1 million. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #341, 7/8/2004] Sanders Voted Against Prohibiting State Or Local Governments That Have Restrictions On Sharing Immigration Information With Federal Authorities. On May 17, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #177. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Tancredo, R-Colo., amendment that would prohibit the use of funds to assist state or local governments that have restrictions on exchanging information with the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement on an individual's citizenship or immigration status. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #177, 5/17/2005] Sanders Voted Against Prohibiting The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program From Helping State Or Local Governments That Refuse To Share Immigration Information With The Federal Government. On June 16, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #262. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Tancredo, R-Colo., amendment that would prohibit the use of funds for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program by any state or local government entity that restricts its officials from transmitting information regarding an individual's citizenship or immigration status to the Department of Homeland Security. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #262, 6/16/2005] Sanders Voted Against Providing More Funding For State And Local Officials To Transmit Information On Individual Immigration Status To The Federal Government. On June 16, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #267. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: King, RIowa, amendment that would increase by $1 million funds for provisions in current law that allow state or local officials to transmit information regarding an individual's citizenship or immigration status to the Homeland Security Department. It would be offset by a reduction in salaries, expenses and general legal activities at the Justice Department. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #267, 6/16/2005] Sanders Voted Against A Bill That Would Increase Training For Local Officers And Authorized Increased Funding For The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. On December 16, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #656. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Norwood, R-Ga., amendment that would require the Homeland Security Department to provide training at no cost to local and state law enforcement, authorize $1 billion each year for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program and require the department to submit for entry into the National Crime Information Database the names of certain categories of aliens. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #656, 12/16/2005] Sanders Voted Against An Amendment To Bar The Use Of Funds To Assist State And Local Governments That Refuse To Share Individual Immigration Information With The Federal Government. On June 6, 2006, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #223. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: King, R-Iowa, amendment that would bar the use of funds in the bill to assist state or local governments that refuse to share information with the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement on an individual's citizenship or immigration status. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #223, 6/6/2006] Bernie Sanders Voted Against A Bill That Would Require The Justice Department To Increase Efforts On Human Smuggling And To Clarify State And Local Law Enforcement Have The Authority To Investigate And Apprehend Undocumented Immigrants. . On September 21, 2006, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #468. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would set new procedures to expedite lawsuits against the government involving immigration law, require the Justice Department to hire more attorneys to prosecute human smuggling cases, and clarify that state and local law enforcement agencies have the authority to investigate and apprehend illegal immigrants. It would require courts considering civil lawsuits against the government involving immigration law enforcement to expedite such cases. It would require the Justice Department to increase the number of U.S. attorneys by at least 20 per year for fiscal 2008-2013 to prosecute human smuggling cases. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #468, 9/21/2006] Sanders Has Supported Stepped Up Enforcement Of Employers Knowingly Hiring Undocumented Workers Bernie Sanders Voted No On 1996 House Vote # 68 (Immigration Restrictions - Previous Question ). On March 19, 1996, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #68. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Dreier, R-Calif., motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate and the possibility of amendment) on the rule (HRes384) to provide for House floor consideration of the bill limiting the number of legal immigrants by restricting family reunification and employment-related visas, decreasing the number of refugees and asylum-seeking immigrants admitted into the United States, limiting the access of illegal immigrants to public benefits, reducing the types of documents that can demonstrate eligibility for employment, and increasing border controls. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #68, 3/19/1996] Sanders Voted Against Capping The Penalty On Employers For Hiring Unauthorized Aliens And To Allow Good Faith Violations And Safe Harbor For Contractors Who Subcontractors Hire Unauthorized Labor. On December 16, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #657. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Westmoreland, R-Ga., amendment that would cap the monetary penalties for hiring or employing unauthorized aliens at $7,500 for first time offenses, $15,000 for second offenses, and $40,000 for all subsequent offenses. It would provide an exemption for initial good faith violations and a safe harbor for contractors if their subcontractor hires an unauthorized alien. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #657, 12/16/2005] Sanders Voted To Increase Fines On Businesses That Knowingly Hired Undocumented Immigrants And To Share Proceeds With State And Local Governments To Help Cover Cost Of Providing Services To The Undocumented. On December 16, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #658. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Gonzalez, D-Texas, amendment that would increase the fines on businesses for knowingly hiring unauthorized aliens to $50,000, and provide that proceeds be shared with state and local governments to help cover the costs associated with providing services to undocumented immigrants. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #658, 12/16/2005] Sanders Opposed An Employer Verification Phone Line Sanders Voted To Eliminate A Proposal Establishing A Voluntary System For Employers In States With the Most Undocumented Immigrants To Use A Telephone Line To Verify Immigration Status Of Employees. On March 20, 1996, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #76. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Chabot, R-Ohio, amendment to strike the bill's section establishing a voluntary system under which employers in five of the seven states with the highest number of illegal immigrants could use a toll-free telephone line to verify the immigrant status of employees. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #76, 3/20/1996] Sanders Voted Against Establishing A Mandatory System For Employers In States With the Most Undocumented Immigrants To Use A Telephone Line To Verify Immigration Status Of Employees. On March 20, 1996, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #77. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Gallegly, R-Calif., amendment to establish a mandatory 800 telephone number pilot program in which employers, in five of the seven states with the highest number of illegal aliens, would have to verify the immigrant status of employees. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #77, 3/20/1996] Sanders Voted To Allow Increased Penalties For Illegal Presence In The United States Sanders Voted Against An Amendment That Would Strike Language In A Bill That Would Increase The Maximum Sentence For Illegal Presence Or Entry Into The United States. On December 16, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #655. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., amendment that would strike language in the bill that would increase the maximum sentence for illegal presence or illegal entry into the United States to one year and a day. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #655, 12/16/2005] Sanders Opposed New Restrictions To Prevent Non-Citizens From Voting Sanders Voted Against Establishing A Pilot Program To Require Social Security Numbers From Voting Applicants And To Set Up A System To Verify That Citizenship Status Of Those Attempting To Vote. On February 12, 1998, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #17. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Pease, R-Ind., motion to suspend the rules and pass, as amended, the bill to establish a pilot program in the five largest states, under which state and local officials could require Social Security numbers from voting applicants. It also directs the Justice Department, in consultation with the Social Security Administration and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, to set up a system in which local officials could seek verification of the citizenship of those attempting to vote. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #17, 2/12/1998] In 1996 Sanders Voted For An Omnibus That Included Measures To Restrict Illegal Immigration Sanders Voted For An Omnibus Appropriations Bill That Included A Modified Version Of A Conference Report To Restrict Illegal Immigration. On September 28, 1996, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #455. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the conference report on the bill to appropriate more than $600 billion in new budget authority, including $382.3 billion in discretionary spending, for those Cabinet departments and federal agencies whose fiscal 1997 appropriations bills were never enacted. The measure incorporates all or part of six previously separate bills: Defense; Labor-HHS-Education, Interior, Treasury-Postal, Foreign Operations, and CommerceJustice-State. Included in the bill is $1.1 billion to combat terrorism, $650 million disaster relief for firefighters in Western states, $400 million to assist Hurricane Fran victims, and $8.8 billion to combat illicit drug use. The bill includes $6.5 billion in increased spending requested by President Clinton, to be offset by $2.9 billion in broadcast spectrum sales, $3.1 billion in outlays from the Bank Insurance Fund and the Savings Association Insurance Fund, and a $1 billion reduction from the defense budget. The measure also includes a modified version of the conference report to restrict illegal immigration. The bill was originally the Fiscal 1997 Defense Appropriations bill. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #455, 9/28/1996] Sanders Voted For More Resources To Deal With Alien Smuggling Sanders Voted For A Procedural Motion To Increase Resources That Deal With Alien Smuggling. On September 21, 2006, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #467. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Reyes, D-Texas, motion to recommit the bill to the House Judiciary Committee with instructions to include language that would provide additional resources to deal with alien smuggling. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #467, 9/21/2006] Sanders Voted To Increase Penalties For Construction Of Tunnels Under The US Border Sanders Voted To Establish New Penalties For Those Involved In The Construction And Operation Of Illegal Tunnels Under The US Border. On September 21, 2006, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #469. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would establish new criminal penalties for individuals involved with the construction of illegal tunnels across the U.S. border. It would set a penalty of up to 20 years imprisonment for those convicted of knowingly constructing or financing a tunnel across the border and a penalty of up to 10 years in prison for those that permit the construction or use of such a tunnel on their land. Individuals convicted of using illegal tunnels to smuggle illegal immigrants, controlled substances, weapons of mass destruction or other illegal goods would be subject to twice the criminal penalty that they otherwise would face. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #469, 9/21/2006] Legal Immigration Sanders Voted To Ease Access To The Child Visa For Permanent Residency Sanders Voted To Expand The Child Visa By Basing The Age Of The Applicant For Permanent Residency On Date Of Filing And Not Date Of Processing. On June 6, 2001, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #152. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill that would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act so that the age of an alien applying for permanent residency status would be based on the application's filing date rather than its processing date. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #152, 6/6/2001] Sanders Has Supported Easing The Path To Citizenship For Non-Citizen Members Of The Military Sanders Voted To Shorten The Amount Of Time For Non-Citizen Members Of The Military Must Serve In Order To Apply For Citizenship. On June 4, 2003, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #239. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill that would reduce from three years to one year the length of time non-citizen members of the U.S. military must serve before they can apply for citizenship. It also would allow immediate family members of service members who are citizens and who are killed in the line of duty to apply for immigration benefits, effective retroactively to Sept. 11, 2001. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #239, 6/4/2003] Sanders Voted To Make It Easier For Non-Citizens In The US Military To Obtain Citizenship And To Extend Immigration Benefits To The Families Of Immigrant Soldiers Who Die In The Line Of Duty. On September 23, 2003, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #511. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Rodriguez, D-Texas, motion to instruct House conferees to accept provisions of the Senate bill that would make it easier for non-citizens serving in the U.S. military to obtain U.S. citizenship, and extend immigration benefits to families of immigrant soldiers who die in the line of duty. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #511, 9/23/2003] Sanders Voted Against Denying Visas To Drug Traffickers 2006: Tarrant Released Ad Attacking Sanders For Voting Against Denying Visas To Drug Traffickers. “Bernie Sanders says he's for the little guy. But, you check his voting record. One time, he voted to allow foreign drug dealers to get visas to live here. We're nice people in Vermont, but not nice enough to invite the drug dealers to move in next door! What's happened to Bernie? I can't vote for you this time. I'm Rich Tarrant and I approved this message.” [Transcript, “Frank” Ad, berniesrecord.com via Archive.org, accessed 8/24/15] 1999: Sanders Voted Against Denying Visas To And Freezing The Assets Of Known Drug Traffickers. On November 2, 1999, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #555. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Gilman, R-N.Y., motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill to freeze the U.S. assets of major narcotics trafficking organizations as well as any organizations that deal with drug traffickers. The measure would deny visas to any known traffickers, their families, and their business associates. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #555, 11/2/1999] Clinton Administration Supported The Bill. “A House bill would require the president to prepare a "most wanted list" of foreign drug traffickers, subjecting them to seizure of their assets and denial of visas for them and their families. The chief sponsor of the bill, Rep. Bill McCollum of Florida, said it "deals with foreign drug kingpins who are killing and poisoning our kids. The bottom line is it deals with the worst of the worst." The White House supports it. Under the legislation, which passed 385-26 on Tuesday, the treasury secretary, in consultation with the attorney general, CIA, FBI, Drug Enforcement Agency, State Department and the Pentagon, would submit to the White House by June 1 a list of the world's most significant narcotics traffickers. The president on July 1 would formally designate those on the annual list as an unusual threat to the national security and economy, subjecting them to the freezing of their assets and denial of entry into the country.” [Associated Press, 11/3/99] Sanders Defended His Vote Against Denying Visas To Declared Drug Traffickers. “Republican Rich Tarrant is upset because Bernie Sanders refused to give President Bill Clinton and every succeeding President (including President George W. Bush!) the authority to declare any foreign person a drug lord which under the bill would require that the government seize all of their property. (Read what two senior members of the House Judiciary Committee had to say about the bill on the floor of the U.S. House).” [Bernie.org via Archive.org, accessed 8/26/15; HR 3164, Vote #555, 11/2/99] Sanders Claimed That Bill “Would Give The President Unchecked And Unreviewable Power.” “And on top of that, the bill bars the federal courts from reviewing the President's decision. Yep, that's right - the bill would give the President unchecked and unreviewable power to declare a person a drug kingpin and require that all their property be seized. Still don't believe it, well here's the actual text of the bill that insulates the President from court review: (f) JUDICIAL REVIEW- The determinations, identifications, findings, and designations made pursuant to section 4 and subsection (b) of this section shall not be subject to judicial review. [H.R. 3164, 106 th Congress]” [Bernie.org via Archive.org, accessed 8/26/15] Sanders Campaign Said He Had A Strong Record Of “Supporting The Fight On Crime And Cracking Down On The Illegal Drug Trafficking.” “Bernie Sanders has a strong record of supporting the fight on crime and cracking down on the illegal drug trafficking. Bernie Sanders knows America can protect itself from the drug lords without destroying what American patriots have fought for over two centuries to defend.” [Bernie.org via Archive.org, accessed 8/26/15] Voted for the 1994 Crime Bill that Created the COPS Program. [Vote #416, 8/21/94, conference report on H.R.3355, Sanders: Y] Sanders Voted for Violence Against Women Act and Tried to Restore It After the Supreme Court Overturned it in 2000. In 1994 Sanders voted for the 1994 Crime Bill that created the Violence Against Women Act and he voted in 2000 to reauthorized the program. The program provided grants to combat violence against women, created a domestic violence hotline, funding battered women's shelters, and educating judges and court personnel. In 1998, Sanders also was an original cosponsor of legislation to further the program and provided additional assistance to children who are victims of violence. In May 2000, the Supreme Court ruled that the act violated portions of the commerce clause that allows Congress to regulate interstate Commerce. Sanders cosponsored legislation to restore provisions of the program and is currently a cosponsor of legislation to reauthorize the program. [Vote #416, 8/21/94, conference report on H.R.3355, Sanders: Y; Vote #491, 9/26/00, H.R.1248, passed 415-3, Sanders: Y; H.R.3514, 105 th Congress, introduced 3/19/98; H.R.5021, 106 th Congress, introduced 7/27/00; H.R.3171, 109 th Congress, introduced 6/30/05] Sanders Has Voted To Eliminate The Diversity VISA Program, Also Known As The Green Card Lottery Sanders Voted To Eliminate The Diversity Visa Program. On December 16, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #653. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Goodlatte, R-Va., amendment that would eliminate the diversity visa program, which makes available 50,000 permanent resident visas annually, drawn from a random selection of entries from people who meet eligibility requirements from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #653, 12/16/2005] Sanders Is Mixed On HIV And Immigration 1993: Sanders Voted Against Preventing The Permanent Immigration Of Persons Infected With HIV. On March 11, 1993, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #70. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Bliley, R-Va., motion to instruct the House conferees to agree to the Senate amendment to prevent the permanent immigration of persons infected with the HIV virus. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #70, 3/11/1993]  1993: Sanders Voted For A National Institute Of Health Authorization That also Included Language Allowing The Government To Prohibit HIV Positive Immigration. On May 25, 1993, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #178. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the conference report to authorize $6.2 billion for the National Institutes of Health in fiscal 1994 and such sums as necessary in fiscal 1995-96. The conference report codifies the Clinton executive order lifting the ban on fetal tissue research from induced abortions and includes language allowing the government to prohibit immigration by those with the HIV virus. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #178, 5/25/1993] Sanders Generally Opposes Guest Worker Programs But Hasn’t Joined Some Sweeping Attacks On The Programs Sanders Voted Against A Proposal To Create An Alternative Pilot Guest Worker Program. On March 21, 1996, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #85. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Pombo, R-Calif., amendment to modify the current temporary agriculture worker program by creating a three-year alternative pilot program that would enable employers to hire temporary and seasonal workers for no more than 10 months at a time. Under the amendment, employers would be required to give preference to available American workers. The amendment would phase out the current guest worker program over two years if the pilot program becomes permanent. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #85, 3/21/1996] Sanders Voted Against A Proposal To Shift Authority In The Agricultural Guest Worker Program To The Attorney General And To Place New Limits On The Program. On March 21, 1996, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #86. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Goodlatte, R-Va., amendment to alter the current temporary agricultural worker program by shifting responsibility for considering and approving agricultural employer petitions for temporary foreign workers from the Department of Labor to the attorney general, and by requiring employers to recruit domestic workers for 20 days before seeking foreign workers. Also, the amendment would make visas available for no more than 100,000 aliens each year. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #86, 3/21/1996] Sanders Voted Against Extending The Non-Immigrant Nurse Program. On March 21, 1996, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #87. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Burr, R-N.C., amendment to extend the non-immigrant nurse program, which provides visas for foreign registered nurses to enter the United States temporarily to work at medical facilities, for six months after enactment of the bill. The program's authorization expired in September 1995. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #87, 3/21/1996] Sanders Voted To Re-Commit An Immigration Bill With Instructions To Require Limitations On Replacing US Workers With Temporary Foreign Workers. On March 21, 1996, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #88. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Bryant, D-Texas, motion to recommit to the House Judiciary Committee the bill, with instructions to require certain limitations on replacing United States workers with temporary, foreign workers. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #88, 3/21/1996] Sanders Has Opposed Restrictions On Legal Immigration And Asylum Sanders Voted To Strike A Proposal Imposing New Limits On Legal Immigrants And Restricting The Immigrant Preference System. On March 21, 1996, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #84. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Chrysler, R-Mich., amendment to strike most of the bill's provisions on legal immigration, specifically language relating to new limits on the number of legal immigrants admitted into the United States and restricting the preference system. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #84, 3/21/1996] 2005: Sanders Voted To Strike Sections Of A Bill That Places New Conditions On Granting Asylum To Foreign Nationals. On February 10, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #28. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Nadler, D-N.Y., amendment no. 4 that would strike the section of the bill modifying conditions for granting asylum to foreign nationals. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #28, 2/10/2005] Sanders Voted Against Final Passage On A Bill That Would Tighten Immigration And Asylum Standards. On February 10, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #31. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would tighten national standards for state driver's licenses and identity cards, make it more difficult for foreign nationals to claim asylum, and authorize the completion of a security fence along the U.S.-Mexico border. It would allow immigration judges to weigh the credibility of asylum applicants in a variety of proceedings and remove the annual cap of 10,000 refugees who may become permanent residents. It also would require the Homeland Security Department to include information on anyone convicted of using a false driver's license to board an airplane, in aviation security screening databases. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #31, 2/10/2005] Sanders Voted Against An Amendment That Would Prohibit Trade Agreements From Increasing The Number Of Aliens Allowed In The US As Non-Immigrants Or Permanent Residents. On June 16, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #263. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Tancredo, R-Colo., amendment that would prohibit the use of funds in the bill to include provisions in any trade agreement that would increase the number of aliens permitted into the United States as nonimmigrants or permanent residents. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #263, 6/16/2005] Sanders Has Opposed English Language Requirements Sanders Voted Against Requiring Legal Immigrants To Demonstrate English Proficiency Through A Standardized Test Administered By The Education Department. On March 20, 1996, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #78. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Canady, R-Fla., amendment to require immigrants arriving under the Diversity Immigrant Program and the EmploymentBased classification to demonstrate English proficiency by taking a standardized test administered by the Education Department. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #78, 3/20/1996] Miscellaneous Votes Sanders Voted To Cut Prison Funding To Protest Use Of Secret Evidence By INS Sanders Voted To Reduce Federal Prison Funding By $173 Million To Protest When INS Denies Bond, Asylum, And Other Relief To Non-Citizens Based On Secret Evidence. On June 22, 2000, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #315. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Campbell, R-Calif., amendment that would reduce by $173 million the funding for federal prison system salaries and expenses to protest when the Immigration and Naturalization Service denies bond, asylum or other relief to non-citizens based on evidence kept secret from them. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #315, 6/22/2000] Sanders Voted Against Eliminating INS And Also Opposed Privatizing Immigration Services 2002: Sanders Voted Against A Bill Eliminating The INS And Transfer Its Responsibility To A New Agency With Two Separate Bureaus On April 25, 2002, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #116. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would eliminate the Immigration and Naturalization Service and transfer its responsibilities to a new Agency for Immigration Affairs divided into two separate bureaus, one responsible for providing immigration services, the other for enforcing immigration laws, and headed by an associate attorney general in the Justice Department. Both the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement would have their own directors, budgets, staffs and policies. The Office of the Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs would be responsible for coordinating overall immigration policy and overseeing and supervising the two bureaus. The associate attorney general would rank just under the U.S. attorney general and deputy attorney general. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #116, 4/25/2002] Sanders Voted To Prohibit The Bureau Of Citizenship And Immigration Services From Contracting Out Or Privatizing Services. On June 18, 2004, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #269. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Roybal-Allard, D-Calif., amendment that would prohibit the use of funds to privatize or contract out services provided by the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, which reviews citizenship applications, performs background checks, conducts interviews, and approves work authorizations and visa extensions. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #269, 6/18/2004] Sanders Sought Civil Right Protections When Using DMV Database As Part Of Immigration Enforcement Sanders Voted To Recommit A Bill To Ensure That Moto Vehicle Databases Do Not Include Information That Conflict With Rights Guaranteed Under The 1 st, 2nd, Or 14th Amendment. On February 10, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #30. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Reyes, D-Texas, motion to recommit the bill to the Judiciary Committee with instructions to add language stating that a state's motor vehicle database could not include any information that would conflict with rights guaranteed under the First, Second or 14th Amendments. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #30, 2/10/2005] INFRASTRUCTURE Sander Called For A Major Federal Jobs Program To Rebuild Our Crumbling Infrastructure. “It begins with jobs. If we are truly serious about reversing the decline of the middle class we need a major federal jobs program which puts millions of Americans back to work at decent paying jobs. At a time when our roads, bridges, water systems, rail and airports are decaying, the most effective way to rapidly create meaningful jobs is to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. That's why I've introduced legislation which would invest $1 trillion over 5 years to modernize our country's physical infrastructure. This legislation would create and maintain at least 13 million good-paying jobs, while making our country more productive, efficient and safe. And I promise you as president I will lead that legislation into law.” [Sanders Remarks, 5/27/15]  Sanders Said He Would Pay For His Infrastructure Plan By Developing A Fair Tax System. “NIEDELMAN: How do you pay for it though? $1 trillion is a lot of money. SANDERS: Well, in a sense, it certainly is a lot of money. But we're going to pay for it by developing a tax system in this country which is fair, which asks the wealthiest people and the largest corporations start paying their fair share of taxes.” [My Champlain Valley Interview, 5/31/15]  Sanders Noted One In Four Construction Workers Were Latino. “One in four construction workers are Latino, and the fastest way to increase jobs is to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure: roads, bridges, water systems, waste water plants, airports, railroads and schools. It has been estimated that the cost of the Iraq War, a war we should never have waged, will total between $46 trillion by the time the last veteran receives needed care.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, National Association of Latino Elected Officials, 6/19/15] 1995: Sanders And The Progressive Caucus Proposed A $60 Billion Jobs Bill To Address The “Collapsing” Physical And Human Infrastructure. “Number two, despite all the good talk about the fine jobs in America, what all of us know, is that both our physical and human infrastructure is collapsing. [...] We should be expanding rail service, expanding mass transportation, rebuilding our infrastructure–both physical and human. So, the Progressive Caucus will be introducing a major jobs bill: $60 billion a year, put a million people to work at good wages, rebuilding our communities.” [C-SPAN, 1/6/95, 13:13] Sanders Proposed $127.2 Billion In New Investment To Rebuild America’s Physical Infrastructure And Clean The Environment. “The eighth bill in the Progressive Promise is The Job Creation and Invest in America Act, which would create at least 1 million jobs in the United States in each of the next 2 years from $127.2 billion in new investment to rebuild and upgrade America’s physical infrastructure and clean up the environment; to pay for these investments by closing tax loopholes for offshore production while rewarding U.S. companies that invest, produce, and create jobs in the United States; to require the wealthiest U.S. corporations and citizens to pay their fair share of taxes; and to establish a national commission to finds ways to encourage social investment of billions in pension funds to meet domestic needs in America.” [Rep. Bernard Sanders, Congressional Record, 1/26/95; HR 805, cosponsored 2/2/95] LABOR Bernie Sanders Refused to Support Bankruptcy Protection for Family Farmers. “On June 23, 2003, Bernie Sanders did not vote on House Vote #300. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill that would extend Chapter 12 bankruptcy protection for family farmers until Jan. 1, 2004. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #300, 6/23/2003] Measure Was Supported by the National Farmers Union. [National Farmers Union, 108th Congress] Employee Stock Ownership Plans 2003: Sanders Introduced Bill To Encourage Employee Stock Ownerships Plans And WorkerOwned Cooperatives. “Directs the Secretary of the Treasury to establish the United States Employee Ownership Bank in order to foster increased employee ownership and participation in company decisionmaking throughout the United States. Lists among the Bank's duties providing loans to enable employees to purchase a business through an employee stock ownership plan or eligible worker-owned cooperative that is at least 51 percent employee-owned.” [HR 2969, introduced 7/25/03] Sanders Sponsored Bill Directing Department Of Labor To Create An Office Dedicated To Promoting Employee Ownership And Participation In Business Decisionmaking. “Worker Ownership, Readiness and Knowledge Act or the WORK Act - Directs the Secretary of Labor to establish within the Department of Labor an Office of Employee Ownership and Participation to promote employee ownership and employee participation in business decisionmaking. Requires the Office Director, with federal grants and acting as an information clearinghouse, to: (1) support existing programs in the states designed to promote employee ownership and employee participation in business decisionmaking; and (2) promote the formation of new such programs. Directs the Secretary to establish a program, administered by the Director, which is designed to foster employee ownership and employee participation in business decisionmaking throughout the United States.” [S 2909, introduced 7/17/15] In Burlington, Sanders Mayoral Administration Introduced Initiative Encouraging Worker Ownership Of Businesses. “Although Burlington is in good economic health, traditional economic development strategies alone are not enough to ensure that the city's workers will continue to have places to live and work, Mayor Bernard Sanders said Friday. Instead, the city's new Community and Economic Development Office is trying two innovative strategies, Sanders said – encouraging worker ownership of businesses, and creation of a non-profit land trust to maintain permanent stocks of low-cost housing. […] Worker ownership of businesses' would protect workers against unemployment caused when a company pulls out of the area, [Burlington Community and Economic Development Office Director Peter A.] Clavelle said.” [Burlington Free Press, 12/17/83] Employee Benefits Bernie Sanders, Who Spent Career Championing Workers’ Rights, Did Not Pay Workers Compensation and Unemployment Taxes During 1990 Congressional Campaign. “Sanders recently became embroiled in a controversy when Republicans noted that he had listed all campaign workers as consultants - and therefore paid no taxes on those staffers. Certain taxes, including Social Security, were paid by the workers; others, including workers compensation and unemployment, were not paid at all. The GOP charges hit close to the bone for Sanders, who has spent much of his political career championing workers' causes and blasting those who fail to pay their fair share of taxes. He is meeting with state and federal tax officials to determine if his bookkeeping methods are legal.” [Associated Press, 8/13/90] Job Creation Bernie Sanders Opposed Tax Credits for Job Creation in Poor Areas. In 2000, Sanders voted against of a bill providing tax credits and other economic incentives to promote investment and job creation in economically depressed urban and rural communities. The bill authorized President Clinton’s “New Markets Initiative,” and designated nine new “empowerment zones” and 40 new “renewal communities.” The bill passed 394-27. [HR 4923, Vote #430, 7/25/00; CQ Floor Votes, 7/25/00] Military Pay 2013: Bernie Sanders Voted Against a Defense Authorization Bill That Included A Military Pay Raise. According to CQ Quarterly News, “Shortly before midnight, the Senate voted 84-15 to concur with the fiscal 2014 defense authorization measure (HR 3304) passed 350-69 by the House one week ago. The legislation would account for more than half of the federal government's discretionary spending in fiscal 2014. […] The bill would meet the Obama administration's request for a 1 percent military pay raise for fiscal 2014, instead of the 1.8 percent increase under current law. The administration estimates that the move would save $600 million in the next fiscal year and $3.5 billion over five years.” [HR 3304, Vote #284, 12/19/13; Congressional Quarterly News, 12/19/13’ 2014: Bernie Sanders Voted Against a Military Pay Raise “Congress sent President Barack Obama a massive defense policy bill that endorses his stepped-up military campaign of air strikes and training of Iraqis and moderate Syrian rebels in the war against Islamic State militants. The Senate overwhelmingly approved the bill that authorizes funds for basic military operations, including construction of new ships, aircraft and weapons as well as a 1 percent pay raise for the troops. The vote was 89-11. [HR 3979, Vote #325, 12/12/14; Birmingham News, 12/14/14] Child Labor Laws Sanders Proposed Punishment For Willful Violation Of Child Labor Laws That Result In Serious Bodily Injury Or Death Of Minors. “The second bill in the Progressive Promise is The Equal Justice Before the Law Act, which is an anticrime package that retains key aspects of the anticrime legislation enacted in 1994 to prevent crime as well as punish that which happens; to crack down on white-collar crime—for example, S&L bailout, defrauding Federal Government on procurement, criminal penalties for willful violation of child labor laws by employers that result in serious bodily injury or death of minors in the workplace, eliminate deductibility of legal expenses when a company is accused of a crime—and on drug trafficking and abuse.” [Rep. Bernard Sanders, Congressional Record, 1/26/95] Unions Bernie Sanders Received Consistent High Scores from Labor Groups AFL-CIO and AFSCME. Since 1996, AFL-CIO and AFSCME have consistently given Sanders high scores for his votes and positions on labor issues. From 1996-2013, AFSCME gave Sanders a 100% score every year for his legislative record on labor issues, while the AFL-CIO gave Sanders a score of 100% every year since 1997, except 2005, when they gave him a score of 93% and 2011, when they gave Sanders a 89% score. [Project Vote Smart, accessed 6/05/15] AFGE Union Lowered Sanders’ Rating After He Supported Defense Appropriation Bill that Extended Federal Employee Pay Freezes and Furloughs. “AFGE opposed the Department of Defense, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations bill, 2013 (H.R. 933) because – although it averted a government shutdown in March 2013 – the bill: (a) extended for a third year the existing federal employee pay freeze until December 31, 2013, and (b) allowed acrossthe-board spending cuts required by the March 1, 2013 sequester order to be made, resulting in federal government-wide employee furloughs.” [2013 Voting Record, Pg. 48, American Federation of Government Employees, accessed 6/05/15] Bill Averted Government Shutdown and Appropriated $517 Billion in Defense Funding. On March 20, 2013, Bernie Sanders voted yes on Senate Vote #44. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would provide continuing appropriations through fiscal 2013 for government operations, including $1.043 trillion in discretionary funds before sequestration. As amended, it would provide $517.7 billion in base discretionary funding for the Defense Department and $71.9 billion for veterans programs and military construction as well as $20.5 billion for agriculture programs, $39.6 billion for the Department of Homeland Security, and $50.2 billion for commerce, law enforcement and science programs. According to the House Committee on Appropriations, the bill prevented a government shutdown. [House Appropriations Committee press release, 3/06/13; Senate Vote #44, 3/20/2013] Note: Every Senate Democrat also voted in favor of this bill Sanders Criticized by Government Employees Union for Vote in Favor of Budget Bill That Increased Federal Employee Pension Contributions. “AFGE opposed H.J. Res. 59, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (H.J.Res. 59), because it increased the required FERS employee contribution by an additional 1.3 percentage points for new employees first hired after December 31, 2013. The amended FERS contribution rate is 4.4% for ‘regular’ federal employees and 4.9% for law enforcement officers and firefighters. Total The Senate passed Bipartisan Budget Act if 2013 on December 18, 2013 by a 64-36 vote (D: 53-0; R: 9-36; I: 2-0). A ‘No’ vote in opposition to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 is counted as a ‘Right’ vote.” [2013 Voting Record, Pg. 48, American Federation of Government Employees, accessed 6/05/15; HJR 59, Vote #281, 12/18/13] Note: Every Senate Democrat also voted in favor of this bill Sanders Supported A 50+1 Percent Unionization Policy Via “Card Check Off Legislation.” “There are millions of people in fact more and more who understand the importance of being in a union and want to join a union, but are finding it very very hard to do so for a number of reasons. To answer your question, I strongly believe in a card check off legislation. And that measn if 50 percent of workers in a negotiating unit, plus one, sign a card, they have a union.” [Questions in the Quad Cities, 5/30/15, 0:15] LABOR – WORKING FAMILIES 2011: Sanders Said That The Wealthy And Powerful Were Waging A Class War Against Working Families. “And what we understand today. In this pivotal moment in American history, is that there are those including many millionaires, billionaires, corporate leaders, and their right wing political allies who want to undo every single gain that working people have accomplished over the last 80 years. There is a war going on in this country, and I am not talking about the war in Afghanistan or Iraq, I’m talking about the war taking place against working families in this country. It is a class war in which the wealthy and the powerful are saying yes.” [SoundCloud, Bernie Sanders, Audio Clip: “2011: Las Vegas Convention Fiery Speech,” Accessed 6/8/15] Sanders Said The “Ruling Class” Acted “Like Alcoholics And Drug Addicts, They Cannot Get Enough.” “What we are dealing with right now is a ruling class in this country, who in many ways act like alcoholics and drug addicts, they cannot get enough. No matter how many children live in poverty, no matter how high the unemployment numbers are, they want more and more and more. And I say enough is enough.” [SoundCloud, Bernie Sanders, Audio Clip: “2011: Las Vegas Convention Fiery Speech,” Accessed 6/8/15] Sanders Sponsored Bill To Give Preferential Treatment In Federal Procurement To Firms With Fair Employment Principles. “Directs the heads of Federal agencies, when entering into contracts to procure goods and services, to give preference to contracting with entities that have adopted certain environmental and fair employment principles under a corporate code of conduct. Requires the Federal Acquisition Regulation to include standards with respect to such preference. […] Declares the sense of the Congress prescribing such code of conduct, including principles with respect to: (1) a safe and healthy workplace; (2) fair employment, including avoidance of child and forced labor, or of discrimination based upon race, gender, national origin, or religious beliefs; (3) the right to organize and bargain collectively; (4) payment of a living wage to all workers; (5) responsible environmental protection and environmental practices; (6) good business practice laws, including laws prohibiting illicit payments and ensuring fair competition; (7) free expression consistent with legitimate business concerns; (8) absence of political coercion in the workplace; (9) ethical conduct is recognized, valued, and exemplified by all employees; (10) contractual requirement of similar behavior by partners, suppliers, and subcontractors; and (11) specified implementation and compliance monitoring procedures.” [HR 2071, 6/25/97] Minimum Wage / Living Wage Sanders: Millions Of Americans Are Working For “Totally Inadequate Wages;” No Full Time Worker Should Live In Poverty. “Let us be honest and acknowledge that millions of Americans are now working for totally inadequate wages. The current federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour is a starvation wage and must be raised. The minimum wage must become a living wage – which means raising it to $15 an hour over the next few years – which is exactly what Los Angeles recently did – and I applaud them for doing that.” Our goal as a nation must be to ensure that no full-time worker lives in poverty.” [Sanders Remarks, 5/27/15] Sanders Called For Raising Minimum Wage To A Living Wage. “We've got to raise the minimum wage to living wage.” [Brunch With Bernie, 9/11/14] Sanders Supported $10.10 Minimum Wage: “Not Enough To Be Sure” “But It’s A Start.” “Following that, we are going to work on the minimum wage bill, and what you have there, is a nation, we have $7.25 an hour nationally, and we want to raise that to $10.10 an hour, not enough to be sure, we should go higher than that, but it's a start. We will take a number of people out of poverty and it will impact somewhere around 25 million Americans at a time where low income workers desperately need a pay raise.” [Brunch with Bernie, 4/4/14] Sanders Supported President Obama’s Executive Order To Raise Minimum Wage For Federal Contract Workers. “We applaud your recent exectuvie orders to raise the minimum wage for federal contract workers to $10.10 an hour and crack-down on wage theft and other labor law violations. This has helped not only struggling contract workers, but also millions of financially-strapped workers in the private sector.” [Letter to President Obama, 5/15/15] Sanders: We Can Succeed With Strong Grassroots Movement That Says Every Man, Woman, And Child Is Entitled To A Minimum Standard Of Living. “But, if we can develop a strong grassroots movement which says that every man, woman and child in this country is entitled to a minimum standard of living -- is entitled to health care, is entitled to education, is entitled to housing -- then we can succeed. We are living in the richest country in the history of the world, yet we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost any major country and millions of people are struggling to put food on the table. It is my absolute conviction that everyone in this country deserves a minimum standard of living and we've got to go forward in the fight to make that happen.” [Reddit, 5/19/15] Sanders Urged President Obama To Use Executive Actions To Make The Government A “Model Employer.” “We therefore call on you to issue an executive order giving preference in government contracting to “model employers” who pay a living wage, offer fair healthcare and retirement benefits, grant paid leave for sickness and care-giving, provide full-time hours and stable schedules, and give workers a voice through collective bargaining so they do not need to strike to be heard.” [Letter to President Obama, 5/15/15] Sanders’ Letter Called For Directing Government Agencies To Give Preference To Contractors Who Paid “A Living Wage.” “Sanders, backed by a group of Senate Democrats, wants the president to take executive action directing government agencies to give preference to contractors who pay “a living wage,” which would give them an advantage when competing for government contracts. The senators don't specify a wage they believe companies should have to pay their workers in order to get preference when applying for government contracts, but Sanders has previously suggested a $15 per hour national minimum wage.” [The Hill, 5/15/15] Sanders Supported $15 Minimum Wage. “In the Senate I'm leading the effort to raise the minimum wage up to $15 an hour so that people who work 40 hours a week will not be living in poverty. We have presented legislation right now which will say to the wealthiest people and largest corporations you know what, you can't continue to avoid paying your fair share of taxes. [CNN, State Of The Union, 5/17/15] Sanders: “Increased Productivity Should Not Punish The Average Worker.” ”Increased productivity should not punish the average worker, which is why we have to move toward universal health care, making higher education available to all, a social safety net which is strong and a tax system which is progressive.” [Reddit, 5/19/15] Sanders Compared de Blasio’s Contract With His Own Agenda For America. “HEILEMANN: Mayor de Blasio just laid out his version of a contract. Number one, will you sign on to that contract or do you think that contract is not even go quite as far as you think it needs to go? SANDERS: I talked to Bill de Blasio and I think he is doing a great job pushing the progressive agenda appeared I have not seen all the details but I will tell you 3, 4, 5 months ago, we put out what we called an agenda for America, which is probably fairly close on most details in terms of what mayor de Blasio is talking about. the bottom line is when you have 99% of all new income going to the top 1%, and the top 1/10 of 1% owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%, clearly, clearly, clearly, if we are going to have a sustainable, moral economy, you have to deal with the situation of income inequality and wealth in America.” [Bloomberg, With All Due Respect, 5/12/15] Sanders Called The $7.25 National Minimum Wage “Starvation Wages,” And Blamed Big Money’s Role In Campaign Finance For Blocking A Minimum Wage Hike. “You and I know that the national minimum wage of $7.25 is starvation wages, that we’ve got to raise the minimum wage to at least $10.10 an hour. But, I got to tell you: this gets you right into the issue of campaign finance and the role that the Koch brothers and big money play in the political process. The Koch brothers, and many Republicans, believe not only that we should raise the minimum wage, they believe we should abolish the concept of the minimum wage, and if somebody can get a worker to work for three or four bucks an hour, that’s what they want to see.” [Politics Nation, MSNBC, 7/28/14, 2:09] Sanders Said That Predictions Of Negative Outcomes From Raising The Minimum Wage In 1997 Proved False And Would Remain False If The Minimum Wage Were Raised Again. On the outcome of raising the minimum wage in 1997, Sanders told Representative Ehrlich: “All of those predictions about job loss, and how poor people are going to suffer turned out to be what many of us thought it was going to be–total nonsense. In fact, there has been a proliferation of new jobs being created in the economy. It wasn’t true then, it’s not true now.” [C-SPAN, 1/15/98, 56:40] Sanders Attributed The Poor State Of The Economy To Low Wages And The Decreased Purchasing Power Of Workers. “I think that the reason the economy is not doing so great is that low-income workers today in America have a purchasing power significantly less than it was 15 or 20 years ago. In my state and throughout this country, and I suspect in Maryland as well, you have women who are forced to–you hear a lot of these folks talking about family values: ‘We want mom to stay home with the kids.’ You know what? Mom can’t stay home with the kids, because mom has to go out with dad to earn a living to pay for food and for college education for the kids. Now, one of the reasons for that is that wages are too low.” [C-SPAN, 1/15/98, 57:09] Sanders Proposed Indexing Minimum Wage For Inflation. “The fourth bill in the Progressive Promise is Family Foundation Act, which will enable parents to get decent-paying, stable jobs in order to afford child care and health care for their families; to raise the minimum wage and index it for inflation; to strengthen child support collection; to abolish financial penalties for two parent families; to protect the sanctity of the family and safeguard the health and well-being of all our children; and to ensure that all Americans are well fed.” [Rep. Bernard Sanders, Congressional Record, 1/26/95] 1995: Sanders And The Progressive Caucus Supported Raising The Minimum Wage To At Least $5.50 An Hour. “Number one, among other things, we’re going to be fighting to raise the minimum wage. People can’t live on $4.25 an hour; we need a minimum wage of at least $5.50 an hour.” [C-SPAN, 1/6/95, 12:42] 1993: Sanders Sponsored Living Wage Act That Indexed Minimum Wage To Cost Of Living. “Amends the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to: (1) increase the minimum wage to $5.50 an hour in 1994; and (2) provide that the minimum wage rate will be increased by indexing to the cost of living, in the same manner as benefits are indexed under specified provisions of the Social Security Act, for 1995 and thereafter.” [HR 692, introduced 1/27/93] 1986: Vermont Business: Sanders Failed To Make The Minimum Wage Question More Relevant In Gubernatorial Campaign, “Leading To Doubts About The Validity” Of His Candidacy. “However, the issues Sanders raises have not galvanized his opponents the way his campaign stirrings once did. For example, the minimum wage question has not become an issue in the campaign, leading to doubts about the validity of Sanders’ candidacy.” [Vermont Business, Sept. 1986] Guaranteed Minimum Income Sanders Supported Minimum Standard Of Living. “Everyone in this country deserves a minimum standard of living.” [@SenSanders, 5/22/15] 1972: Bernie Sanders, As A Candidate For U.S. Senate, Campaigned On A Minimum Guaranteed Income For A Family Of Four And “An Immediate Ban On Pollution.” “The transplanted New Yorker said those issues are ‘a return of decision-making powers to the people, an end to governmental support of big business, an end to the draft, an immediate ban on pollution, a minimum income of $6,500 for a family of four, and an end to governmental intervention in the private affairs of citizens and an immediate withdrawal of troops from Vietnam.’” [Bennington Banner, 1/5/72] 1971: Liberty Union Candidate For Governor Bernie Sanders Supported A “Federally Guaranteed Annual Income.” “In a talk with Upper Valley residents from Vermont and New Hampshire at the Friends meeting House in Hanover, Bernard Sanders, the Liberty Union candidate for governor, talked about some of Vermont’s problems and possible solutions. […] To better deal with the unequal distribution of wealth in Vermont, Sanders proposed eliminating the sales tax and replacing it with a steeply progressive income tax. He also spoke in favor of a federally guaranteed annual income.” [Vermont Freeman, “Early November,” 1971] Overtime Sanders Called For Pay Equity, Fair Overtime Pay, And Paid Leave. “Further, we must establish pay equity for women workers. It's unconscionable that women earn 78 cents on the dollar compared to men who perform the same work. We must also end the scandal in which millions of American employees, often earning less than $30,000 a year, work 50 or 60 hours a week – and earn no overtime. And we need paid sick leave and guaranteed vacation time for all.” [Sanders Remarks, 5/27/15] Paid Leave Sanders: “We Need Paid Sick Leave And Guaranteed Vacation Time For All.” “As Senator Bernie Sanders kicked off his presidential campaign in Vermont on Tuesday afternoon, he told Americans something everyone wants to hear as the summer heat sets in: take more time off. ‘We need paid sick leave and guaranteed vacation time for all,’ said Mr. Sanders, an independent who is challenging Hillary Rodham Clinton the Democratic nomination.” [New York Times, 5/27/15] Sanders Said U.S. Should Follow The Lead Of European Countries That Provided “Five To Six Weeks Vacation.” “Mr. Sanders has long applauded the European system where people in countries such as Denmark and Finland receive at least a month of paid vacation. ‘People are under stress, they’re exhausted,’ Mr. Sanders said during a recent interview with Bill Maher on HBO. ‘We should begin to look at other countries in Europe where people get by law five or six weeks vacation.’” [New York Times, 5/27/15] Sanders’ Call For Universal Guaranteed Employee Vacation Time Was “A First For Someone Vying For The American Presidency.” “Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders (I) held his first rally after launching his bid for the Democratic presidential candidacy on Wednesday evening. And during his speech, he made a call for ‘guaranteed vacation time for every worker in this country.’ That’s a first for someone vying for the American presidency, according to Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. ‘I feel pretty comfortable saying that it is a first,’ he said. ‘I’ve been pushing on this one for years and I’m pretty sure I would know if another candidate had pushed this idea.’” [ThinkProgress, 5/27/15] Sanders Said He Is Going To Introduce Legislation “To End [The] Disgrace” Of Not Having Paid Maternity Leave In The United States. “I’m going to introduce legislation to end that disgrace. How’s that? You got me. We’re going to talk about all of these issues. We’re going to talk about all of these issues.” [Bernie Sanders at Johns Hopkins, 6/3/15] Sanders Proposed “Guaranteed Paid Vacation Act,” Requiring Employers To Guarantee 10 Days Paid Vacation For Employees Who Worked At Least One Year At A Job. “Sen. Bernie Sanders will introduce legislation Thursday that would require paid vacations for millions of workers as part of a ‘true family values’ agenda he's pushing as he runs for the Democratic presidential nomination. The bill would provide 10 days of paid vacation for employees who have worked at least one year at a job, ensuring them access to the minimum vacation benefits most companies already offer white-collar, high-salary workers, according to his office. The bill would apply to employers with at least 15 employees. Sanders, IVt., said the U.S. is a ‘stressed out nation,’ with nearly one in four workers getting no paid vacation time. It's also the only advanced economy that doesn't guarantee workers some form of paid family leave, paid sick time or paid vacation time, he said.” [Burlington Free Press, 6/10/15] Sanders Noted That Only 38 Percent Of Latino Workers Had Paid Sick Time, Compared To 60 Percent Of White Workers. “There are significant disparities among the types of workers who have access to paid sick time and paid vacation time. For example, only 38 percent of Latino workers have access to paid sick time compared with 60 percent of white workers, according to a 2012 survey by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS).” [Fact Sheet – “Family Values Agenda”, Office of Sen. Bernie Sanders, 6/11/15] Sanders Noted That Only 58 Percent Of White Female Workers Had Paid Vacation, Compared To 67 Percent Of White Male Workers. “According the same BLS survey, 67 percent of white male workers over 18 receive paid vacation, compared with 58 percent of white women and just 40 percent of African American men.” [Fact Sheet – “Family Values Agenda”, Office of Sen. Bernie Sanders, 6/11/15] Sanders Noted That Only 40 Percent Of African-American Male Workers Had Paid Vacation, Compared To 67 Percent Of White Male Workers. “According the same BLS survey, 67 percent of white male workers over 18 receive paid vacation, compared with 58 percent of white women and just 40 percent of African American men.” [Fact Sheet – “Family Values Agenda”, Office of Sen. Bernie Sanders, 6/11/15] Sanders Praised The Paid Vacation Policies Of Virgin Group And Netflix. “This is not something that would just benefit workers and their families but also their employers and even society as a whole. Studies show that 9 in 10 Americans report that their happiest memories come from vacations. And while companies like Virgin Group and Netflix have adopted generous paid vacation policies, aimed at boosting productivity and worker loyalty, nearly 1 in 4 workers gets no paid vacation time. Research shows that vacations reduce stress, strengthen family relationships, increase productivity and even prevent illness.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, 6/11/15] Sanders Co-Sponsored Legislation To Require Employers To Provide At Least 12 Weeks Universal Paid Family And Medical Leave. “Sanders also is co-sponsoring a bill by Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York to guarantee workers at least 12 weeks of universal paid family and medical leave, and a bill by Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington to guarantee at least seven paid sick days per year.” [Burlington Free Press, 6/10/15] Sanders Said It Was An “Outrage” That Mothers Did Not Have Paid Maternity Leave. “Additionally, Sanders called for 12 weeks of paid leave if an employee has a child, is diagnosed with cancer or any other serious medical condition. ‘Simply stated it is an outrage that millions of women in this country give birth and then are forced back to work because they don’t have the income to stay home with their newborn babies.’ Sanders co-sponsored the Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act, a bill by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.).” [Press Release, Office of Sen. Bernie Sanders, 6/11/15] Sanders Co-Sponsored The “Healthy Families Act,” A Bill To Provide Workers Seven Paid Sick Days Per Year. “Sanders also is co-sponsoring a bill by Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York to guarantee workers at least 12 weeks of universal paid family and medical leave, and a bill by Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington to guarantee at least seven paid sick days per year. Murray's bill passed the Senate 61-39 in March as an amendment to a budget resolution, but that measure doesn't carry the weight of law.” [Burlington Free Press, 6/10/15] Sanders Claimed That The U.S. Was “The Only Advanced Economy” That Did Not Guarantee Paid Family Leave, Sick Time Or Vacation Time. “Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today outlined a family values agenda, a package of legislation to provide paid family and medical leave, paid sick leave and paid vacation. ‘When you look at what other wealthy countries are doing, what you find is that the United States of America is the only advanced economy that does not guarantee its workers some form of paid family leave, paid sick time or paid vacation time. In other words, when it comes to basic workplace protections and family benefits, workers in every other major industrialized country in the world get a better deal than workers in the United States. That is wrong,’ Sanders said. ‘Last place is no place for America. It is time to join the rest of the industrialized world by showing the people of this country that we are not just a nation that talks about family values but that we are a nation that is prepared to live up to these ideals,’ he added.” [Press Release, Office of Sen. Bernie Sanders, 6/11/15] Sanders Attempted To Re-Conceptualize “Family Values” Away From Social Conservatism To Workers Rights, Such As Workplace Protections And Family Benefits. “When my Republican colleagues talk about ‘family values,’ what they usually mean is opposition to a woman’s right to choose, opposition to contraception, opposition to gay rights. Let me today give a somewhat different perspective on family values – on real family values. […] Let’s be clear: in terms of protecting the needs of our families, in terms of real family values, in many respects the United States lags behind virtually every major country on earth. When you look at what other wealthy countries are doing, what you find is that the United States of America is the only advanced economy that does not guarantee its workers some form of paid family leave, paid sick time or paid vacation time. In other words, when it comes to basic workplace protections and family benefits, workers in every other major industrialized country in the world get a better deal than workers in the United States. That is wrong. That is a travesty. And that has got to change.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, 6/11/15] Sanders Said That The Family And Medical Leave Act Was “Totally Inadequate.” “The reality is that the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) that was signed into law in 1993 is totally inadequate. Today, nearly 8 out of 10 workers in this country who are eligible to take time off under this law cannot do so because they could not afford it (according to the Department of Labor). Even worse, 40 percent of American workers are not even eligible to receive this unpaid leave because they work for a company with fewer than 50 employees.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, 6/11/15] Sanders Gives His Staff 12 Weeks Paid Maternity And 6 Weeks Paid Paternity Leave. “Marco Rubio, the conservative presidential hopeful from Florida, gives his staff as much paid maternity and paternity leave (12 and six weeks, respectively) as Bernie Sanders, who started his career as an “unabashed socialist” in Vermont and went on to co-found the Congressional Progressive Caucus.” [New York Times,1/24/15] Child Care Sanders Said The United States Has A Major Childcare Crisis. “So for example, we have a major crisis in childcare in this country. We’re way behind many other countries in providing quality, affordable childcare.” [Bernie Sanders at Johns Hopkins, 6/3/15] Sanders Said Child Care Workers Have An Important Job In Society, Yet Are Paid The Same As McDonald’s Employees. “I can’t imagine work that is much more important to a society than making sure we provide the nest, uh, intellectual, and emotional opportunities for our young children. And yet we pay child care workers in this country what McDonalds workers get.” [Bernie Sanders at Johns Hopkins, 6/3/15] Sanders Said The Lack Of Affordable Childcare Was “One Of The Most Terrible, Serious Problems” In The United States. “One of the most terrible, serious problems that gets almost no discussion is that in my state of Vermont, and all over this country, if you're a working class family and a Mom and Dad go out to work, it is very difficult to find affordable childcare. Good quality childcare is very expensive, there are long waiting lines, all over this country and what we have got to recognize that in the year 2014, when Mom and Dad are both working, we have got to understand that education does not begin at age 5, it begins a lot younger than that. That's an issue that we are working hard on.” [Brunch with Bernie, 3/14/14] LGBT Early Support For LGBT Rights Early 1970s: Sanders Called For The Abolition Of All Laws Dealing With Abortion, Drugs, And Homosexuality. “Probalby the most alarming aspect of the Nixon administration has been the gradual erosion of freedoms and the sense of what freedom really means. The Liberty Union believe that there are entirely too many laws that regulate human behavior. Let us abolish all laws which attempt to impose a particular brand of morality or “right’ on people. Let’s abolish all laws dealing with abortion, drugs, sexual behavior (adultery, homosexuality, etc.).” [Salon, 6/30/15] 1982: Sanders Signed Resolution Proclaiming “We Believe In Marriage Week” In Burlington Affirming That “Marriage Should Be Viewed As A Lifelong Commitment Between Husband And Wife.” “WHEREAS, the family has been the beeper of society's values; and WHEREAS, marriage should be viewed as a lifelong commitment between husband and wife filled with mutual respect and open, honest communications; and WHEREAS, it is our hope that the institution of marriage may once again be revered as the cornerstone of the American society and its way of NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of Aldermen. that the week of February 14th through the 22nd, be and hereby is proclaimed as WE BELIEVE IN MARRIAGE WEEK and urge the citizens of Burlington to support efforts to promote the permanence and stability of marriage.” [Resolution, approved by Mayor Bernie Sanders, 2/9/82] 1984: Sanders Was Invited To Speak At A Lesbian And Gay Pride Rally. “Sanders didn't back down. The next year, the Board of Aldermen passed a resolution urging all levels of government to support gay rights, according to a letter in the archives from the Organizing Committee for Lesbian and Gay Pride Celebration, which invited Sanders to speak at its 1984 rally.” [Seven Days, 6/30/15] 1984: Sanders Pushed Burlington’s Board Of Alderman To Pass A Resolution “Urging All Levels Of Government To Support Gay Rights.” “Sanders didn't back down. The next year, the Board of Aldermen passed a resolution urging all levels of government to support gay rights, according to a letter in the archives from the Organizing Committee for Lesbian and Gay Pride Celebration, which invited Sanders to speak at its 1984 rally.” [Seven Days, 6/30/15] 1985: Sanders Wrote A Letter To The Gay Community, Said That He Support That Year’s Gay Rights Resolution, Which Included Prohibitions On Housing Discrimination Against Gays. “On June 22, 1985, Sanders wrote members of the gay community to inform them that the board had passed yet another such resolution. "It is my very strong view that a society which proclaims human freedom as its goal, as the United States does, must work unceasingly to end discrimination against all people," he wrote. "I am happy to say that this past year, in Burlington, we have made some important progress by adopting an ordinance which prohibits discrimination in housing. This law will give legal protection not only to welfare recipients, and families with children, the elderly and the handicapped — but to the gay community as well."” [Seven Days, 6/30/15] 1989: Sanders Said He Would Not Make Preventing Anti-Gay Job Discrimination “A Major Priority.” “One striking example was Sanders' response to questions from local feminists about his support of proposals to prevent job discrimination against gays. "I will not make it a major priority," he said bluntly.” [Vanguard Press, 3/16/89] Sanders Said Vote Against DOMA Was “Difficult” But Found It Was “Absurd” To Deny Gay Married People Equal Benefits. ““It is one thing now for every politician in the world, at least on the Democratic side, to be wildly enthusiastic about gay rights,” Sanders said. “That wasn’t the case back in 1996.” Sanders characterized his vote as “difficult” but said he concluded it was “absurd to tell gay married people that they couldn’t enjoy the benefit of their marriage in 50 states.” Sanders supported Vermont’s approval of civil unions in 2000 and its legalization of same-sex marriages in 2009.” [Washington Post, 6/29/15] Referring To Gay Rights, Sanders Said “You Can Come Up With Any Position You Want Today, But People Have A Right To Know: Have You Been Consistent?” ““It is one thing now for every politician in the world, at least on the Democratic side, to be wildly enthusiastic about gay rights,” Sanders said. “That wasn’t the case back in 1996. . . . You can come up with any position you want today, but people have a right to know: Have you been consistent?”” [Washington Post, 6/29/15] Bernie Sanders: “I’m Not Evolving When It Comes To Gay Rights.” “’I voted against DOMA — you know what DOMA is?’ he demanded, referring to the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act, which Clinton once supported during her husband’s presidency. ‘I’m not evolving when it comes to gay rights. I was there!’” [Gail Collins, New York Times, 5/1/15] HEADLINE: “Sanders: I Was Ahead Of The Curve On Gay Rights” [The Hill, 6/27/15] Sanders Said He Had Been Waiting For The Nation To Catch Up To His Support For Same Sex Marriage. “Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said Saturday he has been waiting for the nation to catch up to his support for same-sex marriage. Sanders’ remarks come a day after Friday’s landmark 5-4 Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide. He argued he was well ahead of the historic decision, unlike Hillary Clinton, his main rival for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.” [The Hill, 6/27/15] Bernie Sanders: LGBT Rights Was Not A “Major Priority” For His Administration. “Interviewer: If there was a gay rights proposal for job discrimination, general harassment, would you support it? Sanders: Probably not. When you’re dealing with priorities – there are hundreds of young kids in the city whose lives are being destroyed – have no place to go. They can’t go to school – they’re going into the army—that’s my priority. I think the first Amendment is very clear on protecting people’s rights to sexual freedom. I know in many communities gay rights is a big thing. To me it’s a civil liberties matter. I believe very strongly in civil liberties. If people tell me they’re in a bar and they’re being harassed because they’re gay – tell me about it and I’ll do something about it as I will if someone has a religious belief. They have the right to practice freely. I will support that. I will not make it a major priority.” [Bernie Sanders interview, Commonwoman, 1981; via Challenging the Boundaries of Reform, p. 196, 1990] HEADLINE: “Bernie Sanders Claims He’s A Longtime Champion Of Marriage Equality. It’s Just Not True.” [Slate, 10/5/15] Sanders: Sanders Said That He Voted Against DOMA And That “I’m Not Evolving When It Comes To Gay Rights. I Was There!” ““You don’t know much about me, right?” asked Sanders, launching into another list of his causes: tax reform, health care, fixing the crumbling infrastructure. “I voted against DOMA — you know what DOMA is?” he demanded, referring to the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act, which Clinton once supported during her husband’s presidency. “I’m not evolving when it comes to gay rights. I was there!”” [Gail Collins, New York Times, 5/1/15] Slate: “But Sanders Is Not Quite The Gay Rights Visionary His Defenders Would Like Us To Believe.” “As proof of his pro-LGBT credentials, Sanders frequently touts his opposition in 1996 to the Defense of Marriage Act, which barred the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages. But Sanders is not quite the gay rights visionary his defenders would like us to believe.” [Slate, 10/5/15] Slate: Sanders Opposed DOMA On States’ Rights Grounds And Opposed Marriage Equality In Vermont As Recently As 2006. “But Sanders is not quite the gay rights visionary his defenders would like us to believe. Sanders did oppose DOMA—but purely on states’ rights grounds. And as recently as 2006, Sanders opposed marriage equality for his adopted home state of Vermont.” [Slate, 10/5/15] Slate: “In The Critical Early Days Of The Modern Marriage Equality Movement, Sanders Was Neutral At Best And Hostile At Worst.” “But Sanders is not quite the gay rights visionary his defenders would like us to believe. Sanders did oppose DOMA—but purely on states’ rights grounds. And as recently as 2006, Sanders opposed marriage equality for his adopted home state of Vermont. The senator may have evolved earlier than his primary opponents. But the fact remains that, in the critical early days of the modern marriage equality movement, Sanders was neutral at best and hostile at worst.” [Slate, 10/5/15] 1990: Sanders Said That LGBT Rights Was Not A “Major Priority” For Him And Said He Would “Probably Not” Support Legislation To Protect Gays From Employment Discrimination. “Earlier in his political career, Sanders was even more indifferent toward gay rights: As mayor of Burlington in 1990, Sanders told an interviewer that LGBT rights were not a “major priority” for him. Asked if he would support a bill to protect gays from job discrimination, Sanders responded, “probably not.”” [Slate, 10/5/15] Slate: “Earlier In His Political Career, Sanders Was Even More Indifferent Toward Gay Rights.” “Earlier in his political career, Sanders was even more indifferent toward gay rights: As mayor of Burlington in 1990, Sanders told an interviewer that LGBT rights were not a “major priority” for him. Asked if he would support a bill to protect gays from job discrimination, Sanders responded, “probably not.”” [Slate, 10/5/15] Slate: Sanders Was Not Being Honest About His Evolution On Gay Rights. “Still, Sanders’ exaggeration of his marriage equality record is strange and unwise. If Sanders were honest about his evolution—and, yes, it was an evolution—then he could still brag about supporting marriage equality long before his chief primary rival. Instead, he has attempted to reframe his somewhat tepid support as vociferous and unabating. The LGBTQ community can surely forgive Sanders’ less-than-spotless record on gay rights—but that process can only begin once he’s honest about it.” [Slate, 10/5/15] 1999 – 2006: Supported Civil Unions December 1999: Sanders Said He Applauded Vermont Supreme Court Decision, And That Vermont Once Again Showed Itself As A Leader On Human Rights. “In 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that the state had to guarantee protections and benefits to gay couples, a stop short of legalizing gay marriage. Sanders approved of the decision. The Vermont Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that under the Vermont Constitution, all citizens of the state have the same right to the benefits of marriage,” Sanders said at the time. “I applaud that decision. Vermont has once again shown itself to be a leader in the struggle for human rights.” [Time, 10/28/15] Local Reporter Said Sanders Would Not Take A Clear Position On Vermont Supreme Court Decision On Civil Unions, Applauding The Cause Of Equal Rights Without Supporting Civil Marriage. “Obtaining Congressman Bernie Sanders’ position on the gay marriage issue was like pulling teeth...from a rhinoceros. Last month, shortly after the decision of the Amestoy Court was issued, Mr. Sanders publicly tried walking the tightrope — applauding the court’s decision and the cause of equal rights without supporting civil marriage for same-sex couples.” [Seven Days Vermont, 1/26/00] Vermont Supreme Court Ruled That Vermont Must Guarantee Same Protections And Benefits To Gay Couples That It Did To Straight Couples. “The Vermont Supreme Court unanimously ruled today that the state must guarantee the very same protections and benefits to gay and lesbian couples that it does to heterosexual spouses. The court left it to the Legislature to either legalize gay marriage, which no state has yet done, or adopt a domestic partnership law, which would be the most sweeping in the country.” [New York Times, 12/21/09] January 2000: Sanders Said He “Applauds” The Vermont Supreme Court Decision On Civil Unions, And That He Supported The Current Legislative Process. “This week we were no more successful getting a straight answer. All we did get was a carefully crafted non-statement statement via email from Washington D.C. And Bernie’s statement wins him the Vermont congressional delegation’s Wishy-Washy Award hands down. Once more he “applauds” the court decision but won’t go anywhere near choosing between same-sex “marriage” and domestic partnership. “By all accounts the legislature is approaching this issue in a considered and appropriate manner and I support the current process.” [Seven Days Vermont, 1/26/00] Local Reporter Said That Bernie Refused To Speak Out For Marriage Equality Out Of Fear Of Alienating Rural Constituency. “Supports the current process, does he? What a courageous radical! That’s as far as Ol’ Bernardo would go. It’s an election year, yet despite the lack of a serious challenger, The Bern’s gut-level paranoia is acting up. He’s afraid to say something that might alienate his conservative, rebel-loving rural following out in the hills. Something that could be interpreted as “Bernie Loves Queers!”” [Seven Days Vermont, 1/26/00] Local Reporter Criticized Sanders For Focusing Only On “Economic-Based” Issues While Avoiding A Clear Stand On Civil Unions. “Both are pretty sharp upstairs, if you know what I mean. Ruth couldn't help but marvel at Ol' Cowardo's, er, sorry, Bernardo's response to the gay-marriage question — Bernie was adamantly vague! "Ah!," sighed Ruth, "he doesn't want to lose his loyal elderly voters." Bernie has a strong following among elderly voters, noted Dwyer. And they're not big on homosexual marriage. So Bernie didn't say anything that might offend them. Right on, Ruthie. Since last week's report of Ol' Cowardo's magnificent dodging of the issue, Progs have been rationalizing their fearless leader's surprising cop-out. They point out in Machiavellian tones that Bernie's issues are "economic-based." So why risk losing supporters by taking a "progressive/ liberal" public stand on a controversial social issue?” [Seven Days Vermont, 2/2/00] Local Reporter Said Sanders Was “No Crusader” For Marriage Equality. “Sanders is no crusader for same-sex marriage rights, either, or other causes that some Progs take up even though a large section of the party’s grassroots feels quite differently about them. You don’t hear him opposing state lotteries, for example, or advocating stricter gun controls. Bernie’s own political coming of age also predates the social upheavals of the ‘60s. Ideologically and personality-wise, he has little in common with that era’s New-Left, gender-bending longhairs.” [Seven Days Vermont, 3/1/00] April 2000: Sanders Said That He Agreed With The Outcome Of The Civil Union Debate In The Legislature. “You may recall that in the days following the Vermont Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage, we were unsuccessful in getting Independent Congressman Bernie Sanders to share his opinion on the gay-marriage issue. […] Over the weekend, we ran into Ol’ Bernardo down at the Earth Day festivities on the Burlington Waterfront and popped the question one more time. "I think the legislature handled this issue with a lot of dignity," said Sanders. "I know there are a lot of very different points of view on this issue. People feel very strongly. But I think the legislators handled themselves with a great deal of dignity, and I agree with what came out of the legislature."” [Seven Days Vermont, 4/26/00] Vermont Legislature Passed Civil Union Bill. “April 25, 2000. A date to remember. A proud moment for Vermont and a big step forward in the never-ending struggle for freedom. The word comes from the state capitol this sun-splashed Tuesday afternoon that the Vermont House has voted 79-68 to concur with the state Senate and send the civil-unions bill to Gov. Howard Dean for his signature.” [Seven Days Vermont, 4/26/00] November 2000: Sanders Supported Civil Unions. “Although all four men said they supported civil unions, their message was about more than that law. They said they were appalled to see raw divisions motivated by what they said was simply hate erupt across the state.” [Associated Press, 11/1/00] Sanders Attended Press Conference Calling For Civility During Vermont Civil Union Debate. ““He, Sen. Patrick Leahy, Rep. Bernie Sanders and retired Sen. Robert Stafford held a joint news conference Tuesday to call for a return to civility. Vermont has been blanketed this year by mailings from groups opposed not only to civil unions but to homosexuality. Schools have reported increased incidents of gay harassment. There has been anti-gay graffitti throughout the state. And along many of the rural backroads, on barns and in yards there are signs expressing the anger of civil unions opponents: "Take Back Vermont." [Associated Press, 11/1/00] Sanders Said That Opposition To Civil Unions Was Diverting Attention Away From “A Dozen Other Issues Out There That Are As Important Or More Important As That Issue.” “Sanders said groups that have stirred up opposition to civil unions were diverting attention from issues such as prescription drug costs, health care, the rural economy and education. "I think there are a dozen other issues out there that are as important or more important as that issue," he said. "I reject very much any individual or any group that attempts to demonize one segment of our society, in this case the gay community, and in so doing create a divisive situation in this state and this country so in fact we are not coming together to focus on what are in fact more important issues."” [Associated Press, 11/1/00] Sanders Criticized “President Bush’s Support For A Constitutional Amendment That Would Ban Same-Sex Marriage,” Saying Bush’s Willingness To Override States’ Rights Was Surprising. “The three members of the state’s congressional delegation are criticizing President Bush’s support for a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage. [...] Rep. Bernard Sanders, said that he would oppose the amendment as well. ‘Given the fact that President Bush portrays himself as a conservative who respects states’ rights and local control, I am surprised that he now believes the federal government should - for the first time - override states on the regulation and recognition of marriage,’ Sanders said.” [Associated Press State & Local Wire, 2/25/04] 2006: Sanders Opposed Constitutional Amendment To Prohibit Same Sex Marriage. “He said the current debate in the Senate over a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would prohibit same-sex marriage was an example of the divisiveness that he believes defines the current Republican leadership. Sanders said he opposes the constitutional amendment. States for years have had authority over marriage laws and that's the way it should remain, he said, noting that Vermont had led the nation in creating the civil unions law granting most of the rights and benefits of marriage to gay and lesbian couples.” [Associated Press, 6/7/06] 2006: Sanders Was Not Ready To Change Vermont Civil Union Law To Permit Marriage. "In the race for the Senate, independent Bernie Sanders said the debate over the marriage amendment was "being used in a divisive way." But he said he was not ready to see Vermont's civil unions law amended to permit same-sex marriage. "I support the civil union law," he said. "I'm comfortable with that right now."" [Associated Press, 6/7/06] 2006: Sanders Said He Did Not Support Same Sex Marriage Right Now, “Not After What We Went Through.” “He noted that Vermont "led the way," but it was "a very divisive debate." Asked whether Vermont should legalize full marriage rights for same-sex couples, he said: "Not right now, not after what we went through.”” [Associated Press, 6/7/06] 2006: Sanders Expressed Support For Civil Unions, Said Marriage Is A State Issue. “I was a strong supporter of civil unions, I believe that. I voted against the DOMA bill, I believe that the federal government should not be involved in overturning Massachusetts or any other state because I think Stewart, the whole issue of marriage is a state issue, that’s what it is.” [Vermont Senate Debate, C-SPAN, 10/23/06, 27:32] 2006: Sanders Opposed Marriage Equality, Supported Civil Unions. “Ten years later, Sanders took a similarly cautious approach to same-sex marriage. In 2006, he took a stand against same-sex marriage in Vermont, stating that he instead endorsed civil unions. Sanders told reporters that he was “comfortable” with civil unions, not full marriage equality. (To justify his stance, Sanders complained that a battle for same-sex marriage would be too “divisive.”)” [Slate, 10/5/15] 2006: Sanders Said A Same-Sex Marriage Fight Would Be Too “Divisive.” “Ten years later, Sanders took a similarly cautious approach to same-sex marriage. In 2006, he took a stand against same-sex marriage in Vermont, stating that he instead endorsed civil unions. Sanders told reporters that he was “comfortable” with civil unions, not full marriage equality. (To justify his stance, Sanders complained that a battle for same-sex marriage would be too “divisive.”)” [Slate,10/5/15] 2009: Supported Marriage Equality In Vermont, But Said It Was A State Issue 2009: Sanders Spokesman Said Sanders Had “Long Believed Marriage Is A Matter Of State, Not Federal, Law,” But Personally Supported Marriage Equality. ““Everybody knows where Vermont’s governor stands on same-sex marriage. But what about the state’s other elected officials? They’ve been strangely quiet on the subject of matrimonial rights. So we asked them to weigh in. […] Sen. Bernie Sanders (I): “Senator Sanders has long believed marriage is a matter of state, not federal, law. Personally, he believes in marriage equality,” said Michael Briggs, Sanders’ spokesman.” [Seven Days Vermont, 4/1/09] 2009: Sanders Supported Vermont Gay Marriage Law. "U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and U.S. Reps. Peter Welch, D- Vt., and Paul Hodes, D-N.H., have previously voiced support for gay marriage laws passed this spring in both Montpelier and Concord. U.S. Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H. is a gay marriage opponent and voted for DOMA in 1996." [While River Junction Valley News, 7/11/09] 2011: Sanders Was "Proud" Vermont Was A Leader On Marriage Equality. "I am proud that Vermont was a national leader in legalizing gay marriage. I believe the example that Vermont set has helped change people’s attitudes all across America. I also hope that it will help shape the thinking of all our elected leaders, including the president.” [The Advocate, 6/23/11] 2011: Sanders Co-Sponsored Respect For Marriage Act. [S.598, co-sponsored 7/11/11] Sanders Supported Gay Marriage “Before It Became Fashionable.” “Sanders, now 73, favored gay marriage rights before it became fashionable in Democratic circles. He voted against the Defense of Marriage Act in the mid-1990s signed by Clinton's husband, President Bill Clinton.” [Associated Press, 5/11/15] Obergefell v Hodges Sanders Applauded The Supreme Court Ruling That Marriage Equality Was A Right, Said “Today The Supreme Court Fulfilled The Words Engraved Upon Its Building: ‘Equal Justice Under Law.’” “Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) issued the following statement after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges. “Today the Supreme Court fulfilled the words engraved upon its building: ‘Equal justice under law.’ This decision is a victory for same-sex couples across our country as well as all those seeking to live in a nation where every citizen is afforded equal rights. For far too long our justice system has marginalized the gay community and I am very glad the Court has finally caught up to the American people.”” [Press Release, Sen. Bernie Sanders, 6/26/15] Sanders Said It Was Time For The Supreme Court To Legalize Gay Marriage. “As the Supreme Court today took up cases on gay marriage, Sen. Bernie Sanders said gay Americans in all states deserve the right to wed. “Of course all citizens deserve equal rights,” Sanders said. “It’s time for the Supreme Court to catch up to the American people and legalize gay marriage.”” [Sanders press release, 4/28/15] Sanders Criticized Conservatives Who Opposed Gay Marriage. “The Vermont lawmaker criticized conservatives who reject same-sex marriage on religious grounds. “We disagree with right-wing Republicans’ definition of family values,” Sanders said. “They think that family values are opposition to gay marriage and gay rights.”” [The Hill, 6/27/15] DOMA Sanders Voted Against The Defense Of Marriage Act. [HR 3396, Vote #316, 7/12/96] Sanders Called DOMA “An Anti-Gay Marriage Piece Of Legislation.” “Sanders at the time served in the House of Representatives, which voted 342-67 in favor of DOMA. The Senate voted 85-14 in favor, before former President Bill Clinton signed it into law. “That was an anti-gay marriage piece of legislation,” he added of the law that defined marriage at the federal level as the coupling of one man and one woman.” [The Hill, 6/27/15] Sanders Praised Supreme Court Decision On DOMA. “The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a 1996 law denying federal benefits to same-sex married couples is unconstitutional. The 5-4 decision was handed down by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. Sen. Bernie Sanders welcomed the ruling. “This is good news for all Americans who believe in the words carved in marble on the front of the Supreme Court building, equal justice under law. But it is a special victory for gays and lesbians married in Vermont and the increasing number of other states that followed our lead in granting same-sex couples the same rights as everyone else,” Sanders said.” [Sanders press release, 6/26/13] Sanders Voted Against DOMA Explicitly On States’ Rights Grounds, Rather Than Because He Supported Marriage Equality. “Like his current Senate colleague Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, Sanders deserves credit for opposing DOMA—then a popular measure with bipartisan support—while a member of the House of Representatives in 1996. But Sanders’ efforts to parlay this vote into indisputable proof of his marriage equality bona fides ring hollow in light of his statements at the time. Explaining his vote in 1996, Sanders’ chief of staff declared that it was motivated by a concern for states’ rights, not equality. Explaining that he wasn’t “legislating values,” she noted that Sanders believed DOMA violated the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause by allowing one state to refuse to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another. “You’re opening up Pandora’s box here,” she said at the time. “You’re saying that any state can refuse to … recognize the laws of another state if they don’t like them.”” [Slate, 10/5/15] Sanders’ Rationale For Voting Against DOMA At The Time “Was Hardly A Full-Throated Cry For Equality.” “Perhaps Sanders’ team used this states’ rights rationale to limit backlash from anti-gay voters. That would be a perfectly acceptable tactic, since his vote—not his explanation of it—is what matters most. Still, if that’s the case, then Sanders should be honest about it. Sanders’ rhetoric leads listeners to believe that the congressman championed gay rights and rebuked Congress’ homophobia during the DOMA debate. But in his statements to the press at the time, Sanders defended states’ rights and made no mention of gay Americans’ dignity. His vote may have been brave. But it was hardly a full-throated cry for equality.” [Slate, 10/5/15] Transgender Rights Asked About Allowing Transgender Soldiers To Openly Serve, Sanders Said “I Will Do All That I Can” To Make The USA Nondiscriminatory Society. “/u/theonlyotheruser: What are your thoughts regarding transgender rights generally, and open transgender military service specifically? /u/berniesanders: As somebody who has consistently voted to end discrimination in all forms -- who voted against DOMA way back in the 1990s -- I will do all that I can to continue our efforts to make this a nondiscriminatory society, whether those being discriminated against are transgender, gay, black or Hispanic.” [Reddit, 5/19/15] Religious Freedom Laws Sanders Compared Indiana Religious Freedom Law To Past Civil Rights Injustices. “The Governor of Indiana, Mr. Governor Pence, is just defending a horrendous piece of law in the State of Indiana. And that law says that for religious reasons, for religious reasons I can discriminate. Well, we’ve been through that in the history of this country, that’s what the whole civil rights movement was about. People say, ‘well for my own reasons, for religious reasons’ or whatever it is, ‘I don’t want an African American to come into my restaurant and sit. Or to go to a school, for religious reasons.’ Well, we don’t accept that, that’s what the whole effort in this country to end discrimination is about.” [Brunch with Bernie, 4/1/15] Sanders Praised National Response To Indiana Religious Freedom Law, Called For Action On Economic Issues. “Just in the question of a few days from coast to coast people are rising up. And this does tell you, it also tells you the power of the internet and the social media and what can happen when people get aroused. And Kevin’s last point was well, can we do this on economic issues? And I think we can, it’s harder. To be frank with you it’s harder because you’ve got a lot of sensible corporations out there and business people who may be gay, who have gay colleagues, who are not sympathetic to homophobia who will deal with this issue, they may not deal with other issues. But I think the line here, the lesson here is that when people stand up and say something we can have an impact. And that is what we have to do, we need an aroused public, and I think mostly we need to say that this government does not belong to the top one percent, it belongs to us all.” [Brunch With Bernie, 4/1/15] MEDIA REGULATION 1979: Bernie Sanders Advocated Complete Public Control Of The Television Industry. “The potential of television democratically owned and controlled by the people, is literally beyond comprehension because it is such a relatively new medium and we have no experience with it under democratic control. At the least, with the present state of technology, we could have a choice of dozens of channels of commercial-free TV. At the moment serious writers are, by and large, not allowed to write for commercial television for fear they might produce something that is true and hence, upsetting to the owners of the media. Under democratic control people with all kinds of views could make their presentations, and serious artist would be encouraged to produce work for the tube. There is no question that television has an enormous impact upon our society, and that the controllers of that medium have far more power than almost any politician. For those of us who are concerned about living in a democratic and healthy society, it is necessary to address the control of television as a political issue, and organize to win.” [Bernie Sanders, Op-ed, Vanguard Press, 2/13/79] FCC Sanders Sponsored Bill To Limit FCC’s Authority To Impose Fine For Indecent Broadcasts. “Stamp Out Censorship Act of 2005 - Amends the Communications Act of 1934 to limit the Federal Communications Commission's authority to impose forfeiture penalties for indecent utterances to the broadcast of such utterances by a radio or television broadcasting station.” [HR 1440, introduced 3/17/05] 2005: Sanders Proposed The Stamp Out Censorship Act, Which Would Bar The FCC From Applying Indecency Rules To All Mediums Besides Broadcast. “In March of 2005 Representative Sanders introduced H.R. 1440, The Stamp Out Censorship Act. This bill, which has 20 bi-partisan cosponsors, would clarify that the Federal Communications Commissions power to regulate indecency applies only to material broadcast over the public airwaves and does not extend to cable, satellite, the Internet, or any other medium. This legislation has been referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.” [Issues – Indecency, Sen. Bernie Sanders, archived 1/15/07] 2004: Sanders Voted For A Bill “To Increase The Penalties On Television And Radio Broadcasters Who Use Obscene, Indecent And Profane Language. “Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act (H.R. 3717): The House, on March 11, approved a bill introduced by Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., to increase the penalties on television and radio broadcasters who use obscene, indecent and profane language. The bill raises the fine the FCC can impose on violators from $27,500 to $500,000. YEAS: Rep. Bernard Sanders I-VT (AL).” [States News Service, 3/12/04] Sanders Introduced Bill To Invalidate FCC’s 2003 Changes To Media Ownership Rules. “Invalidates the final rules adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) pursuant to its broadcast media ownership proceeding and announced on June 2, 2003. Reinstates (retroactively, as in effect prior to such announcement) any rule that the FCC modified pursuant to that proceeding. Prohibits the FCC from using current biennial rule review authority to review broadcast media ownership rules.” [HR 2462, introduced 6/12/03] FCC Rule Change Allowed Television Broadcasters To Expand Market Reach. “The Federal Communications Commission narrowly approved new media ownership rules Monday, allowing television broadcasters to expand their reach, despite fears the move may reduce the variety of viewpoints available to consumers. The Republican-led government agency voted 3-2 to allow the broadcast networks to own television stations that reach a combined 45 percent of the national audience, up from 35 percent.” [CNN, 6/2/03] 2003: Sanders Said The Proposed FCC’s Revised Media Ownership Rules “Ignores The Will Of The Public And The Vast Majority Of Members Of Congress’ And Represents A Sellout To Corporate Interests. “Despite the inclusion of a permanent, 39 percent broadcast television ownership cap in the FY04 omnibus spending bill, House opponents of the FCC's revised media ownership rules probably will try to force a floor vote next year on a Senateapproved resolution to roll back all of those FCC regulations, a spokesman for Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., said Friday. […] In a ‘Dear Colleague’ sent out last week, Hinchey, who serves on the Appropriations Committee, and Rep. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., said the 39 percent deal ‘ignores the will of the public and the vast majority of members of Congress’ and represents a sell-out to corporate interests. ‘By any rational standard, our efforts to promote a public service media system by curbing monopolies is failing,’ Hinchey and Sanders wrote. ‘What little we have managed has been carefully tailored to suit past regulatory violations and to encourage them in the future.’” [National Journal’s CongressDaily, 12/8/03] Sanders Called For The Reinstatement Of The FCC’s Fairness Doctrine, Which Would Have Had The Effect Of Forcing Conservative Talk Show Hosts Off The Air. “Americans for Tax Reform recently launched the Media Freedom Project, an organization dedicated to deregulation of the media. The organization and its web site, http://www.mediafreedomproject.org , stem from liberal efforts to re-regulate the media, including attempts to reinstate the so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine,’ an antiquated Federal Communications Commission rule that would have the effect of pulling the plug on conservative talk show personalities such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and G. Gordon Liddy. […] In 2003, when the FCC modernized media ownership regulations, Democrats decried the effort, and called for reversing the ruling. Some, including liberal Reps. Maurice Hinchey [D-N.Y.] and Bernie Sanders [I-Vt.] went so far as to call for a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine.” [U.S. Newswire, 5/4/05] Sanders Introduced A Bill To Allow FCC To Regulate Cable Rates And Directed FCC To Freeze Basic Cable Rates For One Year. “Amends the Communications Act of 1934 to subject to State regulation the rates charged for the provision of cable television service. Prohibits either the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) or any other Federal agency from regulating such rates. Directs the FCC to prohibit any cable operator from imposing or collecting any increase in the rates of basic cable service or cable programming services for one year.” [HR 2813, introduced 8/2/01] Sanders Sponsored Cable Television Subscriber Protection Act To Ensure Reasonable Rates For Basic Cable Services. Sanders sponsored HR 2439, a bill that among other provisions: “Directs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) or an authorized franchising authority, in any cable community where a cable system is not subject to effective competition, to ensure that rates and charges for the provision of basic cable service, for the installation, sale, lease, or rental of equipment or services used for the receipt of basic service, and for changes in tiers of basic service, are reasonable.” [HR 2439, introduced 5/22/91] Bernie Sanders, In 2004, Voted For A Resolution That It Was The “Sense Of Congress That ‘Kids Love A Mystery’ Is A Program That Works And Should Be Encouraged.” “Sense of Congress that ‘Kids Love a Mystery’ is a program that works and should be encouraged (H.Con.Res. 373): The House, on March 10, passed a resolution introduced by Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., saying that Kids Love a Mystery is a program that promotes literacy and should be encouraged. YEAS: Rep. Bernard Sanders IVT (AL),” [States News Service, 3/12/04] Sanders Voted Against An Amendment To Prevent The Reintroduction Of the Fairness Doctrine By The FCC. The Fairness Doctrine “required that TV and radio stations holding FCC-issued broadcast licenses to (a) devote some of their programming to controversial issues of public importance and (b) allow the airing of opposing views on those issues. This meant that programs on politics were required to include opposing opinions on the topic under discussion.” The amendment passed 87-11. [Washington Post, 8/23/11; S Amdt 573 to S 160, Vote #71, 2/26/09] 1975: Bernie Sanders Threatened Legal Action After His Party Was Denied Equal Time On Television. “Officials of the Liberty Union party have threatened legal action to win free television air time to rebut the tax messages of Democratic Gov. Thomas Salmon and his Republican legislative opposition. Liberty Union spokesman Bernard Sanders said Wednesday his party was denied time by the management of WCAX-TV in South Burlington. He called the denial ‘grossly unfair,’ and said he has asked the Federal Communications Commission for clarification of the socalled, ‘fairness doctrine’ governing equal time on controversial issues.” [Bennington Banner, 9/25/75] 1979: Bernie Sanders Was An Extremely Divisive Head Of A Committee Aimed At Reforming Vermont’s Public Television Channel. “Composed mostly of independent film and video producers from throughout the state the committee has asked for public access to Vermont ETV, a formation of a citizen’s advisory board with authority over programming policy, a substantial percentage of programming produced by and for Vermonters and a review by the public of the allocation of station funds. But the committee has been hampered by internal conflagrations, not the least of which is an ideological struggle over the function of the committee. Several film and video producers have dropped out of the committee and a handful have refused to join, stating that its leader, Bernard Sanders, director of the American People’s Historical Society and former candidate for governor as a Liberty Union candidate is using the general issue of public access as a political soapbox for ‘socialist propaganda.’” [Vanguard Press, 3/27/79] 1979: Bernie Sanders Was Accused Of Using His Position On A Committee Aimed At Reforming Vermont’s Public Television Channel “As A Political Soapbox For [His] ‘Socialist Propaganda.’” “Composed mostly of independent film and video producers from throughout the state the committee has asked for public access to Vermont ETV, a formation of a citizen’s advisory board with authority over programming policy, a substantial percentage of programming produced by and for Vermonters and a review by the public of the allocation of station funds. But the committee has been hampered by internal conflagrations, not the least of which is an ideological struggle over the function of the committee. Several film and video producers have dropped out of the committee and a handful have refused to join, stating that its leader, Bernard Sanders, director of the American People’s Historical Society and former candidate for governor as a Liberty Union candidate is using the general issue of public access as a political soapbox for ‘socialist propaganda.’” [Vanguard Press, 3/27/79] 1979: Bernie Sanders Accused Vermont Public Television Of “Ignoring The Realities Facing The Nation” And “Protecting The Ruling Class.” “‘By ignoring the realities facing the nation and the state,’ says Sanders, ‘Vermont ETV is protecting the ruling class who dole out the funds to public television. If people’s personal realities were confirmed on television, the end result would probably be, let’s do something about it.’” [Vanguard Press, 3/27/79] Criticism Of The Media Sanders Criticized Media For Boasting That Number Of Billionaires Doubled While People Were Living On The Street. “"We have people living desperate lives on the streets, senior citizens unable to make ends meet on Social Security, millions of people unable to afford even a minimum of health insurance, and yet our country's media can boast of doubling the number of billionaires in the country within the last year," Sanders said.” [Mayor Sanders press release, 10/23/87] Sanders Was Concerned About Mergers And Buyouts Of Media Firms Because Fewer And Fewer Corporations Were Deciding On The Information The Public Received On Public Policy. “In discussing the human right to take part in decisions affecting one's life, Mayor Sanders touched on his growing concern about mergers and buyouts in the communications industry. "Fewer and fewer large corporations are now controlling the vast majority of media outlets; fewer and fewer companies are deciding what information the people should have to make public policy decisions," he said.” [Mayor Sanders press release, 10/23/87] Sanders Said “There Will Be No Serious Political, Social Or Cultural Changes In This Country” Until “We Recognize, And Do Away With” Corporate Media Censorship. “There will be no serious political, social or cultural changes in this country until we recognize, and do away with, the extraordinary degree of censorship which exists in the American mass media and which we have come to take for granted.” [Reflections of a Retiring Mayor, Bernard Sanders, likely 1989] Sanders Said That Corporations Would Directly Benefit From Creating “A Nation Of Poorly Informed Citizens.” “Increasingly the major media in our country - radio, television, newspapers, magazines, book publishing firms and movie production companies - are being bought up by a handful of huge multinational corportions. [sic] The function of these corporations is not to educate, inform or entertain. Their sole function is to make as much profit as possible for the people who own the media and if, in the process, they create a nation of poorly informed citizens - all the better for their corporate owners.” [Reflections of a Retiring Mayor, Bernard Sanders, likely 1989] Sanders Criticized The Television Industry For “[Destroying] The Cognitive Abilities Of Millions Of Americans Because Of The Constant Bombardment Of 30 Second Ads.” “The television industry has been able to give us commericials [sic] with talking toilet bowls and dancing cats; they've been able to give our children Saturday morning programs of violence and sexism; and they've been able to destroy the cognitive abilities of millions of Americans because of the constant bombardment of 30 second ads.” [Reflections of a Retiring Mayor, Bernard Sanders, likely 1989] Sanders Criticized The Television Industry For Not Allowing Candidates, Officials, Scientists And Writers To Discuss Or Portray The Real Issues. “The television industry has been able to give us commericials [sic] with talking toilet bowls and dancing cats; they've been able to give our children Saturday morning programs of violence and sexism; and they've been able to destroy the cognitive abilities of millions of Americans because of the constant bombardment of 30 second ads. However, they've not been able to allow candidates for public office, elected officials or the general citizenry the opportunity or free time for real debate about the pressing issues which face our nation; they've not allowed our writers the opportunity to portray the American reality they perceive; they've not allowed our scientists to educate us about the ecological disasters which threaten our planet.” [Reflections of a Retiring Mayor, Bernard Sanders, likely 1989] Sanders Criticized Political Media Culture Of Increasing “’Sound-Bites,’ ‘Photo Opportunities’ And ‘Zingers.’” “As a politician who has gone through four city elections and two statewide elections in the last 8 years, let me be the first to inform you that no public official can explain the important issues of the day in a 30 second radio or t.v. clip, or through a short and simple newspaper story. It can't be done, it's not being done. Political ·coverage" in our nation consists, more and more, of “sound-bites," “photo opportunities” and “zingers."” [Reflections of a Retiring Mayor, Bernard Sanders, likely 1989] Sanders Said That Americans Needed To Be Concerned About “Corporate Controlled Media” As They Would Be To “Government Control And Censorship Of The Media In Totalitarian Society.” “THE TIME IS NOW FOR A SERIOUS DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE OWNERSHIP, ROLE AND CENSORSHIP WHICH EXISTS IN THE AMERICAN MASS MEDIA TODAY. JUST AS WE MUST BE OPPOSSEO TO GOVERNMENT CONTROL AND CENSORSHIP OF THE MEDIA IN TOTALITARIAN SOCIETY, WE MUST BE EQUALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE SIGNIFICANT DEGREE OF CENSORSHIP WHICH EXISTS IN CORPORATE CONTROLLED MEDIA.” [Reflections of a Retiring Mayor, Bernard Sanders, likely 1989] Sanders: “Is The Only Way To Get Media Attention By Ripping Apart Someone Else?” “I've never run a negative political ad in my life. People in Vermont know that I run in many, many campaigns. I don't believe in ugly 30-second ads. I believe in serious debates on serious issues. I've known Hillary Clinton for 25 years. Maybe I shouldn't say this. I like Hillary Clinton. I respect Hillary Clinton. Will the media, among others, allow us to have a civil debate on civil issues? Or is the only way to get media attention by ripping apart someone else? I certainly hope that’s not the case.” [CNN, State of the Union, 5/17/15] Sanders Asked If The Media Was Prepared To Allow Candidates To Engage In A Serious Debate. “I've led the effort on many of those issues. I've taken on every powerful special - KEILAR: But are you prepared to sharply point out where your Democratic opponents have not, in your opinion? SANDERS: Of course I am prepared to engage in serious debate. But let me throw it back to you. I'll tell you something else. The American people want to hear serious discussions on why they're working longer hours for low wages. They want to know about why year after year we have these disastrous trade agreements, why the rich get richer and everybody else gets poorer. Are you in the media prepared to allow us to engage in that serious debate? Or do I have to get media attention by simply making reckless attacks on Hillary Clinton or anybody else? I don't believe in that. I believe in serious debates on serious issues.” [State Of The Union, CNN, 5/17/15] Sanders Questioned If The Corporate Media Would Allow A Serious Discussion Rather Than Looking At Politics As A Soap Opera. “But the issue here is, as a nation, will the corporate media allow a serious discussion on serious issues rather than looking at politics as a baseball game or a soap opera. You know, this is not the Yankees versus the Red Sox. This is the future of America and what happens to tens of millions of our people. Can we have the kind of debate that we need as to why the rich are getting much richer while everybody else is getting poorer?” [PBS, 5/11/15] Sanders Worried About “Political Gossip” Dominating Media Conversation About Presidential Race. ““We have gotten more serious discussion on our issues than I might have thought about,” Sanders said on CNN’s “Reliable Sources.” “But this is what I worry about: In terms of campaign coverage, there is more coverage about the political gossip of a campaign, about raising money, about polling, about somebody saying something dumb, or if some kid who works for a campaign sends out something stupid on Facebook, we can expect that to be a major story.”“ [The Hill, 5/24/15] Sanders Criticized DC Media For Focusing On Hillary Email Story Over More Important Issues. “I could not walk down the streets, the hallways of the capital this last week without somebody asking about Hillary Clinton and her emails, Hillary Clinton and her emails, Hillary Clinton and her emails. I call up Vermont and talk to the front desk people in Washington DC in my office and I say ‘Well, how many calls did we get?’ and virtually none. I think we got less than five calls and that’s all that the Washington DC media could talk about. Now I don’t want to get into the pros and the minuses of Hillary’s emails but in my view it is not one of the great issues facing this country.” [Brunch With Bernie, 3/13/15] Sanders: The Media Lets “A Lot Of Right Wing People Get Away With Murder.” “SANDERS: I'm the ranking member of the Budget Committee, OK? Leader of the opposition. The Republican budget does the following: It throws 27 million people off of health care by ending the Affordable Care Act and cutting Medicaid by $440 billion. Have you seen that in print? Have you seen that statement? There is a reality that goes on here. And you have many people who try to be, “Oh, I've got to be even-handed here and even-handed there. You got the Koch Brothers there, Bernie Sanders there.” That's nonsense. And I think a lot of right-wing people get away with murder because the media doesn't call them out on it.” [CNBC, 5/26/15] Bernie Sanders Mocked Coverage Of Hillary’s Road-Trip To Iowa. “The openly socialist senator […] appeared far from amused by her road-trip to Iowa. ‘I’m sure that there is great national interest about the Scooby van,’ Sanders said sarcastically on MSNBC on Tuesday, referring to the van the Clinton camp took from her Chappaqua, N.Y. home to Iowa. ‘I can’t think of an issue of more significance to the American people.’” [National Review, 4/14/15] Sanders Said Stephanopoulos Donation To Clinton Foundation Was Not A Big Deal. “Vermont Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, the only declared Democratic candidate besides Hillary Clinton, told Brianna Keilar on CNN's “State of the Union” in an interview scheduled to air Sunday that Stephanopoulos should have made the donations public earlier. But, Sanders added, “I don't -- between you and me -- I don't think it's the biggest deal in the world.”“ [CNN, 5/15/15] Sanders in “Outsider in the House:” “Big Money Interests Own The Media.” “He hates the media. Sanders reserves almost as much fury for mainstream media as he does for the 1%. “Big money interests own the media,” which does a “horrendous job” of informing people, he writes. Corporate TV “news” (in scare quotes) “insults the intelligence of American citizens daily, and is even further removed from the reality of everyday life than the average politician.” In an era before the Internet sparked the proliferation of dozens of new political news outlets, Sanders worried about the consolidation of the press and called on Congress to “pass media antitrust legislation today.” Media conglomerates are “one of the greatest crises in American society” and “clearly a serious danger to our fragile democracy,” he adds.” [MSNBC, 5/28/15] Sanders Said The Media Tries To “Discourage” People From Getting Involved In Politics, And “Disparage[s]” Everyone Who Does Get Involved. “And if you’re not content, then you’re going to have to understand that in a democratic society, despite what the media tells you everyday, which is trying to disparage everyone who gets into politics: “why would anyone want to get into politics? Everybody’s a crook, everybody’s a thief, etc. etc.” And you see these ugly 30 second ads: just part of a whole process to discourage people to get involved in politics.” [Bernie Sanders at Johns Hopkins, 6/3/15] Sanders Lamented At Having To “Talk A Sub-Human Language” To Get His Complex Issue Positions And Visions Of Society Across In The Media. “Yet Sanders’ real exasperation with the media stems not from the personalities but from the process, with the need to compress complex issue— not to mention, alternative, socialist visions of society—into 30 second media bites. ‘You have to talk a sub-human language,’ he lamented, ‘and sometimes I become ashamed of myself. There are no easy solutions.’” [Vanguard Press, 12/8/85-12/15/85] 1978: Sanders Said Americans’ Lives Were Filled With TV Entertainment That Did Not Give Americans the Opportunity to Learn the Truth About U.S. History. “As our nation becomes increasingly controlled by multi-billion dollar banks and giant corporations it is getting harder and harder for young people, and all Americans, to learn the truth about the history of their country - and about the men and women who have risked their lives to protect the interests of working people against capitalist greed. Day after day our television screens are filled with the likes of Starsky and Hutch and Wonder woman but, not too surprisingly, no corporation or advertising agency seems terribly eager to sponsor a program dealing with the life and ideas of a man like Eugene V. Debs - a man who believed that working people should own and control the society in which they lived.” [Eugene V. Debs- Trade Unionist, Socialist, Revolutionary, 1855-1926, Transcript] 1979: Bernie Sanders Compared Television to Heroin and Alcohol. Bernie Sanders wrote in 1979, “Second, like heroin and alcohol, television serves the function of an escapist mechanism which allows people to “space out” and avoid the pain and conflict of their lives--and the causes of those problems”. [Vanguard Press, 2/13/79] 1979: Bernie Sanders Likened Television To The Narcotics Alcohol And Heroin. “There are several major functions of commercial television, as it presently operates. First, it is supposed to make as much money as possible for the owners of the industry and for the companies who advertise. Second, like heroin and alcohol, television serves the function of an escapist mechanism which allows people to ‘space out’ and avoid the pain and conflict of their lives—and the causes of those problems. Third, television is the major Vehicle by which the owners of this society propagate their political points of view (including lies and distortions) through the ‘news.’” [Bernie Sanders, Op-ed, Vanguard Press, 2/13/79] 1979: Bernie Sanders Said TV Industry Is Trying To “Brainwash” People And Create A “Nation Of Morons”. Bernie Sanders wrote, “What the owners of the TV industry want to do, and are doing, in my opinion, is use that medium to intentionally brainwash people into submission and helplessness. With considerable forethought they are attempting to create a nation of morons who will faithfully go out and buy this or that product, vote for this or that candidate, and faithfully work for their employers for as low a wage as possible.” [Vanguard Press, 2/13/79] 1979: Bernie Sanders Said “The Television Industry” Employs The “Hitlerian Principle” That “People Should Be Treated As Morons And Bombarded Over And Over Again With The Same Simple Phrases And Ideas.” “The television industry earns huge sums of money because it can demand, and receive, extraordinary rates for advertising time. The companies pay the price because television is (to say the least) extremely effective in selling products—be they underarm spray deodorants, automobiles, beer, cat food, politicians, or whatever. Using the well-tested Hitlerian principle that people should be treated as morons and bombarded over and over again with the same simple phrases and ideas, the astute minds on Madison Avenue are capable of converting millions of TV viewers to one or another product in a matter of months.” [Bernie Sanders, Op-ed, Vanguard Press, 2/13/79] 1979: Bernie Sanders Called The “News” A Means Through Which “The Owners Of This Society Propagate Their Political Points Of View.” “There are several major functions of commercial television, as it presently operates. First, it is supposed to make as much money as possible for the owners of the industry and for the companies who advertise. Second, like heroin and alcohol, television serves the function of an escapist mechanism which allows people to ‘space out’ and avoid the pain and conflict of their lives—and the causes of those problems. Third, television is the major Vehicle by which the owners of this society propagate their political points of view (including lies and distortions) through the ‘news.’” [Bernie Sanders, Op-ed, Vanguard Press, 2/13/79] 1979: Bernie Sanders: “Most Advertising Consists Of Lies Designed To Sell Products Which Are Either Identical To The Competition, Totally Useless, Grossly Overpriced, Or Dangerous To The Human Health Or Environment.” [Bernie Sanders, Op-ed, Vanguard Press, 2/13/79] Net Neutrality 2011: Sanders Supported The Concept Of Net Neutrality And Would Not Accept “Any Type Of Censorship,” But Admitted That He Would Have To “Study [SOPA] A Little Bit Further.” “HARTMANN: ‘I'm curious, you know the internet, the SOPA bill that Paul Ryan co-sponsored, there's this huge blowback against it, but Ron Wyden's running the crusade against it on, in the Senate, but in the House it looks like young people might be taking down Paul Ryan, not because of his position on Social Security, but because he wants to censor the internet. I'm curious about your thoughts on that.’ SANDERS: ‘Well it's an issue we haven't really gone into enough. Obviously we are going to do everything we can to protect net neutrality. The internet has been, in recent years, just an enormous opportunity for people without a lot of money, small organizations to be able to get there point of view out, have had a profound impact on politics and we're not going to accept any type of censorship, that's for sure. But beyond that, it's something that we have to study a little bit further.’” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, The Thom Hartmann Program, 12/29/11] 2012: Sanders Denounced SOPA And PIPA After Internet Backlash Against Sen. Leahy For Introducing PIPA. “But most of the outrage from civil libertarians relates to Leahy's sponsorship of the antipiracy legislation known as PIPA, or the Protect Intellectual Property Act. […] Opponents argue that PIPA - and its companion bill in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) - would force internet service providers to block access to foreign websites the feds charge with pirating content in violation of U.S. copyright law. Online powerhouses such as Google and Wikipedia dramatized their fear of PIPA's potential for censorship by shutting down their sites for a day and urging their users to mobilize against the bills. The netizen uprising succeeded in spooking PIPA's shepherds, who pulled the bill from the Senate agenda. Leahy's Vermont congressional colleagues - Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Peter Welch - both quickly denounced PIPA and SOPA after staying silent prior to the e-revolt.” [Seven Days Vermont, 1/25/12] Sanders Said It Was Essential The Internet Remain Open And Free Of Censorship, And He Was Working To Improve The Bill Before A Vote. “While I believe that online piracy is a serious issue, it is absolutely essential that the Internet remain open and free of censorship or the chilling effects that result in self-censorship,” Sanders said by email. “I will not support legislation that results in censorship or self censorship on the Internet. The legislation before the Senate is currently being revised and should improve before it reaches a vote. I am taking the concerns of Vermonters and the Internet community very seriously. I am looking at the bill very closely and my staff is working with committee staff on ways to improve it.” [Burlington Free Press, 1/18/12] Earlier, Sanders Spokesman Said That Sanders Had Reservations About The Bill, But Could Not Specify What They Were. “Both U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders and U.S. Rep. Peter Welch are listed as "unknown" on ProPublica's score card — and their press offices would not, or could not, reveal much more than that on Friday. "We have some questions and reservations that we’re talking about with Sen. Leahy’s staff," said Sanders spokesman Michael Briggs. "It’s possible that there will be further tweaks before the bill comes before the Senate, and we’re waiting to see how the final package shapes up." Asked to specify Sanders' specific concerns, Briggs said, "That's as far as I can go right now."” [Seven Days Vermont, 1/13/12] Sanders Supported New Net Neutrality Rules That Went Into Effect. “New net neutrality rules go into effect today. These rules show that ordinary Americans can make a difference when they stand up to powerful corporate interests and Washington lobbyists.” [Facebook, Bernie 2016, 6/12/15] 2015: Sanders Praised FCC Decision To Reclassify Internet Under Title II of the Communications Act, Prohibiting Special Fast Lanes For Certain Customers. “Sen. Sanders said, ‘The FCC has ensured that the Internet remains a place for the open exchange of ideas and information free of discrimination and corporate control. This is a victory for consumers and entrepreneurs. Millions of Americans, including tens of thousands through my website, told the FCC loudly and clearly that Internet service providers should be a neutral gateway to everything on the Internet. […] This is a huge victory for millions of Americans who have fought for years to keep the Internet open and neutral. If the FCC rules stand up to the inevitable legal challenge by the ISP’s, there will be no Internet fast lane for those who can afford to pay.” [Politicus USA, 2/26/15] Sanders: “Net Neutrality Prohibited Big Internet Corporations From Favoring Or Blocking Certain Viewpoints Or Websites […] Tell The FCC To Protect Open Internet.” “For years, net neutrality has prohibited big Internet corporations from favoring or blocking certain viewpoints or websites. Our free and open Internet has made invaluable contributions to democracy both here in the United States and around the world. Whether you are rich, poor, young or old, the Internet allows all people to seek out information and communicate globally. […] Tell the FCC to protect the open Internet. Use the form to the right to submit your comments to federal rule makers.” [Net Neutrality Petition, Sanders.Senate.Gov, accessed 6/9/15] 2014: Sanders Sponsored Online Competition and Consumer Choice Act, Promoting Open Internet Access. “Net neutrality is the practice of leaving the Internet ‘open’ to all content providers, regardless of how much bandwidth they require to deliver content. The practice has caused tension between firms like Netflix, which rely on broadband companies to deliver their services, and the broadband companies themselves, which want to charge fees for transmitting the content. The Online Competition and Consumer Choice Act, as the proposed legislation is named, would ban those fees. The bill was introduced in the U.S. Senate by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and in the House by Rep. Doris Matsui. It comes as the FCC prepares to approve updated open Internet rules in February.” [Albuquerque Business First, 1/8/15; S 2476, 6/17/14] 2014: Sanders Warned Against Allowing Corporations To Dictate Internet Access Rules. “Under this terribly misguided proposal, the Internet as we have come to know it would cease to exist and the average American would be the big loser. We must not let private corporations turn bigger and bigger profits by putting a price tag on the free flow of ideas. Our free and open Internet has made invaluable contributions to democracy both here in the United States and around the world. Whether you are rich, poor, young or old, the Internet allows all people to seek out information and communicate globally. We must not turn over our democracy to the highest bidder.” [Office of Senator Bernie Sanders, 4/24/14] 2014: Sanders Decried FCC’s Decision To Change Net Neutrality Rules. “Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) decision to rewrite net neutrality rules would result in “the end of the Internet as we know it” and demanded that President Obama try to stop it. Last week, the FCC voted to rewrite the net neutrality rules, which kept Internet providers from blocking or slowing access to certain websites. A federal court struck down that rule earlier this year. ‘The proposal would for the very first time allow Internet service providers the ability to pay for priority treatment,” Sanders said on the Senate floor Tuesday. “This means the end of net neutrality and the end of the Internet as we know it.’” [The Hill, 5/20/14] Sanders Said FCC Chairman Wheeler Needed To Emphasize That The Internet Should Be Viewed As A Common Carrier. “What is happening now is a federal court recently ruled against the FCC in terms of net neutrality. In my view, the FCC and Chairman Wheeler have got to be very vigorous in talking about the importance–the enormous importance–of net neutrality and understanding that the internet is not ‘an information provider,’ but a telecommunications industry, that needs to be seen as a common carrier. What it does needs to be done in a democratic way, which means that you can’t discriminate and give the big companies or the big websites an advantage over the little people, the small business people, or the average person.” [Brunch With Bernie, 2/21/14, 7:03] 2011: Sanders Voted To Reject Measure Aimed At Overturning FCC’s Net Neutrality Rules. “The Senate voted to keep in place federal rules aimed at preserving open Internet access for online users, but hurdles still loom for the controversial policy. […] Republicans have pushed hard to overturn the net neutrality rules, but a resolution to do so failed 52 to 46 on a party-line vote Thursday in the Democraticcontrolled Senate. The White House this week had threatened to veto the bill if the Senate had approved it.” [Los Angeles Times, 11/11/11; SJ Res 6, Vote #200, 11/10/11] 2007: Sanders Co-Sponsored Reintroduction Of Internet Freedom Preservation Act, Promoting Net Neutrality. “The reintroduction of the Internet Freedom Preservation Act is right on target and should bring more attention to the issue of Net neutrality. The bill's early reintroduction in the new session is a positive sign that this issue is getting the focus it deserves. […] Under the legislation, Internet network operators would not be able to ‘block, interfere with, discriminate against, impair or degrade’ access to content or prevent users from attaching devices of their choosing to the network.” [Editorial, Buffalo News, 1/19/07; S 215, 1/9/07]  NOTE: Hillary cosponsored the 2006 AND 2007 Internet Freedom Preservation Act to protect net neutrality. [S. 2917, 5/19/06; S. 215, 1/9/07] SENIORS Called For Expansion Of Social Security Sanders Called For Expansion Of Social Security. “You know what we have to do? We have so many low income seniors, we have to expand Social Security. You know what we have to do? We have to tell, in terms of the individual taxpayers, that these hedge fund guys are going to have to start paying their fair share. So I think if you look detail by detail at my record, I think you'll find it is a very strong record and standing up for people who are kind of voiceless today, who have given up on the political process, who don't have much power. That's my view.” [CNN, New Day, 5/6/15] Sanders’ Social Security Expansion Act Increase Social Security Benefits By Having Wealthiest Americans Contribute “The Same Share Of Their Income… As Other Wage Earners.” Sanders’ Social Security Expansion Act would make the wealthiest Americans pay the same share of their income into the retirement program as other wage earners. That change would extend the solvency of Social Security through 2065 and allow Social Security benefits to go up. Under the measure, the average benefit would increase by $65 a month, cost-of-living adjustments would more accurately measure inflation for seniors and the minimum benefit would be raised to lift millions of seniors out of poverty. ‘Social Security is the most successful program in our nation's history. At a time of massive wealth and income inequality, we have got to demand that the richest people in this country pay their fair share,’ the senator said.” [Press Release, Office of Senator Bernie Sanders, 6/2/15; S 731, introduced 3/12/15] Sanders Claimed His Social Security Legislation Would “Make Social Security Solvent Until The Year 2060.” “What my legislation would do is two things. Number one is it would extend, make Social Security solvent until the year 2060- forty five years from now. Second of all, it would extend benefits by about $65 per month for most beneficiaries. The other thing it would do Ed is change the formulation as to how we adjust COLAs because right now, I think the way we do it is unfair to seniors and underestimates inflation for what seniors purchase.” [Save Social Security, 3/14/15] Sanders Said “It’s A Fact” That Social Security Was “Not In Crisis Right Now.” COURIC: “So you’re talking about expanding Social Security, and I know you don’t believe it’s in trouble, you’ve said that before.” SANDERS: “It’s just a fact. It’s not a debate. Yes Jeb Bush recently came out with more or less the same idea as Chris Christie. Here’s the fact. Social Security has over $2.5 trillion in its trust fund. No one debates this. It can pay out every benefit for every eligible American for the next 18 years. […] so it’s not in crisis right now.” [Sanders Katie Couric Interview, Yahoo, 6/1/15] Sanders Supported Expanding Social Security Benefits. “What we have to do right now is expand social security. It’s not only folks on disability benefits, it’s people on retirement benefits. Many people are simply not getting the benefits they need as they get older, or if they are disabled, to live with the kind of dignity that they are entitled to. So right now, some of us are working on legislation which will [...] expand benefits.” [Brunch With Bernie, 6/19/14, 30:35] Sanders Opposed Any Cuts Social Security, Medicare, Or Medicaid. “And the message was very simple, and that is, yes we have to do deficit reduction, but we have to do it in a way that is fair. We will not cut Social Security, we will not cut Medicare, or Medicaid. […] Social Security should be off the table completely. We shouldn't be talking about Social Security. But in terms of Medicare, Medicaid, education, our job is to protect the programs that working families in this country desperately depend upon, and to ask those people and those large corporations who are doing phenomenally well to start paying their fair share of taxes.” [Brunch with Bernie, 11/16/12] Sanders Opposed Raising The Eligibility Age For Medicare And Social Security. “Raising the eligibility age for Medicare to 70, from 65, would be an unparalleled disaster. Imagine how many people would find it impossible to find affordable health insurance, how many people would unnecessarily die or suffer, imagine raising the retirement age for social security when you get benefits to the age of 70 and the amount of suffering that that would entail.” [Brunch with Bernie, 1/29/13] Sanders Would Not Accept Raising The Retirement Age Or Means Testing Of Social Security. “BLITZER: So you wouldn't accept raising the age? SANDERS: Of course not. BLITZER: What about means testing? Do billionaires and millionaires deserve to collect the same amount that you collect - that you collect? SANDERS: And that's one of the - yes, yes, they're not talking about millionaires and billionaires. They're talking about lowering it to $40,000 a year. Social Security is - BLITZER: Any means testing acceptable to you? SANDERS: No. It's a universal program. Everybody deserves to put into it. Everybody deserves to get a benefit out of it. We can extend that program by not asking anybody more than the top 2 percent to contribute more into it. That's what we've got to do.” [CNN, 6/4/15] Sanders Opposed Chained CPI. “Now, the other point that I thought, in terms of this debate where we succeeded, was that we kept at bay, we pushed back, efforts for the so-called Chained CPI. Now I know that no one outside of the Beltway knows what the so-called Chained CPI is, but when you hear Republicans and some Democrats talking about "entitlement reform" what they are really talking about are significant cuts in social security benefits and benefits for disabled veterans.” [Brunch with Bernie, 1/04/13] Sanders Sponsored A Resolution Opposing Chained CPI. “Expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that: (1) the 105th Congress should not consider any proposal for reducing benefits under the Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance Program under title II of the Social Security Act; and (2) the Congress should consider neither proposals for arbitrary reductions in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) nor proposals for any transfer of the responsibility for establishing, maintaining, or adjusting the CPI to an outside, politically appointed commission, but rather should ensure that the accuracy and integrity of the CPI continue to be maintained by the professional economists of the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Department of Labor.” [H Res 132, introduced 4/24/97] Sanders Supported Reauthorizing The Older Americans Act And Supported Increasing Funding For Older Americans Act Programs. “Sanders has called for the reauthorization of the Older Americans Act and has led Senate efforts to increase funding for Older Americans Act programs. “The demand for these programs is great and in many areas of the country vulnerable seniors are on waiting lists for services that they desperately need,” wrote Sanders in a letter signed by 32 other senators. The letter was sent to the Senate appropriations members who later this year will set funding levels for senior programs. “A nation is judged by how it cares for its most vulnerable including the elderly and children. It is not acceptable that millions of elderly in this country are living in poverty and struggling to feed themselves,” Sanders said. “Instead of giving tax breaks to billionaires we should be expanding nutrition programs and other services for seniors,” the senator added.” [Press Release, Office of Sen. Bernie Sanders, 6/15/15] Sanders Was An Original Co-Sponsor Of The Older Americans Act. “Sanders is an original co-sponsor of legislation, along with Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Richard Burr (R-N.C.), that would reauthorize the Older Americans Act.” [Press Release, Office of Sen. Bernie Sanders, 6/15/15] Sanders Sponsored Older Americans Act Amendments That Included Improvements To The Experimental Price Index For The Elderly (CPI-E). “The National Committee also applauds you for the provision in the Older Americans Act Amendments of 2011 which requires the Secretary of Labor to revise and improve the experimental price index for the elderly, commonly referred to as the CPI-E, so that it can be considered as a replacement for the consumer price index that is being used to adjust Social Security benefits for inflation.” [National Committee To Preserve Social Security And Medicare Letter, 12/15/11; S 1028, introduced 5/23/13] Sanders Sponsored A Resolution Expressing The Senate’s Commitment To Preserve Social Security Without Privatizing Or Cutting Benefits. “Expresses the sense of the Senate to reaffirm its commitment to the Social Security program, without privatizing it, raising the Normal Retirement Age, or making other similar cuts to benefits under title II (Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance) (OASDI) of the Social Security Act.” [S Res 664, introduced 9/29/10] 1998: Sanders Said There Was “No Crisis” With Social Security And It Would Remain That Way If Congress Didn’t Touch The Social Security Trust Fund. “You have heard about the crisis in Social Security, right? How it’s all going bankrupt. And especially for the younger people, why do you want to put into the Social Security system, it’s not going to be here for you. So let me briefly tell you about the crisis in Social Security: there is no crisis. This year in the midst of the great Social Security Crisis, Social Security trust fund will have a 73 billion dollar surplus. We should all have such crises, right? Today, the Social Security trust fund has 5 billion dollars, and if the United States Congress does absolutely nothing, and some people think that’s the best a Congress can do. But if the Congress does absolutely nothing, for the next 30 years, every American entitled to his or her Social Security benefit, will get 100% of it. Now that’s a hell of a crisis.” [National Community Action Program Part 1, 02/11/98, 00:37:50] Opposed Privatization Sanders Introduced Bill To Rule Out Of Order Any Legislation To Cut Or Privatize Social Security. “Social Security Protection Act of 2011 - Makes it out of order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any legislation that: (1) increases the retirement age or the early retirement age for individuals receiving benefits under title II (Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance) (OASDI) of the Social Security Act on or after the enactment of this Act; (2) reduces cost-of-living increases for them; (3) reduces benefit payment amounts for them; or (4) creates private retirement accounts for any of the OSADI benefits they receive.” [S 582, introduced 3/15/11] Sanders Said Bush's Plan To Privatize Social Security Would Be A "Disaster." "President Bush's plan to privatize Social Security would result in a "disaster" for those who rely on the program for income, Rep. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said Tuesday. [...] Flanked by members of groups representing the elderly, disabled, and women, Sanders said that claim is overblown and the president is "lying" about the state of the Social Security system. "The president has got to stop creating panic among younger people," Sanders said. He referenced a Congressional Budget Office report that found that Social Security will continue providing complete benefits for the next 47 years." [Burlington Free Press, 1/19/05] 2005: Sanders Said The “Greatest Threat To The Social Security System Comes From The Bush Administration's Proposal To Allow Individuals To Open Private Accounts.” “The greatest threat to the Social Security system comes from the Bush administration's proposal to allow individuals to open private accounts, U.S. Rep. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said Tuesday. […] ‘Social Security is not going bankrupt; It is not 'flat-busted' and non-partisan study after study make that point,’ said Sanders at a news conference. ‘It really is not debatable.’” [Associated Press, 1/18/05] Called For Raising The Payroll Tax Cap Sanders Supported Raising Cap On Payments To Social Security Trust Fund To Extend The Life Of The Program. “Here’s my view. If you want to make Social Security, and I’ve introduced legislation to do this, if you want to extend the life of Social Security for decades and to expand benefits, you know what you do? Right now, person A is making $10 million a year, person B is making $118,000 a year. Both of them are paying the same exact amount of money into the Social Security trust fund. Lift that cap, and you don’t even have to start at 118, start at 250,000, you will have enough money to extend Social Security for decades, and also extend benefits.” [Sanders Katie Couric Interview, Yahoo, 6/1/15] Sanders Said He Would Keep Social Security Solvent Through 2061 By Raising The Social Security Tax Cap From $118,000 To $250,000. “Right now, multimillionaires are paying the same amount of money into the Social Security Trust Fund as somebody making $118,000. If you lift the cap, and you don't have to start at $119, you begin at $250,000. If you do that, Social Security will be solvent until 2061, and we can expand benefits.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Diane Rehm Show, 6/10/15] Sanders Called For Raising The Social Security Tax Cap. “As 8 p.m. approached, after Sanders called for raising the Social Security tax cap, he took questions.” [Bloomberg, 5/6/15] Sanders Supported Lifting The Cap On The Social Security Income Tax. “Sanders is backing a plan to boost Social Security payments by $65 a month. The plan would also provide larger annual cost of living adjustments. He wants to finance his proposal by asking wealthy people to pay more in Social Security taxes. ‘The way to do that is to end the absurdity by which right now we have a cap of $118,000 on taxable income,’ Sanders says. ‘So somebody making $1 million a year [and] somebody [who] makes $118,000 a year, they're both contributing the same amount into the Trust Fund.’” [Vermont Public Radio, 6/4/15] 2011: Sanders Introduced Bill To Eliminate The Cap On Payroll Taxes. “Keeping Our Social Security Promises Act - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to apply employment and self-employment taxes to remuneration up to the contribution and benefit base and to remuneration in excess of $250,000.” [S 1588, introduced 9/14/11] Sanders Supported Bill To Remove Cap On Payroll Tax. “What this bill does is lift the cap on taxable income for all people who are earning above $250,000, so that they will pay a hundred percent of the FICA tax on all of their income, which is what 94 percent of the American people currently do. Right now, if you're making $50,000 you pay 100 percent of the FICA tax on your income, you make $106,000 you do the same, you're making a million you're paying only on the first $106,000. If you do that, if that legislation is passed, Social Security will be strong for the next 75 years, end of discussion.” [Brunch with Bernie, 9/15/11] Bernie Sanders Advocated Stabilizing Social Security By Removing The Income Cap. “Bernie Sanders stated in his talk at the senior citizens' center that the highest authorities with the most accurate statistics reflect that Social Security is stable for decades. He said that if anyone wanted to improve it, all you'd have to do is take someone who makes $130,000,000 annually [yes, they are out there] and have them pay a reflective amount.” [Brattleboro Reformer, Vermont, 9/1/05] Bernie Sanders Advocated For Raising The Cap On The Social Security Payroll Tax Above $250,000, So It Would Cover 90 Percent Of All Earnings. “If income inequality had stayed at the same level as it was in 1983, Social Security would have $1.1 trillion more than it does today. If the payroll tax had continued to cover 90 percent of all earnings rather than the 83 percent that it currently covers, the Social Security trust fund would be able to pay every benefit owed to every eligible American not just for the next 18 years, but for the next 38 years. Instead, more than $1.1 trillion has been pocketed by the wealthiest people in this country, instead of going into the Social Security trust fund. […] If we simply applied the Social Security payroll tax to income above $250,000, not only would we be able to extend the solvency of Social Security for generations to come, we could use some of that revenue to expand Social Security benefits. That's what we have got to do, and that's why I will be re-introducing legislation to do that very soon.” [Congressional Documents and Publications, 2/10/15] Bernie Sanders Proposed Raising The Payroll Tax Cap To $250,000 And Implementing “Real Tax Reform.” “To be sure, Sen. Sanders did offer some guidance on mechanisms for raising revenue; however, his clearly outlined spending program was not corroborated by an equally pellucid plan for raising revenue. To fund rising welfare related expenses, Sanders proposed an increase in the payroll tax cap to $250,000. Additionally, the senator from Vermont, providing few details, focused on raising additional tax revenue through the relatively nebulous term "real tax reform," including more taxes on individuals and corporations with earnings in foreign countries as well as eliminating corporate loopholes in the tax code.” [Tax Foundation release, 2/11/15] Sanders Opposed Payroll Tax Cut Because It Diverted Huge Amounts Of Money From Social Security Trust Fund. “Another issue that I know the listeners are interested in is the issue of the payroll tax. Literally I just came from voting on that a few minutes ago, and I didn't even know the final result on that, we'll know it in a minute. I suspect it will pass. I voted no. And I voted no, not because I don't understand that the middle class needs a tax break, we absolutely need a tax break to help the hardpressed middle class so they can get that money, go out and spend it, and create some jobs, it's significant. But I thought it important to continue raising the issue of the danger of diverting, in total, hundreds of billions of dollars from the Social Security trust fund. So when you lower the pay roll tax from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent, all you are doing at the moment is diverting huge amounts of money into the Social Security trust fund.” [Brunch with Bernie, 2/7/12, 3:50] Retirement Accounts Sanders Supported Penalty-Free IRA Withdrawals For Home Health Care, Education Expenses, And Small Business Creation. “The fifth bill in the Progressive Promise is The American Homemakers and Caregivers Act, which target IRA’s and other savings incentives on middle- and low-income Americans; special provisions to extend generous IRA options to spouses who stay home to nurture children under 6 years of age, thus recognizing the importance of parental childrearing; to allow penaltyfree IRA withdrawals for home health care, education expenses, or to start a small business; and targeted deduction for child care expenses.” [Rep. Bernard Sanders, Congressional Record, 1/26/95] Sanders Proposed Establishing A National Commission On Pension Funds. “The eighth bill in the Progressive Promise is The Job Creation and Invest in America Act, which would create at least 1 million jobs in the United States in each of the next 2 years from $127.2 billion in new investment to rebuild and upgrade America’s physical infrastructure and clean up the environment; to pay for these investments by closing tax loopholes for offshore production while rewarding U.S. companies that invest, produce, and create jobs in the United States; to require the wealthiest U.S. corporations and citizens to pay their fair share of taxes; and to establish a national commission to finds ways to encourage social investment of billions in pension funds to meet domestic needs in America.” [Rep. Bernard Sanders, Congressional Record, 1/26/95] Raised Awareness About Poverty Among Seniors Sanders Requested The GAO Report On Retirement Savings. “Half of older Americans have no retirement savings, according to a new report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office. [...] Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who is challenging Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, had requested the report.” [Huffington Post, 6/2/15] GAO Report Found That Majority Of Households Of People Nearing Or Of Retirement Age “Fifty-two percent of households of people 55 and older haven't saved a dime for retirement, though nearly half of those do have an employer pension. Among the remaining 48 percent of older households with savings, the median amount was $109,000 -- good for an annuity of about $405 per month. The lack of savings is potentially problematic, the GAO notes, because the populous baby-boom generation is heaving into retirement with fewer pensions than its predecessors. In 1975, most workers with employer-sponsored retirement plans had pensions that provided a lifetime ‘defined benefit.’ As of 2012, such plans had 40 million participants, while 91 million workers had retirement savings plans such as 401(k)s, which are based on workers' own contributions and offer no guarantee of lifetime income.” [Huffington Post, 6/2/15] Huffington Post: “GAO Report Found That Roughly 40 Percent Of Households Aged 65-74 Get Most Of Their Income From Social Security.” “Social Security provides retirees $1,287 per month on average. The program's trust fund will run out of money in 2034, with incoming payroll taxes at that point able to support about 80 percent of scheduled benefits. The GAO report found that roughly 40 percent of households aged 65-74 get most of their income from Social Security. It shows an even bleaker situation for households 75 and older, for whom Social Security provides 61 percent of household income.” [Huffington Post, 6/2/15] Sanders Argued That GAO Report Showed Need For Expanding, Rather Than Cutting, Social Security Benefits. “‘This report makes it clear that there is a retirement crisis in America today. At a time when half of all older workers have no retirement savings, we need to expand, not cut, Social Security benefits so that every American can retire with dignity,’ Sanders said. [Press Release, Office of Senator Bernie Sanders, 6/2/15] Sanders Requested GAO Study That Found That One-Third Of Low Income Seniors Were “Food Insecure.” “A study for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) found that nearly 4 million low-income seniors – more than 1 in 5 – do not know where their next meal is coming from. The Government Accountability Office found that fewer than 10 percent of low-income seniors who needed a meal delivered to their homes in 2013 received one. One in three low-income seniors age 60-69 is what the government defines as “food insecure,” yet fewer than 5 percent receive a meal at home or at a senior center. Elderly people with a disability, minorities and seniors living on less than $10,000 a year were even more likely to be hungry.” [Press Release, Office of Sen. Bernie Sanders, 6/15/15] Sanders Said That 20 Percent Of American Seniors Lived On An Average Income Of $7,600 A Year. “The truth is--and this is really a shocking truth--that 20 percent of seniors in America live on an average income of $7,600 a year. Between us, I don't know how anybody can live on $7,600 a year, let alone older people who need more medicine and more health care.” [Congressional Record, Sen. Bernie Sanders, 6/16/15] FactCheck.org: Sanders’ Figure Was Incorrect; Seniors Actually Lived On An Average Cash Income Of Less Than $13,292. “Sanders arrives at a low figure by focusing on the average cash income of all those in the bottom 20 percent — many of whom by definition bring in more than the average. The Social Security Administration says those in the bottom 20 percent earn up to $13,292, which is the upper limit of the bottom “quintile,” or bottom fifth. (See the footnote on Table 10.5) We don’t mean to dismiss the hardships faced by the least affluent seniors among us, which can be substantial. Sanders would have been correct to say that 20 percent of seniors in America lived on cash income of less than $13,292 in 2012 — not counting non-cash government assistance. That’s a meager figure, to be sure. It’s just not quite the “shocking truth” that Sanders would have voters believe.” [FactCheck.org, 6/24/15] TAXES & SPENDING Sanders Denied Being A “Tax And Spend Liberal,” Arguing Instead That He “In Fact [Did] Not Believe In Taxing And Spending.” “In terms of the question am I a great tax and spend liberal, actually I am not. And the gentleman if he is from Montpelier, Vermont knows that I was mayor of Burlington for 8 years and in fact do not believe in taxing and spending. What I believe in, you know, when you’re a mayor, unlike being President of the United States, you have to balance the budget and I did that for 8 years. What I do believe, however, is that if you’re going to raise revenue, if you need tax money, then of course you need to raise taxes to deal with social problems, whether it’s military, or education, or roads or whatever.” [Sanders’s Remarks, C-SPAN, 1/24/91] 2016 Tax Plan Sanders Planned To Release A Comprehensive Tax Plan, Including A Tax On Wall Street Speculation, End Loopholes On Corporations Using Foreign Tax Havens. And Increase Taxes On The Wealthy. “He also added that he’d soon be unveiling a comprehensive tax plan — including a tax on Wall Street speculation and ending loopholes that allow corporations to stash income in tax havens abroad. Sanders said that those moves, plus an unspecified increase in taxes on wealthy individuals, would help pay for his investments in health care and education, including his recently introduced bill to have tuition-free four-year public college. ‘I believe the overwhelming majority of Americans support it. I suspect Wall Street does not,’ he said of a tax on Wall Street speculation.” [Politico, 6/11/15] Sanders Said His Increased Tax Plan Would Fund His Health Care Plan And His TuitionFree College Education Plan. “He also added that he’d soon be unveiling a comprehensive tax plan — including a tax on Wall Street speculation and ending loopholes that allow corporations to stash income in tax havens abroad. Sanders said that those moves, plus an unspecified increase in taxes on wealthy individuals, would help pay for his investments in health care and education, including his recently introduced bill to have tuition-free four-year public college.” [Politico, 6/11/15] Sanders Declined To Disclose His Tax Plan. “Even Sanders, a disciplined politician who rarely deviates from his script, can give the impression he is still working out the finer points of the campaign. […] Pressed on his taxation policy, Sanders said he would “absolutely” make the income tax system more progressive, but declined to say precisely how much top-rate earners should pay on their income. “I don’t want to develop policy off the top of my head,” he said, pointing to the extensive work he had already done on legislation to close tax loopholes for corporations and tax Wall Street stock transfers. “We will come up with a progressive individual tax rate as well.”” [The Guardian, 6/19/15] Sanders Said That The United States Needed “Real Tax Reform” Which Would Require Large Corporations And Wealthy Individuals To “Pay Their Fair Share.” “And what that means is we need real tax reform, which says to large corporations [and the wealthiest people in this country] they've got to start paying their fair share of taxes.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Diane Rehm Show, 6/10/15] Sanders: Critics Of My Tax Plan Are Often Paid By Large Corporations Or Corporate Think Tanks. “JUDY WOODRUFF: Now, and speaking of that, I want to ask you about that. One of the issue is taxes. You have talked about raising the capital gains rate and the tax on dividends for the top 2 percent. In fact, you talked about, I think, nearly doubling it. Critics say that is going to put a big damper on job creation and on the growth of this economy. SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Well, I know. Critics are often paid by large corporations or corporate think tanks.” [PBS Newshour, 5/18/15] Peter Reilly: Sanders Would Alter Corporate Taxes By Disallowing Deferment Taxes On Overseas Profits, Discouraging Inversions, And Ending Tax Breaks For Fossil Fuel Companies. “Senator Sanders would end rules that allow US corporations to defer paying federal income tax on profits of offshore subsidiaries. He would enact rules to prevent companies that are managed and controlled in the US from establishing themselves as foreign companies and would eliminate the tax benefit of inversion. He also wants to eliminate tax breaks for oil, gas and coal companies. He would also limit the way the foreign tax credits can be gamed.” [Peter J. Reilly Column, Forbes, 8/30/15] Peter Reilly: Sanders Would Tax Capital Gains As Ordinary Income. “‘Right now, the top marginal income tax for working is 39.6%, but the top tax rate on corporate dividends and capital gains is only 23.8%. Taxing capital gains and dividends the same way that we tax work would raise more than $500 billion over the next decade.’ […] Taxing capital gains as ordinary income is, of course huge. Is it premature to start thinking about not being so excited about deferring gains? I would go this far – If you have a transaction where deferral is elective – an installment sale or an involuntary conversion for example – plan on extending your 2015 return. If when the leaves are turning and the October 15th deadline is approaching, it seems like the country is “Feeling the Bern”, recognizing the gain in 2015 might seem like a bargain. More aggressive moves can probably wait till December of 2016.” [Peter J. Reilly Column, Forbes, 8/30/15] Increasing Tax Rates On The Wealthy SANDERS CALLED FOR A 100 PERCENT TAX RATE FOR MILLIONAIRES 1980s: Sanders Wanted To Impose A 100 Percent Tax Rate On Incomes Above $1 Million. “Sanders said there are several ways to return government and economic control to the people, all of which involve tax reform: 1) Make it illegal to amass more wealth than a human family could use in a lifetime. A 100 percent tax rate on incomes above this level ($ one million per year) would recycle this money for the public need.” [Newspaper Unknown, “Concentrated Wealth Is Causing Economic Illness,” date unknown] 1974: Sanders Said “Nobody Should Earn More Than $1 Million.” “And Sanders has long been unabashed about his socialist beliefs. “Nobody should earn more than $1 million,” he told the Burlington Free Press in 1974.” [Politico, 7/6/15] NOW HE SAYS HE WILL “ABSOLUTELY” RAISE TAXES Sanders Said He Would “Absolutely” Raise The Individual Tax Rate For The Wealthy. “Also, will we raise the individual tax rate for the wealthy? Absolutely. But we haven’t come up with the number yet.” [Sanders Katie Couric Interview, Yahoo, 6/1/15] Sanders Supported Raising The Top Marginal Income Tax Rate To “Over 50 Percent” And Raising The Corporate Tax Rate. “Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders said Thursday he supports raising the top marginal tax rate to ‘over 50 percent’—and increasing the corporate tax rate. […] Sanders said he is ‘working right now on a comprehensive tax package, which I suspect will, for the top marginal rates, go over 50 percent,’ though he wouldn't endorse a specific rate yet. He often points out that the top marginal rate exceeded 90 percent under Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower.” [Bloomberg Politics, 6/11/15] HEADLINE: “Bernie Sanders Eyes Top Tax Rate of More Than 50 Percent.” [Bloomberg Politics, 6/11/15] Sanders Supported Raising Individual Tax Rates “Substantially Higher Than They Are Today” On The Wealthy. “SANDERS: [...] What I do think, Jake, is that when you have major American corporations making billions of dollars in profit, stashing their profits in the Cayman Islands and other tax havens, and not paying a nickel in a given year in federal taxes, clearly, that has got to change. [...] And, yes, we have to raise individual tax rates substantially higher than they are today, because almost all of the new income is going to the top 1 percent. And, yes, those folks and large corporations will have to pay, under a Sanders administration, more in taxes, so that we can use that revenue to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, create the jobs we need, make sure that every kid who has the ability is able to get a college education in America, because public colleges and public universities will be tuition-free.” [State of the Union, CNN, 7/5/15] Sanders Suggested That The Top Marginal Tax Rate Should Be Up To 90 Percent. “SANDERS: If my memory is correct, when radical socialist Dwight D. Eisenhower was president, the highest marginal tax rate was something like 90 percent. HARWOOD: When you think about 90 percent, you don't think that's obviously too high? SANDERS: No. That's not 90 percent of your income, you know? That's the marginal. I'm sure you have some really right-wing nut types, but I'm not sure that every very wealthy person feels that it's the worst thing in the world for them to pay more in taxes, to be honest with you. I think you've got a lot of millionaires saying, “You know what? I've made a whole lot of money. I don't want to see kids go hungry in America. Yeah, I'll pay my fair share.”“ [CNBC, 5/26/15] Sanders Denied Reports That He Supported Taxing The 1% As Much As 90%. COURIC: “Income inequality, that has become the big buzz words for this campaign. It’s been a huge talking point. And you’ve said you’ve considered taxing the wealthiest 1% of Americans as much as 90%.” SANDERS: “No, I didn’t. It’s not true. I mean, that’s one of these things that seems to be circulating.” [Sanders Katie Couric Interview, Yahoo, 6/1/15] Sanders Denied Calling For A 90 Percent Tax Rate For Highest Earners. “NIEDELMAN: You touched on this already but you want to address income inequality by raising the minimum wage, taxing the wealthy, you even mention a 90% rate for the highest earners? SANDERS: No, no, no, no. I didn't say that. During this campaign, we are going to run an issue oriented campaign, I'm not into political gossip. We're going to throw issues out there, we are going to debate those issues, people like you will ask me questions about that. We are going to have a progressive tax system.” [My Champlain Valley, 5/31/15] Sanders Opposed Raising The Top Marginal Tax Rate Above 90 Percent. “TAPPER: Let's turn to the issue of income inequality, an issue you talk about quite a bit on the stump. In an interview with John Harwood recently, you spoke favorably of the tax rates when Dwight Eisenhower was president. The top marginal tax rate, I believe, was about 92 percent for income over $400,000 per year. Do you really think there should be a marginal tax rate above 90 percent? SANDERS: No. In fact, I have never said that. That's something that's kind of gone around.” [State of the Union, CNN, 7/5/15] May 26: Sanders Responded “No” When Asked If He Thought A 90 Percent Top Marginal Tax Rate Was Too High. “SANDERS: If my memory is correct, when radical socialist Dwight D. Eisenhower was president, the highest marginal tax rate was something like 90 percent. HARWOOD: When you think about 90 percent, you don't think that's obviously too high? SANDERS: No. That's not 90 percent of your income, you know? That's the marginal. I'm sure you have some really right-wing nut types, but I'm not sure that every very wealthy person feels that it's the worst thing in the world for them to pay more in taxes, to be honest with you. I think you've got a lot of millionaires saying, “You know what? I've made a whole lot of money. I don't want to see kids go hungry in America. Yeah, I'll pay my fair share.”“ [CNBC, 5/26/15] May 31: Sanders Denied Calling For A 90 Percent Tax Rate For Highest Earners, Saying He Was “Not Into Political Gossip.” “NIEDELMAN: You touched on this already but you want to address income inequality by raising the minimum wage, taxing the wealthy, you even mention a 90% rate for the highest earners? SANDERS: No, no, no, no. I didn't say that. During this campaign, we are going to run an issue oriented campaign, I'm not into political gossip. We're going to throw issues out there, we are going to debate those issues, people like you will ask me questions about that. We are going to have a progressive tax system.” [My Champlain Valley, 5/31/15] June 1: Sanders Said He Did Not Support Taxing The Wealthiest Americans At 90 Percent, But Had Not Come Up With The Exact Number Yet. “COURIC: And you’ve said you’ve considered taxing the wealthiest 1% of Americans as much as 90%. SANDERS: No, I didn’t. It’s not true. I mean, that’s one of these things that seems to be circulating. COURIC: Clarify it. SANDERS: Sure, well we haven’t come up with a formal tax proposal but this is what I will tell you. Number one, what we have come up with, is legislation which says to corporations who are stashing their money in the Cayman Islands and Bermuda and other tax-havens, costing us over 100 billion dollars a year that I’m going to end that. We have large profitable corporations, Katie, that are not paying a nickel in federal income tax now. That is totally absurd. What we will do, also, is impose a stock transfer fee on Wall Street speculation, which can raise a very substantial amount of money. I am certainly in favor of that. Also, will we raise the individual tax rate for the wealthy? Absolutely. But we haven’t come up with the number yet.” [Sanders Katie Couric Interview, Yahoo, 6/1/15] July 5: Sanders Opposed Raising The Top Marginal Tax Rate Above 90 Percent. But “We Have To Raise Individual Tax Rates Substantially Higher Than They Are Today.” “TAPPER: In an interview with John Harwood recently, you spoke favorably of the tax rates when Dwight Eisenhower was president. The top marginal tax rate, I believe, was about 92 percent for income over $400,000 per year. Do you really think there should be a marginal tax rate above 90 percent? SANDERS: No. In fact, I have never said that. That's something that's kind of gone around […] And, yes, we have to raise individual tax rates substantially higher than they are today, because almost all of the new income is going to the top 1 percent. And, yes, those folks and large corporations will have to pay, under a Sanders administration, more in taxes, so that we can use that revenue to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, create the jobs we need, make sure that every kid who has the ability is able to get a college education in America, because public colleges and public universities will be tuition-free.” [State of the Union, CNN, 7/5/15] September 18: Sanders Said He Did Not Think The Top Marginal Tax Rate Needed To Be 90 Percent, But Did Not Give An Exact Number. “NORAH O’DONNELL: What does that mean to make the wealthiest Americans pay their fair of share? Would that mean taxing the wealthiest Americans at ninety percent as you have suggested in the past? SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: No, I don’t think you have to go up to ninety percent, but you can remember that under people like Dwight David Eisenhower, we had taxes that was far more progressive than it was today. When you have - NORAH O’DONNELL: Which was around ninety percent? SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: Yeah. I don’t know, but you have to go. But we will come up with some very specific ideas.” [This Morning, CBS News, 9/18/15] 1988: Sanders Supported 35% Tax Rate For Incomes Above $250,000. “1. Reinstate fully progressive tax rates for the 1% of households with the highest incomes, those above $250,000 per year. The 1986 Tax Reform Act drops the tax rate for this group of very high earners from 33 to 25%. Instead of lowering tax rates for the super-rich, they should be raised to 35%, a mild, incremental increase. This program would raise $34 billion.” [Press Release, Sanders for Congress, 8/17/88] 1980s: Sanders Wanted To Impose A 100 Percent Tax Rate On Incomes Above $1 Million. “Sanders said there are several ways to return government and economic control to the people, all of which involve tax reform: 1) Make it illegal to amass more wealth than a human family could use in a lifetime. A 100 percent tax rate on incomes above this level ($ one million per year) would recycle this money for the public need.” [Newspaper Unknown, “Concentrated Wealth Is Causing Economic Illness,” date unknown] 1974: Sanders Said “Nobody Should Earn More Than $1 Million.” “And Sanders has long been unabashed about his socialist beliefs. “Nobody should earn more than $1 million,” he told the Burlington Free Press in 1974.” [Politico, 7/6/15] Sanders Introduced Emergency Deficit Reduction Act That Imposed Additional Tax On Millionaires And Repealed Tax Incentives For Oil and Gas Drilling. “Emergency Deficit Reduction Act - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to: (1) impose an additional 5.4% tax on individual taxpayers whose modified adjusted gross income exceeds $1 million ($2 million in the case of a joint return); (2) repeal the amortization of intangible and drilling and development costs for oil, gas, and geothermal wells; (3) repeal the percentage depletion allowance for oil and gas wells; and (4) deny a tax deduction for income attributable to the domestic production of oil, natural gas, or primary products thereof.” [S 552, introduced 3/10/11] Sanders Said That The Wealthiest Americans “Cannot Have An Effective Tax Rate Lower Than Nurses And Truck Drivers.” “…Says to the wealthiest people in this country, you cannot have an effective tax rate lower than nurses or truck drivers…” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Diane Rehm Show, 6/10/15] Sanders: Hedge Fund Managers Are Doing Well And Have To Help Us Deal With Major Crises In The Nation. ”Hedge fund managers are doing extraordinarily well. And they have got to help us deal with some of the major crises that we face as a nation, including making college affordable.” [MSNBC, 5/19/15] Sanders: Wealthiest “Have To Start Paying Their Fair Share Of Taxes.” “And Warren Buffett makes the point that his effective tax rate, as a multibillionaire, is lower than his secretary’s. That’s got to end. The wealthiest people in this country are in fact going to have to start paying their fair share of taxes if I’m elected president.” [PBS Newshour, 5/18/15] Sanders Called For A “Fair And Progressive” Tax Code That Makes The Billionaire Class Pay Their Fair Share. “This campaign is going to send a message to the billionaire class. And that is: you can't have it all. You can't get huge tax breaks while children in this country go hungry. You can't continue sending our jobs to China while millions are looking for work. You can't hide your profits in the Cayman Islands and other tax havens, while there are massive unmet needs on every corner of this nation. Your greed has got to end. You cannot take advantage of all the benefits of America, if you refuse to accept your responsibilities. That is why we need a tax system which is fair and progressive, which makes wealthy individuals and profitable corporations begin to pay their fair share of taxes.” [Sanders Remarks, 5/27/15] Sanders Attacked The Billionaire Class, Said They Could Not Receive Tax Breaks While Children Went Hungry. ““Today, in my mind, the most significant issue from a moral perspective, from a political perspective and from an economic perspective, is the grotesque level of income inequality in our country,” Sanders said. “And this campaign is sending a message to the billionaire class, and that message is, ‘You can’t have it all. You can’t get huge tax breaks when children in America are going hungry.’”” [Vermont Press Bureau via Rutland Herald, 6/13/15] 2006: Sanders Said Tax Breaks For The Wealthy Were Wrong “From Both A Moral And An Economic Perspective.” “It’s not a question of penalizing rich people. It’s a question of creating a society in which all of us are in together, in which we take responsibility to make sure that all of our people have at least a minimal standard of living. We give tax breaks, and the facts are very clear, we have provided hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to the wealthiest one percent, yet we have thrown many veterans off of VA healthcare. We have underfunded special education, which means higher property taxes at the local level. You have a president who wants to cut back on nutrition programs for senior citizens, cut back on affordable housing. Frankly from both a moral and an economic perspective, giving tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires, when so many people in our society are hurting, is wrong.” [SoundCloud, Bernie Sanders, Audio Clip: “2006: Senate Debate - Economic Priorities,” Accessed 6/8/15] Sanders Said Higher Taxes On The Rich Were Justified Because The Wealthy Have Increased Their Wealth While Millions Were Falling Into Poverty. “So when somebody says ‘gee the wealthy are paying a lot in taxes,’ that is true. But the wealthy are also earning huge amounts of money. And what we have seen in recent years, while the middle class shrinks, while family median income in the last 5 years under Bush has gone down, while 5 million more people have slipped into poverty, what we have seen is a huge increase in the number of millionaires and billionaires, corporate profits are very very high. So within that reality, are the rich paying more in taxes? Sure they are. But that is because they are earning a bigger and bigger share of the pie.” [SoundCloud, Bernie Sanders, Audio Clip: “2006: Senate Debate Tax The Rich,” Accessed 6/8/15] Sanders Attacked Republicans For Opposing Raising Taxes On The Wealthy And Closing Corporate Tax Loopholes. “I don’t know if we are or we aren’t. I don’t know the answer to that. But I do know that the president and the Democratic leadership have to stand up the Republicans and say enough is enough. The middle class is in serious trouble, poverty is increasing, and we are not going to balance the budget on the backs of working class families. You know, Bob, every poll that I have seen suggests that when you ask people about deficit reduction, the first area they think makes sense is to ask the wealthiest people in this country to pay their fair share of taxes, and to do away with loopholes that corporations are taking advantage of. The fact that Republicans refuse to move one iota in that direction is unacceptable.” [SoundCloud, Bernie Sanders, Audio Clip: “2011: Income Inequality,” Accessed 6/8/15] Sanders Opposed A Flat Tax. “REHM: How do you feel about a flat tax? SANDERS Rosemary, I think that is a disastrous idea that is pushed by the economists representing the wealthiest people in this country. What we have right now is massive income and wealth inequality. […] So, when you have this kind of level of massive income and wealth inequality, what you need is progressive taxation. Progressive taxation. […] But the flat tax is a regressive type of taxation, which I oppose.” [Diane Rehm Show, 6/10/15] Sanders Said “The Rich Have Gotten Away With Murder.” “BOB JAMIESON: Sanders, born in Brooklyn, his political views hardened by the civil rights movement, says that control must be first taken from the rich. CONGRESSMAN BERNIE SANDERS: The rich have gotten away with murder, they control the Congress, they control the economic sector, they control the media. I think it's time and that's what this whole thing is about, that we begin to stand up and say wait a second this is a democratic society, it is not an oligarchy. And the rich and the powerful cannot continue to get everything while so many of our people are suffering.” [Transcript, ABC News, “World News Sunday,” 11/11/90] 1986: Sanders Proposed Lowering Property Taxes Paid For By Raising State Income Taxes On The Wealthy. “The solution that I propose is that ask those individuals and those institutions in the state of Vermont those wealthy people, whose corporations who today are in fact as a result of President Reagan’s tax breaks and the coupling mechanism that exists between state government our state tax system and the federal tax system, that we ask those individuals who are today paying less in income taxes and corporate taxes than they paid five years ago to start paying their fair share. And in fact if we do that, we have developed a developed a comprehensive tax reform system, as you know, we can lower property taxes by 20 percent for every homeowner in the state of Vermont and significantly increase state aid to education.” [SoundCloud, Bernie Sanders, Audio Clip: “1986 Tax the Wealthy,” Accessed 6/4/15] 1986: Sanders Proposed “Significantly” Increasing State Aid To Education Paid For By Raising State Income Taxes On The Wealthy. “The solution that I propose is that ask those individuals and those institutions in the state of Vermont those wealthy people, whose corporations who today are in fact as a result of President Reagan’s tax breaks and the coupling mechanism that exists between state government our state tax system and the federal tax system, that we ask those individuals who are today paying less in income taxes and corporate taxes than they paid five years ago to start paying their fair share. And in fact if we do that, we have developed a developed a comprehensive tax reform system, as you know, we can lower property taxes by 20 percent for every homeowner in the state of Vermont and significantly increase state aid to education.” [SoundCloud, Bernie Sanders, “1986 Tax the Wealthy,” Accessed 6/4/15] 1989: Sanders Proposed Raising Taxes On The Wealthy Instead Of Continuing Reaganomics. “I heard the governor of the state and many members of the legislature say that there’s just not enough money available to help the poor, to help our cities and towns break their dependency on the property tax, to build low income housing, or save the family farm. We know the surplus is gone and there’s just not enough money available. And I find that to be a very strange phenomenon because we are as a state in the process of maintaining last year’s tax cuts, which means that while the needs of the poor go unmet, the richest people in our state pay less in income taxes than they used to. So once again what you’re seeing here is Reaganomics, continued tax cuts for the richest people while we apparently don’t have the money to meet the needs of working people and poor people.” [SoundCloud, Bernie Sanders, Audio Clip: “1989 Against Reaganomics,” Accessed 6/4/15] Sanders Praised Raising The Income Tax On A Progressive Basis. “Working people and the elderly know that the progressive movement in Burlington, and Peter Clavelle, have led the fight against the regressive and unfair property tax, and for a tax system which is based on people's ability to pay--not on the house in which you live.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, dated 3/1/89] Joint Tax Returns 1976: Sanders Said He Would Campaign On Liberty Union’s Tax Proposal. “Sanders said he would campaign in support of his party’s tax proposal which calls for a complete reversal of the state’s tax structure.” [Middlebury College Newspaper, 10/27/76] Liberty Union Wanted To Explore The Possibility Of “Outlawing Joint [Tax] Returns.” “Although the Liberty Union tax plan does not presently advocate abolition of joint filing of tax returns by husbands and wives, we feel that the possibility of outlawing joint returns should be carefully investigated in the future.” [Liberty Union Newspaper, Vol. 2, No.1, February 1976] Liberty Union Called Joint Tax Returns An “Income Splitting Dodge.” “By outlawing joint returns, the income splitting provisions of the tax laws (which allow many high income households to escape high tax rates) would be eliminated. By eliminating this income splitting dodge, the Vermont personal income tax would undoubtedly be able to collect additional millions in tax revenues, primarily from high income households.” [Liberty Union Newspaper, Vol. 2, No.1, February 1976] Increasing Tax Rates On Corporations Sanders: Corporate Tax Rates Should “Absolutely” Be Increased. “JOE SCARBOROUGH: What would their fair share be? Should corporate tax rates go up? BERNIE SANDERS: Absolutely, yes. Well, without going into a whole long discussion right now, we're going to eliminate all of the loopholes that allow major corporations to stash their money in the Cayman Islands and in some cases make billions in profit and not pay a nickel in taxes. We need to raise the minimum wage to at least $15 an hour over the next couple of years, pay equity for women workers and need to make college, public colleges and universities tuition free. You begin moving down that path, you will be addressing issues of income and wealth inequality.” [Morning Joe, MSNBC, 6/24/15] Sanders Dismissed Republican Claims That Raising Corporate Tax Rates Would Negatively Impact The Job Market. “MIKA BRZEZINSKI: There are some Republicans that say this needs to be raised incremental, you're going to impact jobs and people will lose jobs to make that massive a jump. Do you agree? BERNIE SANDERS: I think any time you do anything, there are certain negative impacts but at the end of the day, putting more money into the hands of working people will significantly improve their lives, cut poverty rates and put more disposable income into our economy. So I think what I have seen in those states like my own, which have raised the minimum wage, unemployment rates are often quite low compared to other states.” [Morning Joe, MSNBC, 6/24/15] 1988: Sanders Supported Reinstating Corporate Tax Rate To 1969 Levels, Which Would Bring $112 Billion In Additional Revenue. “2. Reinstate the level of corporate tax contributions to the same level as existed in the administration of Richard Nixon. The Reagan Administration projects 1989 corporate tax contributions of $106 billion, or 11% of federal revenue. By contrast, in 1969, corporate contributions were 22% of federal revenues. A full return to 1969 levels would bring in over $112 billion.” [Press Release, Sanders for Congress, 8/17/88] 1995: Sanders Criticized The House Ways And Means Committee For Proposing To Eliminate The Corporate Minimum Tax While Attempting To Cut Back On Social Welfare Programs For The Poor. “Last week, as you know, the House Ways and Means committee has now proposed eliminating the minimum tax, so that we can go back to the days when large profitable corporations paid nothing in taxes. Obviously, that is an outrage. It is a double outrage that they proposed that at exactly the same time as they want to cut back on WIC, or school lunch programs, or other programs needed by the poorest people in America.” [C-SPAN, 3/22/95, 29:45] 1995: Sanders Opposed Giving Millionaires In Multinational Corporations Large Tax Breaks And Subsidies At The Cost Of Social Welfare Programs For Low-Income Workers. “At a time of huge deficits and proposed cut-backs on food stamps, WICs, school lunches, school breakfasts, Medicaid, Medicare–programs that millions of Americans desperately need to stay alive, we regard it as outrageous that millionaires in profitable multinational corporations receive huge tax breaks and subsidies from Uncle Sam. According to a number of studies from right-wing groups like the Cato Institute to groups on the left like Public Citizen, these special interest tax loopholes and industry-specific subsidies add as much as $225 Billion to the federal deficit each year. Mr. Gingrich, that causes a deficit as well. Let’s hear a word about personal responsibility for the rich and the powerful. Let’s get them off the government dole. We have a three-part action plan to meet this challenge.” [C-SPAN, 3/22/95, 5:39] Sanders And The Progressive Caucus Asked Speaker Gingrich To Allow Congress Members Time To Offer Amendments To Close Tax Loopholes And Curb Corporate Welfare. “First, Progressive Caucus is releasing a letter today to speaker Gingrich, seeking a commitment that after the Easter break, he schedule House floor action on corporate welfare. If he is seriously concerned about the federal deficit, then he must allow each member of Congress the opportunity to offer one or more floor amendments to close special interest tax loopholes and curb other forms of corporate welfare.” [C-SPAN, 3/22/95, 6:36] Sanders And The Progressive Caucus Introduced The Corporate Responsibility Act Of 1995 To Reduce The Deficit By Cutting Corporate Welfare. “Secondly, and simultaneously, we are putting the finishing touches on a comprehensive bill–The Corporate Responsibility Act of 1995–which we will introduce to cut the deficit by tens of billions of dollars by cutting corporate welfare.” [C-SPAN, 3/22/95, 7:02] Sanders And The Progressive Caucus Prepared The Top To Bottom Corporate Welfare Cuts Act To “Democratize Tax Writing Policy.” “Thirdly, We’re preparing a bill–The Top to Bottom Corporate Welfare Cuts Act–to democratize tax writing policy. No more middle of the night thousand page tax bills full of loopholes for the rich and powerful.” [C-SPAN, 3/22/95, 7:17] Opposed Tax Subsidies For Business Sanders Opposed Giving Millionaires In Multinational Corporations Large Tax Breaks And Subsidies At The Cost Of Social Welfare Programs For Low-Income Workers. “At a time of huge deficits and proposed cut-backs on food stamps, WICs, school lunches, school breakfasts, Medicaid, Medicare–programs that millions of Americans desperately need to stay alive, we regard it as outrageous that millionaires in profitable multinational corporations receive huge tax breaks and subsidies from Uncle Sam. According to a number of studies from right-wing groups like the Cato Institute to groups on the left like Public Citizen, these special interest tax loopholes and industry-specific subsidies add as much as $225 Billion to the federal deficit each year. Mr. Gingrich, that causes a deficit as well. Let’s hear a word about personal responsibility for the rich and the powerful. Let’s get them off the government dole. We have a three-part action plan to meet this challenge.” [C-SPAN, 3/22/95, 5:39] Sanders And The Progressive Caucus Asked Speaker Gingrich To Allow Congress Members Time To Offer Amendments To Close Tax Loopholes And Curb Corporate Welfare. “First, Progressive Caucus is releasing a letter today to speaker Gingrich, seeking a commitment that after the Easter break, he schedule House floor action on corporate welfare. If he is seriously concerned about the federal deficit, then he must allow each member of Congress the opportunity to offer one or more floor amendments to close special interest tax loopholes and curb other forms of corporate welfare.” [C-SPAN, 3/22/95, 6:36] Sanders And The Progressive Caucus Introduced The Corporate Responsibility Act Of 1995 To Reduce The Deficit By Cutting Corporate Welfare. “Secondly, and simultaneously, we are putting the finishing touches on a comprehensive bill–The Corporate Responsibility Act of 1995–which we will introduce to cut the deficit by tens of billions of dollars by cutting corporate welfare.” [C-SPAN, 3/22/95, 7:02] Sanders And The Progressive Caucus Prepared The Top To Bottom Corporate Welfare Cuts Act To “Democratize Tax Writing Policy.” “Thirdly, We’re preparing a bill–The Top to Bottom Corporate Welfare Cuts Act–to democratize tax writing policy. No more middle of the night thousand page tax bills full of loopholes for the rich and powerful.” [C-SPAN, 3/22/95, 7:17] Sanders Proposed Limiting Special Tax And Trade Incentives For U.S.-Based Multinational Corporations That Produced Offshore. “The eleventh bill in The Export American Products, Not American Jobs Act, which eliminates or limits special tax and trade incentives and taxpayer-backed programs that reward U.S.-based multinational corporations for producing offshore; no new fast-track and trade agreements without enforceable worker rights, environmental, agricultural, and safety health standards; to prohibit importing child and forced labor products; and to reduce U.S. trade deficit by eliminating unfair trade barriers to U.S. exports.” [Rep. Bernard Sanders, Congressional Record, 1/26/95] Sanders Proposed Closing Tax Loopholes For Offshore Production To Pay For Infrastructure Program. “The eighth bill in the Progressive Promise is The Job Creation and Invest in America Act, which would create at least 1 million jobs in the United States in each of the next 2 years from $127.2 billion in new investment to rebuild and upgrade America’s physical infrastructure and clean up the environment; to pay for these investments by closing tax loopholes for offshore production while rewarding U.S. companies that invest, produce, and create jobs in the United States; to require the wealthiest U.S. corporations and citizens to pay their fair share of taxes; and to establish a national commission to finds ways to encourage social investment of billions in pension funds to meet domestic needs in America.” [Rep. Bernard Sanders, Congressional Record, 1/26/95; HR 805, cosponsored 2/2/95] Sanders Proposed Reform Of Labor Laws In The Corporate Responsibility Act. “The third bill in the Progressive Promise is The Corporate Responsibility Act, which cuts corporate welfare in the form of special subsidies and tax loopholes of benefit to many of America’s wealthiest corporations; to require companies to internalize pollution clean-up and other costs of production instead of continuing to foist them on the American taxpayer, and to reform basic labor laws to restore collective bargaining rights and balance in employer-employee relations.” [Rep. Bernard Sanders, Congressional Record, 1/26/95; H.R.2534, introduced 10/25/95] Sanders Proposed Cutting Corporate Subsidies And Tax Loopholes. “The third bill in the Progressive Promise is The Corporate Responsibility Act, which cuts corporate welfare in the form of special subsidies and tax loopholes of benefit to many of America’s wealthiest corporations; to require companies to internalize pollution clean-up and other costs of production instead of continuing to foist them on the American taxpayer, and to reform basic labor laws to restore collective bargaining rights and balance in employer-employee relations.” [Rep. Bernard Sanders, Congressional Record, 1/26/95; H.R.2534, introduced 10/25/95] Sanders Proposed Requirement For Companies To Internalize Pollution Clean-Up And Costs Of Production. “The third bill in the Progressive Promise is The Corporate Responsibility Act, which cuts corporate welfare in the form of special subsidies and tax loopholes of benefit to many of America’s wealthiest corporations; to require companies to internalize pollution clean-up and other costs of production instead of continuing to foist them on the American taxpayer, and to reform basic labor laws to restore collective bargaining rights and balance in employer-employee relations.” [Rep. Bernard Sanders, Congressional Record, 1/26/95; H.R.2534, introduced 10/25/95] Sanders Called Tax Subsidies And Incentives To Attract Out-Of-State Businesses To Vermont An “Insanely Destructive Policy.” “I believe that Vermont should not continue to participate in the insanely destructive policy of ‘competing’ with other states by providing bigger and bigger tax subsidies and direct breaks so as to attract industry - a situation through which tax money goes from low and middle income people to the wealthy.” [Liberty Union Newspaper, pg.3, Election 1976] Sanders: Taxation “Is Not A Major [Factor]” For Corporations Deciding Whether They Should Come To A State Or Leave A State. “When a corporation looks at why they should come to a state or why they might want to leave a state, they look at a number of factors. But I've got news for you. Taxation, for example, is not a major one. The wages that we pay our workers here in Vermont even by raising the minimum wage will be lower compared to what workers are paid throughout the country.” [Sanders ETV Interview with Jack Barry, 1986] Sanders: Vermont Should “Bring Back Slavery” And Provide “Publicly-Subsidized Prostitutes” To Corporate Executives To Compete With Countries In Attracting Industry. “[Vermont Gubernatorial candidate Bernie] Sanders suggested that if Vermont was really going to be consistant [sic] in its attempt to beg corporations to come here with public subsidies, that we should start competing not only with New York and Massachusetts, but with Taiwan, Hong Kong and the Dominican Republic – countries which have been very successful in attracting new American industry. The candidate said; ‘Maybe we should reduce our minimum wage to $2.00 a day, as it exists in the Dominican Republic. That should attract corporations here. Or perhaps we should provide publicly subsidized prostitutes for corporate executive[s] thinking of locating in Vermont. That might work also. Or perhaps we should go all the way – and bring back slavery. If Vermont could be declared a slave state, and workers forced to work for nothing, I am sure that we would be able to attract all kinds of new industry.’” [Sanders Remarks at St. Albans, VT, Liberty Union press release, undated] Sanders: If Corporations Feel They Can “Better Exploit” The People Of Mississippi, New Hampshire, Hong Kong Or Puerto Rico For “Blood Profits…Let Them Go There.” “The banks and corporations are notorious for playing off town against town, state against state and nation against nation in order to get the best deal for themselves. If I am elected Governor I will do all that I can to end this destructive competition among the various locations - a competition which only serves the interests of the corporations. If the banks and corporations feel that they can better exploit the people of Mississippi, New Hampshire, Hong Kong or Puerto Rico in order to make their blood profits - let them go there.” [Sanders for Governor release, undated] 1976: Sanders Penned Letter To New England Governors Asking Them To Reject State Competition To Attract Businesses, A Practice He Called “Corporate Blackmail.” “It seems to me that it is thoroughly destructive for each of the New England states to be actively competing against each other in order to attract industry and jobs. The only people who benefit from such an approach are the corporations who play one state off against the other in order to get better and better deals for themselves at the public expense. In order to attract industrv one state offers the corporations low corporate taxes, while another offers no state income tax, while another offers low wages. […] It seems to me that the best way to resolve this problem is for the New England states to join together in working out a common approach toward the corporations so that each state could not be subjected to this kind of corporate blackmail.” [Sanders letter to Governors Salmon, Dukakis, Thompson, Grasso, Noel, and Longley, 8/30/76] Sanders: “I Would Be Willing To Subsidize The Rich Through Government Projects” In Effort To Spur Economic Development. “I would look forward to a productive relationship with business as governor. My administration has done a good job in Burlington over the last six years with of economic development. Examples include establishement [sic] of the Community Economic Development Office which has been successful in securing federal money for development projects. We have attempted to develop the waterfront in a city/developer partnership. +As governor, I would be willing to enter into partnerships with business where the people of Vermont would benefit together with the interests of business. I would be willing to subsidize the rich through government projects.” [Sanders Interview, Vermont Business Magazine, 1986] Opposed Tax Havens Sanders Attacked The Billionaire Class, Said They Could Not Send Profits To Tax Havens Instead Of Allowing Those Profits To Be Taxed. ““Today, in my mind, the most significant issue from a moral perspective, from a political perspective and from an economic perspective, is the grotesque level of income inequality in our country,” Sanders said. “And this campaign is sending a message to the billionaire class, and that message is, […] ‘You can’t hide your profits in the Cayman Islands and other tax havens when there are massive needs in this country. You have got to start paying your fair share.’”” [Vermont Press Bureau via Rutland Herald, 6/13/15] Sanders Introduced Legislation To Prevent Americans From Using Tax Havens In The Cayman Islands And Elsewhere. “We have introduced legislation that says to the wealthiest people and the largest corporations, you know what, you're going to have to start paying your fair share of taxes. You can't stash your money in the Cayman Islands and other tax havens.” [CNN, New Day, 5/6/15] Sanders: Corporations Are Going To Have To Start Paying Their Fair Share Of Taxes. “The bottom line here is the rich are getting much richer. you have corporations making huge profits. these guys are going to have to start paying their fair share of taxes so we can address the major issues facing our country and that includes making education affordable and lifting this debt that so many of our young people are dealing with.” [MSNBC, 5/19/15] Sanders Said US Is Losing $100 Billion Because Corporations Are Using Tax Havens. “The fact of the matter is right now in America we’re losing about $100 billion every single year because very profitable corporations are stashing their money in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, and other tax havens. And that has got to end. Second of all, we have a situation where hedge fund managers, guys that are making many, many millions of dollars a year, are paying an effective tax rate lower than what nurses or school teachers are paying.” [PBS Newshour, 5/18/15] Sanders Called Out “The Billionaire Class” For Getting “Huge Tax Breaks,” Outsourcing U.S. Jobs, And Stashing Profits In Offshore Tax Havens. “To some of his strongest applause, Mr. Sanders said, ‘This campaign is going to send a message to the billionaire class. And that is: You can’t have it all. You can’t get huge tax breaks while children in this country go hungry. You can’t continue sending our jobs to China while millions are looking for work. You can’t hide your profits in the Cayman Islands and other tax havens, while there are massive unmet needs on every corner of this nation. Your greed has got to end. You cannot take advantage of all the benefits of America, if you refuse to accept your responsibilities.’” [New York Times, 5/26/15] Sanders Said One In Four Corporations Paid Nothing in Taxes. “I think it makes a little more sense to end the absurdity of 1 out of 4 corporations paying nothing in taxes and end these loopholes by which these large, very profitable multinationals avoid paying anything, and in some cases actually getting rebates from the IRS.” [Brunch with Bernie, 4/23/14] Politifact Rated Sanders Claim That One Out Of Four Corporations Did Not Pay Taxes “Half True.” “Sanders said that one out of four corporations doesn’t pay a nickel in taxes. The statement reflects a 2008 study from the Government Accountability Office. However, the GAO study did not distinguish between firms that had losses in the normal course of business and those that reported losses solely through the use of the tax code. […] Special tax breaks and abuses of the tax code exist but even an analysis from a group that shares many of Sanders’ perspectives pointed to a ratio that was, at most, one out of six and possibly as small as one out of 16. The one out of four statistic fails to take into account many relevant factors. We rate the claim Half True.” [Politifact, 9/26/13] Redistribution Of Wealth Sanders Was “Campaigning Unabashedly On A Platform Of ‘Redistribution Of Wealth.’” “In an interview on PBS' Charlie Rose program, the Vermont senator, who is campaigning unabashedly on a platform of "redistribution of wealth" from the nation's highest earners to the "disappearing" middle class […] The self-described democratic socialist defended his plans to transfer wealth toward a middle class that has seen wages stagnate for more than a decade.” [Bloomberg Politics, 6/11/15] Sanders Called For A “Massive Transfer” Of Wealth From One Percent To Middle Class. “Ninetynine percent of all new income generated today goes to the top 1 percent. Top one-tenth of 1 percent owns as much as wealth as the bottom 90 percent. Does anybody think that that is the kind of economy this country should have? Do we think it’s moral? So to my mind, if you have seen a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the top one-tenth of 1 percent, you know what, we’ve got to transfer that back if we’re going to have a vibrant middle class. And you do that in a lot of ways. Certainly one way is tax policy.” [CNBC, 5/26/15] Sanders Said “It’s Our Job To Transfer That Wealth Back Down To The Middle Class And Working Families.” “Mary Pat Cavanaugh of Iowa City was ready to enlist after listening to Sanders speak and answer questions for more than an hour. ‘I’m signing up,’ she said. ‘I can’t live with the way the country is going anymore.’ Her biggest issues — and one of Sanders’ — is income inequality. ‘It’s the most immoral,’ Cavanaugh said. ‘It infuriates me that we let it happen.’ It can be undone, according to Sanders, an independent who self-identifies as a Democratic socialist. It must be undone if the nation is going to address a multitude of issues. ‘It’s our job to transfer that wealth back down to the middle class and working families,’ he said. ‘We have to deal with this issue of distribution of wealth, and when we begin to do that, we will have the resources to deal with paternity leave, to deal with the mental health care needs of our kids, to make sure that every veteran who comes back from a war gets the health care he or she needs.’” [Quad-City Times, 5/30/15] Foreign Tax Credit Sanders Introduced Bill To Terminate Foreign Tax Credit. “Amends the Internal Revenue Code to terminate the foreign tax credit. Allows the deduction of foreign taxes for which the credit is made unallowable by this Act. […] (Sec. 6) Terminates, effective with taxable years beginning January 1, 1996, the exclusion of foreign earned income and the housing cost amounts of U.S. citizens or residents living abroad. (Sec. 7) Terminates, effective with taxable years beginning January 1, 1996, the exclusion from gross income of exempt foreign trade income of foreign sales corporations.” [HR 1629, introduced 5/12/95] Capital Gains Tax Sanders Co-Sponsored Job Creation and Invest in America Act of 1995, Which Included Repeal Of Preferential Rate Of Tax On Capital Gains. "SEC. 3102. REPEAL OF PREFERENTIAL RATE OF TAX ON CAPITAL GAINS. [...] E) Rate differential portion.--The rate differential portion of foreign source net capital gain, net capital gain, or the excess of net capital gain from sources within the United States over net capital gain, as the case may be, is the same proportion of such amount as-- ``(i) the excess of-- ``(I) the highest rate of tax specified in section 11(b), over ``(II) the alternative rate of tax under section 1201(a), bears to ``(ii) the highest rate of tax specified in section 11(b).'' [HR 805, co-sponsored 2/2/95] Sanders Supported Taxing Capital Gains And Dividends As Work. “Tax capital gains and dividends the same as work. Taxing capital gains and dividends the same way that we tax work would raise more than $500 billion over the next decade. The top marginal income tax for working is 39.6 percent, but the top tax rate on corporate dividends and capital gains is only 20.” [Sanders Press Release, 7/10/13] Sanders Said United States Could Raise $730 Billion Over 10 Years By Taxing Capital Gains And Dividends The Same Way Work Was Taxed. “Seventh, if we tax capital gains and dividends the same way we tax work, ordinary work, we can raise more than $730 billion over the next decade. Why should somebody who clips dividend coupons pay a substantially lower tax rate than somebody who is out working on our streets or is a nurse or is a teacher? Warren Buffett has often said he pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary. Today, the effective tax rate of the wealthiest 400 Americans is just 18 percent, the lowest on record.” [S4121, Congressional Record, 6/27/11] Sanders Said United States Could Raise $736 Billion Over 10 Years By Taxing Capital Gains As Ordinary Income. “We do raise $736 billion over 10 years by taxing capital gains and dividends as ordinary income. Warren Buffett, one of the wealthiest people in the world, has said he pays a lower Federal tax rate than his secretary, than do nurses and police officers and teachers, because most of his income and most of the income of very wealthy people is generated by capital gains. Our provision could correct that problem—taxing capital gains and dividends as ordinary income.” [S2907, Congressional Record, 5/12/11] Online Sales Tax Sanders Said It Was Unfair That Online Retailers Didn’t Have To Include Sales Tax. “In my state of Vermont there is a real problem that we’ve got a lot of small businesses who have to charge for taxes onto their products they sell are at a disadvantage with those folks who are selling it on the internet. So if we’re serious about protecting small businesses and downtowns throughout this country I think that that is not a fair proposal so I’m not quite sympathetic to where you’re coming from on that one.” [Brunch With Bernie, 2/13/15] Financial Transaction Tax Sanders Paid For College For All Act By Implementing A Financial Transaction Tax. “Sen. Bernie Sanders says he's about to introduce a bill that would provide free tuition at public colleges and universities by using Wall Street stock transfer fees. […]”The program that we're offering will be a grant program by which the federal government puts in $2 and the states put in $1,” Sanders said. “Now, $70 billion is a lot of money, but in a nation in which we lose $100 billion every year because corporations stash their money in tax havens around the world, that's one way you can approach it. “What we are going to be dealing with tomorrow is a transaction fee on large stock transfers,” Sanders continued. “So we're going to ask Wall Street, whose greed and recklessness drove us into the recession that we're climbing out of right now, to start helping us fund college education.”“ [Burlington Free Press, 5/18/15] Sanders’s Financial Transaction Tax Would Tax Trades At 50 Cents For Every $100 Of Stock, 10 Cents For Every $100 Of Bonds, And Place A Half Penny Fee On Derivatives. “Fully Paid for by Imposing a Robin Hood Tax on Wall Street. This legislation is offset by imposing a Wall Street speculation fee on investment houses, hedge funds, and other speculators of 0.5% on stock trades (50 cents for every $100 worth of stock), a 0.1% fee on bonds, and a 0.005% fee on derivatives. It has been estimated that this provision could raise hundreds of billions a year which could be used not only to make tuition free at public colleges and universities in this country, it could also be used to create millions of jobs and rebuild the middle class of this country.” [Sen. Sanders bill summary, 5/19/15] Sanders Said His Financial Transaction Tax Could Bring In Nearly $300 Billion A Year. “This is an effective and progressive way to raise money. The estimate is it could bring in as much as $300 billion a year.” [CNN, 5/19/15] Tax Policy Center Found That A 0.5% Financial Transaction Tax Would Have The Revenue Potential Of $514 Billion Over 10 Years. “Table 4. Revenue Potential […] Raising the base tax rate by a factor of 10 to 0.1 percent would increase the revenue yield to $541 billion, or a little over 0.2 percent of GDP. This less-than-proportionate increase in revenue arises because trading is expected to be substantially reduced as the rate increases. Indeed, if the rate were increased further to 0.5 percent, revenue would be slightly lower than at a 0.1 percent base rate.” [Tax Policy Center, 7/31/15] Vox: While Clinton’s Tax Plan Would Change How Wall Street Did Business, Sanders’ Plan Was Meant To Make Wall Street Do Less Business Altogether. “If Clinton's tax is meant to slightly change how Wall Street does business, Bernie Sanders's tax plan is meant to make Wall Street do less business altogether. Sanders has proposed a financial transactions tax — essentially, a tiny tax on every single financial transaction.” [Vox, 8/10/15] Vox: Sanders’ Financial Transaction Tax Intended To Make High Volume Trading Less Profitable, So Wall Street Traders Would Do So Less Often. “Sanders is proposing a much larger tax that would cover more kinds of financial transactions, and he would use the money to subsidize college tuition. The idea, as he puts it, is to "reduce risky and unproductive high-speed trading and other forms of Wall Street speculation." Sanders wants to use the tax to change how Wall Street works: He wants to make highvolume trading less profitable and, in doing so, ensure there's less of it. Behind this argument is the idea that Wall Street has grown too big and too complex, and an easy way to make it smaller is to make some of its most questionable activities less profitable.” [Vox, 8/10/15] Mortgage Interest Tax Deduction 1976: Sanders Supported Liberty Union Tax Proposal That Abolished Home Mortgage Interest Tax Deduction 1976: Sanders Said He Would Campaign On Liberty Union’s Tax Proposal. “Sanders said he would campaign in support of his party’s tax proposal which calls for a complete reversal of the state’s tax structure.” [Middlebury College Newspaper, 10/27/76] Liberty Union’s Tax Proposal Would Have Abolished Tax Deductions For Home Mortgage Interest Expenses And Charitable Contributions. “Liberty Union's proposed progressive personal income tax would base tax bill calculations upon recipient's ‘adjusted gross income’ (line 15 of the standard Federal Income tax form 1040); tax dodges and loopholes ranging from oil depletion allowances to deduction of home mortgage interest expense would be abolished. No matter how noble (charitable contributions) or devious (investment tax credits) the tax loophole might be, it would be eliminated under the proposed progressive income tax.” [Liberty Union Newspaper, Vol. 2, No.1, February 1976] Sanders Said Allowing Mortgage Interest Deduction For Very Expensive Homes Was “Welfare” For The Wealthiest Americans Sanders Said Allowing Mortgage Interest Deduction For Home Of $1 Million Amounted To “Welfare” For The Wealthiest Americans. “Let us talk about another interesting Federal housing program. That is the mortgage interest deduction up to mortgages of $1 million. Now, most of the people that I know in the State of Vermont, they do not have million dollars homes. Maybe it is $100,000 a house; maybe it is a $200,000 house. That is true throughout America. But interestingly, if you got a million dollar mortgage, the house can be worth more than a million dollars, you can deduct the interest on a million dollars of your mortgage. Who gets that benefit? Think it is low income people? Middle income people? No. Obviously, upper income people who own the large houses are the major beneficiaries of that program. That is called welfare. But that is a different type of welfare, because you are helping the wealthiest people in America.” [Sanders Remarks, Senate Floor, 6/15/95] Sanders Called For Debate Over “The Propriety Of Millionaires Saving Large Sums Of Money In Taxes From The Mortgage Interest Deduction On Their Palatial Mansions.” “Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill because it does not allow us to provide rational alternatives to the tax breaks for the rich scheme that is being presented today. It does not allow us to cut the tens and tens of billions of dollars in corporate welfare that the largest corporations in America receive. It does not allow us to debate the propriety of millionaires saving large sums of money in taxes from the mortgage interest deduction on their palatial mansions. It does not allow us to remove Federal subsidies for such Federal agencies as OPIA, the Overseas Private Investment Association in which tax payers are paying to see their own jobs go to third world countries.” [Sanders Remarks, Senate Floor, 4/5/95] 1997: Sanders Supported Capping The Home Mortgage Interest Deduction At $300,000. "But could we, the progressives in Congress, balance the budget in seven years in way that was fair and would not hurt the kids, the elderly, the sick, or the poor? Damn right we could! In an article I wrote for the Burlington Free Press, I showed how we could save more than $800 billion over seven years by dealing with some of the giveaway in corporate welfare and tax breaks for the rich. This illustrative list gives some details: [...] Subsidies. Cap the home mortgage interest deduction at $300,000: increased income - $34.8 billion." [Outsider In The House, pg 207-208, 1997] Sanders Opposed Elimination Of Mortgage Interest Deduction As Part Of Deficit Reduction Deals Sanders Said He Thought There Was A “Better Way” Than White House Deficit Commission Suggestions, Which Included Elimination Of Mortgage Interest Deduction. “Now, in order to move us toward a balanced budget, there are some people who are suggesting that we cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, eliminate the home mortgage interest deduction and the child tax credit, increase interest rates on student loans, increase the gas tax, and increase co-pays for veterans receiving health care through the V.A. "I think there's a better way," said Sen. Bernie Sanders.” [Sanders Press Release, 11/24/10] Sanders Disputed Claim In Simpson-Bowles Plan That Reducing Home Mortgage Interest Deduction Would Yield Significant New Revenue. “Sanders today also released a new Congressional Research Service study which undercuts a key Simpson-Bowles claim. They say lowering the top tax rate and reducing so-called tax expenditures like the popular home mortgage interest deduction would somehow yield $1.2 trillion in revenue. In fact, according to the study by the non-partisan research arm of Congress, the Simpson-Bowles tax plan could shave tax rates by no more than 2 percentage points and would not reduce the deficit.” [Sanders Press Release, 11/28/12] Sanders Opposed Elimination Of Home Mortgage Interest Deduction As Part Of Simpson-Bowles Plan, Said Deduction Was “Widely Used By Middle-Class Families Already Struggling To Make Ends Meet.” “Cuts being pushed by the commission's chairmen will particularly impact seniors. Some of the proposed cuts include: […] ELIMINATING the home mortgage interest deduction entirely, tax relief that is widely used by middle-class families already struggling to make ends meet as a result of the largest economic downturn since the Great Depression.” [Sanders Press Release, 11/17/10] Sanders Criticized Gang Of Six Plan For Cutting Back Home Mortgage Interest Deduction, Saying The Program Was Very Important To Millions Of Middle Class Families. “I think the authors of this proposal would acknowledge not all the details are out there, but certainly I want middle-class families to understand when we talk about increased revenues, do you know where that may come from? It may come from cutbacks in the home mortgage interest deduction program, which is so very important to millions and millions of families. It may mean if you have a health care program today, that health care program may be taxed. That is a way to raise revenue.” [Sanders Remarks, Senate Floor, 7/20/11] Gang Of Six Proposal Did Not Specify How Mortgage Interest Deduction Would Be Trimmed. “To help pay for lower rates, the plan would reduce popular tax breaks for mortgage interest, health insurance, charitable giving and retirement savings. […] The Gang of Six plan does not specify how the tax breaks would be trimmed. Democrats have several proposals that would restrict wealthy families’ use of the breaks, while preserving them for most low- and middleincome taxpayers.” [Associated Press, 7/20/11] Estate Tax Sanders Introduced Legislation To Increase The Estate Tax For People Who Inherited More Than $3.5 Million. “Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today introduced legislation to increase estate tax rates on the top three-tenths of one percent of Americans who inherit more than $3.5 million, while eliminating loopholes that have allowed the wealthiest Americans to avoid billions in taxes. Sanders said the legislation was needed to reduce the massive gap between the very rich and working class Americans.” [Press Release, Sen. Bernie Sanders, 6/25/15] Sanders’ Legislation Would Effectively Raise The Estate Tax And Would Raise Additional Taxes On Billionaires. “Sanders’ bill does the following: Lowers the estate tax exemption level from $5.4 million to $3.5 million for individuals and from about $11 million to $7 million for couples. Increases the marginal tax rate to 45 percent on estates between $3.5 million to $10 million, 50 percent on estates between $10 million and $50 million, and 55 percent on estates over $50 million. Creates a new billionaire surtax of 10 percent that would only impact 530 billionaires who are worth a combined $2.6 trillion. Ends loopholes allowing billionaire families to set up dynasty trusts to avoid taxes. Closes loopholes used by the wealthy to avoid estate taxes. Protects family farms and conservation easements.” [Press Release, Sen. Bernie Sanders, 6/25/15] Joint Committee On Taxation Found That Sanders Estate Tax Law Would Raise $214.3 Billion Over 10 Years. “Dear Senator Sanders: This letter responds to your request for a revenue estimate of the “Responsible Estate Tax Act” (S . 1 677, 1 14th Congress), which was introduced in the Senate on June 25 , 2015. The estimated effects of the Responsible Estate Tax Act on fiscal year Federal revenues are the following. fiscal Years Billions of Dollars 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2016-20 2016-25 2.2 11.4 14.4 18.7 23.3 25.3 27.0 28.7 30.6 32.7 70.1 214.3 NOTE: Details do not add to totals due to rounding. I hope this information is helpful to you. If we can be of further assistance in this matter, please let me know.” [Letter, Joint Committee on Taxation, 7/23/15] 2010: Sanders Introduced Responsible Estate Tax Act. “Repeals provisions of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) eliminating the tax on estates and generationskipping transfers and the step-up in basis provisions for property acquired from a decedent for estates of decedents dying after 2009 (thus restoring prior law). Declares that the sunset provision (general terminating date of December 10, 2010) of EGTRRA shall not apply to title V of such Act ( Estate, Gift, and Generation-Skipping Transfer Tax Provisions). Amends the Internal Revenue Code to: (1) revise estate tax brackets for estates over $750,000 and impose a maximum tax rate of 55% on estates over $50 million; (2) impose a 10% surtax on estates over $500 million; (3) increase to $3 million the reduction in valuations of farmland for estate tax puposes; (4) increase to $2 million the maximum estate tax exclusion for contributions of conservation easements; (5) require executors of estates to file information returns and provide valuations and consistent basis information to persons acquiring property from decedents or by gift…” [S 3533, introduced 6/24/10] Sanders Said That Eliminating The Estate Tax Was Fiscally Irresponsible. “This is an absurd amendment. This amendment would provide $1 trillion in tax breaks to the top 3/10 of 1%. 99.7% of the American people do not get a nickel. And despite all the rhetoric we hear on fiscal responsibility, this isn’t paid for. It’s another $1 trillion over 10 years to our national debt.” [An Old Fashioned Debate on Tax Fairness, 7/23/10] Opposed Charitable Deduction Sanders Voted Against Protecting Tax Deduction For Charitable Giving. “Senator John Thune applauded today's 94 to 3 vote on his amendment to the Democrat budget that would protect the full federal income tax deduction for charitable giving. President Obama's budget framework had proposed reducing the deduction, which would result in less charitable giving nationwide.” [Thune press release, 4/2/09; S Amdt 803 to S Con Res 13, Vote #138, 4/2/09] 1976: Sanders Said He Would Campaign On Liberty Union’s Tax Proposal. “Sanders said he would campaign in support of his party’s tax proposal which calls for a complete reversal of the state’s tax structure.” [Middlebury College Newspaper, 10/27/76] Liberty Union’s Tax Proposal Would Have Abolished Tax Deductions For Home Mortgage Interest Expenses And Charitable Contributions. “Liberty Union's proposed progressive personal income tax would base tax bill calculations upon recipient's ‘adjusted gross income’ (line 15 of the standard Federal Income tax form 1040); tax dodges and loopholes ranging from oil depletion allowances to deduction of home mortgage interest expense would be abolished. No matter how noble (charitable contributions) or devious (investment tax credits) the tax loophole might be, it would be eliminated under the proposed progressive income tax.” [Liberty Union Newspaper, Vol. 2, No.1, February 1976] 1981: Bernie Sanders Wrote A Letter To The National Committee For Responsive Philanthropy Thanking Them For Information They Provided, Saying He “Caused A Big Flap” By “Raising Some Questions” About The “’Holiness’ Of The United Way.” On December 17, 1981, Bernie Sanders wrote to Robert O. Bothwell, the Executive Director of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy. Sanders thanked Bothwell for sending him information about the organization “at the request of Ralph Nader.” Sanders also wrote: “We caused a big flap here awhile ago by raising some questions about the ‘holiness’ of the United Way. Your information will be helpful in enabling us to fight for alternative approaches to charity. Please keep me abreast of future developments.” [Bernie Sanders, Mayor of Burlington, 12/17/81] Sanders: “I Don’t Believe In Charities.” “What they got instead was Bernie Sanders, their newly elected mayor. “I don't believe in charities,” he declared, proceeding to argue against exactly the kind of thing the United Way was doing. As he later explained it, "Most of them were conservative Republicans, busy cutting services to low-income people. Then they go collect nickels and dimes, mostly from working people, and congratulate each other on their generosity. I find that hypocritical.”” [Wall Street Journal, 1983] Sanders At United Way Fundraising Drive: “I Don’t Believe In Charities.” “The issue was charity. Squaring off were two politicians, Burlington Mayor Bernard Sanders and Gov. Richard A. Snelling. The occasion was the kickoff for the 40th annual Chittenden County United Way fundraising drive, this year including the Cancer Fund, seeking to garner $1.5 million in contributions for 35 are social service and health agencies. Last year’s goal of $1,125,000 was exceeded by $1,170. ‘I don’t believe in charities,’ Sanders told 260 United Way boosters packed into a South Burlington hotel banquet room Tuesday morning.” [Burlington Free Press, 10/16/81] Sanders Questioned “The Fundamental Concepts In Which Charities Are Based” And Said The Government Should Take Over Responsibilities Handled By Charities. “In a talk billed as a ‘greeting,’ he questioned ‘the fundamental concepts in which charities are based’ and said the government should take over the responsibilities now handled by charity-funded organizations.” [Burlington Free Press, 10/16/81] Gov. Snelling To Sanders: “Charity Is Not A Dirty Word.” “[Gov.] Snelling, who co-piloted the 1973 Chittenden County United Way drive, said, ‘Maybe you can’t legislate concern.’ Problems such as crime and alcoholism have continued to escalate in the face of spiraling costs for taxpayer-funded social programs, he said in the ‘keynote’ talk. ‘We have discovered that you can’t buy caring,’ the governor said as the mayor sat several seats down from him at the breakfast gathering. ‘Charity is not a dirty word.’” [Burlington Free Press, 10/16/81] Burlington Free Press: United Way Fundraising Drive Was “Not The Appropriate Time” For Sanders To Question The Role Of Charities. “Sanders took his foot out of his mouth briefly to wish the United Way ‘all the best luck in the world’ in raising $1.5 million in contributions for area social service and health agencies. But that concession could not take the sting out of his remarks about the role of charitable organizations or convince those at the meeting that he had not used the affair to expound his political philosophy. While there may be a time and a place for him to express his opinion about charities, the kickoff of a fund-raising drive is not the appropriate forum for doing so.” [Editorial, Burlington Free Press, 9/17/81] Sanders Told The United Way He Did Not Believe In Charity Because Helping The Poor Was A Function Of Government. “Then, there was his talk at the kick-off of the United Way campaign. He did not believe in this charity, the mayor told those assembled, because taking care of the poor was something that government should do. That, too, did not sit well with his audience.” [Lexington HeraldLeader, 8/1/82] Proposed Payments In Lieu Of Taxes From Tax-Exempt Companies Sanders Sought To Tax Traditionally Exempt Properties Such As The University Of Vermont. “One of Sanders approaches to tax reform is to go after tax exempt properties such as the University of Vermont. The University is claiming poverty but he is not giving up that route.” [Modern Times, 1984] Sanders Called For Payments In Lieu Of Taxes From Large, Tax-Free Institutions Like The Local University And Hospital. “Sanders called for payments in lieu of taxes from large, tax-free institutions – University of Vermont and Medical Center Hospital. He wanted Church Street merchants to repay the $1.5 million marketplace bond and called for classification of property. Under that scheme, the tax rate for homeowners would be less than that for businesses.” [Burlington Free Press, 3/4/81] Sanders Claimed That The University Of Vermont And The Medical Center Attacked Him When He Argued That They Needed To “Accept Their Responsibilities To This Community.” “How many remember today that when we first stood up to the University of Vermont, and the Medical Center, and said that they are not responsible neighbors, how we were attacked and villified? But today, unanimously, and I'm delighted at that--almost everyone says the University, the Medical Center, the large tax-exempt institutions have got to accept their responsibilities to this community?” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, dated 3/1/89] Sanders Proposed That Non-Profits Like UVM And Medical Center Contribute Fees In Lieu Of Taxes To Relieve Burden Of Property Tax On Low And Middle Income Homeowners. “In order to relieve the burden' of property taxes on the low and middle-income homeowners I believe that we must find new and/or increased sources of revenue. During the course of this campaign I have proposed some of the following ideas: […] Tax-exempt institutions such as UVM and the Medical Center must be asked to contribute funds to the city in lieu of taxes-as other tax-exempt institutions throughout New England do. These institutions consume much in the way of city services and they should be asked to pay their fair share.” [Sanders newspaper advertisement] Sanders Attempted to Force Not-For-Profit Hospital to Pay Taxes. “[Sanders] and his block of supporters on city council - the ‘Sanderistas’ - are taking on yet another bastion of the local Establishment - Medical Center Hospital, the state's biggest health institution. Earlier this year, the city of 40,000 put the medical centre on its tax rolls for the first time. ‘It claims to be a not-for-profit hospital, but it’s run like a big business,’ Mr. Sanders says, justifying the extreme step of stripping the hospital of its charitable, taxexempt status. Needless to say, the hospital is in court, fighting back with everything it's got.” [Globe and Mail, 9/08/87] Sanders Supported Ruling Requiring That Medical Center Hospital Of Vermont To Pay Taxes. “As many of you know, an important trial took place in Burlington last week in Superior Court. It was a trial of statewide, if not national, importance. In May, for the first time ever, the City of Burlington placed the Medical Center Hospital of Vermont on the tax rolls. The City said that it was wrong for the tax payers of Burlington to continue to subsidize that instition [sic] through a taxexemtion [sic] because, for all intent and purposes, the Medical Center was run like a business, not a charity, and that it should pay taxes likeany [sic] other large business.” [Mayor Bernard Sanders, undated letter, likely May 1989] Sanders Said That Burlington Sued The Medical Center To Pay Taxes In Part Because The Medical Center Refused To Turn Over Executive Compensation And Charity Care Information. “What were some of the facts which came out during the trial. Well, for a start it was very amusing to many of us that the Medical Center [illegible written insertion] refused to release to the public the salaries of their top executives. The people know how much the Governor makes, how much the Mayor of Burlington makes, how much members budget went for "charitable" care - the Medical Center refused to allow the city the opportunity [sic] to verify their claim by speaking with some of the recipients. To what degree was the hospitals claim of charity care really a situation of bad debt - an inability to collect the fees. What income does one have to have to receive [sic] free care - what are the criteria to determine whether one is eligible for charity or not. As a result of refusing to allow the City to examine this information the hospital was unable to present to court, as part of its record, that it provided any free care.” [Mayor Bernard Sanders, undated letter, likely May 1989] Sanders Urged The Legislature To Re-Evaluate Whether UVM Medical College Should Receive Annual $6 Million Grant. “Saying that the University of Vermont Medical School should "come out in the open and compete against the other pressing health needs of Vermonters." Mayor Bernard Sanders today called for a legislative Task Force to re-evaluate the state's $6 million annual grant to the college. In remarks Friday afternoon to the House Appropriations Committee which must approve the grant. Sanders said, "The people of Vermont know very little about what the goals of the Medical School are and how they serve the real health and educational needs of Vermonters.” [Press Release, Office of the Mayor, Bernard Sanders, 2/5/88] Sanders Administration Called For UVM Hospital To Pay Taxes, Presented It With A $2.9 Million Tax Bill. “Burlington Mayor Bernie Sanders didn't attend the June 1987 press conference that opened with a bombshell. Assessor Rosaire Longe did his bidding, announcing that the city had sent a tax bill to the Medical Center Hospital of Vermont, the venerable institution on the hill now known as the University of Vermont Medical Center. The amount the Sanders administration sought from the hospital, which, as a charitable institution, had been considered tax-exempt: $2.9 million.” [Seven Days, 8/19/15] 1987: Sanders Called For UVM Hospital To Start Paying Taxes For Public Services. “Burlington Mayor Bernie Sanders didn't attend the June 1987 press conference that opened with a bombshell. […] Sanders himself publicly weighed in with a press conference the next day. He argued that seeking taxes from the medical center was about fairness for taxpayers. The hospital had a $100 million budget, he said, but paid "nothing in taxes, nothing in lieu of taxes and nothing for the services they receive," meaning fire, police and other municipal protections.” [Seven Days, 8/19/15] UVM Hospital President Denounced Sanders’ Plan To Tax The Hospital. “A couple of hours later, hospital president James Taylor stood before news cameras to denounce the Sanders' plan to "put us on the tax rolls." He vowed: "We will not pay the bill. We will pursue all the channels proper and appropriate to protest it." […] In a telephone interview nearly 30 years later, Taylor said what was upsetting about the tax bill was "having it show up without any prior discussion." He recalled that hospital officials appreciated that Burlington had a significant percentage of taxexempt properties. At the time, however, the concept of hospitals making payments in lieu of taxes wasn't an established practice, he said, adding, "We did have some reluctance to do anything that would put pressure on others."” [Seven Days, 8/19/15] Sanders Believed That UVM Hospital Was Wrongly Characterizing Uncollected Debt As Charitable Care. “"We took the view they didn't provide enough charitable care to qualify" for a tax exemption, Joseph McNeil, then city attorney, said in a recent interview. The hospital had provided $1.5 million in free care, but "much of what they were calling charitable care was really uncollectable debt," McNeil said. Translation: hospital bills that people couldn't pay.” [Seven Days, 8/19/15] Sanders Attacked UVM Hospital As Unfairly Charging Low-Income People For Hospital Care. “"For Judge Meaker, essentially, the hospital is charitable because it is a hospital," Sanders complained in statement he released at the time. "If an institution provides virtually no free care to the poor, hounds people for payment and destroys credit ratings and has executives and physicians associated with the hospital earning very large incomes — how in any common-sense understanding of the word can this institution be described as 'charitable'?"” [Seven Days, 8/19/15] Sanders’ Attacks On UVM Hospital Later Led To UVM Paying Taxes To Burlington. “Still, McNeil said, Sanders' challenge ultimately paid off. "We lost — in a legal sense — but we gained ground in the sense that the result was both [the hospital] and UVM have entered into fee-for-service agreements with the city ... It was only this action that provided the political discussion and notoriety. It was the catalyst for a better result that has lasted to the present.” By the time the city and hospital reached a 30-year agreement on payments, in 1999, Sanders was a congressman representing Vermont. Knapp recalled that the deal was negotiated while the hospital was starting its Renaissance Project — a makeover and expansion that would eventually cost more than $350 million. At the time, Knapp said, the city had "considerable leverage" because the medical center needed local permits. Later, the project took a criminal turn, and the hospital's CEO took a plea for conspiring to defraud a state regulatory agency. The institution's public image reached an all-time low.” [Seven Days, 8/19/15] Payroll Tax Peter Reilly: Sanders Would Apply The Social Security Tax On Incomes Over $250,000, Creating A Tax-Free Bubble Between $118,500 And $250,000. “This proposal is huge in my mind. They would apply the social security tax on incomes over $250,000 The current limit is $118,500. So it seems like there would be a tax-free bubble between $118,500 and $250,000. It’s hard to see the policy justification for the bubble, but that is neither here nor there. This change would cost Sanders main opponent Hillary Clinton well over $1,000,000 in self-employment tax on her self-employment income, mainly from speeches, of over $13,390,499.” [Peter J. Reilly Column, Forbes, 8/30/15] Sanders Voted For Payroll Tax Hike As Part Of Fiscal Cliff Deal. On January 1, 2013, Bernie Sanders voted yes on Senate Vote #251. According to the Public Law 112-240, the law included: (a) EXTENSION. —Section 2(c)(2)(D)(iii) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, as added by section 2006 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–5) and as amended by section 9 of the Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–92), section 505 of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111– 312), section 202 of the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011 (Public Law 112–78), and section 2124 of the Unemployment Benefits Extension Act of 2012 (Public Law 112–96), is amended— (1) by striking ‘‘June 30, 2012’’ and inserting ‘‘June 30, 2013’’; and (2) by striking ‘‘December 31, 2012’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2013’’. [Public Law 112-240, 1/2/13; Senate Vote #251, 1/01/2013] Fiscal Cliff Deal Raised Taxes On 77% Of Americans. “The actual effect of the deal, however, was to raise taxes on 77% of American households, while giving away billions in tax breaks to politicians’ corporate patrons. That’s because lawmakers on both sides of the aisle agreed from the outset not to fight for an extension of the payroll tax holiday signed into law by President Obama two years ago. That provision cut earners’ payroll tax liability by 2%. And while almost all households benefited in some way from the payroll tax cut, it was especially helpful to lower and middle income Americans, both because the payroll tax is capped at the first $110,000 of income and because higher earners tend to make more from investments, which are taxed at lower rates.” [HR 8, Vote #251,1/1/13; MSNBC, 1/5/13] Sanders Said Alternative Would Have Thrown Country Back Into A Recession And Increased Taxes On Middle Class. “The so-called fiscal cliff legislation signed into law by President Obama is not a good bill. But it was better than the alternative, which is why I voted for it. The alternative — doing nothing — would have thrown this country back into a recession with nearly $4 trillion removed from the economy. Two million Americans desperately struggling to find a job would have had their unemployment benefits wiped out. The disappearing middle class, which has already seen median household income go down by nearly $5,000 over the past 12 years, would have been hit with an average income tax hike of $2,200 a year.” [Bernie Sanders, Times Argus, 1/4/13] Sanders Opposed Extending 4.2 Percent Employee Payroll Tax Rate Through 2012. On February 17, 2012, Bernie Sanders voted no on Senate Vote #22. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the conference report on the bill that would extend the 4.2 percent employee payroll tax rate through 2012. It also would renew long-term unemployment benefits into January 2013, with three stages of reductions. The current Medicare reimbursement rate for physicians would be preserved through 2012, preventing a scheduled 27.4 percent payment cut. The cost of the legislation would be partially offset by requiring larger pension payments from newly hired federal employees and from lawmakers, by auctioning blocks of electromagnetic spectrum used by television broadcasters and by reducing funds for certain programs tied to the 2010 health care overhaul. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #22, 2/17/2012] 2012: Sanders Voted Against Extension Of Payroll Tax Holiday Because It Diverted Money From Social Security. "Congress today passed a $150 billion package extending a cut in the Social Security payroll tax and continuing benefits for the long-term unemployed. The House vote was 293-132. The Senate voted 60 to 36. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) voted no and issued the following statement: "I very strongly believe the middle class needs a tax break and clearly we must extend unemployment benefits. However, as I have stated over and over again, I am very concerned about once again diverting substantial sums of money from the Social Security Trust Fund, which is of such enormous importance to the American people."" [Sanders press release, 2/17/12] Sanders Opposed Payroll Tax Cut Because It Diverted Huge Amounts Of Money From Social Security Trust Fund. “Another issue that I know the listeners are interested in is the issue of the payroll tax. Literally I just came from voting on that a few minutes ago, and I didn't even know the final result on that, we'll know it in a minute. I suspect it will pass. I voted no. And I voted no, not because I don't understand that the middle class needs a tax break, we absolutely need a tax break to help the hard-pressed middle class so they can get that money, go out and spend it, and create some jobs, it's significant. But I thought it important to continue raising the issue of the danger of diverting, in total, hundreds of billions of dollars from the Social Security trust fund. So when you lower the pay roll tax from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent, all you are doing at the moment is diverting huge amounts of money into the Social Security trust fund.” [Brunch with Bernie, 2/7/12, 3:50] Sanders Opposed Extending 4.2 Percent Employee Payroll Tax Rate Through February 2012. On December 17, 2011, Bernie Sanders voted no on Senate Vote #232. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Reid, D-Nev., substitute amendment no. 1465 that would extend the 4.2 percent employee payroll tax rate through February 2012. It also would provide for an extension of Medicare payments rates to doctors through February 2012, delaying a reduction scheduled to occur in 2012. The substitute also would extend workers' eligibility for certain expanded unemployment benefits through February 2012. It would be offset through an increase in loan fees levied by government-backed mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for guaranteeing loans purchased in the secondary mortgage market. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #232, 12/17/2011] 2011: Sanders Voted Against Payroll Tax Cut Extension Because It Diverted Billions From Social Security. “The Senate-passed package of spending and tax provisions would extend for two months a Social Security payroll tax cut. ‘Middle-class working families need tax relief to help them survive in this terrible economy," Sanders said, "but diverting billions of dollars from Social Security to provide that tax relief is wrong. This continues a dangerous process that began last year. I strongly believe tax relief should be done in a different way.’” [Sanders press release, 12/17/11] Sanders Opposed Motion To Extend Payroll Tax Rates For Individuals Through 2012. On December 8, 2011, Bernie Sanders voted no on Senate Vote #225. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: McConnell, R-Ky., motion to proceed to the bill that would extend current payroll tax rates for individuals through 2012. It would be offset by requiring increased Medicare payments from higher-income earners. It also would extend the current pay freeze for federal workers for three years and reduce the federal civilian work force through attrition. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #225, 12/8/2011] Sanders Opposed Payroll Tax Rate Of 3.1 Percent For Workers In 2012. On December 8, 2011, Bernie Sanders voted no on Senate Vote #224. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Reid, D-Nev., motion to proceed to the bill that would extend and expand a reduction in payroll tax rates for employees. It would set the payroll tax to 3.1 percent for workers in 2012. It would be offset in part with a 1.9 percent surtax on annual incomes over $1 million. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #224, 12/8/2011] Sanders Opposed Extending Payroll Tax Rates For Individuals Through 2012. On December 1, 2011, Bernie Sanders voted no on Senate Vote #220. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: McConnell, R-Ky., motion to proceed to the bill that would extend current payroll tax rates for individuals through 2012. It would be offset by requiring increased Medicare payments from higher-income earners. It also would extend the current pay freeze for federal workers for three years and reduce the federal civilian work force through attrition. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #220, 12/1/2011] Sanders Opposed Motion To Extend Payroll Tax Rates For Employees And Employers. On December 1, 2011, Bernie Sanders voted no on Senate Vote #219. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Reid, D-Nev., motion to proceed to the bill that would extend and expand a reduction in payroll tax rates for employees and employers. It would set the payroll tax to 3.1 percent in 2012, and cut the employer share to 3.1 percent from 6.2 percent next year for the first $5 million of a company's wage costs. It would be offset with a 3.25 percent surtax on annual incomes over $1 million. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #219, 12/1/2011] Sanders Said Extending Payroll Tax Cut For Two Years Would Make It “Harder To Break That Habit In The Third Year.” “Bipartisan concerns that extending the payroll-tax cut would weaken Social Security are spilling into the open, complicating the effort to allow the tax break for workers to continue into 2012. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.), a leading liberal voice, last week voted against a Democratic bill to extend the tax cut. That put him in line with Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the No. 2 Senate Republican, and Sen. Jerry Moran (R., Kan.), a member of the teaparty caucus. ‘If you do it for two years, you know what it's probably going to be harder to break that habit in the third year,’ Mr. Sanders said, adding, ‘in which case you've got a permanent process by which you've cut the payroll tax and diverted huge sums of money.’” [Wall Street Journal, 12/8/11] Sanders Voted To Concur With House Amendments That Would Exempt Employers From Social Security Payroll Taxes On Some New Hires In 2010. On March 17, 2010, Bernie Sanders voted yes on Senate Vote #55. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Durbin, D-Ill., motion to concur in the House amendments to the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill that would exempt employers from Social Security payroll taxes for certain new hires made in 2010. It also would allow certain tax advantaged bonds to be converted to bonds with a direct subsidy and delay by three years the effective date of new interest allocation rules for multinational companies. It would extend the Highway Trust Fund and certain transportation safety programs through Dec. 31, 2010. It also would extend through 2010 the ability of small businesses to deduct $250,000 of qualified property purchases from income taxes in the year of purchase. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #55, 3/17/2010] Sanders Voted To Wave Budget Act To Concur With House Amendments That Would Exempt Employers From Social Security Payroll Taxes On Some New Hires In 2010. On March 17, 2010, Bernie Sanders voted yes on Senate Vote #54. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Schumer, D-N.Y., motion to waive the Budget Act and budget resolutions with respect to the Gregg, R-N.H., point of order against the Durbin, D-Ill., motion to concur in the House amendments to the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill that would exempt employers from Social Security payroll taxes for certain new hires made in 2010. It also would allow certain tax advantaged bonds to be converted to bonds with a direct subsidy and delay by three years the effective date of new interest allocation rules for multinational companies. It would extend the Highway Trust Fund and certain transportation safety programs through Dec. 31, 2010. It also would extend through 2010 the ability of small businesses to deduct $250,000 of qualified property purchases from income taxes in the year of purchase. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #54, 3/17/2010] Pelosi Said HIRE Act Would “It Will Provide Support For Small Businesses To Use Tax Credits And Accelerated Depreciation.” "It will provide support for small businesses to use tax credits and accelerated depreciation. It would invest in building infrastructure for the future for our country. It does so by triggering tens of billions of dollars of new investments in infrastructure." [Press Conference, Nancy Pelosi, 3/4/10] Sanders Opposed Six-Month Payroll Tax Holiday. On March 4, 2010, Bernie Sanders voted no on Senate Vote #40. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Brown, R-Mass., motion to waive the Budget Act and budget resolutions with respect to the Baucus, D- Mont., point of order against the Brown amendment no. 3391 to the Baucus substitute amendment no. 3336. The Brown amendment would provide an employee payroll tax holiday for a period of six months, offset with unobligated funds from the 2009 stimulus law. The substitute would extend a variety of tax provisions that expired on Dec. 31, 2009. It also would extend for varying lengths of time a list of programs that expired on Feb. 28, 2010, including expanded unemployment benefits and health insurance subsidies for jobless workers, a delay to pay cuts for Medicare physicians, as well as small-business loans, certain satellite TV broadcasting and flood insurance. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #40, 3/4/2010] CPC Co-Chair: “If We End Up Voting For This Shallow Bill - Basically A Pro-Business Bill, No Job Creation - Are We Politically Going To Be Stuck With That? I Worry About That.” “The bill the House is expected to take up includes payroll tax breaks, bond-financing for state and local infrastructure projects, a small-business expensing provision and extending surface transportation programs through the end of the year. Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., co-chairman of the CPC, said he is concerned with the political fallout for members of his Caucus if they support the Senate's $15 billion package and the jobs legislation they want with progressive initiatives does not materialize. ‘The problem with that is, I don't see any binding mechanism holding that commitment,’ Grijalva said. ‘If we end up voting for this shallow bill - basically a pro-business bill, no job creation - are we politically going to be stuck with that? I worry about that.’” [National Journal, 3/4/10] Sanders Voted To Concur With House Amendment To Exempt Employers From Paying Social Security Payroll Taxes For Some 2010 Hires. On February 24, 2010, Bernie Sanders voted yes on Senate Vote #25. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Reid, D-Nev., motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill with a Reid substitute amendment no. 3310 that would exempt employers from paying Social Security payroll taxes for certain new hires made in 2010. The amendment would expand the Build America Bonds program. It also would extend the authorization for the Highway Trust Fund and certain transportation safety programs through Dec. 31, 2010. It would extend through 2010 the ability of small businesses to deduct $250,000 of qualified property purchases from income taxes in the year of purchase. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #25, 2/24/2010] Sanders Voted To Waive Budget Act To Exempt Employers From Paying Social Security Payroll Taxes For Some 2010 Hires. On February 24, 2010, Bernie Sanders voted yes on Senate Vote #24. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Cardin, D-Md., motion to waive the Budget Act and budget resolutions with respect to the Gregg, R-N.H., point of order against the Reid, D-Nev., motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill with a Reid substitute amendment no. 3310. The Reid substitute would exempt employers from paying Social Security payroll taxes for certain new hires made in 2010 and would expand the Build America Bonds program. It also would extend the authorization for the Highway Trust Fund and certain transportation safety programs through Dec. 31, 2010. It would extend through 2010 the ability of small businesses to deduct $250,000 of qualified property purchases from income taxes in the year of purchase. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #24, 2/24/2010] National Journal: Both Chambers Of Congress Agreed On “Modest Package Of Payroll Taxes” In Tax Extender Package. “While Senate Majority Leader Reid and Senate Minority Leader McConnell hash out the parameters of a safety-net/tax extender package, members such as Sens. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich.,Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and others want small-business initiatives to be part of a jobs bill, such as elimination of capital gains tax on small-business stock sales. But in the House, the focus among Democrats is on infrastructure spending. About the only thing the chambers agree on at the moment is a modest package of payroll tax breaks, bondfinancing for state and local infrastructure projects and an extension of federal highway programs. The Senate is set to approve that measure today, and Reid cited estimates it could save or create 1 million jobs. But it is seen as insufficient by many on both sides of the Capitol. ‘Please don't call it a jobs bill,’ said a frustrated House Democratic aide.” [National Journal, 2/24/10] Sanders Voted To Reduce Payroll Tax On Railroads. On December 11, 2001, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #485. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Quinn, R-N.Y., motion to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendments to the bill that would create a railroad retirement board that would have the authority to invest the pension system's $15.3 billion in Treasury bonds in higheryielding private equities. The bill also would reduce the payroll tax on railroads and make other changes in the railroad retirement system. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #485, 12/11/2001] Sanders Voted To Reduce Payroll Tax On Railroads. On July 31, 2001, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #305. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Young, R-Alaska, motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill that would allow railroad retirement assets to be invested in private securities. It also would reduce the payroll tax on railroads and makes other changes in the railroad retirement system. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #305, 7/31/2001] Two Times In 2001, The House Considered Bill To Reduce Payroll Tax On Railroads That Was Supported By Association Of American Railroads President. “The bill, which passed the Senate by 90-9, would cut payroll taxes for rail companies, allow workers with 30 years' service to retire at age 60, down from 62, and would increase benefits for surviving spouses of railroad retirees by an average of $300 a month, according to the Association of American Railroads. The rail group's president, Edward R. Hamburger, said the measure would provide ‘a better, more secure retirement for hundreds of thousands of railroad workers and retirees.’ The organization has been doggedly lobbying for the bill for over a year for the companies and about 1 million rail workers, retirees and surviving spouses. The legislation returns to the House, where a nearly identical bill passed overwhelmingly in July. President Bush has not taken a position, but Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said he expected the president to sign it into law and said there are easily enough votes to override a veto.” [Associated Press, 12/5/01] Sanders Voted To Reduce Payroll Tax On Railroads. On September 7, 2000, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #459. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Shuster, R-Pa., motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill that would allow railroad retirement assets to be invested in private securities. It also would reduce the payroll tax on railroads and makes other changes in the railroad retirement system. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #459, 9/7/2000] Sanders Voted To Allow $112 Billion Tax Cut To Offset Increase In Social Security Payroll Tax. On May 18, 1995, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #344. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Payne, D-N.J., substitute amendment to balance the budget by 2002 by increasing taxes on corporations by $594 billion and cutting spending by $518 billion with the largest cut coming from defense programs. The substitute would increase spending on Medicare and Medicaid at a level estimated to continue current services. The substitute also would allow a $112 billion tax cut of up to $200 per person to offset an increase in the Social Security payroll tax. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #344, 5/18/1995] Sanders Voted To Send Bill Back To Rules Committee With Stipulation That It Could Not Be Altered To Raise Social Security Payroll Tax. On July 21, 1994, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #345. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Goss, R-Fla., motion to recommit the bill to the Rules Committee with instructions to report the bill back to the House with an amendment to prohibit any attempt to fix a breach in overall entitlement limits by cutting Social Security benefits, borrowing from the Social Security trust fund or raising the Social Security payroll tax. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #345, 7/21/1994] McDermott And Bloc Of Almost 100 Congressmen Supported Replacing Private Insurance With Government Payments. “Rep. Jim McDermott and other liberals backing a Canadian-style health plan are the Rodney Dangerfields of the debate over how to repair the U.S. medical system. Their plan to replace private insurance with government payments has gotten little respect in Congress. But now, with a bloc of 90-odd votes, McDermott and his backers are poised to wrest concessions from House Democratic leaders, who will attempt to write a compromise health plan.” [Associated Press, 7/19/94] McDermott And Other Supporters Of Government Health Insurance Plan Were Promised That They Could Put Up For Vote A Payroll Tax Of Four To 8.4 Percent On Employers. “They have been promised a separate vote on the House floor on their American Health Security Act, which would pay all medical bills from doctor and hospital charges to prescription drugs and nursing home care. It would include a payroll tax of 4 to 8.4 percent on employers, and a 2.1 percent levy on individuals' taxable income. The government would decide how much to pay the providers.” [Associated Press, 7/19/94] Sanders Was One Of McDermott’s Allies. “McDermott's allies include Reps. John Conyers, DMich.; George Miller, D-Calif.; Joseph Kennedy, D-Mass.; Barney Frank, D-Mass.; Patsy Mink, DHawaii; Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.; and Bernie Sanders, the independent socialist from Vermont.” [Associated Press, 7/19/94] Sanders Voted To Increase Medicare Payroll Tax. On May 27, 1993, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #199. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the five-year, $337 billion bill that closely follows President Clinton's economic proposals. The bill would raise $250 billion in new revenues, mandate $87 billion in cuts in mandatory spending, and cut an additional $159 billion from the deficit, largely through discretionary spending cuts and interest savings, for a total of $496 billion in deficit reduction over five years. Proposals in the bill include: a new top income bracket of 36 percent with a 10 percent surtax on income of more than $250,000; a tax increase on the Social Security benefits of betteroff recipients; an increase in the Medicare payroll tax; an energy (Btu) tax; an increase in the corporate income tax rate to 35 percent; an auction of the public radio spectrum; and an expansion of the earned income tax credit. Also in the bill are provisions to freeze discretionary spending at or below fiscal 1993 levels through fiscal 1998 and create an entitlement review process and a deficit-reduction trust fund. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #199, 5/27/1993] Sanders Opposed Extending Medicare Payroll Tax To Some State And Local Employees. On April 17, 1991, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #70. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Gradison, R-Ohio, substitute amendment to incorporate the president's budget by setting domestic, international and defense spending at the caps set in the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (PL 101-508); cut entitlements by $6.3 billion in fiscal 1992 and $46.6 billion over five years, including Medicare cuts of $25.2 billion over five years; and increase revenues by $3 billion in fiscal 1992 by cutting the capital gains tax rate and extending the Medicare payroll tax to some state and local employees. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #70, 4/17/1991] Bush Tax Cuts Bernie Sanders Voted Against 2001 Bush Tax Cuts. On May 16, 2001, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #118. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would cut all income tax rates and make other tax cuts totalling $958.3 billion over 11 years. The bill would covert the five existing tax rate brackets, which range from 15 percent to 39.6 percent, to a system of four brackets with rates of 10 percent, 15 percent, 25 percent and 33 percent. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #118, 5/16/2001] 2002: Sanders Called For Repeal Of The Bush Tax Cuts. “The two did find a bit of common ground. Sanders reiterated his call for a repeal of the $1.3 trillion Bush tax cuts. "What this Republican administration is about is giving hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to people who don't need it," Sanders said.” [Associated Press, 10/15/02] Bernie Sanders Voted Against 2003 Bush Tax Cuts. On May 23, 2003, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #225. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the conference report on the bill that would provide $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years. It would provide $20 billion in state aid that consists of $10 billion for Medicaid and $10 billion to be used at states' discretion. The agreement includes a new top tax rate of 15 percent on capital gains and dividends through 2007 (5 percent for lower-income taxpayers in 2007 and no tax in 2008). Income tax cuts enacted in 2001 and scheduled to take effect in 2006 would be accelerated. The child tax credit would increase to $1,000 through 2004. The standard deduction for married couples would be double that for a single filer through 2004. Tax breaks for businesses would include increasing the deduction that small businesses could take on investments to $100,000 through 2005. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #225, 5/23/2003] Bush Tax Cuts Increased Take Home Pay For Middle Class Workers. “Increased take-home pay for middle-class workers: While much of the perks from the Bush tax cuts flowed to the top, they also helped middle-class earners, who kept more of their earnings because of reduced tax rates. This was especially important in the last decade, since median wages stagnated, and it may be one reason why Democrats so readily pushed to extend most of the Bush tax cuts.” [Washington Post, 1/2/13] Bush Tax Cuts Doubled Child Tax Created. “Much of the political focus when discussing the Bush-era tax cuts is on the wealthy, but they're not the only ones who would be affected if the tax cuts are allowed to expire at the end of this year. […] In part, that's because the tax cuts doubled the tax credit for each child from $500 to $1,000. [NPR, 7/10/12] Sanders Cited Other Voted He Cast Maintaining Or Expanding Child Tax Credit. “SANDERS: The child tax credit was included in the Bush tax-cut legislation, which Sanders opposed. He cites eight other votes he cast in support of maintaining or expanding the child tax credit.” [Burlington Free Press, 10/1/06] 2010: Sanders Said It Was "Absolutely Imperative" To Extend Middle Class Tax Cuts For 98 Percent Of Americans. "No. 1, I believe very strongly, and I know the President does, it is absolutely imperative that we extend middle-class tax cuts for 98 percent of the American people. I do not think there has been any debate about that. When median family income has gone down by over $2,000 during the Bush years, when millions of our people today are working longer hours for low wages, when people cannot afford to send their kids to college or to take care of childcare, I think it makes absolute sense. I do not think anyone will argue it is absolutely imperative that we extend middle-class tax cuts. That is what this provision does. That is the right thing." [Sanders Floor Remarks, 12/10/10] 2010: Sanders Opposed Extending Bush Tax Cuts For The Top Two Percent Of Income Earners. “On the other hand, at a time when we have the most unequal distribution of income and wealth of any major country on earth. When, during the Bush years the top two percent did extraordinarily well, while they have seen a lowering, a substantial lowering of their tax rates. No, I don’t believe we can afford over a ten year period to give $700 billion in tax relief to the top two percent.”” [SoundCloud, Bernie Sanders, Audio Clip: “2010: Income Inequality,” Accessed 6/8/15] 2010: Sanders Supported Using Half Of The Revenue From Ending The Bush Tax Cuts For The Top Two Percent To Fund Infrastructure Projects. “Here’s to say, look, lets take that $700 billion that we gain by not renewing the tax breaks for the top 2 percent, let’s invest $350 billion of that in infrastructure, creating a significant number of jobs, millions of jobs over a ten year period, rebuilding our roads, bridges, water systems, schools, waste water plants, transforming our energy system away from fossil fuels.” [SoundCloud, Bernie Sanders, Audio Clip: “2010: Infrastructure Needs,” Accessed 6/8/15] Sanders Sponsored Bill To Eliminate Bush Tax Cuts For Incomes Over $400,000, Reduce Defense Budget By $60 Billion, And Use Revenue To Fund Health Care, Education, Energy, Housing, EITC, And Reducing Deficit. “Rescinds after 2008 income tax reductions enacted under the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 for taxpayers with gross incomes in 2008 of over $400,000. Reduces funding for the Department of Defense by $60 billion in FY2008. Authorizes the Secretary of Defense to make reductions by eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse, and weapon systems and other programs determined to be no longer a national security priority. Exempts from such reductions the needs of military personnel, including pay increases and health care. Dedicates increases in revenues resulting from this Act to: (1) various programs for health care, education, energy conservation, and affordable housing; (2) increasing the earned income credit; and (3) reducing the federal deficit.” [S 818, introduced 3/8/07] Marriage Penalty Sanders Campaign Claimed That Tarrant Falsely Said That Sanders Opposed Marriage Penalty Relief When Sanders Actually Voted Against Bush Tax Cuts. “Once again, Rich Tarrant is distorting Bernie's record. Tarrant claims that Bernie opposes ending the marriage tax penalty but the Tarrant campaign plays fast and loose with the facts and actually cites bills where Bernie voted for marriage penalty relief. Bernie Sanders has always supported ending the marriage penalty and giving tax relief to married couples. He has a strong record of supporting tax breaks for middle and low income people. What Tarrant is trying to do is cover up his support for the Bush tax cuts for the rich and the supply side economics of the Bush administration that is racking up record deficits.” [Bernie.org via Archive.org, accessed 8/25/15] In 2001, Sanders Voted Against Conference Report that Included Three Bush Tax Cuts. [Vote #149, 5/26/01, H.R.1836, passed 240-154, Sanders: N] Sanders Voted Against Conference Report of 2003 Bush Tax Cuts for Wealthy. [Vote #225, 5/23/05, H.R.2, passed 231-200, Sanders: N] Sanders Voted Against Marriage Penalty Relief. “Passage of the bill to reduce taxes for married couples by approximately $182 billion over 10 years. The measure would increase the standard deduction claimed by married couples to twice the amount claimed by single taxpayers. The upper boundary of the 15 percent tax bracket would gradually increase from 2003 to 2008 to twice the limit for singles. The measure also would allow couples to earn an additional $2,000 before being disqualified from receiving the earned income tax credit.” The bill passed 286-158. [HR 6, Vote #15, 2/10/00] Sanders Voted For Democratic Substitute Marriage Penalty Relief. In 2000, Sanders voted for a substitute amendment to reduce taxes for married couples by approximately $95 billion over 10 years. The amendment would increase the standard deduction for married couples to twice that for singles, and would increase the eligibility limit for couples for the earned income tax credit by $2,000 in 2001 and by $2,500 in 2002. [Vote #13, 2/10/00, H.R.6, failed 192-233, Sanders: Y] Sanders Voted for Marriage Penalty Tax Relief . In 2000, Sanders voted for a substitute amendment to reduce taxes for married couples by $95 billion over 10 years. The amendment would increase the standard deduction for married couples to twice that for singles, and would increase the eligibility limit for couples for the earned income tax credit by $2,000 in 2001 and by $2,500 in 2002. [Vote #390, 7/12/00, H.R.4810, failed 198-228, Sanders: Y] Sanders Voted for Marriage Penalty Relief for Middle and Low-Income Taxpayers. In 2000, he voted for a motion to instruct conferees to maximize the amount of marriage penalty relief provided to middle and low-income taxpayers. It also instructs conferees to minimize the additional marriage bonuses provided to taxpayers already receiving marriage bonuses under current law; and resolve the differences in effective dates and phase-in amounts in fiscally responsible manner. [Vote #408, 7/18/00, H.R.4810, failed 203-222, Sanders: Y] Sanders Voted for Marriage Penalty Relief. He voted for a motion to instruct conferees to insist that the conference report not include phase-ins longer than five years, delayed effective dates, or sunsets. The conference report should include marriage penalty relief, estate tax relief, increasing the per-child tax credit, pension reform and permanent extension of the research tax credit. [Vote #146, 5/23/01, H.R.1836, failed 198-210, Sanders: Y] Sanders Voted for Marriage Penalty Relief. In 2000, Sanders voted for a substitute amendment to reduce taxes for married couples by approximately $95 billion over 10 years. The amendment would increase the standard deduction for married couples to twice that for singles, and would increase the eligibility limit for couples for the earned income tax credit by $2,000 in 2001 and by $2,500 in 2002. [Vote #13, 2/10/00, H.R.6, failed 192-233, Sanders: Y] Sanders Voted for Marriage Penalty Tax Relief . In 2000, Sanders voted for a substitute amendment to reduce taxes for married couples by $95 billion over 10 years. The amendment would increase the standard deduction for married couples to twice that for singles, and would increase the eligibility limit for couples for the earned income tax credit by $2,000 in 2001 and by $2,500 in 2002. [Vote #390, 7/12/00, H.R.4810, failed 198-228, Sanders: Y] Sanders Voted for Marriage Penalty Relief for Middle and Low-Income Taxpayers. In 2000, he voted for a motion to instruct conferees to maximize the amount of marriage penalty relief provided to middle and low-income taxpayers. It also instructs conferees to minimize the additional marriage bonuses provided to taxpayers already receiving marriage bonuses under current law; and resolve the differences in effective dates and phase-in amounts in fiscally responsible manner. [Vote #408, 7/18/00, H.R.4810, failed 203-222, Sanders: Y] Sanders Voted for Marriage Penalty Relief. He voted for a motion to instruct conferees to insist that the conference report not include phase-ins longer than five years, delayed effective dates, or sunsets. The conference report should include marriage penalty relief, estate tax relief, increasing the per-child tax credit, pension reform and permanent extension of the research tax credit. [Vote #146, 5/23/01, H.R.1836, failed 198-210, Sanders: Y] Sanders Voted for Repeal of Marriage Penalty that Every Republican Voted Against . In 2001, Sanders voted for a substitute amendment that would reduce taxes by $585.5 billion over 10 years. The plan would lower the current 15 percent tax bracket to 12 percent on the first $20,000 of couples' taxable income and $10,000 for single taxpayers. It would double the standard deduction for married couples filing jointly to twice that of individuals filing singly. The plan would adjust the alternative minimum tax so that anyone with tax liability would receive the benefit of the rate reduction. It also would simplify and expand the earned income tax credit for low-income earners. The substitute amendment failed 196-231 with all 218 Republicans voting no. [Vote #73, 3/29/01, H.R.6, failed 196-231, Sanders: Y] Sanders Voted to Make the Marriage Tax Repeal Conditional on Health of Social Security Trust Fund that 99% of Republicans Voted Against. In 2002, Sanders voted for an alternative marriage tax proposal to make permanent repeal conditional on the financial shape of the Social Security trust funds.. The alternative failed, 198-213 with 207 out of 208 Republicans voting no. [ Associated Press , 6/13/02; Center on Budget & Policy Priorities, "The House Proposal to Make Marriage Penalty Relief Provisions Permanent," 6/12/02; R 1-207; D 196-5; I 1-1; Vote #228, 6/13/02, H.R.4019, failed 198-213, Sanders: Y] Sanders Voted to Eliminate Marriage Penalty. In 2003, Sanders voted for a substitute amendment that would permanently extend tax provisions eliminating the so-called marriage penalty by making the standard deduction for married couples double that of single taxpayers and increasing the upper limit of the 15 percent tax bracket for married couples to twice that of singles. It also would prevent the alternative minimum tax from negating the benefits of the bill for married couples, and it would offset the cost of the bill by imposing a 3.6 percent surtax on taxpayers earning more than $500,000 a year and married couples with annual incomes of more than $1 million. [Vote #136, 4/28/04, H.R.4181, failed 187-226, Sanders: Y] Sanders Voted To Provide Permanent Marriage Penalty Relief. In 2004, Sanders voted to permanently extend tax provisions eliminating the marriage penalty by making the standard deduction for married couples double that of single taxpayers and increasing the upper limit of the 15 percent tax bracket for married couples to twice that of singles. The bill would also exempt married couples from having to pay higher rates because their combined earnings push them into higher brackets. This bill passed the House 323-95. [ CQ Today , 4/28/04; New York Times , 4/29/2004; R 220-0; D 102-95; I 1-0; Vote #138, 4/28/04, H.R.4181 , passed 323-95, Sanders: Y] Sanders Proposed Abolishing Financial Penalties For Two Parent Families. “The fourth bill in the Progressive Promise is Family Foundation Act, which will enable parents to get decent-paying, stable jobs in order to afford child care and health care for their families; to raise the minimum wage and index it for inflation; to strengthen child support collection; to abolish financial penalties for two parent families; to protect the sanctity of the family and safeguard the health and well-being of all our children; and to ensure that all Americans are well fed.” [Rep. Bernard Sanders, Congressional Record, 1/26/95] Child Tax Credit Sanders Campaign Claimed That Tarrant Falsely Claimed That Sanders Opposed The Child Tax Credit, Citing His Votes Against The Bush Tax Cuts. “In his new television ad, Rich Tarrant accuses Congressman Bernie Sanders of opposing the child tax credit and making it harder to transfer a pension when a worker changes jobs. This is completely untrue. Tarrant cites votes out of context and uses votes against the Bush tax cuts for the super-wealthy as proof Bernie opposes the child tax credit. The truth is that Bernie has voted over a dozen times to expand the child tax credit.” [Bernie.org via Archive.org, accessed 8/25/15] In 2001, Sanders Voted Against Conference Report that Included Three Bush Tax Cuts. [Vote #149, 5/26/01, H.R.1836, passed 240-154, Sanders: N] Sanders Voted Against Making 2001 Bush Tax Cuts Permanent. [Vote #103, 4/18/02, motion to concur on H.R.586, Sanders: N] Sanders Voted Against House Version of 2003 Bush Tax Bill. [Vote #182, 5/9/03, passage of H.R.2, Sanders: N] Sanders Voted Against Conference Report of 2003 Bush Tax Cuts for Wealthy. [Vote #225, 5/23/05, H.R.2, passed 231-200, Sanders: N] Sanders Voted for $250 Billon in Tax Cuts, Including Expanding Child Tax Credit. In 1999, Sanders voted for a substitute amendment to reduce taxes by $250 billion over ten years, and restrict the majority of the tax cuts from taking effect until there is a certification of Medicare and Social Security solvency. The amendment would accelerate the estate tax exclusion to $1 million beginning Jan. 1, 2000. The amendment would increase the family child tax credit by $250 for each child under age five. [Vote #468, 9/26/98, H.AMDT.918 to H.R.4579, failed 173-258, Sanders: Y] Sanders Voted for Child Tax Credit. In 1997, Sanders voted for a substitute amendment to provide a net tax cut of $84.9 billion over five years, including $133.7 billion in gross tax cuts offset by $49.3 billion in revenue increases. The substitute provides a refundable child tax credit that would not be reduced by the Earned Income Tax Credit, makes the HOPE scholarship higher education tax credit available for all four years of a college education. [Vote #243, 6/26/97, H.AMDT.207 to H.R.2014, Sanders: Y] Sanders Voted for Middle Class Child Tax Credit . In 1995, Sanders voted for the motion to recommit the bill to the Ways and Means Committee with instructions to report it back amended to reduce from $200,000 to $60,000 the income that a family can earn and qualify for the $500per-child tax credit in the bill; to apply the increase in federal pension contributions only to members of Congress; to close a loophole in which wealthy individuals evade taxes by renouncing their citizenship; and to make the tax cuts in the bill contingent upon the enactment of a plan with specific numbers to balance the budget by the year 2002. [Vote #293, 4/5/95, H.R.1215, failed 168-265, Sanders: Y] Sanders Voted for $250 Billion in Tax Cuts Including Family Child Tax Credit. In 1999, Sanders voted for a substitute amendment to reduce taxes by $250 billion over ten years, and restrict the majority of the tax cuts from taking effect until there is a certification of Medicare and Social Security solvency. The amendment would increase the family child tax credit by $250 for each child under age five.[Vote #331, 7/22/99, H.R.2488, failed 173-258, Sanders: Y] Sanders Voted for Increasing Per-Child Tax Credit . In 2001, Sanders voted for the motion to instruct conferees to insist that the conference report not include phase-ins longer than five years, delayed effective dates, or sunsets. The conference report should include marriage penalty relief, estate tax relief, increasing the per-child tax credit, pension reform and permanent extension of the research tax credit. [Vote #146, 5/23/01, H.R.1836, failed 198-210, Sanders: Y] Sanders Voted 6 Times for Child Tax Credit For 6.5 Million Families. In 2003, Sanders voted six times for expanding the child tax credit to 6.5 million low-income families. Earlier in the year, Congress passed tax cut legislation expanding the existing $600-per-child tax credit to $1,000, but didn't grant the credit to parents who make between $10,500 and $26,550 a year. The expanded credit would cost $10 billion over 10 years and would be offset by extending expiring customs fees. All six motions were rejected. [HR 1308, Roll Call #275, 6/12/03; H.R. 1308, Roll Call #370, 7/16/03; H.R. 1308, Roll Call #447, 7/25/03; H.R. 1308, Roll Call #449, 7/25/03; H.R. 1308, Roll Call #477, 9/5/03; H.R. 1308, Roll Call #509, 9/23/03; CQ Daily Monitor. 7/16/03; Knight Ridder, 7/17/03] Sanders Voted for to Offset Cost Of Child Tax Credit with Surtax on Wealthy . In 2004, Sanders voted for a substitute amendment to offset the cost of the child tax credit with a surtax on those individuals earning over $500,000 and couples earning over $1 million in an effort to curb the effects that the credit will have on the national debt. Under the amendment, the credit would be extended only through 2010, at which time it could be extended further if the Congress enacted legislation to balance the budget by 2014. The substitute amendment failed 187226. [ CQ Weekly , 5/22/04; Washington Post , 5/21/04; R 0-217; D 186-9; I 1-0; Vote #208, 5/20/04, H.R.4359, failed 187-226, Sanders: Y] Sanders Voted for Extension of Child Tax Credit and Business Tax Relief. In 2004, Sanders voted for adoption of the conference report on the bill that would extend the $1,000 per child tax credit through 2009, the upper limit for the current 10 percent bracket through 2010 and tax breaks for married couples through 2008. It also would provide a one-year extension of current income exemptions from the alternative minimum tax and extend the expiring research and development tax credit through 2005. [Vote #472, 9/23/04, conference report on H.R.1308, Sanders: Y] Sanders Supported Targeted Deduction For Child Care Expenses. “The fifth bill in the Progressive Promise is The American Homemakers and Caregivers Act, which target IRA’s and other savings incentives on middle- and low-income Americans; special provisions to extend generous IRA options to spouses who stay home to nurture children under 6 years of age, thus recognizing the importance of parental childrearing; to allow penalty-free IRA withdrawals for home health care, education expenses, or to start a small business; and targeted deduction for child care expenses.” [Rep. Bernard Sanders, Congressional Record, 1/26/95] Gas Tax Sanders Campaign Said That Republican Rhetoric About Gas Taxes Was An Effort To Hide That Gas Prices Were At Record Highs While Republicans Continued Tax Breaks To Oil Companies. “Republicans rhetoric about gas taxes is an attempt to cover up their failed record on gas prices: prices are skyrocketing and have almost doubled since Bush took office in 2001. Meanwhile, America is increasingly dependent on foreign oil and the Republicans gave tax breaks to big oil companies that have seen outrageous profits” [Bernie.org via Archive.org, accessed 8/25/15] Sanders Said Republicans “Voted Down His Legislation That Would Drop Gas Prices By 10 To 25 Cents A Gallon.” “Bernie Sanders has a strong record of fighting for lower gas prices and has called on Bush to hold an energy summit to address skyrocketing gas prices by holding oil companies accountable but unfortunately Republicans have voted down his legislation that would drop gas prices by 10 to 25 cents a gallon.” [Bernie.org via Archive.org, accessed 8/25/15] Sanders Opposed “The Gas Tax Component Of The Clinton Economic Plan On The Floor Of The U.S. House.” “The truth is that Bernie supports tax relief for middle and low income families and spoke out against the gas tax component of the Clinton economic plan on the floor of the U.S. House.” [Bernie.org via Archive.org, accessed 8/25/15] Sanders Defended Voting To Renew Gas Taxes, Said They Were Important To Highway Construction Funding. “President Bush in fact renewed gas taxes in 2005 because it funds highway construction and lowering it would cut hundreds of thousands of jobs nationally. Republicans bring up gas taxes in an election year but in fact 96% of the Republican caucus in the House voted to renew them in 2005.” [Bernie.org via Archive.org, accessed 8/25/15] Fiscal Cliff Bernie Sanders Voted For Fiscal Cliff Deal That Raised Taxes On 77% Of Americans. “The actual effect of the deal, however, was to raise taxes on 77% of American households, while giving away billions in tax breaks to politicians’ corporate patrons. That’s because lawmakers on both sides of the aisle agreed from the outset not to fight for an extension of the payroll tax holiday signed into law by President Obama two years ago. That provision cut earners’ payroll tax liability by 2%. And while almost all households benefited in some way from the payroll tax cut, it was especially helpful to lower and middle income Americans, both because the payroll tax is capped at the first $110,000 of income and because higher earners tend to make more from investments, which are taxed at lower rates.” [HR 8, Vote #251, 1/1/13; MSNBC, 1/5/13] Sanders Said Alternative Would Have Thrown Country Back Into A Recession And Increased Taxes On Middle Class. “The so-called fiscal cliff legislation signed into law by President Obama is not a good bill. But it was better than the alternative, which is why I voted for it. The alternative — doing nothing — would have thrown this country back into a recession with nearly $4 trillion removed from the economy. Two million Americans desperately struggling to find a job would have had their unemployment benefits wiped out. The disappearing middle class, which has already seen median household income go down by nearly $5,000 over the past 12 years, would have been hit with an average income tax hike of $2,200 a year.” [Bernie Sanders, Times Argus, 1/4/13] 1993 Clinton Tax Increases Bernie Sanders Voted For House Passage Of Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. On May 27, 1993, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #199. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the five-year, $337 billion bill that closely follows President Clinton's economic proposals. The bill would raise $250 billion in new revenues, mandate $87 billion in cuts in mandatory spending, and cut an additional $159 billion from the deficit, largely through discretionary spending cuts and interest savings, for a total of $496 billion in deficit reduction over five years. Proposals in the bill include: a new top income bracket of 36 percent with a 10 percent surtax on income of more than $250,000; a tax increase on the Social Security benefits of better-off recipients; an increase in the Medicare payroll tax; an energy (Btu) tax; an increase in the corporate income tax rate to 35 percent; an auction of the public radio spectrum; and an expansion of the earned income tax credit. Also in the bill are provisions to freeze discretionary spending at or below fiscal 1993 levels through fiscal 1998 and create an entitlement review process and a deficit-reduction trust fund. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #199, 5/27/1993] President’s Proposal Would Cost A Typical Family About $200 More A Year. “The bulk of the higher taxes in the bill, as the President proposed, would fall on wealthy individuals. No one with with an income below $100,000 would get a higher income tax rate. But almost everyone would feel the effect. For example, a new tax on fuel would cost a typical family, according to the Treasury Department's calculations, about $200 a year in larger utility bills and higher prices for gasoline and other products and services. The cost could be higher for families who drive long distances or live on farms.” [New York Times, 5/14/93] Bernie Sanders Voted For Senate Version Of Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. On August 5, 1993, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #406. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the conference report to reduce the deficit by an estimated $496 billion over five years through almost $241 billion in additional taxes and $255 billion in spending cuts by closely tracking President Clinton's economic proposals. Of the cuts in the bill, $102 billion would come through a freeze of discretionary spending at fiscal 1993 levels through fiscal 1998. Proposals in the bill include: a new top income tax bracket of 36 percent with a 10 percent surtax above $250,000 retroactive to Jan. 1, 1993; a tax increase on the Social Security benefits of wealthier recipients; an increase of 4.3 cents in the federal gas tax; a tax increase from 34 percent to 35 percent on corporate income above $10 million retroactive to Jan. 1, 1993; an auction of the public radio spectrum; a direct student loan program; $55.8 billion in Medicare cuts mostly through reductions in payments to providers; a delay in cost of living adjustments for military personnel; changes in federal retirement programs; a $20.8 billion expansion of the earnedincome tax credit; creation of empowerment zones; an increase in spending of $500 million for childhood immunization and $2.5 billion for food stamps; a two-year extension of the research and development tax credit; a 50 percent capital gains exclusion for long-term investments in certain small businesses; and allowing the depreciation of intangible assets. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #406, 8/5/1993] Sanders Provided “Slender Margin Of Victory” Needed For Passage. “Clinton won despite the loss of 41 Democratic votes, with independent Rep. Bernard Sanders of Vermont providing the slender margin of victory. All eight Massachusetts Democrats voted for the bill; the state's two Republicans opposed it.” [Boston Globe, 8/6/93] Bill Impacted Middle Class And Seniors By Increasing Gas Tax And Increasing Taxable Share Of Social Security Income. “The highlights of the deficit reduction bill: A major income-tax increase on high salaries, costing those with incomes of more than $ 200,000 an extra $ 23,521 a year. A gas-tax increase of 4.3 cents per gallon, the only part of the bill to affect the middle class. A provision by which some Social Security recipients, generally those with incomes that average over $ 50,000, would have to pay tax on a greater share of their benefits. A $ 4-billion-a-year expansion of a major antipoverty program, the earned-income credit. Higher taxes on corporations and a further cut in the deduction for business meals and entertainment. A cut of nearly $ 56 billion in the growth of Medicare reimbursements to doctors and hospitals. Projected reductions in spending for the military and restraints on a variety of other federal spending programs.” [Boston Globe, 8/6/93] Gas Tax Increase Would Cost The Typical Household Between $30 And $50 A Year. “The gas-tax increase, costing the typical household $30 to $50 a year, or a dime a day, as Clinton put it. This is the only part of the bill with an impact across the broad middle class; Republicans delighted in recalling Clinton's campaign opposition to a big gas-tax increase and his nowabandoned pledge of a middle-class tax cut.” [St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 8/6/93] Tax Credits Sanders Sponsored Bill To Use Stimulus Funds To Give A $250 Benefit To Seniors, Veterans And Disabled Persons. “Amends the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to extend the $250 economic recovery payment payable to certain individuals through calendar year 2010. […] To provide an emergency benefit of $250 to seniors, veterans, and persons with disabilities in 2010 to compensate for the lack of a cost-of-living adjustment for such year, and for other purposes.” [S 1685, introduced 9/17/09] Sanders Reintroduced Bill With Additional Tax Credit For Certain Government Retirees. “Amends the Assistance for Unemployed Workers and Struggling Families Act, title II of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009, to extend: (1) through 2011 the $250 economic recovery payments to recipients of Social Security, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) (title XVI of the Social Security Act), railroad retirement benefits, and veterans disability compensation or pension benefits; and (2) through 2011 the special tax credit for certain government retirees. Makes additional appropriations through FY2013 to cover such payments.” [S 3976, introduced 11/19/10] Middle Class Taxes Politifact: “There’s Some Doubt That Sanders Could Achieve His Policy Proposals Without Additional Tax Increases.” “Beyond this, there’s some doubt that Sanders could achieve his policy proposals without additional tax increases. Indeed, one tax expert cautioned against speculating because Sanders has been so vague about his proposals.” [Politifact, 10/20/15] SANDERS ADMITTED THE TOP ONE PERCENT COULD NOT PAY FOR ALL OF HIS PROPOSALS October 16: Sanders Said He Believed His Agenda Could Be Paid For By Taxes For The Wealthy, Said “We May Have To Go Down A Little Bit Lower Than” Taxing Only The Top One Percent “But Not Much Lower.” “MAHER: So you’re saying we can pay for all this without raising taxes on anybody but the 1 percent? SANDERS: We may have to go down a little bit lower than that, but not much lower. And what people have to understand is right now people can’t afford to send their kids to college, and people are graduating school deeply in debt. Do I think we should join Germany and many other countries and encourage young people to get the education that they need, making our country stronger? I sure do. I sure do.” [Real Time with Bill Maher, HBO, 10/16/15] October 18: Sanders Said It Was Not True That He Would Have To Go Much Further Than Tax Hikes For The Top One Percent To Pay For His Agenda. “STEPHANOPOULOS: But to pay for all of your programs, you're going to have to do more than tax the top 1 percent. How far below the top 1 percent are you going to go with tax hikes? SANDERS: It is not true that we have to go much further. I just indicated to you some of the proposals that we have.” [This Week with George Stephanopoulos, ABC News, 10/18/15] Sanders Said He Did Not Say There Would Be No Tax Hikes Below The Top One Percent, And Used As An Example That He Would Pay For Paid Leave Through A Small Increase In The Payroll Tax “STEPHANOPOULOS: No tax hikes below the top 1 percent? SANDERS: I didn't say that. I think if you're looking about guaranteeing paid family and medical leave, which virtually every other major country has, so that when a mom gives birth, she doesn't have to go back to work in two weeks, or there's an illness in a family, dad or mom can stay home with the kids. That will require a small increase in the payroll tax (INAUDIBLE) Senator Gillibrand's legislation and we can accomplish that with a -- just a small increase in the payroll tax.” [This Week with George Stephanopoulos, ABC News, 10/18/15] SANDERS ADMITTED SOME OF HIS TAXES WOULD HIT EVERYONE Sanders Acknowledged That An Increase In The Payroll Tax Would Hit Everyone. “Senator Gillibrand's legislation and we can accomplish that with a -- just a small increase in the payroll tax. STEPHANOPOULOS: But that will... (CROSSTALK) SANDERS: -- idea. STEPHANOPOULOS: That's going to hit everybody. SANDERS: That would hit every -- yes, it would. But it would mean that we would join the rest of the industrialized world and make sure that when a mom has a baby, she can, in fact, stay home with that baby for three months rather than go back to work at one -- at the end of one week. We are the only major -- only country -- only major country on Earth that doesn't guarantee paid family and medical leave.” [This Week with George Stephanopoulos, ABC News, 10/18/15] Stimulus Sanders Defended The Federal Stimulus Package And Noted Its Success In Creating Jobs, Boosting GDP, And Reducing The Unemployment Rate. “Now in terms of government action, we have heard that the stimulus package presumably had no impact. Well, that wasn’t true in my state, nor was it true in America. By investing in our economy, in our kids, in infrastructure, according to the CBO, the recovery act–the stimulus bill–created or sustained up to 3.6 million jobs, a 4.2 percent boost for GDP in the first quarter of 2010, and a reduction in the unemployment rate of up to 2.1 percent in the last quarter of 2009–at a time we needed the jobs the most.” [Bernie Sanders, YouTube, 1/16/14, 1:50] Sanders Defended Stimulus Package. “No, it wasn't a waste of money. I know there was a lot of Republican propaganda. Look, when Obama came into office we were losing 800,000 jobs a month and our financial system was under virtual collapse. I can tell you that in the state of Vermont, that stimulus package helped us build roads, build bridges, improve childcare, improve Head Start, move us toward sustainable energy, and created thousands of jobs, at a time when we desperately needed those jobs. So I don't think it was a waste of money.” [My Champlain Valley, 5/31/15] Sanders Said The Stimulus Package Was Not Strong Enough. “NIEDELMAN: Your position is that it didn't go far enough. You are actually criticizing it for being weak? SANDERS: Absolutely. Look, what you just showed your viewers, is that our infrastructure is crumbling. This is the wealthiest country in the history of the world. We used to have an infrastructure that was the envy of other countries. Today, what the American Society of Civil Engineers tell us is that it is falling apart. So yes, when we invest in roads and bridges and water systems and wastewater plants and airports and in rail, by the way, you are going to create millions of decent paying jobs making our country stronger, more productive, and safer. Yeah, I believe in that.” [My Champlain Valley, 5/31/15] Balanced Budget Sanders Proposed Balanced Budget Requirement Waiver In Fiscal Years When National Unemployment Rate Exceeded Four Percent. “Today the Progressive Caucus in bringing to the floor for a vote our 1st in 11 alternative bills to the Republican Contract—The Fiscal Fairness Act, which allows a waiver of the balanced budget requirement in any fiscal year when the national unemployment rate exceeds 4 percent, thus sustaining our long-standing national commitment to full employment.” [Rep. Bernard Sanders, Congressional Record, 1/26/95; H.Amdt.18, introduced 1/26/95] Fraud Sanders Proposed Punishment For Defrauding Federal Government On Procurement. “The second bill in the Progressive Promise is The Equal Justice Before the Law Act, which is an anticrime package that retains key aspects of the anticrime legislation enacted in 1994 to prevent crime as well as punish that which happens; to crack down on white-collar crime—for example, S&L bailout, defrauding Federal Government on procurement, criminal penalties for willful violation of child labor laws by employers that result in serious bodily injury or death of minors in the workplace, eliminate deductibility of legal expenses when a company is accused of a crime—and on drug trafficking and abuse.” [Rep. Bernard Sanders, Congressional Record, 1/26/95] Burlington 1972: Sanders Called For Revising Vermont’s Regressive Tax System. “Starting as early as October 1971, the Freeman covered the Liberty Union Party and its candidates, including a photo of a very young Senate hopeful Bernie Sanders with his son. [..] By the next year, Sanders had grown disillusioned with the coverage of the Freeman, and he penned a letter to the editor. Beginning with a churlish charge that the paper ‘virtually ignored’ his campaign, Sanders continued to lay out a three-point campaign platform consisting of ‘a radical revision of the state’s regressive tax structure,’ an end to the Vietnam War, and an amorphous call to ‘abolish all laws which attempt to impose a particular brand of morality.’ Rather than an ethical argument, Sanders used finances as the basis for ending the Vietnam War and suggested that this money fund universal health care, low-cost housing, and environmental cleanup.” [New Republic, Chelsea G. Summers, 6/10/15] Supported Tax Commercial Property At A Higher Rate Than Residential Property Sanders Proposed Taxing Commercial Property At A Higher Rate Than Homes. “In the long run, we need a system of tax-classification through which industrial and commercial property can be taxed at a higher rate than homes. This approach is being used in a number of states. In the long run we also need to give serious thought to abolishing the property tax completely, and replacing it with a progressive statewide income tax in which people will be taxed solely on their income.” [Sanders newspaper advertisement] Sanders Said That A Statewide Property Tax On Non-Residential Property “Would Be Good.” Q: Do you favor a statewide property tax on non-residential property? SANDERS: “Such a system would be good, although it should be pursued in a slightly different manner than several of the current proposals. [Sanders Interview, Vermont Business Magazine, 1986] Sanders Attacked Efforts To Raise The Property Tax In Burlington And Called It A Regressive Tax. “Working people and the elderly know that the progressive movement in Burlington, and Peter Clavelle, have led the fight against the regressive and unfair property tax, and for a tax system which is based on people's ability to pay--not on the house in which you live.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, dated 3/1/89] Sanders Said The Major Financial Crisis Facing Cities In Vermont Was The “Overdependence On The Regressive And Unfair Property Tax.” “The major financial crisis facing the cities, towns and school boards of Vermont including Burlington - is our overdependence on the regressive and unfair property tax. This overdependency is caused by Vermont state government's unwillingness to adequately fund education and municipal services from ~ore progressive revenue sources than the property tax. The property tax does not reflect the individual's ability to pay and clearly, in Vermont, the challenge of our time is to move toward more fair and progressive sources of taxation than the property tax.” [Mayor Bernard Sanders, 1/20/87] Sanders Said That Burlington Took Steps To Break Dependency On “Unfair And Regressive” Property Tax. “In terms of taxation, I am extremely proud of the role that the City of Burlington has played in beginning [sic] to break our dependency on the unfair and regressive property tax. No city in the history of our state has moved faster and more effectively than we have in the area of finding progressive alternatives to the property tax – which is the major reason why we have not had to raise general city property taxes for five years.” [Statement, 12/1987] Sanders Said Burlington Passed A Charter Change To Eliminate Property Taxes For Low Income Elderly And Disabled And A Program To Help Low-Income Seniors Defer Property Taxes. “In March, voters passed a charter change that would virtually eliminate property taxes for low-income elderly and disabled people. (That charter change will be voted on this session by the Legislature.) We also instituted a reverse-equity· loan program with the Bank of Vermont to help low-income seniors defer property taxes until they sell or bequeath their homes.” [Draft, Bernie Sanders, Some Good Things for Burlington in 87] Supported Vermont’s Fair Tax Initiative That Would Decouple State And Federal Tax Policy Sanders Supported A Vermont “Fair Tax Initiative” That Would Decouple State Income Tax From Federal System And Institute Statewide Property Tax. “Sanders and Maida Townsend, president of the Vermont National Education Association, joined forces to discuss a major lax reform package now before the Legislature that they say could ease the property tax pressure on the poor and middle class and increase aid to cities and towns. The legislation, developed by a slate-wide coalition of progressive, lowincome and educational groups called the Fair Tax Initiative, proposes decoupling the state's income tax structure from the federal system, instituting a state-wide property tax and instituting a $25,000 homestead exemption.” [Brattleboro Reformer, 3/12/86] Sanders Said Bill Would Tax People Who Could Most Afford To Pay. “According to Sanders, H-750 tries to tax those people who can most afford to pay taxes - the wealthy and corporations. By eliminating many federal tax loopholes when computing your state taxes, and returning to 1981 tax rates, H-750 also can generate more than $100 million in additional revenues for the state, Sanders said.” [Brattleboro Reformer, 3/12/86] Sanders Said Fair Tax Initiative Would Shift Tax Burden Away From Property Owners. “Speaking before 20 members of the Central Vermont Rotary, the three term socialist mayor pitched the Fair Tax Initiative, a proposal backed by progressives which would shift the tax burden away from property owners.” [Times Argus, date unknown] Fair Tax Initiative Uncoupled The State Income Tax From The Federal Income Tax, Allowing Vermont To Eliminate Federal Tax Loopholes. “The initiative, currently pending as a number of bills in the Legislature, calls for the following: Uncoupling the state income tax from the federal income tax. This would allow the state to eliminate the federal tax loopholes that are passed through to business and industry on the setate income tax form, Sanders said.” [Rutland Herald, 4/10/86] Fair Tax Initiative Would Classify Tax Property According To Use, Placing A Lower Tax Rate On Homes Than On Businesses. “The initiative, currently pending as a number of bills in the Legislature, calls for the following: […] Classifying tax property according to use, a moderate tax rate for homes, a lower tax rate for farms and forests, higher taxes rates for business, industry and second homes.” [Rutland Herald, 4/10/86] Fair Tax Initiative Allowed Communities To Establish Local Taxes By A Vote. “The initiative, currently pending as a number of bills in the Legislature, calls for the following: […] Empowering communities to establish local taxes by a community vote.” [Rutland Herald, 4/10/86] 1986: Sanders Proposed Raising State Individual And Corporate Income Taxes On People And Businesses Who Had Higher Taxes Before Reagan’s Tax Cuts. “The solution that I propose is that ask those individuals and those institutions in the state of Vermont those wealthy people, whose corporations who today are in fact as a result of President Reagan’s tax breaks and the coupling mechanism that exists between state government our state tax system and the federal tax system, that we ask those individuals who are today paying less in income taxes and corporate taxes than they paid five years ago to start paying their fair share.” [SoundCloud, Bernie Sanders, Audio Clip: “1986 Tax the Wealthy,” Accessed 6/4/15] Sanders’ Tax Proposal Aimed To Reduce Property Taxes By 20 Percent By Separating Vermont Taxes From Federal Taxes And Increasing Taxes On Top Earners. “[Sanders] touted his comprehensive tax reform package as a way to reduce property taxes by 20 percent and to increase state aid to education. The plan’s funding mechanism includes separating Vermont’s income tax from the federal levy, and increasing state income taxes by an average of 50 percent for people who make more than $50,000.” [Associated Press, 10/21/86] Pushed For New Local Taxes Sanders Said He Could Not, “In Good Conscience,” Recommend A Budget Requesting No Increase In The General Tax Because It Would Limit City’s Ability To Provide Quality Services. “Right now, with a few exceptions, we are still dependent upon the same sources of revenue as we were last year. The 3 alternatives that I see are: 1. Submitting a budget which requests no increase in the general tax rate this year. As attractive as this alternative might appear, I cannot recommend this approval in good conscience because I believe it would result in serious consequences to our city in terms of a significant reduction in the amount and quality of services available to our people, including employee layoffs. I choose to not accept this alternative.” [Sanders Speech, 1981] Sanders Pushed For Meals-And-Rooms Tax, Tax On Utilities, And Other Corporate Levies. “If the city hasn't been radically transformed since then, it isn't because Mr. Sanders hasn’t tried. He pushed unsuccessfully for a city meals-and-rooms tax, a .tax on utilities and other corporate levies. He aided the unsuccessful unionizing efforts of some local retail workers. And he blocked development of luxury condominiums on the city's Lake Champlain waterfront, an area he thinks should be "for all the people, not just those rich enough to pay to live there."” [Wall Street Journal, 1983] Bernie Sanders Endorsed A Rooms And Meals Tax to Raise Revenue In Burlington. According to Vanguard Press, “Last month, for example, Sanders endorsed a rooms and meals tax to raise revenue. He told reporters he supported the levy because ‘nobody forces anybody to go out to dinner and drop 20 to 30 bucks.’” [Vanguard Press, 12/31/81] Sanders Supported A Gross Receipts Tax, Which He Called A “Luxury Excise Tax.” “Taxes were discussed in several of the Saturday workshops. Jerry Sazama, a University of Connecticut professor, suggested that in a socialist city the best tax to work toward is the income tax, "You can make it as progressive as you want," he said, "by setting the rates accordingly." Sazama criticized a city sales tax because "the disincentive is too big," yet supported Sanders' proposed gross receipts tax, which he termed a "luxury excise tax."” [Vanguard Press, 6/11/82] Former Chairman Of Vermont Democratic Party: Sanders Imposed Regressive Fees For Burlington Services. “I suggest that a list of position on which he can be responsibly criticized and challenged continues to lengthen. […] His imposition of taxes in the form of fees, regressive in nature and probably illegal since the fees imposed bear no relationship to the cost of service provided.” [Frank Balch, Burlington Free Press, 4/26/84] Sanders Said Springfield Should Not Repeal Inventory Tax Unless It Placed A New Tax On Businesses To Avoid Shifting Tax Burden To Homeowners. “Springfield should not repeal the inventory tax unless there is another tax to put back on businesses, Burlington Mayor Bernard Sanders told members of the Connecticut Valley Labor Alliance Thursday. Sanders said repeal of the inventory tax without another tax in its place would just shift all the tax burden onto homeowners.” [Vermont Report, 8/2/83] Sanders “Persuaded Voters To Adopt A Tax Increase” To Avoid Layoffs Of Police And Firefighters And Cuts To City Services. “Sanders won a big battle within weeks of his election when he persuaded voters to adopt a tax increase they had spurned only two months before, averting layoffs of police and firefighters and deep cuts into city services.” Sanders Sought A Tax On Utility Companies For Excavation. “In addition, the administration is seeking to tax utility companies when they dig up the streets. Sanders is seeking to establish an excavation fee which would save the tax payers the cost of repairs which they have traditionally had to bear. Sanders pointed out to us that this is a very conservative tax.” [Modern Times, 1984] 1985: Sanders Supported Changing State Law To Allow Burlington To Create Local Options For Taxation. “Burlington has brought in some proposals some charter changes passed by the people of Burlington to the Vermont state legislature. We need the passage of those proposals. Furthermore if they are not passed, it would seem to me to indicate a very sorry state of affairs for democracy in the state of Vermont when the people in a community vote for something, vote for alternatives to the property tax, vote for helping paying their electric bills, vote to help people in reappraisal, and have that turned down by the legislature. That would not be acceptable. So I think we are of a like mind both to fight for a very decent state wide revenue sharing package and for local option for taxation.” [SoundCloud, Bernie Sanders, Audio Clip: “1985 Local Option Tax Plan,” Accessed 6/4/15] 1985: Sanders Wanted To Negotiate “A Very Decent Statewide Revenue Sharing Package” With The State Legislature. “Burlington has brought in some proposals some charter changes passed by the people of Burlington to the Vermont state legislature. We need the passage of those proposals. Furthermore if they are not passed, it would seem to me to indicate a very sorry state of affairs for democracy in the state of Vermont when the people in a community vote for something, vote for alternatives to the property tax, vote for helping paying their electric bills, vote to help people in reappraisal, and have that turned down by the legislature. That would not be acceptable. So I think we are of a like mind both to fight for a very decent state wide revenue sharing package and for local option for taxation.” [SoundCloud, Bernie Sanders, Audio Clip: “1985 Local Option Tax Plan,” Accessed 6/4/15] Opposed Tax Increase In Mayoral Race 1981: Sanders Opposed Tax Increase in Mayoral Race. “But nothing is as unblemished as it seems in politics, and Sanders long ago proved himself a far cannier politician than his idealistic trappings might suggest. Tuesday’s speech, for instance, probably would never have happened had the cantankerous Vermont senator not opposed a tax increase during his 1981 mayoral race. The five-term incumbent Burlington mayor, Gordon Paquette, supported raising residential taxes in the city; Sanders, the selfprofessed socialist, argued it was unnecessary and would hurt middle class residents. It was also a savvy political move: he won the mayoral race by 10 votes, and went on to serve in the House and Senate.” [Time, 5/25/15] As Mayor Of Burlington, Sanders Opposed Property Taxes And Worked To Cut Government Spending. “As mayor of Burlington, Sanders made opposing property taxes a cornerstone of his campaigns, worked to cut government spending, and earned a critical endorsement from the police officers’ union.” [MSNBC, 5/28/15] Government Spending THE WSJ ESTIMATED SANDERS’S PLANS WOULD COST $18 TRILLION HEADLINE: “Price Tag Of Bernie Sanders’s Proposals: $18 Trillion” [Wall Street Journal, 9/14/15] Wall Street Journal Estimated That Sanders’ Agenda Called For At Least $18 Trillion In New Federal Spending. “Sen. Bernie Sanders, whose liberal call to action has propelled his long-shot presidential campaign, is proposing an array of new programs that would amount to the largest peacetime expansion of government in modern American history. In all, he backs at least $18 trillion in new spending over a decade, according to a tally by The Wall Street Journal, a sum that alarms conservatives and gives even many Democrats pause. Mr. Sanders sees the money as going to essential government services at a time of increasing strain on the middle class.” [Wall Street Journal, 9/14/15; Chart, Wall Street Journal, 9/14/15 Wall Street Journal: Sanders’ Single-Payer Health Care Proposal Would Cost An Estimated $15 Trillion. “His agenda includes an estimated $15 trillion for a government-run health-care program that covers every American, plus large sums to rebuild roads and bridges, expand Social Security and make tuition free at public colleges.” [Wall Street Journal, 9/14/15] Sanders Had Previously Proposed Raising As Much As $6.5 Trillion To Finance His Agenda. “To pay for it, Mr. Sanders, a Vermont independent running for the Democratic nomination, has so far detailed tax increases that could bring in as much as $6.5 trillion over 10 years, according to his staff.” [Wall Street Journal, 9/14/15] Sanders Campaign Said That It Would Propose Additional Taxes. “A campaign aide said additional tax proposals would be offered to offset the cost of some, and possibly all, of his health program.” [Wall Street Journal, 9/14/15] Democratic Congressional Proposal For Single-Payer Health Care Included Funding From An Additional Payroll Tax On Employers And Workers. “A campaign aide said additional tax proposals would be offered to offset the cost of some, and possibly all, of his health program. A Democratic proposal for such a “single-payer” health plan, now in Congress, would be funded in part through a new payroll tax on employers and workers, with the trade-off being that employers would no longer have to pay for or arrange their workers’ insurance.” [Wall Street Journal, 9/14/15] Wall Street Journal: Sanders’ Agenda Would Increase Federal Spending By About 33 Percent, To Roughly $68 Trillion Over 10 Years. “The Sanders program amounts to increasing total federal spending by about one-third—to a projected $68 trillion or so over 10 years.” [Wall Street Journal, 9/14/15] Sanders’ Agenda Would Increase Government Spending As A Percentage Of Annual GDP From 20 Percent To 30 Percent. “For many years, government spending has equaled about 20% of gross domestic product annually; his proposals would increase that to about 30% in their first year.” [Wall Street Journal, 9/14/15] Sanders’ Agenda Would Be The Second Largest Increase In Government Spending, Second Only To WWII. “As a share of the economy, that would represent a bigger increase in government spending than the New Deal or Great Society and is surpassed in modern history only by the World War II military buildup.” [Wall Street Journal, 9/14/15] SANDERS REJECTED THE $18 TRILLION FIGURE Sanders Claimed That The Wall Street Journal Exaggerated How Much His Health Care Plan Would Cost. “MITCHELL: Now, today's "Wall Street Journal" itemizes what they say would be the price tag of what you are proposing, the social programs. $18 trillion over ten years. Is that sustainable given the economy, given where the budget is and the deadlock in Congress? SANDERS: Andrea, that is not the reality. We will be responding to "The Wall Street Journal" on that. I think most of the expense that they put in there, the expenditures have to do with the single payer health care system. They significantly exaggerated the cost of that and they forgot to tell the American people in that article that that means eliminating the costs that you incur with private health insurance.” [Transcript via Federal News Service, Andrea Mitchell Reports, MSNBC, 9/15/15] Sanders Said Analysts “Exaggerate What We Are Doing” Because “We Pay For What We Are Doing.” “TOM ASHBROOK: Washington Post estimates today that your program would cost $3.27 trillion. That is a lot of money. BERNIE SANDERS: Yes, but like other analysts who, um, exaggerate what we are doing. We pay for what we are doing. But here is the point Tom. Yes, I am not going to deny that if you make certain that every public college and university is tuition free and if you, by the way, substantially lower student debt, which is now a very serious problem, Tom. That will cost you about 70 billion dollars. That is a lot of money, but you know how we pay for it? We pay for it based on a tax on Wall Street speculation. Yes, I oppose cutting Social Security benefits, I want to expand it. We pay for that by demanding that the wealthiest people in this county, people earning over $250,000 a year, we will lift the cap on taxable income and they will, in fact, pay on all of their income rather the at $118,000 right now. So you name the issue and we are paying for it by doing away with, for example, the absurd loophole that now exists such that profitable corporations making billions of dollars a year can stash their money in the Cayman Islands and Bermuda and not pay a nickel taxes.” [On Point With Tom Ashbrook, WBUR, 10/1/15] Sanders Said The Wall Street Journal Was “Dead Wrong” On A Number Of Points They Made About The Cost Of His Agenda. “Mark Halperin: I know the [Wall Street] Journal did a story that you dispute with about the specifics. But there is no doubt you are for increased spending in a lot of areas, increased revenue in some areas, but would in your first budget for instance submit a balanced budget? Bernie Sanders: No no no, you could do that. But let me just say a few things. And the Wall Street Journal was dead wrong on a number of points they are making. When you talk, they suggest I’m spending 18 trillion over a 10 year period. Fifteen of that was spent on healthcare. What they forgot to say when we move towards a national healthcare program, the kind of program that exists on every major country on earth, the cost per capita on healthcare would go significantly down, so yes, taxes would go up, but you would not have to private health insurance as an individual or as a business.” [With All Due Respect, Bloomberg, 9/18/15] Sanders Said That Articles About The Cost Of His Agenda Have Been “Really Unfair And Wrong.” “MAHER: Okay. But now this has been studied. The amount of tax revenue that we would get just from taxing the people who I think your fans think you’re talking about the people who own a yacht does not come close to covering what you want to pay for. SANDERS: Not true, not true. MAHER: Come on, you’re saying by only taxing the top one - SANDERS: No, what I’m saying is there have been articles out that that have been really unfair and wrong. For example, what they are suggesting is if we move to a Medicare for all single payer system, which guarantees health care to all people, it would cost a lot of money. That’s true, but what they forget to tell you is that it would be much more cost effective than the dysfunctional system we have right now which is the most expensive per capita on earth.” [Real Time with Bill Maher, HBO, 10/16/15] THE WAPO ESTIMATED MORE THAN $3 TRILLION IN SPENDING Washington Post: Sanders Would Spent $3.27 Trillion As President “At The Very, Very Least.” “If he becomes president, Sanders would spend an enormous amount of money: $3.27 trillion. At the very, very least. But he is not just a big-spending liberal. And his agenda is not just about money. It’s also about control.” [Washington Post, 10/1/15] Washington Post: Sanders Wanted To “Super-Size” Existing Federal Programs. “Sanders doesn’t want that. Instead, what he wants is to take existing federal programs — many established by Democrats such as Franklin D. Roosevelt or Lyndon B. Johnson — and super-size them.” [Washington Post, 10/17/15] SANDERS HAS BEEN CRITICIZED FOR LACK OF DETAILS OF HIS SPENDING PLANS Nonpartisan Tax Policy Center Official: “There Is Not Enough Substance To (Sanders’) Proposals For Anyone To Have Analyzed Them.” “‘There is not enough substance to (Sanders’) proposals for anyone to have analyzed them,’ said Roberton Williams of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. ‘Organizations typically wait until there is a fully formulated plan before they try to model them. Sanders is not anywhere near that point yet.’” [Politifact, 10/20/15] Washington Post Editorial Board: Sanders’ Solutions To Real Issues Were “Frequently Simplistic Or Fraught With Potential Perverse Side Effects.” “Whether denouncing the influence of big money in politics or decrying the top-heavy distribution of income, Mr. Sanders identifies real issues. His solutions, though, are frequently simplistic or fraught with potential perverse side effects.” [Editorial Board, Washington Post, 10/12/15] Washington Post Editorial Board: “There Is Nothing ‘Progressive’ About Promising Free Tuition Or Expanded Social Security Benefits, Regardless Of Need, And Regardless Of Resource Constraints In An Aging Society And Slow-Growing Economy.” “There is nothing ‘progressive’ about promising free tuition or expanded Social Security benefits, regardless of need, and regardless of resource constraints in an aging society and slow-growing economy. The real challenge for the country is finding ways to target government assistance where it will do the most good with the fewest unintended consequences.” [Editorial Board, Washington Post, 10/12/15] USA Today Editorial: Sanders’ Proposals Were “Politically Impractical.” “Even so, there’s no doubt that Sanders, who's running a surprisingly strong second to Hillary Clinton in the latest polls, is talking serious money. To say the least, his ideas are politically impractical. A Republican-controlled Congress that detests Obamacare and struggles to pay for pothole repairs is not going to enact these kinds of sweeping social changes.” [Editorial, USA Today, 10/19/15] USA Today Editorial: Sanders’ Proposals Were “Fiscally Unsound.” “More important, the plans are fiscally unsound. The bulk of his proposals involve creating new benefits or expanding existing ones. This comes at a time when benefits — Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, food stamps and veterans' programs, to name a few — are already consuming most of the federal budget. These "entitlement" benefits do not have to be voted on each year by Congress and can’t be vetoed by the president. Not surprisingly, they grow at a faster rate than spending for defense, national parks, environmental protection and other core government programs.” [Editorial, USA Today, 10/19/15] USA Today Editorial: Sanders’ Would Increase Entitlement Spending Despite The Fact That Current Spending Was Part Of An Unsustainable Trend. “Fifty years ago, benefit programs constituted a quarter of federal spending. By the 1990s, they had surpassed 50%. Now they are close to two-thirds and on their way up as more Baby Boomers transition from workers to retirees. Sanders’ solution to this unsustainable trend? To pile on even more benefits. Yes, he does include a number of taxes to pay for them. He would, for instance, lift the cap above which people stop paying the 6.2% payroll tax that funds Social Security. He also proposes a tax on investment transactions and taxes on offshore corporate income. Sanders says these taxes would raise $6.5 trillion over 10 years. Even if that's true, it's not nearly enough to cover all the new spending, much less close existing deficits or begin paying down the national debt.” [Editorial, USA Today, 10/19/15] USA Today Editorial: Sanders’ Proposed Tax Increases Would Not Fully Cover His Proposed Spending Increases. “Fifty years ago, benefit programs constituted a quarter of federal spending. By the 1990s, they had surpassed 50%. Now they are close to two-thirds and on their way up as more Baby Boomers transition from workers to retirees. Sanders’ solution to this unsustainable trend? To pile on even more benefits. Yes, he does include a number of taxes to pay for them. He would, for instance, lift the cap above which people stop paying the 6.2% payroll tax that funds Social Security. He also proposes a tax on investment transactions and taxes on offshore corporate income. Sanders says these taxes would raise $6.5 trillion over 10 years. Even if that's true, it's not nearly enough to cover all the new spending, much less close existing deficits or begin paying down the national debt.” [Editorial, USA Today, 10/19/15] USA Today Editorial: Sanders Failed To Recognize That Over-Borrowing And The National Debt Were Serious Problems And His Proposals Would Exacerbate These Problems. “Sanders' overarching theme — wealth concentration among the top sliver of Americans — is a serious problem but not the only one America faces. Another is that American consumers and the U.S. government are borrowing too much and spending too much on the present while shortchanging the future. The national debt already tops $18 trillion. Sanders would make this problem worse, much worse.” [Editorial, USA Today, 10/19/15] Federal Mandates EARLIER SANDERS OPPOSED FEDERAL MANDATES ON STATES & LOCALITIES 1986: Sanders Said He Would “Fight Like Hell… To Get The Federal Government Out Of The Business Of Telling States What To Do.” “‘It is absolutely and totally undemocratic for the federal government to be telling 50 states in the union that they should have to have seat belt laws,’ Sanders said. ‘I would fight like hell and work with other states to get the federal government out of the business of telling states what to do.’” [Rutland Daily Herald, 8/20/86] SANDERS HEALTH PLAN REQUIRE STATES TO COVER 20 PERCENT OF THE COSTS 2013: Sanders Sponsored American Health Security Act Of 2013. “The only long-term solution to America's healthcare crisis is a single-payer national healthcare program. […] Congressman Jim McDermott and I have introduced the American Health Security Act. Our bill will provide every American with healthcare coverage and services through a state-administered, single-payer program, including dental and mental health coverage and low-cost prescription drugs. It would require the government to develop national policies and guidelines, as well as minimum national criteria, while giving each state the flexibility to adapt the program as needed. It would also completely overhaul the health coverage system, creating a single federal payer of state-administered health plans.” [Bernie Sanders, The Guardian, 10/7/13; S 1782, introduced 12/9/13] Under S 1782, Federal Government Would Cover Between 81 And 91 Percent Of The Cost Of Each State Health Program, Depending On A Formula Weighing State Attributes. “(b) Federal Contribution Percentage.—The Board shall establish a formula for the establishment of a Federal contribution percentage for each State. Such formula shall take into consideration a State’s per capita income and revenue capacity and such other relevant economic indicators as the Board determines to be appropriate. In addition, during the 5-year period beginning with 2012, the Board may provide for a transition adjustment to the formula in order to take into account current expenditures by the State (and local governments thereof) for health services covered under the State health security program. The weighted-average Federal contribution percentage for all States shall equal 86 percent and in no event shall such percentage be less than 81 percent nor more than 91 percent.” [S 1782, Sec 604] Spending Above Budget In A Given Year Would Be Funded By State Revenues. “(d) Effect Of Spending Excess Or Surplus.— (1) SPENDING EXCESS.—If a State exceeds its budget in a given year, the State shall continue to fund covered health services from its own revenues.” [S 1782, Sec 604] SANDERS’S COLLEGE PLAN REQUIRES STATES TO PICK UP ONE-THIRD OF THE TAB Sanders Announced Legislation To Make Public Colleges Tuition Free. “Sanders said in a statement that he will introduce legislation Tuesday outlining plans to make tuition free at public four-year colleges and universities. “We live in a highly competitive global economy and, if our economy is to be strong, we need the best-educated work force in the world,” Sanders said. “That will not happen if, every year, hundreds of thousands of bright young people cannot afford to go to college, and if millions more leave school deeply in debt.”“ [CBS Boston, 5/18/15] Under Bill, Federal Government Would Cover 67% Of Cost, While States Would Be Responsible For Remainder. “Under the College for All Act, the federal government would cover 67% of this cost, while the states would be responsible for the remaining 33% of the cost. To qualify for federal funding, states must meet a number of requirements designed to protect students, ensure quality, and reduce ballooning costs.” [Sen. Sanders bill summary, 5/19/15] To Qualify, States Would Need To Maintain Spending On Higher Education, Follow Certain Restrictions On Use Of Funds. ”States will need to maintain spending on their higher education systems, on academic instruction, and on need-based financial aid. In addition, colleges and universities must reduce their reliance on low-paid adjunct faculty. States would be able to use funding to increase academic opportunities for students, hire new faculty, and provide professional development opportunities for professors. No funding under this program may be used to fund administrator salaries, merit-based financial aid, or the construction of non-academic buildings like stadiums and student centers.” [Sen. Sanders bill summary, 5/19/15] State Compliance In Sustaining Higher Education Investments Would Be “Another Hurdle” For Bill. “Another hurdle is sustaining state investment, which rises and falls the economy. A big part of the reason public colleges are so expensive now is because states slashed higher education budgets during recessions and never fully made up for the loss and schools raised tuition to compensate. While some states might be enticed by the promise of federal aid, others may continue to treat higher education as a discretionary expense.” [Washington Post, 5/19/15] 2013 Bipartisan Budget Act Sanders Said The Bipartisan Budget Act Of 2013 Was A “Modest Proposal” That Would “Prevent A Disastrous Government Shutdown,” But Neglected Many “Enormous Crises Facing [America].” Sanders said of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013: “This is a very, very modest proposal. It will prevent a disastrous government shutdown. On the other hand, it goes nowhere close to addressing the enormous crises facing this country. We’re not dealing with extending unemployment benefits, we’re not putting the money we need into rebuilding our infrastructure, creating millions of jobs, investing in energy efficiency, investing in early childhood education.” [All In with Chris Hayes, MSNBC, 12/10/13, 0:05] Sanders Supported The Bipartisan Budget Act Of 2013 “Because It Was The Lesser Of Two Evils.” “I voted ‘yes’ on the budget, because it was the lesser of two evils. It wasn’t a good budget by any means, but it beats seeing shut downs in the government, it beats seeing more devastating cuts to Head Start, Meals on Wheels, Education Heating Assistance, and many, many programs that benefit low-income and working families. Clearly, as you’ve indicated, it was an inadequate budget.” [The Ed Show, MSNBC, 12/18/13, 0:13; HJ Res 59, Vote #281, 12/18/13] Sanders: The Bipartisan Budget Act Of 2013 Was “Not A Good Bill.” “So this was, in my mind, not a good bill. It was a lesser of what the alternative would have been, and that’s why I voted for it.” [The Ed Show, MSNBC, 12/18/13, 0:51] Sanders Opposed The Military Retiree Budget Provision Of The Bipartisan Budget Act, Said Veterans Got “Ripped Off.” In response to Alex Witt asking what he would say to military retirees who are upset about the Bipartisan Budget Act, Sanders stated: “I would say that they got ripped off. The budget agreement that cut their benefits was wrong, but what we all have to understand is that the budget agreement that came out of the United States Senate didn’t cut one nickel. What ended up happening, again, is because the Republicans refused to allow more revenue, refused to ask the wealthy and large corporations to pay their fair share. Patty Murray had to reach an agreement, and she reached that agreement.” [Jansing & Co., MSNBC, 12/27/13, 4:54] Sanders: “I’ll Do Everything That I Can To Undo” The Military Retiree Budget Provision. “I do believe, as I think you mentioned earlier, that this proposition doesn’t go into effect until 2015. I think there is widespread belief that we should rectify it. That is my view, and I’ll do everything that I can to undo that provision. We made promises to veterans; you don’t break those promises.” [Jansing & Co., MSNBC, 12/27/13, 5:21] Sequestration Note: The Budget Control Act, which led to sequestration, passed the Senate by unanimous consent. Sanders Decried Job Losses Caused By Sequestration, Saying That The "Arbitrary Sequestration Caps Have Never Made Any Sense.""Sen. Bernie Sanders, ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, called for the end of budget sequestration after the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office projected enormous job losses for American workers if the arbitrary spending caps take effect as scheduled. “These arbitrary sequestration caps have never made any sense, and now we see even more clearly the implications for our workers,” Sanders said. “If Congress does not act to end sequestration, we’re looking at the loss of as many as 1.4 million jobs over the next two years.”" [Sanders press release, 8/11/15] Sanders Called For An End To Sequestration. "“At a time when more than 10 percent of workers are either unemployed or underemployed, we should be doing everything we can to create jobs,” Sanders said. “We must end sequestration now ahead of the end of the fiscal year and prevent a budget showdown that will help nobody. It makes no sense to head towards a crisis when we have a clear path towards a better solution.”" [Sanders press release, 8/11/15] Sanders Supported President Obama's Proposal To Ignore Sequester Caps, And Said He Would Work To Eliminate The "Artificial" Sequester Caps. "Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, today issued the following statement about President Obama’s decision not to be constrained by the sequester caps when he submits his budget on Monday: “I support what the president has proposed and will work to eliminate the artificial sequestration cap on non-discretionary spending. It’s a step in the right direction and an important opportunity for us to rebuild the middle class by investing in education, child care, infrastructure and other important priorities. At a time when the United States is experiencing more wealth and income inequality than any major country on earth and when all the new income from 2009 to 2013 went to the top 1 percent, it is imperative that we begin to focus on the needs of working families and not the very rich.”" [Sanders press release, 1/25/15] Sanders Said That "Nobody" Believed Sequestration Made Sense, And That Allowing It To Happen Would Cause The Economy To Contract. "There is nobody who believes the sequestration makes a lot of sense. The fact is that if we went forward in this way, the economy would contract. We'd lose about 700,000 jobs at a time when we're in the midst of a severe recession. We'd cut programs a lot of working families and low-income people need. I would hope that people get their act together and that we don't go over this cliff." [MSNBC, 2/27/13] Sanders Said He Would Work "To End The Absurdity Of Sequestration" As Member Of Budget Conference Committee. "I am excited about being a member of the budget conference committee and I look forward to working with my Democratic and Republican colleagues to end the absurdity of sequestration and to develop a budget which works for all Americans. In my view, it is imperative that this new budget helps us create the millions of jobs we desperately need and does not balance the budget on the backs of working people, the elderly, the children, the sick and the poor." [Sanders press release, 10/18/13] Sanders Said “If Congress Does Not Act To End Sequestration, We’re Looking At The Loss Of As Many As 1.4 Million Jobs Over The Next Two Years.” “Sen. Bernie Sanders, ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, called for the end of budget sequestration after the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office projected enormous job losses for American workers if the arbitrary spending caps take effect as scheduled. “These arbitrary sequestration caps have never made any sense, and now we see even more clearly the implications for our workers,” Sanders said. “If Congress does not act to end sequestration, we’re looking at the loss of as many as 1.4 million jobs over the next two years.”” [Press Release, Sen. Bernie Sanders, 8/11/15] Washington Post Fact Checker: Sanders’ Claim Deserved Four Pinocchios Because 1.4 Million Job Losses Due To The Sequester Was “A Wildly Inflated Figure” Using Bad Math And The Claim Was A “Real Stretch.” “Given this number was put in a press statement, we are going to grade it toughly. Not only did Sanders use a wildly inflated figure, but his math makes little sense. In context, and properly counted, it’s a real stretch to speak of “enormous” job losses. There is little excuse for the senator and his staff not understanding the meaning of a letter they received from the CBO. Yes, Sanders is using a CBO document, which usually mitigates the number of Pinocchios. But he needs to learn how to read it. Four Pinocchios” [Fact Checker, Washington Post, 8/14/15] Washington Post Fact Checker: “There Is Little Excuse For [Sanders] And His Staff Not Understanding The Meaning” Of The CBO’s Letter And “He Needs To Learn How To Read It.” “There is little excuse for the senator and his staff not understanding the meaning of a letter they received from the CBO. Yes, Sanders is using a CBO document, which usually mitigates the number of Pinocchios. But he needs to learn how to read it.” [Fact Checker, Washington Post, 8/14/15] Washington Post Fact Checker: The CBO Actually Said That Roughly 300,000 Additional Workers Would Have Jobs If Sequester Caps Were Eliminated. “But CBO was looking at something different: how many additional workers would have jobs if the budget caps were lifted. The answer is between 100,000 and 600,000 by 2017, or a midpoint of 300,000. And while Sanders spoke of “enormous job losses,” that number is just ¼ of 1 percent of the total number of jobs under the CBO baseline for nationwide employment. (In fact, even with the sequester in place, the CBO projects the number of workers would climb more than 1.4 million between 2016 and 2017.) Here’s another bit of context on those 300,000 additional workers: The U.S. economy gained nearly 450,000 employees just in the months of June and July.” [Fact Checker, Washington Post, 8/14/15] Debt Ceiling Sanders: The Debt Ceiling Debate Was A “No Brainer”; “You’ve Got To Fully Pay Your Bills.” When Ed Schultz asked how much time President Obama should spend addressing the debt ceiling coming up, Sanders responded: “You have a situation where our Republican colleagues are suggesting that for the first time in the history of the United States of America, they do not want to pay our bills–what we owe– and in doing that, perhaps drive the entire world into a depression. This is kind of a no-brainer. Even the business community fully understands you’ve got to fully pay your bills. That’s it, no negotiating.” [The Ed Show, MSNBC, 1/28/14, 4:31] TRADE General Opposition To Free Trade Bernie Sanders Joined Republicans To Vote Against Trade Agreements. “Nobody seriously thinks he would routinely vote with the GOP, as fellow independent Joe Lieberman might well do on some issues, but Sanders is also not a party-line man and in the past has joined Republicans on votes against NAFTA, trade with China, and other issues.” [Mother Jones, 11/20/06] Sanders: “We Need A Trade Agreement Not Supported By Corporate America, Wall Street, [And] The Drug Companies.” “So enough is enough, we need a trade agreement not supported by corporate America, Wall Street, the drug companies but supported by the needs of working people in this country.” [MSNBC, 5/8/15] Sanders: “I Voted Against Every Disastrous Trade Agreement.” “"I have voted against every disastrous trade agreement coming down the pike,'' Sanders said on Wednesday, arguing that such deals have exported "good-paying jobs to low-wage countries.'' "People have got to look at Secretary Clinton's record,'' he added.” [Bloomberg, 5/7/15] Vox: A Truly Anti-Poverty Trade Agenda Would Be The Opposite Of What Sanders Wants. “A true anti-poverty trade agenda would be the exact opposite of what Sanders wants. It would directly put US workers in competition with more — and poorer — workers abroad. The effects on US workers would likely be small, but even if they weren't, that trade is worth making. Fighting desperate poverty in the developing world is more important than marginally boosting the US middle class. And there are many, many ways to help the American middle class that don't involve keeping the world's poorest people in a state of total immiseration.” [Vox, 5/14/15] Sanders Sponsored A Resolution Calling For The Establishment Of “Democratic Control Over The Global Economy.” “Expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States and the people of the United States, and the people and governments of the other Nations of the world, should take actions to establish democratic control over the global economy. […] (Sec. 4) Expresses the sense of the House that the United States should adopt specified policies with respect to: (1) global economic goals (reconstructing the global economy to achieve democracy, human rights, environmental sustainability, and economic advancement for the most oppressed and exploited parts of the population); (2) a democratic multilevel global economy; (3) reduction of financial volatility; (4) sustainable development; and (5) democracy.” [H Res 479, 4/13/00] Sanders Blamed Free Trade For The Race To The Bottom And Disappearance Of The Middle Class. “This unfettered free trade has gone on for decades now. In my view, it has been a disaster. It is one of the contributing factors to the race to the bottom, and why the middle class in this country is disappearing.” [Brunch With Bernie, 7/18/14, 35:42] Sanders Called For Changing Trade Policies To Rebuild The Manufacturing Base. “In my view, we have got to fundamentally rethink all of these trade agreements. We have got to rebuild our manufacturing base. We have lost over 50,000 factories in this country in the last fifteen years. And that’s millions of decent paying jobs. And you’re not going to have a middle class unless you have manufacturing, and you’re not going to have manufacturing unless we change these trade policies.” [Brunch With Bernie, 7/18/14, 36:10] Sanders: “The Trade Agreements That The United States Has Established In The Last 20-25 Years Have Failed.” “The trade agreements that the United States has established in the last 20-25 years have failed. [...] I do not know how the middle class grows in this country unless we start producing the products that we consume. And to do that, Corporate America’s going to have to reinvest in the United States of America–not in China, not in Vietnam, and not in Mexico. And tariffs are certainly one way to do that. [...] I have voted against every trade agreement that has come down the pike, and I think those were the right votes. And we’ve got to change–in a very fundamental way–our trade policy.” [Brunch With Bernie, 3/28/14, 22:53] Fast Track Authority Sanders Voted Against Trade Act Of 2002, Including Andrean Trade Preference Act And Fast Track Trade Authority. “H.R. 3009 was enacted as the Trade Act of 2002, covering trade adjustment assistance (TAA), trade promotion authority (fast-track procedures), Andean trade preferences, and other trade provisions.” [HR 3009, Vote #370, 7/27/02] Sanders Signed Letter Vowing To “Aggressively” Oppose President Bush’s Effort To Renew Fast Track Authority. “Seven senators Wednesday vowed to "aggressively" oppose President Bush's newly announced effort to renew presidential trade negotiating authority or "fast track." In a letter to Bush, they claimed trade deals without labor and environmental standards were responsible for the $800 billion trade deficit. "In the six years that the current administration has had fast track authority, it has shown a particular unwillingness to address these problems, and has instead focused on negotiating a string of new, flawed agreements like the Central America Free Trade Agreement," they charged. The signers of the letter include two freshmen -- Sens. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. -- as well as Appropriations Chairman Byrd, Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Boxer, and Sens. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., Russell Feingold, D-Wis., and Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich.” [National Journal, 2/1/07] Sanders Signed Letter To President Obama Opposing Renewal Of Fast Track Authority. “Last week, Max Baucus (D-MT) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) introduced the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities Act of 2014 into the Senate Finance Committee to renew fast-track authority for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Earlier today, a group of 12 senators sent a letter to Senate Majority Harry Reid conveying their opposition to the renewal of fast-track authority and an antiquated system of trade oversight. The senators on the letter were Al Franken (MN), Tammy Baldwin (WI), Elizabeth Warren (MA), Christopher Murphy (CT), Bernie Sanders (VT), Tom Harkin (IA), Carl Levin (MI), Jeff Merkely (OR), Jack Reed (RI), Richard Blumenthal (CT), Edward Markey (MA), and Sheldon Whitehouse (RI).” [Daily Kos, 1/17/14] Sanders Opposed Fast Track Authority, Called Proposal “Unfortunate.” “Democratic lawmakers, labor unions and environmental groups are quickly mounting a campaign to deny Obama's request for authority to fast-track new deals with Pacific Rim countries and the European Union through Congress without amendment. […] Several liberal lawmakers said they thought they had enough Democrats to join with a few conservatives to defeat a fast-track authority bill. […] "We will do what we can in the Senate to defeat this unfortunate proposal," independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who caucuses with the Democrats, said.” [CNN, 1/21/15] Sanders Voted Against Trade Promotion Authority For Trans Pacific Partnership. On May 21, 2015, Sanders voted against cloture to allow Trade Promotion Authority for the TPP. The measure passed 6238. “Thursday’s dramatic vote in the Senate was a major step forward for Mr. Obama’s trade effort, which envisions an accord spanning the Pacific and encompassing 40 percent of the world’s economy. Any trade agreement secured by a president with trade promotion authority could still be rejected by Congress, but it could not be amended or filibustered.” [S Amdt 1221 to HR 1314, Vote #183, 5/21/15; New York Times, 5/21/15] Sanders Voted Against Allowing Debate On Trade Promotion Authority For Trans-Pacific Partnership. On May 14, 2014, Sanders voted against allowing debate on TPA. “A supermajority of U.S. senators voted Thursday to begin debate on legislation to renew expired trade promotion authority, a measure that has become top priority for President Obama and congressional Republicans. The six-year reauthorization of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) — commonly known as "fast track" because it creates an expedited process to get trade pacts through Congress — is opposed by most congressional Democrats. The Senate voted 65-33 to begin debate. Thirteen Democrats voted with Republicans. Two GOP senators were absent.” [HR 1314, Vote #180, 5/14/15; USA Today, 5/14/15] Sanders Introduced A Bill To Allow Fast Track Authority Only If All Countries Party To The Agreement Adopt Workers Rights Laws. “Fast-Track Fairness and Accountability Act - Authorizes the President to enter into a trade agreement eligible for fast-track consideration only if it requires each country party to the agreement to: (1) adopt laws that afford internationally recognized worker rights to workers and that promote internationally recognized environmental standards in that country; and (2) treat as an actionable unfair trade practice the denial of such rights and standards as a means for such country to gain a competitive trade advantage.” [HR 1079, introduced 3/13/97] Trade Adjustment Assistance Sanders Voted Against Renewal Of Trade Adjustment Assistance. On May 21, 2015, Sanders voted against cloture to allow Trade Promotion Authority for the TPP. The measure passed 62-38. “The 62-37 vote followed two weeks of debate on the measure, which would allow the White House to submit trade agreements to Congress for straight up-or-down votes without any amendments. It also would renew the five-decade-old Trade Adjustment Assistance program to help retrain workers who have lost their jobs because of trade.” [S Amdt 1221 to HR 1314, Vote #183, 5/21/15; Politico, 5/22/15] Sanders Voted For Renewal Of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Said Program Should Be Strengthened. “Both senators voted last month to renew the Trade Adjustment Assistance program. Sanders said the program should be strengthened. "Clearly these federal benefits are not a substitute for a decent-paying job, but it does provide some economic security to Vermonters who need to find new employment," he said in a statement.” [Gannet News Service, 10/11/11] Bernie Sanders Urged Department Of Labor To Make Trade Adjustment Assistance Available For Vermont Workers Laid Off By IBM. “Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) announced today that laid-off employees at IBM's plant in Essex Junction, Vt., will be eligible for help through a federal training and reemployment program for workers who lost jobs due to foreign competition. Sanders, a senior member of the Senate labor committee, had urged the U.S. Department of Labor to make the Trade Adjustment Assistance available as soon as possible.” [St. Albans Messenger, 3/17/14] Sanders Asked Department of Labor To Expand Assistance To Include Additional Campus That Faced Layoffs. “The U.S. Department of Labor authorized former employees of the Williston IBM plant and some other businesses involved in memory design services in that town to participate in a program designed to help workers who have lost their jobs due to foreign competition, state officials said Thursday. Meanwhile, officials from the Vermont Department of Labor and the state's independent U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders are asking the federal labor department to amend the approval issued earlier this month to include workers from the IBM campus in Essex Junction.” [Associated Press, 12/27/13] Sanders: “I Strongly Believe All Of These Workers Deserve To Receive Trade Adjustment Assistance And I Will Pursue This Matter Vigorously.” “Trade Adjustment Assistance helps workers whose jobs are lost as a result of companies shipping U.S. jobs overseas. Congress established this provision to protect workers impacted by various trade agreements. I appreciate that the U.S. Department of Labor ruled on behalf of IBM's Williston workers. I am dismayed, however, they have not yet ruled in favor of those Vermonters who worked on the Essex Junction campus. My office has contacted the Department of Labor to express our strong support for all of these employees who have lost their jobs at IBM. I strongly believe all of these workers deserve to receive Trade Adjustment Assistance and I will pursue this matter vigorously." [Vermontbiz.com, 12/26/13] Sanders Urged Department Of Labor To Provide Trade Adjustment Assistance To Workers Laid Off At Ethan Allen Plant In Vermont. “The governors and the Congressional delegations of both Vermont and New Hampshire today joined together to urge the U.S. Department of Labor to move quickly to provide assistance to workers recently laid off at the Ethan Allen furniture plant in Beecher Falls, Vt. […]"Both New Hampshire and Vermont strongly urge the U.S. Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis to approve the petitions for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) filed on behalf of the employees at the Ethan Allen plant in Beecher Falls.”” [Sanders press release, 8/28/09] Sanders Announced Trade Adjustment Assistance For Former Employees Of Specialty Filaments in Middlebury, VT. “Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) announced today that the former employees of Specialty Filaments in Middlebury who have not been rehired by current management are now eligible to apply for federal Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). […] Sanders said, "The very good news is that most workers at Specialty Filaments won't need this Trade Adjustment Assistance because they will continue to be employed with the new owners of the facility, the Thomas Monahan Company. Fortunately, those who are not rehired will be provided important federal assistance as they look for new job opportunities."” [Sanders press release, 2/16/07] Sanders’ Office Helped Specialty Filament To Apply For Help Under TAA. “Specialty Filament is also working with the Rep. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., in applying for help under the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act, a package of federal assistance offered to workers who lost their jobs due to foreign competition. The aid includes extended unemployment benefits and money for retraining.” [Burlington Free Press, 6/8/05] Sanders Announced Trade Adjustment Assistance For Workers At Two Ethan Allen Plants And EHV Weidman Industries. “More than 200 Vermont workers who have lost their jobs will receive extended unemployment benefits and job training. The U.S. Department of Labor has approved Trade Adjustment Assistance for workers at two Ethan Allen plants in Randolph and Orleans and at EHV Weidman Industries in St. Johnsbury, Rep. Bernie Sanders announced Thursday. […] "The announcement should come as welcome news during this holiday season to Vermont workers who have lost their jobs due to unfair foreign competition," Sanders said. "While TAA benefits will provide some help for these families, it does not replace good paying jobs that have been lost overseas."” [Associated Press, 12/5/02] NAFTA Sanders Voted Against The North American Free Trade Agreement. “The House approved the North American Free Trade Agreement last night by a comfortable 234 to 200 vote, giving President Clinton a crucial victory after a bitter debate that crisscrossed party and ideological lines for most of the fall. Clinton and his House allies came from behind to wipe out a substantial lead that NAFTA opponents held as the week began. A bipartisan coalition of 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats prevailed over the opposition of 156 Democrats, 43 Republicans and one independent.” Bernie Sanders voted against the bill. [Washington Post, 11/18/13; HR 3450, Vote #575, 11/17/93] During Debate On NAFTA, Sanders Said Bill Clinton Bought Congressional Votes With Military Planes, Infrastructure, And Other Deals, Called It A “Disgrace.” “It is a disgrace to this institution and to our country that President Clinton has had to spend billions of dollars of taxpayer money buying congressional votes for this treaty with military cargo planes, bridges, development banks, airline routes, renegotiated tariffs, etc. If the deal is such as good deal, you don't have to buy votes for it. Mr. Speaker, let us defeat this NAFTA.” [CNN, 11/17/93] During Debate On NAFTA, Sanders Said Agreement Was Good For Corporate America, But A Bad Deal For American Workers, Family Farmers, And The Environment. “Mr. Speaker, corporate America and the big money interests have told us that NAFTA is a good deal. I don't believe them. Recent history has told us that corporate America is concerned about one thing and one thing alone and that is their own wealth and their own power. NAFTA may be a good deal for the people who own our corporations, but it is a bad deal for American workers, for our family farmers and it is bad for the environment.” [CNN, 11/17/93] During Debate On NAFTA, Sanders Said American Workers And Farmers Should Not Be Asked To Compete With Minimum Wage Workers in Mexico. “Number One - the American worker and family farmer should not be asked to compete against the desperate people of Mexico who are forced to work for a minimum wage of 58 cents and hour and an average manufacturing wage of $2.35 an hour. […] Wages in America today are already too low. We don't need NAFTA to lower them further.” [CNN, 11/17/93] During Debate on NAFTA, Sanders Said That The United States Should Not Enter A Free Trade Agreement With A Country That Does Not Have Free Elections. “The United States should not merge economies with a nation that is not a democracy. There is much evidence to suggest that Mr. Salinas, the President of Mexico, was himself illegally elected. Most of their state elections are rigged - the media is highly controlled - the workers there cannot form free trade unions. What does this say about our commitment to democracy when we merge economies with an undemocratic nation? How do you have free trade with a nation that is not free?” [CNN, 11/17/93] During Debate On NAFTA, Sanders Said Agreement Put American Taxpayers On The Hook For Companies That Polluted The Mexican Border. “Mexico despite all the fine sounding laws - which in fact are worthless - has allowed American companies to heavily pollute their environment with toxic waste, endangering health on both sides of the water. I regard it as an outrage that American taxpayers some of whom have already been thrown out on the streets by American corporations going to Mexico are now going to be asked to pay higher taxes to clean up the toxic waste caused by American companies that are going to Mexico. Let the companies clean up their waste - not the American Sanders Introduced Fair International Standards in Trade Act. “Authorizes the President to enter into a trade agreement only if it requires each country party to the agreement to: (1) adopt laws that afford internationally recognized worker rights to workers and that promote internationally recognized environmental standards in that country; and (2) treat as an actionable unfair trade practice the denial of such rights and standards as a means for such country to gain a competitive trade advantage.” [HR 4710, introduced 6/30/94] taxpayers.” [CNN, 11/17/93] Sanders Sponsored A Bill To Change The Pay Of President And Members Of Congress To Match Counterparts In Mexican Government If NAFTA Was Enacted. “Makes the compensation of the President of the United States equivalent to the annual rate of pay for the President of the United Mexican States. Amends the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 to make the annual rate of pay of a U.S. Senator equivalent to that of a Senator in the Congress of the Union of the United Mexican States with respect to a U.S. Senator and of a Member of the House of Representatives equivalent to that of a Deputy in the Congress of the Union of the United Mexican States. Provides that this Act shall not take effect unless the United States enacts legislation implementing the North American Free Trade Agreement.” [HR 3323, introduced 10/20/93] Sanders Called CAFTA And NAFTA “Failures,” Said Normal Trade With China “A Total Disaster.” "We're debating the biggest trade deal in years, and last I heard, network television–ABC, NBC, CBS–has yet to mention one word about it," insisted Sanders. "NAFTA? A failure! CAFTA? A failure! Normal trade relations with China, a total disaster. Since 2001, this country has lost more than 60,000 factories." [Bloomberg, 5/6/15] CAFTA Sanders Voted Against Central America Free Trade Agreement. “The vote also helped President Bush avoid a potentially embarrassing political defeat on an issue he championed for months. The final vote to approve the pact was 217 to 215. House leaders held the vote open for an hour -- well past the normal 15-minute voting time -- as they rounded up enough votes to win. In the end, 25 Republicans defied their leadership, and their president, to oppose CAFTA, while two others didn't vote. Only 15 of the House's 202 Democrats broke ranks to support it.” Bernie Sanders voted against the bill. [CNN, 7/28/05; HR 3045, Vote #443, 7/28/05] Before Passage, Sanders Said CAFTA Would Be Bad For the People Of Central America and The United States. “The bottom line here, even before we get into all of the details of CAFTA, is that our entire trade policy, whether it’s NAFTA, whether its permanent normal trade relations with China, has been an absolute disaster. In this case it would be, in my view, a disaster for the people of Central America, but it’s also a disaster for the people of the United States of America. Amy and Juan, what all of these agreements are about is the effort of corporate America to force American workers to compete against people who make desperately low wages, to continue the race to the bottom, to drive wages down in the United States, to continue to transfer manufacturing plants from the United States to developing countries, and that’s what these agreements are about, which are supported by virtually every large corporation in the country.” [Democracy Now, 7/1/05] Sanders Called CAFTA And NAFTA “Failures,” Said Normal Trade With China “A Total Disaster.” "We're debating the biggest trade deal in years, and last I heard, network television–ABC, NBC, CBS–has yet to mention one word about it," insisted Sanders. "NAFTA? A failure! CAFTA? A failure! Normal trade relations with China, a total disaster. Since 2001, this country has lost more than 60,000 factories." [Bloomberg, 5/6/15] Permanent Normal Trade with China Sanders Voted Against Permanent Normal Trade With China. [HR 4444, Vote #228, 5/24/00] 2000: Sanders Called Permanent Normal Trade With China A “Sad Situation,” Opposed Deal On Human Rights Grounds. “The House voted yesterday to normalize trade with China, approving a historic measure that supporters hailed as a stimulus for widespread US business expansion, but opponents condemned as an irreversible threat to American jobs and Chinese human rights. […] The rest - including Representative Bernard Sanders, an Independent from Vermont who called the vote a "sad situation" opposed the deal, largely on human rights grounds.” [Boston Globe, 5/25/00] Sanders Said Deal Was Bad For Workers, Human Rights, Environment And National Security. “"This agreement is bad for workers. It is bad for human rights. It is bad for the environment and it is bad for national security." -Rep. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt.” [Associated Press, 5/25/00] 2000: Sanders Said Chinese Trade Deal With “About Two Words: Corporate Greed.” “But to Rep. Bernard Sanders, a political independent from Vermont, "When all is said and done, this debate is about two words: corporate greed." The bill seems rather straightforward at first glance. It extends permanent normal trade relations to China, giving the Chinese permanently the same access to U.S. markets Beijing has gotten annually for the past two decades.” [Associated Press, 5/24/00] Sanders Said Americans Wages Would Go Down And Jobs Would Be Lost Because Of Corporate Greed And Permanent Normal Trade With China. “There are millions of working Americans who understand that their wages are going to go down, their jobs are going to be lost, because corporate American is going to take their plants to China, and the president of the United States and the vice president deserted them. And I think you're gonna see more and more Americans go outside of the two-party system and start looking for political alternatives which represent ordinary people rather than corporate America. After all is said and done on this issue, the bottom line is that corporate America put tens of millions of dollars into this effort for one simple reason -- they want to employ people in China for ten cents an hour, fifteen cents an hour, and not pay American workers a living wage. That's the issue.” [Press Conference, 5/24/00] 2000: Sanders Asserted That The Motive Behind Pushing Permanent Normal Trade Relations With China Was Not Betterment Of Americans, But Greed And Profits. On Permanent Normal Trade Relations for China, Sanders said: “And it seems to me what is very, very unfortunate, is that when we have organizations–grassroots organizations–representing tens and tens of millions of Americans, that we have to fight so hard to defeat this terrible piece of legislation, because on the other side, you have big money corporations whose only concern is not human values, is not the betterment of this country or in fact, the people of China, but is the almighty bottom line, and more and more greed, and more and more profits. And that speaks to issues of campaign finance reform and other issues. But it is good to see so many grassroots organizations standing up for American values and I congratulate the veterans organizations for doing so.” [C-SPAN, 5/17/00, 24:51] Sanders Sponsored Bill To End Permanent Normal Trade With China. [HR 3328, introduced 10/2/03] Sanders Called For Repeal Of Permanent Normal Trade Because It Cost The United States Too Many Jobs And Grew The Trade Deficit. "US Representative Bernie Sanders yesterday called for repeal of the free-trade measure that cleared the way for China to join the World Trade Organization, saying that it has cost the United States far too many manufacturing jobs and swelled the trade deficit. "American workers should not be asked and forced to compete against Chinese workers who work for 30, 40, 50 cents an hour, who can't form unions, where there is no environmental protection," Sanders said. "Trade is OK if it works for both sides. This trade agreement is working for the Chinese - not for the American worker."" [Boston Globe, 10/14/03] Sanders Wanted To Negotiate Trade Agreement With More Favorable Terms For American Workers. "Sanders said the United States should negotiate a trade agreement with China that is more favorable to US workers." [Boston Globe, 10/14/03] Sanders Said Repealing PNTR With China Would Stop The Loss Of United States Manufacturing Jobs. "Rep. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., wants to stop the loss of manufacturing jobs to China by repealing the trade policy that established permanent normal trade relations in 2000. [...] Sanders said his bill has 40 co-sponsors including 10 Republicans. Support is building to roll back free trade with China, he said, because members of Congress see manufacturing plants in the home districts closing and the jobs moving to Asia. He noted that former Gov. Howard Dean, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for president, has "undergone a conversion" on the merits of free-trade agreements. "Frankly, in hindsight, it didn't take a genius to predict that unfettered free trade with China would be a disaster," Sanders said. He opposed it from the beginning." [Burlington Free Press, 10/14/03] Sanders Said He Had Nothing Against China Itself, But That He Did Not Have To Lose Jobs To Have Good Relations With Them. "He hastened to add that he has nothing against China itself. "I want to see us have very, very positive relations with China," he said. But "the idea that we have to lose millions of decent paying jobs to have good relations with China is obviously not sensible."" [Associated Press, 10/13/03] Sanders Said That Trade Agreement With China Cost Millions Of Jobs And Put Downward Pressure On Wages.""Manufacturing in this country is in a state of collapse," said Representative Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont. "Our disastrous trade policy is not only costing us millions of decent paying jobs, it has also put enormous downward pressure on wages as workers compete for an ever-shrinking pool of jobs," said Sanders, who added that his bill enjoys the support of 40 cosponsors, including 10 Republicans. "Not only has free trade cost us our textile industry, our shoe industry, our steel industry ... it will now cost us, unless we change it, millions of high tech jobs as well. The United States needs to have a strong and positive relationship with China. But that does not mean allowing corporate America and their supporters in the White House and Congress to destroy the American middle class by making jobs America's number-one export." [Agence France Presse, 10/16/03] 2008: Sanders Signed Letter Saying That The United States Should Take “Strong Action” Against China’s Unfair Trade Practices. “"We face a host of difficult trade issues with China that require strong action, ranging from currency manipulation and unfair subsidies, to trade law and counterfeit enforcement problems, to imported food and product safety. These issues are hurting American competitiveness and expose American consumers to unsafe goods," states the letter from the eight freshmen.” [Congress Daily, 2/1/08] Sanders Called CAFTA And NAFTA “Failures,” Said Normal Trade With China “A Total Disaster.” "We're debating the biggest trade deal in years, and last I heard, network television–ABC, NBC, CBS–has yet to mention one word about it," insisted Sanders. "NAFTA? A failure! CAFTA? A failure! Normal trade relations with China, a total disaster. Since 2001, this country has lost more than 60,000 factories." [Bloomberg, 5/6/15] Sanders Said That While Trade Agreements Had Been Good For The Chinese Economy, It Contributed To Lower Standards Of Living In The U.S. “Bernie Sanders: [...] Are Americans concerned about that ... when they walk in a department store and product after product after product that is not made in the United States but is made in China, are they concerned about it? Yeah, they are. So am I, as a matter of fact. Does that mean that we have to make China into an enemy? Absolutely not. What we need is a trade policy in this country, among other things, that works for the American worker rather than the CEOs of large corporations. I voted against [permanent normal trade relations] with China, that was the right vote, and if elected president I will radically transform trade policies. Ezra Klein: If I were Chinese, though, that would sound very zero sum to me, because those factories have been part of the tremendous rise in living standards there. Bernie Sanders: That's great, but you know what? At the same time, the living standards of the American people have gone down.” [Vox, 7/28/15] Currency Manipulation Sanders Said He Would Establish A Currency Manipulation Fee On China And Other Countries. “Establish a currency manipulation fee on China and other countries. As almost everyone knows, China is manipulating its currency, giving it an unfair trade advantage over the United States and destroying decent paying manufacturing jobs in the process. If we imposed a currency manipulation fee on China and other currency manipulators, the Economic Policy Institute has estimated that we could raise $500 billion over 10 years and create 1 million jobs in the process.” [sanders.senate.gov, accessed 8/16/15] Other Trade Agreements Sanders Voted Against The Australia Free Trade Agreement. [HR 4759, Vote #375, 7/14/04] Sanders Questioned Why House Would Approve Australian Free Trade Agreement When Others Had Failed So Horrendously. “The House of Representatives on Wednesday approved a free-trade agreement with Australia, one of the few pacts negotiated by the US administration that are expected to win congressional approval this year. […] "It seems to me that before we rush into yet another free trade agreement, we should spend a little bit of time assessing the horrendous impact that past free trade agreements have had on the middle class and working families of this country," said Bernard Sanders, independent representative from Vermont. "If you have a policy which is failing, failing and failing, why do you want to continue going along that path?"” [Agence France Presse, 7/15/04] Sanders Voted Against Colombia Free Trade Agreement. [HR 3078, Senate Vote #163, 10/12/2011] Sanders Voted Against Panama Free Trade Agreement. [HR 3079, Senate Vote #162, 10/12/2011] Sanders Did Not Vote On South Korea Free Trade Agreement. [HR 3080, Senate Vote #161, 10/12/2011] Sanders Opposed Columbia, Panama, And South Korea Free Trade Because Other Free Trade Deals Had Destroyed American Jobs. “Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the free trade agreements with Korea, Colombia, and Panama. Let's be clear: one of the major reasons that the middle class in America is disappearing, poverty is increasing and the gap between the rich and everyone else is growing wider and wider is due to our disastrous unfettered free trade policy. […] Mr. President, I know that my colleagues who are supportive of these unfettered free trade agreements will be throwing out all kinds of statistics about how wonderful these trade deals will be for the U.S. economy and how many jobs will be created. Mr. President, we've seen this movie before and it ain't gonna happen. Those jobs didn't materialize after Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. Those jobs didn't materialize under NAFTA. And, they won't materialize under the Korea, Panama, and Colombia trade agreements that we are debating today. Unfettered free trade has destroyed jobs in my state of Vermont and in every single state in this country.” [Sanders press release, 10/12/11] Sanders Voted Against The Bahrain Free Trade Agreement. [HR 4340, Vote #616, 12/7/05] Sanders Voted Against The Chile Free Trade Agreement. [HR 2738, Vote #436, 7/24/03] Sanders Voted Against Morocco Free Trade Agreement. [HR 4842, Vote #413, 7/22/04] Sanders Voted Against Oman Free Trade Agreement. [HR 5864, Vote #392, 7/20/06] Sanders Voted Against Peru Free Trade Agreement. [HR 3688, Vote #413, 12/4/07] Sanders Voted Against Singapore Free Trade Agreement. [HR 2739, Vote #432, 7/24/03] Sanders Voted Against Trade Act Of 2002, Including Andrean Trade Preference Act And Fast Track Trade Authority. “H.R. 3009 was enacted as the Trade Act of 2002, covering trade adjustment assistance (TAA), trade promotion authority (fast-track procedures), Andean trade preferences, and other trade provisions.” [HR 3009, Vote #370, 7/27/02] Jordan Free Trade Agreement Passed By Voice Vote While Sanders Served In The House. [HR 2603, 7/31/01] Sanders Dodged Question On African Growth And Opportunity Act. “Asked later by the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner whether he supports renewal of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which expires in September 2015, Sanders offered no position, saying: “You know what? To be very honest, I've been focusing more on the TPP than that.”” [Examiner, 5/13/15] Sanders Applauded Obama’s Efforts To Normalize Relations With Cuba. Sanders Said “Much More Can Be Done To Bring The US And Latin America Closer.” “Given the fact that Latin America is our next-door neighbor, I have been very distressed about the lack of attention that we have paid to Latin America. I applaud President Obama's effort to normalize relations with Cuba, a country which I have visited on several occasions. But I think much more can be done to bring the United States and Latin America closer and to improve relationships with a continent that faces many economic and social problems.” [Reddit, 5/19/15] February 2012: Sanders Said That The US Should “Lift The Ban” On Trade With Cuba. “Interestingly enough, we have made under Obama, some progress in that area. If you have family in Cuba right now, you can visit them, or at least it’s a lot easier than it used to be. And I know that the number of people living in the United States that have gone to Cuba has significantly increased in recent years. But I think for a variety of reasons, and by the way I think a majority of the members in the House and the Senate, for different reasons, some for economic reasons, you have conservative members who say look we’re seeing a lot of European companies doing business in Cuba, we’re seeing Canadian companies doing in Cuba. Why shouldn’t American companies be able to do business in Cuba? So I agree with you, I think we should lift the ban.” [Brunch With Bernie, 2/24/12, 34:30] 2014: Sanders Applauded Obama’s Decision To Normalize Relations With Cuba. “As I think most listeners and viewers know, the other day President Obama I think did something that was absolutely right, long overdue, in terms of moving towards establishing normal diplomatic relations with Cuba. I was in Cuba six, seven months ago, had the opportunity to meet with Alan Gross. I’m very glad to see that he has been released, glad to see that the United States will be opening up an embassy in Havana and visa versa. I think we’re in a situation, where I’m talking to you right now is one hour away from the Canadian border and in Canada people want to go to Cuba for vacation, to shop, businesses want to do business in Cuba, they’re able to do it. Here in the United States we are limited we cannot in many, most cases, travel to Cuba and I think that that’s wrong. So I think the effort is, the President’s effort is a good effort and I support it and I hope that we make good progress in that area.” [Brunch With Bernie, 12/19/14] Trans-Pacific Partnership Sanders Opposed Trans Pacific Partnership. “The bottom line is that the Trans-Pacific Partnership is another corporate-backed agreement that is the latest in a series of failed trade policies which have cost us millions of decent-paying jobs, pushed down wages for American workers and led to the decline of our middle class. We want American companies to create decent-paying jobs in America, not just low-wage countries like Vietnam, Malaysia or China. The Trans-Pacific Partnership must be defeated.” [Bernie Sanders, US News, 4/20/15] Sanders: “I am Strongly Opposed” To The Trans-Pacific Partnership. “Right now, as you know, Congress is in the midst of a debate on-- on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I am strongly opposed to that trade agreement because I think it follows in the footsteps of other disastrous trade agreements which have cost us millions of jobs.” [Face the Nation, 5/10/15] Sanders: “TPP Is A Disastrous Agreement And I Am Working As Hard As I Can To See It Defeated.” “I believe that the TPP is a disastrous agreement and I am working as hard as I can to see it defeated.” [Reddit, 5/19/15] TPP Will Continue The “Race To The Bottom” And Cost Thousands Of Jobs. “I am not for a trade bill that will continue the race to the bottom and that could cost us hundreds of thousands of millions of more jobs. The record is very clear. Trade relations with China have failed. We have lost 60,000 factories in America since 2001. A lot of it has to do with trade. Workers are earning -- working longer hours for lower rate -- lower wages because they do not have decent manufacturing jobs. The minimum wage in Vietnam is $.56 per hour. I do not believe American workers should be competing against people forced to work for such low wages.” [Bloomberg, With All Due Respect, 5/12/15] TPP Agreement Is Part Of “Corporate Agenda.” “President Obama follows President Clinton in -- and Bush and Reagan in pushing the corporate agenda. They are wrong. I think the American people want it defeated. We need new trade agreements that protect American workers and not just Wall Street and corporate America.” [Bloomberg, With All Due Respect, 5/12/15] On TPP, Sanders Said President Obama “Doesn’t Get It” And Is “Standing With Big Money Guys Against The Organized Labor” And “The Environmental Community.” “And it does suddenly that we have a President who`s standing with all of the big money guys against the organized labor, against the environmental community and he is telling some of us in the progressive movement that we don`t get it. Well, I think we get it just fine. I think, unfortunately, he doesn`t get it.” [MSNBC, 5/8/15] Sanders: I Was Very Disappointed With What The President Said About TPP. “I was very disappointed about the president said today. The idea that we`re going to be engaged on an equal footing a level playing field, you`re not on the level playing field when people make $0.50 an hour in Vietnam. That is not a level playing field. It is not a level playing field when you have a state invest or agreement which allows corporations to sue governments when they`re trying to protect the health and environment of their communities.” [MSNBC, 5/8/15] Sanders Voted Against Trade Promotion Authority For Trans Pacific Partnership. On May 21, 2015, Sanders voted against cloture to allow Trade Promotion Authority for the TPP. The measure passed 6238. “Thursday’s dramatic vote in the Senate was a major step forward for Mr. Obama’s trade effort, which envisions an accord spanning the Pacific and encompassing 40 percent of the world’s economy. Any trade agreement secured by a president with trade promotion authority could still be rejected by Congress, but it could not be amended or filibustered.” [S Amdt 1221 to HR 1314, Vote #183, 5/21/15; New York Times, 5/21/15] Sanders Voted Against Allowing Debate On Trade Promotion Authority For Trans-Pacific Partnership. On May 14, 2014, Sanders voted against allowing debate on TPA. “A supermajority of U.S. senators voted Thursday to begin debate on legislation to renew expired trade promotion authority, a measure that has become top priority for President Obama and congressional Republicans. The six-year reauthorization of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) — commonly known as "fast track" because it creates an expedited process to get trade pacts through Congress — is opposed by most congressional Democrats. The Senate voted 65-33 to begin debate. Thirteen Democrats voted with Republicans. Two GOP senators were absent.” [HR 1314, Vote #180, 5/14/15; USA Today, 5/14/15] Sanders Called On President Obama To Cancel Visit To Nike Headquarters. “Sen. Bernie Sanders (IVt.) is calling upon President Obama to cancel his plans to visit Nike's corporate headquarters this week as part of the White House's push to drum up support for a major new trade agreement.” [LA Times, 5/6/15] Sanders Said TPP Would Boost Nike Profits Without Increasing US Manufacturing Jobs. “In a letter sent to Obama Wednesday afternoon and obtained by the Los Angeles Times, the self-identified socialist, who is now running for president as a Democrat, says the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, would only boost Nike's profits while doing nothing to increase manufacturing jobs here. […] But Sanders said TPP would "do nothing to encourage Nike to create one manufacturing job in this country," and would only boost its executives' compensation.” [LA Times, 5/6/15] Sanders: We Have Reason To Be Very Doubtful About What Nike Is Doing Given The Fact That “Today We’re Not Producing One Nike Piece Of Shoe Or Sneaker In This Country.” “Given the fact that they have as [President Obama] just indicated something like a million workers all over the world, given the fact that today we`re not producing one Nike piece of shoe or sneaker in this country. I think we have reason to be very doubtful about what they`re trying to do.” [MSNBC, 5/8/15] Sanders Argued Anti-LGBT Laws In Burnei and Malaysia Among Reasons To Oppose TPP. “Anti#LGBT laws in countries like Brunei and Malaysia are one reason Congress should oppose the #TPP & say #NoFastTrack, argues @SenSanders.” [@iantDC, 5/15/15] Sanders Opposed TPP Provision That Would Allow Corporations To Sue For Lost Profits Impacted By Environmental And Health Regulations. “The pact includes a provision which would let corporations take countries to court with claims that environmental, public health and other laws might impact their expected future profits. Under existing trade agreements, for example, the tobacco giant Philip Morris is suing Australia and Uruguay over labeling requirements for cigarettes. The Swedish energy company Vattenfall launched a $5-billion case over Germany’s decision to phase out nuclear power. “Why would we pass legislation that would undermine democracy and allow corporations to challenge laws designed to protect the public?” Sanders asked.” [Sanders press release, 5/14/15] Sanders: “There Is Virtually No Transparency” On The Trans-Pacific Partnership. “HAYES: You have been one of the critics in the Senate of the Trans Pacific Partnership.[…] Can I ask you, just the informational question? What do you guys see? There’s a question about, what is it? What is it? Do the people get briefed, and they can`t talk? What did you see? How do you know -- SANDERS: Here`s what the process is, can I walk into the top secret room, which is probably more top secret than the NSA. Can I walk in there and read the document? I can. Can I write gown information and take it out? No, I can’t. Can I in a highly technical and legal document of many hundreds of pages bring in my staff lawyers to help me better understand the document? I cannot do that either. So, I have not given credibility to this process. There is virtually no transparency, and that is one of the many reasons to vote against” [MSNBC, 5/20/15] Sanders Said Process For Senators To Review TPP Was “Absurd.” “HAYES: It’s a highly technical document? What can you do is you can go in and read it, commit it to memory. SANDERS: Yes. HAYES: And walk out. SANDERS: If I had a photographic memory, it would work just great. HAYES: But you can`t have stuff, you can`t fake notes, you can`t do any of that? SANDERS: Right. HAYES: That really does seem absurd. SANDERS: Of course, it`s absurd.” [MSNBC, 5/20/15] Sanders Criticized The Investor State Relationships Provisions Of The TPP. “What this agreement will allow is for corporations to sue governments: local, state, federal, countries around the world, if they are inhibiting the future profits of that corporation...governments have the right to protect the health and environment of their people.” [Stop the TPP, 5/11/15] Sanders: TPP Would Pad Profits On US Pharmaceutical Sales While Making Generic Drugs Unaffordable Globally. “Because of the political clout of the U.S. pharmaceutical industry, Americans already pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. Doctors Without Borders has voiced alarm that the proposed agreement would pad profits on pharmaceutical sales in the United States while making life-saving generic drug treatments unaffordable to millions of people around the world.” [Sanders press release, 5/14/15] Sanders: The TPP Was “A Great Deal For The Pharmaceutical Industry.” “This is going to be a great deal for the pharmaceutical industry. They can make huge profits by selling their medicine at very high prices in countries around the world. Now they’re going to make money.” [The Ed Show, MSNBC, 1/16/14, 3:38] Sanders Claimed That Under The TPP Pharmaceutical Companies Will Charge High Prices For Prescription Drugs In Poor Countries. “Second point, in terms of prescription drugs what the pharmaceutical industry, and by the way charges us in America the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. What they want to do is tell poor countries around the world that they can’t get low cost generic drugs, they have to pay top price for brand name drugs. And they’re going to impose restrictions on poor countries that they have to pay high prices for drugs.” [A Bad Deal for Workers, 2/18/14] Criticism Of HRC On TPP Sanders on TPP: “You Can’t Waffle;” You’re Either For It Or Against It. “From the other side came this: “This is one you can’t waffle. You’re either for the T.P.P. or against it,” Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who is seeking the Democratic nomination and opposes the deal, told MSNBC.” [New York Times, 5/12/15] Sanders “Dialing Up Pressure” For Hillary Clinton To Take A Stand On TPP. “The Vermont independent challenging Clinton for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination is dialing up pressure for her to take a stand on a 12-nation Pacific trade deal she's supported in the past.” [Bloomberg, 5/7/15] Sanders: “You Can’t Be On The Fence Of This One.” “Absolutely. You can’t be on the fence of this one. You're either for it or you're against it. No fence-sitting on this one. Here's the reality. When we talk about why the middle class is disappearing and why the gap between the very, very rich and everybody else is growing wider, you've got - you have to talk about disastrous trade agreements that have allowed corporate America to shut down in this country and move to China ,Mexico and other low-wage countries.” [CNN, State of the Union, 5/17/15] Sanders: Clinton Needs To Tell Us What Side She’s On With TPP. “My record is pretty clear on that and Secretary Clinton and the other candidate, is got to have to tell us which side they`re on. This is one, you can`t waffle, either for this TPP or against it. I am vehemently against it.” [MSNBC, 5/8/15] Sanders Said It Was A Problem That Hillary Clinton Accepted Speaking Fees From Organizations Promoting TPP. JUDY WOODRUFF: Another issue is trade. You have been very critical of the trade bill President Obama is vigorously pushing. Hillary Clinton, your rival, has not yet taken a position on this. Today, just today, CBS News reported that she has taken $2.5 million in speaking fees from organizations that are promoting this trade bill. Is that a problem? SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Sure it’s a problem. The problem that we have now is that our political system is increasingly dominated by a billionaire class and by super PACs, who have unbelievable influence over what goes on politically. It is a huge problem.” [PBS Newshour, 5/18/15] Sanders: “It’s Hard For Me To Understand How Any Serious Candidate For President” Can Duck TPP. “JUDY WOODRUFF: Does it matter — we said Secretary Clinton has not taken a position. What does it mean if she doesn’t take a position on this before the Congress votes on it? SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Well, I think that’s a very fair question. And I think the American people will have to decide. If you are asking me why it is that the middle class is disappearing and we’re seeing more income and wealth inequality than any time since the 1920s, trade is a very important factor, not the only reason. And it is hard for me to understand how any serious candidate for president, Hillary Clinton or anybody else, can duck this issue. You can’t. You can be for it. You can be against it. But it is being hotly debated right now in Congress. You have got to have a position on it.” [PBS Newshour, 5/18/15] Sanders Criticized Hillary Clinton for Unclear Stance on TPP Trade Deal. “Vermont Senator and potential presidential contender Bernie Sanders is calling on Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton "to be clear" on President Barack Obama's trade policy. […] Asked about Hillary Clinton's past support for the Pacific trade deal, Sanders unloaded on the former Secretary of State. ‘She's going to have to be clear. It's not a question of watching this. You're going to have determine which side are you on? Are you on the side of working people who would suffer as a result of this disastrous trade agreement, and seeing their jobs go to China or Mexico, or are you on the side of corporate America? It's not a very difficult choice,’ Sanders said.” [CNN, 4/20/15] World Trade Organization Sanders Sponsored A Bill To Withdraw United States From The World Trade Organization. “Declares that Congress withdraws its approval, provided under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO).” [H J Res 27, introduced 5/26/05] Sanders Introduced Legislation With Rep. Ron Paul. “A bill calling for the United States to withdraw from the World Trade Organization will go before the House of Representatives tomorrow. The legislation, introduced by Congressman Bernie Sanders, of Vermont and Congressman Ron Paul, of Texas. Both have been long- time vocal critics of the World Trade Organization because of its negative impact on the American economy, and especially American workers.” [CNN, Lou Dobbs Tonight Show, 6/8/05] Bernie Sanders And Rep. Ron Paul Forced A Ways And Means Committee Vote On Withdrawing The U.S. From The World Trade Organization. “Congress has the opportunity to challenge U.S. membership in the WTO every five years. Reps. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Ron Paul, R-Texas, forced a vote in the House Ways and Means Committee on withdrawing the United States from the trade arbitration body, which recently sparked congressional ire with a ruling against U.S. cotton subsidies.” [AFX International Focus, 5/24/05] Sanders Called On The Bush Administration To File A Case Against OPEC With The WTO Over Alleged Violation Of Global Trade Rules. “Americans are paying far too much money for gas, and the president continues to do nothing about it. I have called on the Administration to file a case against OPEC at the WTO for violating global trading rules. The United States government has filed a number of cases with the WTO on behalf of the U.S. business community, it is past time to show a similar commitment to U.S. consumers who are being gouged by OPEC.” [Bernie Buzz Newsletter, Bernie.House.Gov, 4/30/04 (via Archive.org)] Sanders Passed Anti-WTO Amendment Granting $1 Million To U.S. Trade Representative September 1997: Sanders Offered Amendment Increasing Funding To U.S. Trade Representative By $1 Million. “An amendment, printed as amendment No. 22 in the Congressional Record of September 9, 1997 to increase funding for the office of the U.S. Trade Representative by $1 million and to reduce funding for general administrative expenses within the Department of Commerce commensurately.” [Amdt. 388, HR 2267, offered 9/25/97] Sanders Said He Proposed Amendment Because U.S. Legislation Protecting Human Rights And Environment Had Been “Threatened By The World Trade Organization.” “Mr. Chairman, this amendment is an amendment of enormous consequence which is supported by people with very different political philosophies. This amendment is cosponsored by the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DEFAZIO], by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. NEY], by the gentleman from California [Mr. DELLUMS], by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. STEARNS], by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. BROWN], and by the gentleman from California [Mr. ROHRABACHER], by Republicans, Democrats and Independent, by conservatives and progressives, and what this amendment says is that we believe in democracy and we believe that legislation passed at the local level, at the State level, and here in the U.S. Congress should not be overridden by the World Trade Organization. And while we may disagree about this piece of legislation or that piece of legislation, we think that there is something very wrong about our trade policy whereby this Government has abdicated enormous responsibility and whereby major environmental legislation, legislation dealing with human rights and other important issues, is now threatened and has been threatened by the World Trade Organization. We believe that there is something very wrong when important environmental legislation passed by this Congress is overridden by people in Geneva who meet behind closed doors.” [Rep. Sanders Floor Speech, Congressional Record,9/25/97] Rep. Stearns Said That Sanders’ Amendment Would Grant The U.S. Trade Representative Greater Ability To Determine Which Laws Were Being “Attacked’ By The WTO. “Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague from Vermont, and I want to thank my colleague from Arizona for his kindness in letting us at least just talk about it briefly here. Basically, what we are trying to do is give the U.S. Trade Representative more money so he can investigate, look at the U.S. laws, both local and State, that are impacted by the World Trade Organization when it makes decisions, and do they override actually in effect some of these laws at the local and State level. As my colleagues know, Mr. Chairman, President Clinton, since he has taken office they have negotiated more than 200 trade agreements, and of these 200 trade agreements only 2 of them have had fast track. This, certainly, deflates the administration's claim that our Nation is in dire need of fast track. So I think the important point here is that this amendment that the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] is offering, and others including myself, will allow the U.S. Trade Representative to have additional resources to study the impact of the World Trade Organization on the laws, the sovereign laws at the State and the local level, and to get back to Congress to see what impact these trade negotiations are having. […] This amendment will give the USTR greater ability in determining which laws are to be attacked.” [Rep. Stearns Floor Speech, Congressional Record, 9/25/97] U.S. Trade Representative Then Negotiated China’s Accession Into WTO And Backed Permanent Normal Trade Relations Miami Herald: Charlene Barshefsky “Sealed An Agreement To Allow China's Entry Into The World Trade Organization…” “President Clinton, top congressional Republicans and U.S. exporters on Monday hailed a breakthrough trade deal that could open China's market of 1.3 billion people to everything from American cars and telephone systems to movies and soybeans. And as U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky sealed an agreement to allow China's entry into the World Trade Organization, diplomats and analysts said a positive side effect would be a thaw in the frosty ties between Washington and Beijing. President Clinton, visiting Turkey, responded with elation. ‘Today China embraces principles of economic openness, innovation and competition that will bolster China's economic reforms and advance the rule of law,’ Clinton said. […] Barshefsky's cliffhanger deal would require China, as a sort of initiation fee for its World Trade Organization membership, to lower its tariffs on imports by an average of 23 percent. In addition, China's telecommunications, Internet, agricultural commodity, automobile, banking and securities markets - all now heavily protected by Beijing - would be much more open to U.S. exporters and investors.” [Miami Herald, 11/16/99] U.S. Trade Rep. Barshefsky: Called Negotiations On China’s WTO Entry A “Strong, Commercially Meaningful Agreement” That Would Create New Opportunities For China’s Trading Partners. Then the conclusion of our negotiations on China's WTO entry last month with a strong, commercially meaningful agreement. This will give the world's -- one of the world's largest economies its rightful place in the trading system. China was a founding member of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade at the time of the Bretton Woods agreements, and it has long been a goal of the president to have China return to the system it helped to found. Economic reform in China will be strengthened, long-term growth in China will be more assured, as it also creates new opportunities for each of China's trading partners. [Remarks by U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky at the World Trade Organization Ministers Luncheon – Seattle, WA, 12/1/99] U.S. Trade Rep. Barshefsky: China’s Accession To The WTO And Permanent Normal Trade Relations Was A “The Right Choice” And Would Guarantee “Peace And Security…” “But if we have the wisdom and confidence to make the right choice, before us is a remarkable opportunity. Over three decades, trade policy has strengthened China's stake in prosperity and stability throughout Asia. Together with our Pacific alliances and military commitments; in tandem with our advocacy of human rights; and in the best tradition of postwar American leadership; it has helped us build a relationship with the world's largest nation which strengthens guarantees of peace and security for us and for the world. And WTO accession, together with permanent Normal Trade Relations, will be the most significant step in this process in many years. That is the opportunity before us. These are the stakes as the Congressional debate begins. This is why the Administration is committed to permanent NTR on the basis of this historic agreement, and why we are so committed to success. [U.S. Trade Representative Ambassador Charlene Barshefsky Remarks, 4/12/00] Charlene Barshefsky Had Been Involved “In Some 15 Trade Deals With China” During Her Time In The U.S. Trade Representative’s Office. “Charlene Barshefsky, the 49-year-old lawyer who will chair the World Trade Organization ministerial conference opening here Tuesday, is a no-nonsense negotiator with a marathoner's endurance. In her most recent test she displayed a steely, inner strength during a gruelling five-day session with Chinese counterparts that finally gave birth to a US-China accord on Beijing's accession to the WTO. […] Besides the WTO accession accord worked out with Beijing earlier this month, Barshefsky has been involved in some 15 trade deals with China, including a 1996 agreement on intellectual property protection.” [Agence France Presse, 11/28/99] U.S. Trade Rep. Barshefsky: Agreement On Terms Of China’s Accession To WTO Gave “American Firms And Workers Stronger Protections Against Import Surges And Unfair Trade Practices.” “And that brings us to the WTO. The agreement we reached last November on the terms of China's accession is the capstone on thirty years of work, helping both countries through commitments covering the range of industrial goods, services, farm products and unfair trade practices; and addressing all major barriers to American exports. […] And the agreement gives American firms and workers stronger protection against import surges and unfair trade practices. It addresses state enterprise policies, prohibits forced technology transfer as a condition of investment, and eliminates local content, offsets and export performance requirements. It provides, for 12 years, a special product-specific safeguard to address market-disrupting import surges from China. And it guarantees our right to use a special nonmarket economy methodology to address dumping for 15 years. All these commitments are fully enforceable: through our trade laws; WTO dispute settlement; periodic multilateral review of China's adherence and multilateral pressure from all 135 WTO members; increased monitoring by the U.S., with the President's request for increased funding for China compliance and enforcement in his FY 2001 budget; and other mechanisms such as the special anti-dumping and anti-import surge remedies.” [U.S. Trade Representative Ambassador Charlene Barshefsky Remarks, 4/12/00] International Monetary Fund Sanders: “We Must Rethink The Entire IMF” Because It Created Inequality In “Country After Country.” “I think, among many other issues, we have a right to demand that the IMF undergo very, very fundamental changes. In country after country, where the IMF does business, the wealthy people become richer, and the poorest people become poorer. And that is not only unfair to the rest of the world, it ends up being unfair to our working people, because when you depress wages and currencies around the world, what ends up happening is those people will be able to export products into the United States at lower costs throwing hundreds of thousands, if not millions of American workers out of their jobs. So I think we want to rethink the entire IMF, but most importantly, no more welfare for Chase Manhattan and Citi Bank.” [National Community Action Program Part 1, 02/11/98, 00:32:00] Dubai Ports 2006: Sanders Opposed Allowing The Sale Of Ports To The UAE. “At a Congressional hearing earlier this month in the Financial Services Committee, Rep. Bernie Sanders voiced his strong opposition to the sale of U.S. ports to the United Arab Emirates (UAE). […] Likely in response to the overwhelming opposition to the deal, Dubai Ports World has recently said that it will now not operate the ports. Sanders said, “This deal should be put on hold until after the review is completed and Congress has the opportunity to hold an up or down vote. Frankly, I think this deal is a very dumb idea. According to the 911 Commission, the UAE had direct connections with Osama Bin Laden before theSeptember 11 attacks. It was also one of only three countries nationwide to recognize the Taliban. The FBI has established that money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system and the U.S. Treasury has reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts. This deal has the potential to be a real threat to our national security and it seems to me that we should err on the side of caution and not allow it to go through.”” [Newsletter via Archive.org, Bernie Buzz, Sen. Bernie Sanders, archived 3/8/06] Proposed Global Sustainable Development Resolution Sanders Introduced Global Sustainable Development Resolution, A Resolution To “Establish Democratic Control Over The Global Economy.” “Expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States and the people of the United States, and the people and governments of the other Nations of the world, should take actions to establish democratic control over the global economy. (Sec. 3) Makes findings with respect to unregulated economic globalization and deleterious consequences that it tends to generate, including destructive competition (in which nations are forced to cut labor, social, and environmental costs in order to attract mobile capital), economic inequality, and degradation of democracy.” [H Res 479, introduced 4/13/00] International Work Standards Sanders Sponsored Workplace Democracy Act. Sanders sponsored HR 6041, a bill that among other provisions: “Applies the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to U.S. companies and their subsidiaries operating in any country signatory to a Free Trade Agreement. Gives workers of such companies and subsidiaries the right to file unfair labor practice complaints against the U.S. parent company under this Act and under the laws of the signatory country.” [HR 6041, introduced 9/25/92] Sanders Introduced Fair International Standards in Trade Act. “Authorizes the President to enter into a trade agreement only if it requires each country party to the agreement to: (1) adopt laws that afford internationally recognized worker rights to workers and that promote internationally recognized environmental standards in that country; and (2) treat as an actionable unfair trade practice the denial of such rights and standards as a means for such country to gain a competitive trade advantage.” [HR 4710, introduced 6/30/94] Sanders Sponsored Bill To Prohibit Importation Of Good Produced With Bonded Child Labor. “Amends the Tariff Act of 1930 to prohibit the importation of articles produced or manufactured with bonded child labor. Defines "bonded child labor" to mean work or service: (1) which is exacted from any person under 15 years of age, either in payment for the debts of a parent, relative, or guardian or drawn under false pretexts; and (2) to which such person is confined against his or her will.” [HR 2475, introduced 9/15/97] Sanders Said There Should Be No Fast-Track Trade Agreements Without Enforceable Worker Rights. “The eleventh bill in The Export American Products, Not American Jobs Act, which eliminates or limits special tax and trade incentives and taxpayer-backed programs that reward U.S.-based multinational corporations for producing offshore; no new fast-track and trade agreements without enforceable worker rights, environmental, agricultural, and safety health standards; to prohibit importing child and forced labor products; and to reduce U.S. trade deficit by eliminating unfair trade barriers to U.S. exports.” [Rep. Bernard Sanders, Congressional Record, 1/26/95] Sanders Said United States Should Prohibit Imports Made By Child And Forced Labor. “The eleventh bill in The Export American Products, Not American Jobs Act, which eliminates or limits special tax and trade incentives and taxpayer-backed programs that reward U.S.-based multinational corporations for producing offshore; no new fast-track and trade agreements without enforceable worker rights, environmental, agricultural, and safety health standards; to prohibit importing child and forced labor products; and to reduce U.S. trade deficit by eliminating unfair trade barriers to U.S. exports.” [Rep. Bernard Sanders, Congressional Record, 1/26/95] Export Import Bank Sanders Is The Only Democrat Siding With Conservatives To Kill The Export-Import Bank. “As conservatives on Capitol Hill fight to kill the Export-Import Bank, they have exactly one Democrat on their side -- Sanders.” [The Examiner, 4/30/15] Allowing Ex-Im To Expire Caused Some Companies To Consider Moving Operations Abroad. “Some big companies may choose not to wait. Boeing Chairman Jim McNerney said during an appearance Wednesday that the giant plane manufacturer and defense contractor is considering moving parts of its operations to other countries, where they could take advantage of those nations’ equivalents to Ex-Im to continue selling products overseas. “We’re actively considering now moving key pieces of our company to other countries, and we would’ve never considered that before this craziness on Ex-Im,” McNerney said.” [Politico, 7/30/15] Roughly 3,000 Small Businesses Rely On Ex-Im To Be Able To Export. “Already, credit insurance policies are starting to run out for a number of the roughly 3,000 small businesses that rely on them to be able to export. Still, some U.S. companies are continuing to compete for overseas bids that will ultimately require Ex-Im backing, in the hopes that the agency will be renewed before the deals fall through, National Association of Manufacturers Vice President Linda Dempsey said in an interview.” [Politico, 7/30/15] In 2002, Sanders Called The Bank “Corporate Welfare At Its Worst.” “Ralph Nader has said that the left and right must come together to end the Ex-Im Bank. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) called it ‘corporate welfare at its worst’ in 2002.” [State News Service, 12/15/14] Sanders: Americans Have Better Things To Do With Their Money Than Support An Agency That Provides Corporate Welfare. “The elimination of the Ex-Im Bank was once a decidedly progressive cause. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) was once extremely outspoken on Ex-Im -- in 2002 calling it ‘corporate welfare at its worst’ and writing that, ‘American citizens have better things to do with their money than support an agency that provides welfare for corporations that could care less about American workers.’ Nowadays, Senator Sanders is strangely silent in public on the matter of reauthorization, although he re-mains opposed to it.” [Eurasia Review, 9/9/14] Sanders: Why Should US Tax Payers Pay For Huge Subsidies To The Largest Multinational Corporations In The World? “Progressive U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has blasted the ExportImport Bank (Ex-Im) for years. A dozen years ago, Sanders railed on Capitol Hill, asking why U.S. taxpayers would pay for ‘huge subsidies and loans to the largest multinational corporations in the world.’” [The McDonough County Voice, 8/15/14] In 2002, Democrats Supported Sanders’ Failed Amendment To Restrict Ex-Im Subsidies. “Sanders' failed 2002 amendment proposing to restrict the bank's subsidies garnered only 22 Republican votes but had 111 Democratic backers -- mostly progressive legislators who, in the words of Sanders, saw the ExIm Bank program as ‘one of the most egregious forms of corporate welfare.’” [Sun Journal, 7/15/14] Sanders Sponsored Bill To Require Ex-Im Bank To Prioritize Firms Committed To Creating Jobs In The United States. “Amends the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 to direct the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank to prescribe and implement procedures to ensure that, in selecting from among firms to which to provide financial assistance, preference is given to any firm that has shown a commitment to reinvestment and job creation in the United States.” [HR 2069, introduced 6/25/97] Sanders Voted Against Reauthorization Of Ex-Im In 2012. “Moderate Republican Sens. Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Susan Collins of Maine and Dean Heller of Ne-vada joined Democrats to back the Ex-Im reauthorization. Brown and Heller are in tough Senate races this November. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, voted ‘no’ along with the majority of the Senate GOP.” [Politico, 3/20/12] Sanders Worked With Ron Paul On A Bill That Would Ban The Ex-Im Bank From Continuing To Subsidize Companies That Are Reducing Domestic Workforce. “At the same time, Reps. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Ron Paul (R-Texas) forced a House vote on their bill to ban the government's ExportImport Bank from continuing to subsidize companies that are simultaneously reducing their domestic workforce and increasing their foreign workforce.” [In These Times, 4/2008] Sanders Wrote The GAO Requesting A Study Of Issues Related To The Ex-Im Bank. “Ranking Member of the Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has written the Government Accountability Office requesting a study of several issues of interest to credit unions concerning the banks.” [Credit Union Times, 7/26/06] Sanders Asked Which Banks Are Top Beneficiaries Of Ex—Im. “Since 1990, how much money has the U.S. Export Import Bank provided to the financial services industry in direct loans and other forms of financial assistance? Which banks are the top beneficiaries of these benefits and how much did they receive?” [Credit Union Times, 7/26/06] Sanders Offered An Amendment To The Ex-Im Reauthorization That Would Have Required Export Companies Seeking Financing To Pledge That They Believed In Employing American Workers At Livable Wages. “On Wednesday June 14, the House Financial Services Committee rejected an amendment offered by Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) to the Export-Import bank reauthorization that would have required export companies seeking financing to sign a pledge that says: ‘We believe in employing United States workers at livable wages.’ The amendment was rejected 33-34. Had Leach voted "Yes" the amendment would have passed.” [Targeted News Service, 6/19/06] Sanders: ExxonMobil And Haliburton Would Be Among Top Companies That Could Reap Awares From Ex-Im Financing. “The sponsor of the bill, Representative Bernard Sanders, a Vermont Independent, said Ex-Im Bank's fi-nancing equated to dispensing ‘corporate welfare’ during a period of record high oil industry profits, and said ExxonMobil and Halliburton would be among two companies that could reap rewards from Ex-Im Bank financing. His amendment to a spending bill was defeated by a vote of 228-178.” [Inside Energy, 6/12/06] Sanders Teamed Up With Rohrabacher And Ron Paul To Block A One-Month Extension Of Ex-Im In 2006. “Socialist Rep. Bernie Sanders (I.-Vt.) teamed up with firebrand conservative Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R.-Calif.) and staunch libertarian Rep. Ron Paul (R.-Tex.) to try to block the one-month extension. Sanders' goal was to shut down Ex-Im for one day, ‘to send a message" to the agency that it should not be a provider of corporate welfare.’ [Human Events Online, 5/26/06] Sanders Garnered Bipartisan Support Against Ex-Im In 2005 During Mounting Unease About Trade With China. “Sanders has long objected to Ex-Im Bank programs as corporate welfare, usually without much support from colleagues. But reflecting mounting unease about trade with China, Sanders' campaign attracted 173 Democrats and 139 Republican votes, including those of the chairmen of the Armed Services and Interna-tional Relations committees.” [USA Today, 8/18/05] Sanders Successfully Amended A Foreign Aid Bill With A Provision That Prohibited A $5 Billion Ex-Im Loan Deal To Aid Westinghouse. “The House of Representatives threw a roadblock in front of the Bush Administration's plan to subsidize the sale of nuclear reactors to the China National Nuclear Corp. (CNNC) on June 28. Socialist Rep. Bernie Sanders (I.-Vt.) successfully amended a foreign aid bill, adding a provision that would prohibit a $5 billion Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im) loan deal intended to aid Westinghouse; Sanders' amendment passed 313 to 114, re-flecting widespread concerns about the loan deal, for which Ex-Im granted preliminary approval on February 18.” [Human Events Online, 7/14/05] Sanders: “American Taxpayers Should Not Be Subsidizing The Construction Of Nuclear Power Plants To China.” “‘The passage of this amendment is an important victory for the American taxpayer, our national security, and the American worker,’ Sanders said. ‘American taxpayers should not be subsidizing the construction of nuclear power plants to China.’ Thousands of American jobs could be lost, Sanders said, once China obtained the Westinghouse technol-ogy, which the nation could then reproduce itself for additional power plants.” [Brattleboro Reformer, 6/30/05] Sanders: GM Has Received Over $500 Million From Ex-Im And Shrunk Its US Workforce. “In this respect, GM has, once again, been a bellwether. Since 2000, notes Vermont Representative Bernie Sanders (a self-described socialist who, to his credit, opposes corporate welfare), ‘General Motors has received over $500 million in direct loans and loan guarantees from the Export-Import Bank. The result? GM has shrunk its U.S. workforce from 559,000 to 314,000.’" [The New American, 5/16/05] Sanders: “Companies That Dodge US Taxes Should Not Be Rewarded With Taxpayer Handouts Through The Export-Import Bank.” “Sanders said, ‘It is bad enough that corporations turn their back on the United States of America to dodge taxes. But, it is unconscionable that these same companies would then get U.S. taxpayer subsidies through the U.S. Export-Import Bank - forcing middle class taxpayers to pick up the tab. Companies that dodge U.S. taxes should not be rewarded with taxpayer handouts through the Export-Import Bank. If we prohibit these turncoats from receiving corporate welfare, we will have more money to give to the small and medium sized companies who are standing with their fellow Americans by incorporating in the U.S.A.’" [US Fed News, 7/16/04] Sanders: When Americans Are Putting Their Lives On The Line Overseas, It Is Unpatriotic And Immoral For Ex-Im To Give Corporate Welfare To Companies That Have Renounced Their US Citizenship. “Sanders concluded, ‘When you have young Americans putting their lives on the line overseas, it is unpatriotic and immoral for the Export-Import Bank to give corporate welfare to companies that have essentially renounced their U.S. citizenship. Let them go to the government of Bermuda, the Cayman Islands or one of the other tax havens if they want a handout.’" [US Fed News, 7/16/04] Sanders: GE, Boeing, And Motorola Have Received Ex-Im Funding And Laid Off American Workers. “Since 1975, General Electric has eliminated more than 260,000 American jobs, while receiving $2.5 billion in loans and guarantees from the Export-Import Bank. It does not sound too successful to me. Boeing is, I believe, the largest recipient of Export-Import taxpayer subsidies and grants. Since 1990, Boeing had laid off 135,000 American workers, increasingly outsourcing design work to China, Russia and Japan, while receiving $18 billion in direct loans and loan guarantees. Motorola has laid off close to 43,000 workers since 2001, and received $190 million in direct loans and loan guarantees from the U.S. Export-Import Bank.” [FDCH Political Transcripts, 5/6/04] Sanders: “Eighty Percent Of Ex-Im Money Goes To Fortune 500 Companies.” “Earlier this year, legislators approved the expansion of Export-Import Bank activity despite a challenge led by Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont). ‘Eighty percent of Ex-Im money goes to Fortune 500 companies,’ Sanders pointed out at the time, including Boeing, General Electric, Enron, IBM and Halliburton. ‘Amazingly,’ he added, ‘these companies are some of the biggest job cutters in the country.’” [In These Times, 12/23/02] Sanders On Ex-Im: “An Outrageous Example Of Pork-Ridden Welfare.” “One of the key votes will come on an amendment by Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., which would prohibit future assistance from going to companies that laid off more U.S. workers than foreign workers after receiving the Export-Import Bank's assistance. Sanders is one of the leaders of a coalition of conservatives and progressives, who say the bank wastes tax dollars and lines the pockets of the well connected. He called the program ‘an outrageous example of pork-ridden welfare.’” [Congressional Quarterly, 5/30/02] Sanders: Corporations Who Lay Off American Workers Should Not Be Able To Get Taxpayer Funding From Ex-Im. "Corporations who, as a part of their overall business strategy, seek to lay off American workers in search of cheaper labor in other countries should not be able to come back to get taxpayer funding from the Ex-port-Import Bank," Sanders said.” [Congressional Quarterly, 9/21/01] Sanders: Other Countries Should Not Be Able To Line Up And Receive Support From The Ex-Im Bank. “’The United States has a trade deficit because many companies have systematically laid of millions of American workers and instead gone to developing countries to employ people at 20 cents an hour,’ Sanders said Thursday. ‘These are not countries that should be able to line up and receive support from the Ex-Im Bank.’” [Congressional Quarterly, 9/20/01] Voted To Preserve The Ex-Im Bank Sanders Voted To Reauthorize Ex-Im Bank Through Fiscal Year 2001. On October 6, 1997, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #492. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank through fiscal 2001. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #492, 10/6/1997] Sanders Voted To Reauthorize Ex-Im Bank Through Fiscal Year 1997. On October 5, 1992, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #483. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the conference report to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank through fiscal 1997 to assist foreign countries in buying American-made goods and services through loans and loan guarantees. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #483, 10/5/1992] Sanders Opposed Cutting Ex-Im Bank’s Funding By $3.1 Million. On June 5, 1996, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #211. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Manzullo, R-Ill., amendment to reduce funding for the Export-Import Bank by $3.1 million. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #211, 6/5/1996] Sanders Opposed Eliminating Subsidy Appropriation For Ex-Im Bank. On July 24, 2001, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #261. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Paul, R-Texas, amendment that would eliminate the subsidy appropriation account for the Export-Import Bank. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #261, 7/24/2001] Sanders Opposed Prohibiting Ex-Im Bank From Making Loans In Countries That Hold U.S. Treasury Securities. On May 15, 2012, Bernie Sanders voted no on Senate Vote #92. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Paul, R-Ky., amendment no. 2101 that would prohibit the Export-Import Bank from making loans in countries that hold U.S. Treasury securities. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #92, 5/15/2012] Sanders Opposed Terminating Ex-Im Bank And Directing President To Negotiate Ending Export Subsidies With Other Countries. On May 15, 2012, Bernie Sanders voted no on Senate Vote #91. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Lee, R-Utah, amendment no. 2100 that would terminate the Export-Import Bank one year after reauthorization and direct the president to pursue negotiations with other countries to end export subsidies. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #91, 5/15/2012] Bernie Sanders Voted To Restore $25 Million For Ex-Im Bank. On March 24, 1999, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #68. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Obey, D-Wis., amendment to restore four of the bill's rescissions, including $648 million in "callable capital" for international financial institutions; $150 million from the U.S. program that aids in disarming Russian nuclear weapons; $30 million from the PL 480 (Food for Peace) foreign food aid and loan program; and $25 million from the U.S. Export-Import Bank. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #68, 3/24/1999] Bernie Sanders Voted To Extend Ex-Im Bank. On September 29, 1997, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #461. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the joint resolution to provide continuing appropriations through Oct. 23 for fiscal 1998 spending bills not yet enacted. The continuing resolution generally sets spending levels at fiscal 1997 spending levels. The measure extends until Oct. 23 several other policies and programs, such as the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and the Export-Import Bank. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #461, 9/29/1997] Bernie Sanders Opposed Cutting Ex-Im Bank’s Funding By $632 Million. On July 30, 1997, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #347. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Paul, R-Texas, amendment to eliminate the bill's funding for all federal export and investment assistance, including $632 million for the Export-Import Bank, $32 million for the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and $40 million for the Trade and Development Agency. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #347, 7/30/1997] More Often Opposed Reauthorization Sanders Opposed Reauthorizing Export-Import Bank And Increasing Cap On Bank’s Authorized Outstanding Loans, Guarantees, And Insurance. On May 15, 2012, Bernie Sanders voted no on Senate Vote #96. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would reauthorize through Sept. 30, 2014 the charter for the U.S. Export-Import Bank. It would incrementally increase to $140 billion, from $100 billion, the cap on outstanding loans, guarantees and insurance that the bank is authorized to have at any given time. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #96, 5/15/2012] Sanders Opposed Limiting Export-Import Bank Lending Until Progress Was Made On Negotiations To End Export-Financing Programs. On May 15, 2012, Bernie Sanders voted no on Senate Vote #95. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Toomey, R-Pa., amendment no. 2104 that would place conditions on the Export-Import Bank's lending until progress is made on multilateral negotiations to end export-financing programs. [CQ Floor Votes;Senate Vote #95, 5/15/2012] Sanders Opposed Prohibiting Export-Import Bank From Financing Foreign Fossil Fuel Projects And Financing Renewable Energy Products. On May 15, 2012, Bernie Sanders voted no on Senate Vote #94. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Vitter, R-La., amendment no. 2103 that would prohibit the Export-Import Bank from financing foreign fossil fuel projects that are similar to projects in the United States. It also would prohibit the bank from financing foreign manufacturing of renewable energy products. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #94, 5/15/2012] Sanders Opposed Requiring Ex-Im Bank To Fund Transactions Only For Transactions Subsidized By Other Countries’ Credit Agencies. On May 15, 2012, Bernie Sanders voted no on Senate Vote #93. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Corker, R-Tenn., amendment no. 2102 that would require the Export-Import Bank to provide financing only for transactions subsidized by export credit agencies of other countries or for which private sector financing is unavailable or prohibitively expensive. It also would require the bank to maintain a ratio of capital to the outstanding principal balance of loans and loan guarantees of not less than 10 percent. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #93, 5/15/2012] Bernie Sanders Opposed Limiting Debate On Ex-Im Charter Reauthorization That Would Increase Lending Cap By $40 Billion. On March 20, 2012, Bernie Sanders voted no on Senate Vote #52. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Motion to invoke cloture (thus limiting debate) on the Cantwell, D-Wash., amendment no. 1836 that would reauthorize the charter for the Export-Import bank for four years and increase its lending cap by $40 billion. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #52, 3/20/2012] Bernie Sanders Voted To Prohibit Ex-Im Bank From Making Long-Term Loans Or Loan Guarantees For Oil And Gas Projects. On June 9, 2006, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #247. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Sanders, I-Vt., amendment that would prohibit the ExportImport Bank from making any long-term loans or loan guarantees for oil and gas projects. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #247, 6/9/2006] Bernie Sanders Voted To Prohibit Ex-Im Bank From Approving Federal Loans Or Loan Guarantees For Chinese Nuclear Power Plants. On June 28, 2005, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #332. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Sanders, I-Vt., amendment that would bar the ExportImport Bank from using funds in the bill to approve federal loans or loan guarantees for the construction of nuclear power plants in China. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #332, 6/28/2005] Bernie Sanders Voted To Prohibit Ex-Im Bank From Approving Direct Loans Or Loan Guarantees To Companies Incorporated In Bermuda, Barbados, The Cayman Islands, Antigua, Or Panama. On July 15, 2004, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #386. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Sanders, I-Vt., amendment no. 19 that would prohibit the Export-Import Bank from approving direct loans or loan guarantees to companies incorporated in Bermuda, Barbados, the Cayman Islands, Antigua or Panama. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #386, 7/15/2004] Bernie Sanders Voted To Prohibit Funding From Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan Security and Reconstruction Going To Ex-Im Bank Loans. On October 17, 2003, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #558. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Weiner, DN.Y., amendment that would prohibit any funds in the bill from going toward Export-Import Bank programs or other loans to Saudi Arabia or any nation on the State Department's list of terrorist states. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #558, 10/17/2003] Sanders Opposed Reauthorizing The Export-Import Bank Through Fiscal Year 2006. On June 5, 2002, Bernie Sanders opposed adoption of the conference report on the bill that would reauthorize the Export-Import Bank through fiscal 2006. The agreement would increase the bank's aggregate loan limit from $75 billion to $100 billion over the next four years and increase small business related activities including doubling, to 20 percent, loans assisting those businesses. It would allow the president to disapprove loans through the Tied Aid Credit Fund that he determines would impede arrangements restricting the use of tied aid. The agreement also would extend the work of an advisory committee on Africa and continue additional reports to Congress on increasing U.S. exports to Africa.Adopted (thus sent to the Senate) 344-78: D 180-26 (ND 129-25, SD 51-1); R 164-50; I 0-2. A majority of House Democrats supported the proposal. [S 1372,Vote #210, 6/5/02; CQ Floor Votes, 6/5/02] Bernie Sanders Voted To Block Companies That Lay Off More U.S. Employees Than Foreign Employees From Receiving Ex-Im Bank Assistance. On May 1, 2002, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #120. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Sanders, I-Vt., amendment that would ban companies that lay off a greater percentage of U.S. employees than overseas employees from receiving assistance through the Export-Import Bank. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #120, 5/1/2002] Bernie Sanders Opposed Reauthorizing Ex-Im Bank Through May 31, 2002. On April 30, 2002, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #118. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Bereuter, RNeb., motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill that would reauthorize the Export- Import Bank through May 31, 2002. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #118, 4/30/2002] Bernie Sanders Voted To Transfer $18 Million From Ex-Im Bank’s Subsidy Appropriation Account To Child Survival And Health Programs Fund. On July 24, 2001, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #260. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Visclosky, D-Ind., amendment that would reduce the Export-Import Bank's subsidy appropriation account by $15 million and its administrative expenses funding by $3 million. It would then increase by $18 million the Child Survival and Health Programs Fund, $13 million of which would go toward HIV/AIDS funding and $5 million toward vulnerablechildren programs. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #260, 7/24/2001] Sanders Supported Prohibiting Ex-Im Bank; Overseas Private Investment Corporation; And Trade Development Agency From Entering Into New Obligations. On August 3, 1999, Bernie Sanders supported a Rep. Paul, R-Texas, amendment to prohibit the use of funds in the bill for new obligations or commitments by the Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation or the Trade and Development Agency. Rejected 58-360: D 7-195 (ND 4-144, SD 3-51); R 50-165; I 1-0. A majority of House Democrats opposed the proposal. [H R 2606, Vote #361, 8/3/99; CQ Floor Votes, 8/3/99] Bernie Sanders Voted To Rename Ex-Im Bank The “United States Export Bank.” On September 30, 1997, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #473. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: LaFalce, D-N.Y., amendment to rename the Export-Import Bank the "United States Export Bank." [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #473, 9/30/1997] Bernie Sanders Voted For Ex-Im Bank To Prefer U.S. Firms Practicing In China That Adhered To Human Rights’ And Workers Rights’ Codes Of Conduct. On September 30, 1997, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #472. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Evans, D-Ill., amendment to direct the Export-Import Bank to give preference to those U.S. firms seeking assistance for activities in China who have adopted and adhered to a code of conduct consistent with internationally recognized human and workers' rights. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #472, 9/30/1997] Bernie Sanders Voted To Reduce Ex-Im Bank’s Funding By $1 Million. On June 5, 1996, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #210. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Obey, D-Wis., amendment to reduce funding for the Export-Import Bank by $1 million. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #210, 6/5/1996] VETERANS Served As Chair Of Veterans’ Affairs Committee Sanders Requested And Was Assigned To Veterans’ Affairs Committee When He Joined The Senate In 2007. “[Sanders] likes the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, a lot, appreciates that he gave him the committee assignments that he wanted -- Health, Education, Labor and Pensions; the Environment and Public Works; Veterans' Affairs; Energy and Natural Resources; and the Budget.” [New York Times, 1/21/07] January 2013: Sanders Became Chair Of Veterans’ Affairs Committee. “The 113th Congress will bring a few new faces to the defense lineup, and some familiar ones will shift into new roles. […] In the Senate's Veterans Affairs Committee, Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont who caucuses with the Democrats, will step into the chairman's post, taking over from Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), who's leaving to chair the Senate Budget Committee.” [Politico, 12/11/12] Sanders Top Priority As Veterans Affairs Chairman Was To Deal With Claims Backlog. “Sanders’ top priority on the committee is to clear a claims backlog in the Department of Veterans Affairs stemming from a dozen years of war and recent federal recognition of Agent Orange exposure in Vietnam-era vets. Nearly 900,000 veterans are waiting for their claims to be processed, while 70 percent of claims have been pending for more than 125 days, according to the VA. “The good news is that they are now processing about a million a year, which is far more than they used to. The bad news is, they’ve got a big backlog,” he says.” [Seven Days Vermont, 3/13/13] January 2015: Sanders Became Ranking Member Of Budget Committee; Remained A Member Of Veterans’ Affairs Committee. “The Senate Democratic Steering Committee on Friday tapped Sanders, a Vermont independent, to become the top-ranking minority member of the Senate Budget Committee. […] He currently chairs the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, a position he'll lose next Congress when Republicans assume control of the Senate. He won't be the top-ranked minority member on that committee because Senate rules prohibit members from serving that role on two committees at once.” [Burlington Free Press, 12/12/14] Sanders Was A Founding Member Of Senate Military Families Caucus. “Along with Co-Chairs Boxer and Burr, the founding members of the Senate Military Family Caucus are Senators Daniel K. Akaka (DHI), Max Baucus (D-MT), Mark Begich (D-AK), Michael F. Bennet (D-CO), Scott Brown (R-MA), Roland W. Burris (D-IL), Robert P. Casey Jr. (D-PA), Kay R. Hagan (D-NC), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), John F. Kerry (D-MA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ), Joe Lieberman (ID-CT), Patty Murray (D-WA), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH).” [Begich press release, 8/18/10] Sanders: We Have A Moral Obligation To Provide The Best Quality Care To Veterans. “We, as a nation, have a moral obligation to provide the best quality care possible to those who have put their lives on the line to defend us, and Sen. Sanders is determined to ensure VA is meeting this responsibility. In response to the crisis at the VA Medical Center in Phoenix, Sen. Sanders led the effort to pass legislation to right the wrongs of the existing crisis, while making additional improvements to the VA health care system.” [sanders.senate.gov, accessed 6/16/15] Crafted And Helped Pass Bipartisan Veterans Administration Reform Bill As Chairman Of Veterans Affairs Committee, Sanders Crafted And Passed $16.3 Billion Bipartisan Bill To Improve Access To Health Care For Veterans And Reform VA. “The Senate tonight approved and sent to President Barack Obama a bill to improve access to health care for veterans and reform the Department of Veterans Affairs. Crafted by the Senate and House Veterans’ Affairs Committee chairmen – Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Jeff Miller (R-Fla.) – the $16.3 billion bill passed the Senate by a vote of 91-3. The House of Representatives voted 420-5 on Wednesday to approve the same measure.” [Sanders press release, 7/31/14] Sanders Said Bill Addressed Immediate Crisis Of Waiting Lists And Accountability Problems. ““This bill keeps our commitment to the men and women who put their lives on the line to defend our country. It makes certain that we address the immediate crisis of veterans being forced onto long waiting lists for health care. It strengthens the VA so that it will be able to hire the doctors, nurses and medical personnel it needs so we can permanently put an end to the long waiting lists. It addresses the very serious problem of accountability and makes certain that dishonest and incompetent senior officials do not remain employed at the VA,” Sanders said.” [Sanders press release, 7/31/14] Compromise Bill Provided $5 Billion For VA To Recruit More Doctors And Other Medical Staff. “The measure provides $5 billion for the VA to recruit more doctors, nurses and other medical providers to care for the surging number of veterans returning from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.” [Sanders press release, 7/31/14] Compromise Bill Allowed Veterans Living Far From VA Facilities To See Private Doctors Or Other Local Options, Expanded Number Of VA Clinics. “Veterans on long VA waiting lists and those who live far from VA facilities may see private doctors or go to community health centers, Department of Defense facilities and Indian Health Centers. The bill has $10 billion for that emergency provision for veterans who cannot get an appointment within 30 days or live more than 40 miles from a VA clinic. Another $1.3 billion will pay for leasing 27 new clinics in 18 states and Puerto Rico.” [Sanders press release, 7/31/14] Sanders Praised “Aggressive” Efforts To Eliminate Waiting Times At VA And Implement New Reform Law. “As the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs implements a new VA reform law, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) praised “aggressive” efforts to eliminate long waiting times for medical appointments. [Sanders press release, 11/2/14] Sanders Praised Efforts To Fire VA Managers Who Covered Up Delays. “The Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs chairman also said the law giving the VA new powers to fire managers who covered up delays should be implemented “as aggressively as possible” in a way that does not jeopardize potential criminal cases. […]“While we want the VA to act in a timely manner to punish employees who have acted dishonorably, it is imperative that the VA get these personnel actions right – by building an effective case to do so. The last thing we want is to undermine law enforcement’s efforts to complete their work as well,” Sanders wrote to McDonald.” [Sanders press release, 11/2/14] Worked Closely With Rep. Miller To Pass Conference Report Of VA Reform Sanders And House VA Chair Rep. Jeff Miller Worked Together To Save VA Reform Bill. “And then, it was saved. A phone conversation took place between Sanders and Miller. Their staffs held marathon negotiating sessions. And three days before the calendar turned to August, they finalized a deal. The revitalization of VA reform legislation is an unsexy tale. It is the story of two lawmakers who swallowed their ideological pride to make moderate progress. But it also illustrates a defining paradox of one of the more dynamic figures currently in politics.” [Huffington Post, 6/4/15] Before Coming To Agreement, Negotiations Between Sanders And Miller Were Characterized By “Knock-Down, Drag-Out Arguing.” “Top negotiators on a deal to reform the Department of Veterans Affairs turned to an unusual strategy that helped them arrive at Monday’s agreement: knock-down, drag-out arguing. Just last week, talks appeared on the verge of collapse as the leaders of a conference committee — Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Jeff Miller (R-Fla.) — publicly slugged it out over differences on how to pay for the bill. Miller said Sanders was hurling “grenades” at Republicans rather than negotiating while Sanders called the GOP’s behavior “sad.” Those barbs turned out to be more cathartic than detrimental.” [Politico, 7/28/14] Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) Praised Sanders For His Hard Work On VA Legislation. “Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will speak very briefly. Mainly, I come here on the floor to thank the Senator from Vermont and my good friend from North Carolina on the hard work they and members of the Veterans Affairs' Committee have done on this issue. I greatly respect my dear friend from Oklahoma and his concern. But I would have to say to my colleagues: If there was ever a definition of an emergency, that emergency faces us today because our veterans are not receiving the care we owe them as a nation.” [Congressional Record, Sen. John McCain, 7/31/14] June 2014: Worked With Sen. McCain To Craft Compromise Deal To Reform VA June 2014: Sanders And McCain Struck A Compromise Deal To Reform VA. “Sens. Bernie Sanders and John McCain have struck a deal on legislation to reform the Department of Veterans Affairs to expand veterans’ access to health care and make it easier to fire VA officials for misconduct. The compromise measure, announced Thursday on the Senate floor, includes pieces of three VA bills that have been introduced in the Senate.” [Politico, 6/5/14; S. 2450, introduced 6/11/14] Sanders-McCain Legislation Allowed Veterans To See Private Doctors Outside VA System If Wait Times Or Distance Hinder Appropriate Care. The legislation would allow veterans to see private doctors outside the VA system if they experience long wait times or live more than 40 miles from a VA facility. And it incorporates provisions from legislation introduced in the Senate by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) making it easier to fire VA officials.” [Politico, 6/5/14] Sanders-McCain Legislation Included Funds For Construction Of 26 New VA Medical Facilities And Hiring Of Additional VA Doctors And Nurses. “The bill also includes the construction of 26 new VA medical facilities in 18 states and uses $500 million in unobligated VA funds to hire additional VA doctors and nurses.” [Politico, 6/5/14] Sanders-McCain Legislation Provided In State Tuitions For All Veterans At Public Colleges And Universities And GI Tuition Benefits To Spouses Of Troops Killed In Line Of Duty. “The bill would also provide in-state tuition for all veterans at public colleges and universities, GI Bill tuition benefits to the spouses of troops killed in the line of duty and increased access to health care for sexual assault victims.” [Politico, 6/5/14] Sanders-McCain Legislation Increased Access To Health Care For Sexual Assault Victims. “The bill would also provide in-state tuition for all veterans at public colleges and universities, GI Bill tuition benefits to the spouses of troops killed in the line of duty and increased access to health care for sexual assault victims.” [Politico, 6/5/14] $2 Billion Sanders-McCain Legislation Would Be Paid For Through Emergency Appropriations. “The legislation, estimated to cost a little less than $2 billion, would be paid for through emergency appropriations, Sanders said.” [Politico, 6/5/14] Sanders-McCain Bill Passed Senate 93-3. “The Senate today voted 93-3 for a bill to expand hospitals and clinics run by the Department of Veterans Affairs and to hire more doctors and nurses to provide timely, quality care for veterans. The bipartisan bill by Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) would let veterans facing long delays for doctor appointments at VA facilities go elsewhere. Their measure also would hold VA officials accountable for trying to conceal patient wait times.” [Sanders press release, 6/11/14] McCain Said That Negotiating With Sanders Was “Not A Usual Experience” But That Sanders Was “Results Oriented.” “Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who helped write the Senate version of the VA reform bill, praised Sanders for having the gumption to drop F-bombs one minute and counteroffers the next. "Negotiating with Bernie was not a usual experience, because he is very passionate and he and I are both very strong-willed people and we spend a lot of time banging our fists on the table and having the occasional four-letter word," McCain said. "But at the end of the day, Bernie was result-oriented."” [Huffington Post, 6/4/15] McCain And Sanders Were “Yelling At Each Other In Private” About Details Of Legislation Less Than An Hour Before Announcing Deal. “A similar dynamic played out in June while Sanders was negotiating with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to get to a VA deal that could move through the chamber. Sanders and McCain found themselves yelling at each other in private over the particulars of the legislation. Less than an hour later, they announced a bipartisan deal that passed the Senate in an eye-popping 93-3 vote.” [Politico, 7/28/14] June 2014: Introduced Bill To Overhaul Health Care For Veterans Sanders Introduced Restoring Veterans Trust Act, A “Far-Reading Proposal” “To Overhaul Health Care” For Veterans. “Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.) introduced a far-reaching proposal Sunday to overhaul health care for the nation’s veterans that would make it easier for the beleaguered Department of Veterans Affairs to hire and fire employees, lease new space for clinics and hospitals, and send veterans to outside providers if care isn’t available within 30 days. Sanders’s bill, the Restoring Veterans’ Trust Act…” [Washington Post, 6/1/14] Among Provisions, Proposal Would Expand Authority To Remove Senior Officials For Poor Performance, Expedite Hiring Of Nurses And Doctors, Open 27 New Medical Facilities, And Expand Eligibility For Outside Care. “Sanders’s bill, the Restoring Veterans’ Trust Act, would give the VA secretary the authority to remove senior officials based on poor job performance, grant VA expedited hiring authority for nurses and doctors, authorize the department to lease 27 new facilities in 18 states and Puerto Rico, mandate a software upgrade for the department’s patient scheduling system by March 2016 and expand opportunities for eligible veterans to seek outside care if VA facilities are unavailable.” [Washington Post, 6/1/14; S 2413, introduced 6/2/14] Bill Also Included Expanded Dental Care, Restored COLA Adjustments, And Provided Assistance To Vets Who Were Sexually Assaulted While Serving. “Sanders’s bill also addresses a host of issues not directly raised by recent allegations that led to Shinseki’s ouster. It would authorize expanded dental care for veterans, restore full cost-of-living adjustments for military retirement pensions, provide assistance to veterans who were sexually assaulted or raped while serving and require advance, multiyear appropriations for VA operations.” [Washington Post, 6/1/14] McCain Introduced Competing Republican Version Of Veterans Reform Bill. “Senate Republicans on Tuesday said they would offer legislation to allow veterans to go to any hospital within 40 miles of their home to get healthcare. The bill, backed by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), would also mimic legislation passed by the House in giving the secretary of the troubled Veterans Affairs Department the power to remove any top executive based on job performance. Republicans on Tuesday began to rally around McCain's bill, but it faces an uncertain future in the Senate, where Democrats are expected to back legislation to be introduced Thursday by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and the White House are working with Sanders on his bill, increasing his leverage.” [The Hill, 6/4/14] February 2014: Authored Sweeping Veterans Reform Legislation Blocked By Republicans Sanders’s Bill, The Comprehensive Veterans Health and Benefits and Military Retirement Pay Restoration Act, Was “Characterized As The Most Sweeping Veterans Legislation In Decades.” “What has been characterized as the most sweeping veterans legislation in decades should reach the Senate floor for a vote Tuesday afternoon. The legislation authored by Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent who chairs the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, contains more than 140 provisions and would cost $21 billion over 10 years.” [USA Today, 2/25/14; S 1982, introduced 2/3/14] Sanders’s Bill Expanded Compensation For Family Caregivers For Disabled Veterans To Veterans Of All Wars, Not Only Iraq and Afghanistan. “It would expand compensation for family caregivers of disabled veterans — something now provided for veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan — to families of veterans of all wars.” [USA Today, 2/25/14] 2013: Sanders Introduced Standalone Bill To Expand Compensation For Family Caregivers For Disabled Veterans To Veterans Of All Wars, Not Only Iraq and Afghanistan. “Caregivers Expansion and Improvement Act of 2013 - Extends to all veterans with a serious serviceconnected injury the eligibility to participate in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) program of comprehensive assistance to family caregivers of such veterans. (Under current law, such eligibility is limited to those veterans who incurred such an injury on or after September 11, 2001.)” [S 851, introduced 9/17/13] Among Provisions, Sanders’s Veterans Bill Expanded Eligibility For VA Health Care, Opened New Facilities, And Restored COLA Increases For Military Pensions. “The Comprehensive Veterans Health and Benefits and Military Retirement Pay Restoration Act of 2014 would greatly expand aid and other programs to America’s veterans by increasing eligibility for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care, opening new facilities, restoring full cost-of-living increases to military retiree pensions, expanding education programs and even offering reproductive treatment and adoption assistance for severely wounded veterans, among other things.” [CBS News, 2/25/14] Sanders’s Veterans Reform Bill Guaranteed Post-9/11 Veterans Were Eligible For In-State Tuition At Any Public College Or University. “Educational opportunities would be expanded by guaranteeing that post-9/11 veterans recently discharged from the military are eligible for in-state tuition at public colleges and universities in any state.” [Sanders press release, 2/25/14] Sanders’s Veterans Reform Bill Reauthorized Provisions From Vow To Hire Heroes Act, Which Provided Job Training For Veterans. “The bill would reauthorize provisions from the VOW to Hire Heroes Act of 2011, including a two-year extension of the Veterans Retraining and Assistance Program which retrains certain unemployed veterans for high demand occupations. The program has helped veterans find work and provided access to job training for more than 74,000 veterans.” [Sanders press release, 2/25/14] Sanders Proposed To Pay For Veterans Bill Out Of Overseas Contingency Operations Funding, Which Funds Spending On Fighting Terrorism. “Sanders proposes to pay for his bill out of roughly $1 trillion the federal government would be allowed by law to spend fighting terrorism over the next 10 years. The current cost Sanders wants to cover is $17 billion. "I would argue that if we put aside money for war, we are also putting aside money for those people hurt in those wars," Sanders said. "That's a very consistent and reasonable argument." According to the Congressional Budget Office, the $1 trillion — known as Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding — is a projected cost for 2014, when troops are still fighting in Afghanistan.” [USA Today, 2/25/14] Republicans Objected To Funding Mechanism For Sanders’s Bill Because Savings Were Already Expected From Winding Down Wars In Iraq and Afghanistan. “Republicans objected to several components of Sanders’ bill, including its funding mechanism. Sanders would pay for his bill with money that would have gone toward the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Republicans said those savings were already expected, so it wasn’t a real source of money. (For what it’s worth, the House bill did not really specify where its funding would be taken from.)” [Politifact, 6/16/14] Republicans Argued Funding Wouldn’t Amount To Real Savings Since War In Afghanistan Was Winding Down. “Republicans have charged the bill was too expensive and disputed the way it would be paid for with overseas contingency operations funds used to fund the war in Afghanistan. And that, Republicans argued, wouldn’t amount to real savings, since the money wouldn’t have been spent anyway with the war winding down by year’s end.” [Politico, 2/27/14] Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC), Sponsor Of An Alternative VA Bill, Said That He And Sanders Agreed On 80 Percent Of Legislation’s Substance, But Disagreed On Cost. “Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the chairman of the committee. He is right when he said we have a lot of agreements. As a matter of fact, about 80 percent of the policies in his bill are in my alternative bill, but I have a big problem with the other 20 percent. I have a problem with the cost. I have a problem with the unintended consequences. I wish we could figure out the intended consequences, but we cannot because there has not been much time to do it.” [Congressional Record, Sen. Richard Burr, 2/25/14] Major Veterans Groups, Including America Legion And VFW, Endorsed Sanders’s Legislation. “Supporting veterans is hardly a politically risky proposition. In fact, it would likely be more difficult for lawmakers to vote against the measure, considering it has the support of several major veterans groups including The American Legion, Vietnam Veterans of America and Veterans of Foreign Wars. VFW National Commander William Thien called it, “the most comprehensive veterans’ legislation to be introduced in decades” when the group backed the bill last month.” [CBS News, 2/25/14] AMVETS Executive Director Called Sanders’s “Kitchen Sink-Like” Bill “Morally Irresponsible And Fiscally Unsound.” “That said, there wasn’t unanimous backing of the bill by veterans groups. In an op-ed, Stewart Hickey, national executive director for American Veterans, or AMVETS, said Sanders’ "kitchen sink-like" bill "would be morally irresponsible and fiscally unsound."” [Politifact, 6/16/14] February 2014: Senate Republicans “Actively Thwarted” Passage Of Sanders’s Veterans Bill. “In February, Senate Republicans actively thwarted the Comprehensive Veterans Health and Benefits and Military Retirement Pay Restoration Act of 2014. The $21 billion legislation was supposed to improve health, education and other benefits for veterans. Instead, it failed to get the 60 votes needed to stop a threatened filibuster.” [Jonathan Capehart, Washington Post, 5/21/14] Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) Praised Sanders For His Leadership On His Veterans Affairs Legislation. “Mr. REID. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote to advance bipartisan legislation that expands and improves the health care and job training available to our Nation's veterans. I thank the Senator from Vermont, Bernard Sanders, for his leadership on this issue and for his dedication to America's service men and women. […] This bill would not only improve veterans' access to health care, it would extend job training programs for servicemembers reentering the civilian workforce. It would bolster benefits for surviving spouses and children. And it would make the Veterans' Administration more transparent and more efficient.” [Congressional Record, Sen. Harry Reid, 2/25/14] Statements On 2014 VA Scandal Sanders Agreed With Secretary Shinseki’s Statements On The VA Scandal And Called For The People Responsible To Be Fired Immediately. When asked by Chris Jansing his reaction to Secretary Shinseki’s statement on the VA scandal, Sanders responded: “Well he’s absolutely right. What’s happened is beyond words; it is reprehensible. Those people responsible have got to be fired as quickly as possible–tomorrow. And those practices have got to be eliminated.” [Jansing and Company, MSNBC, 5/30/14, 0:49] Sanders Proposed An Accountability Bill In The Wake Of The VA Scandal. “What I also want to say is that we need to pass an accountability bill. I have one that makes sense; we’re going to try to get it up on the floor within a couple of days.” [Jansing and Company, MSNBC, 5/30/14, 1:03] Sanders Believed What Happened At The VA Was “Part Of An Overall Crisis In Primary Care” And That The VA Needed More Nurses And Physicians. “Furthermore though–as I think the New York Times reported–part of this issue, Chris, is the fact that people don’t lie just because they’re lying. We need more physicians, we need more nurses to get into the VA system. It is part of an overall crisis in primary care, and that’s an issue that the veterans committee is going to focus on as well. If we believe that every veteran in this country is entitled to high quality, timely healthcare, we need the staffing and we need the accountability to make that happen.” [Jansing and Company, MSNBC, 5/30/14, 1:12] In Response To “Serious Allegations” About Waiting Lists, Sanders Said That “While It Might Be Temporarily Satisfying To Call For Firing Someone, It Doesn’t Get Us Any Closer To The Truth Or Solve Problems That May Exist.” ““Serious allegations have been made regarding waiting lists at the Phoenix VA. Secretary Shinseki has done the right thing by calling for an immediate investigation of those allegations by the independent Office of Inspector General. I have promised to hold hearings on this issue as soon as we have the facts. While it might be temporarily satisfying to call for firing someone, it doesn’t get us any closer to the truth or solve problems that may exist. “In the midst of all this, I know that there are hundreds of thousands of VA employees in Vermont and throughout this country who are doing an excellent job taking care of the men and women who put their lives on the line to defend this country.”” [Sanders Press Release, 5/6/14] Sanders Supported Secretary Shinseki To Remain In Office And “Bring The Long-Needed Changes To The VA That We Have To See.” In response to Chris Jansing asking if he is suggesting that Secretary Shinseki should resign or be fired, Sanders stated: “No. I think that this is a tough guy, I think he is–it’s not only that he has two Purple Hearts and that he has served this country for over forty years–I think this is a tough guy, a smart guy. I would like to see him be able to complete the job that he started and bring the long-needed changes to the VA that we have to see.” [Jansing and Company, MSNBC, 5/30/14, 4:48] Sanders Was “Saddened” By Secretary Shinseki’s Resignation: “In Eric Shinseki, You Have A True American Hero.” When asked by Wolf Blitzer his reaction to Secretary Shinseki’s resignation, Sanders responded: “I’m saddened. In Eric Shinseki, you have a true American hero. And that’s not just the Purple Hearts that he won in battle or his role as Army Chief of Staff. This is a guy back in 2003, that did something unprecedented in modern history: he told Don Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense at that time, in his rush to war that occupying Iraq would not be all that easy, you would need more troops. So this is a guy who has an enormous amount of guts. He’s a well-respected military leader. So I am saddened by his loss.” [The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, CNN, 5/30/14, 0:21] Sanders Believed Secretary Shinseki Did “Not Get The Credit That He Deserves” For The Positive Changes He Made To The VA. “I think also, I think he does not get the credit that he deserves. Wolf, when he came into office in 2009, do you know how the VA was processing claims? They were processing them by paper, if you can believe it. He had to transform that whole system into an electronic one, and right now they have cut waiting lists in half, and they’re on their way to almost end waiting lists in the next year. That is no insignificant accomplishment.” [The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, CNN, 5/30/14, 0:54] Sanders Believed Secretary Shinseki Was Betrayed. “He has done some good things. I think in many ways he was betrayed by people, as he indicated, who were not honest to him.” [The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, CNN, 5/30/14, 1:31] Sanders “Would Have Preferred Otherwise” Than President Obama’s Acceptance Of Secretary Shinseki’s Resignation. When asked by Wolf Blitzer if he believes President Obama did the right thing by accepting Secretary Shinseki’s resignation, Sanders responded: “I would have preferred otherwise, to be honest with you. I think this guy is a very gutsy guy, who I think wanted the opportunity to clean house and make the changes that he now understood was necessary.” [The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, CNN, 5/30/14, 2:21] Sanders Said That Most Veterans Believed The Quality Of Healthcare In The VA Was Good, But That Wait Times Remained An Issue. “If you talk to veterans in Vermont and around the country, what most of them will tell you is that once they are in the system, Wolf, the quality of healthcare is good. The problem is accessing the system in a timely manner.” [The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, CNN, 5/30/14, 3:05] Sanders Advocated For Allowing Veterans Access To Healthcare Outside Of The VA System To Combat Long Wait Times. “Short-term, what we have to do is allow veterans who are on long waiting lines to use private health care, to use community health centers–federally qualified health-centers– Department of Defense bases.” [All In with Chris Hayes, MSNBC, 5/30/14, 4:10] Sanders Supported The Justice Department’s Criminal Investigation Of The VA Scandal, And Said That People Who Committed Criminal Acts Should Be Punished. In response to Wolf Blitzer asking if he thinks the Justice Department and FBI should launch a formal criminal investigation into the VA scandal, Sanders stated: “The answer: Absolutely. I believe, if I’m not mistaken, and I don’t think I am, that the Justice Department is already involved in this. If people have committed criminal acts, they should be punished–no ifs, buts, and maybes.” [The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, CNN, 5/30/14, 4:28] Sanders: “This Is A Life And Death Issue” To The “Six-And-A-Half Million Veterans” Served By The VA. “At the end of the day, we are serving in the VA six-and-a-half million veterans. This is a life and death issue to them. Our moral obligation is to make sure that we have the staffing and the accountability all over this country. Because after the media walks away, you’re still going to have 230,000 veterans walking into VA facilities every single day; they deserve the best quality care that we can provide to them.” [The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, CNN, 5/30/14, 4:42] Sanders Suggested That The Allegations Against The VA “May Not Be Correct.” “But in terms of these accusations, one of the things, I think, Chris, that we don't want to do is get out in front of ourselves. The truth of the matter is that the VA is now -- that the inspector general of the VA, an independent entity, is now investigating what took place in Phoenix, and we do not know what took place in Phoenix. The allegations may be correct, they may not be correct, and that's what we're looking at right now.” [New Day, CNN, 5/15/14, 1:58] Sanders: “We Don’t Know” If Waiting Times At The VA “Actually Caused These Deaths.” “A few days later, this is what CNN said. Now what Dr. Foote -- and Dr. Foote is the physician who made the allegations -- what Dr. Foote and others have told us is that of the many, many people on that list, all veterans, 40 of them have since passed away. The allegation is not that the delay in care caused that; only that that is what is now being investigated. Did the delay in care of these people on the secret waiting list actually cause these deaths? We don't know, but that is what the Office of Inspector General is, in fact, investigating.” [New Day, CNN, 5/15/14, 2:50] Sanders Dismissed Early Reports Connecting VA Wait Times To Deaths: “We Know That People Die Every Day. We Don’t Know Why They Die–Alright.” “CHRIS CUOMO: The second statement says, ‘We know that they’re dead.’ You’re saying you want to connect the dots better. That’s fair pushback, but it’s not that we know it’s incorrect. SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: We know that people die every day. We don’t know why they die–alright, anyhow, Chris, I don’t want to argue that point ‘til the cows come home.” [New Day, CNN, 5/15/14, 4:03] Sanders Said The VA “Works Reasonably Well For Veterans.” “Here's what you've got. You've got a system that, by and large, I think, works reasonably well for veterans. I think you've got 300,000 employees out there, many of them who are veterans themselves, who are trying to do their best. You've got some cutting-edge stuff in terms of Telehealth, in terms of complementary and alternative medicine. There are problems and we have got to get at those problems, but we need the facts to lead us to where we want to go.” [New Day, CNN, 5/15/14] Sanders Said The The VA Had Not Effectively Dealt With Waiting Lists, Bringing Up Questions If It Had Enough Staff And Resources. “What today's hearing is about is to look at the quality of VA health care, what are the problems. And as you have indicated, there are problems. And the major problem, I think, is what you just touched on. There have been reports year after year about waiting lists. Has the VA effectively dealt with that? I don't think so. There is another issue. When you have waiting lists, may it simply be that the VA doesn't have enough doctors and nurses and staff? Are we putting enough money into the VA? Is the VA appropriating its resources appropriately? Are there some places in the country where, in fact, you may have too much staff and other places where the VA population is growing where we don't have enough staff? Those are some of the questions that I think we need to explore.” [New Day, CNN, 5/15/14] Of The VA, Sanders Said “There Are Some Serious Problems. So I Think That In A Pretty Good System There Are Problems.” CUOMO: The first question is an obvious one. Do you believe the VA is doing what it needs to do by our veterans? SANDERS: That is the key question. Let me just say this. If you talk to veterans all over this country, if you look at patient satisfaction surveys, what you end up finding is that the VA holds up as good or better than private hospitals. By and large, veterans throughout America believe that they're getting pretty good health care. But here's the main point, Chris. The VA serves 6-and-a-half million veterans, 200,000 of them every single day. What is clear is that in a system that large, there are problems, and there are some serious problems. So I think that in a pretty good system there are problems. We have got to get at those problems because at the end of the day, the people who put their lives on the line to defend us deserve the best quality care in America and we are going to get at those problems and we're going to root them out.” [New Day, CNN, 5/15/14] Sanders Believed That Secretary Shinseki Did “A Good Job” Overall, But Was “Weak” In Terms Of Communication. “I think buy and large, under very difficult circumstances, Secretary Shinseki has done a good job. I think where he is very, very weak is in terms of communication. I think he does not a good job in communicating with the Congress, or certainly with the American people and the media.” [New Day, CNN, 5/15/14, 6:20] Sanders Believed That Veterans In Need Of Assistance Should Be Considered “An Emergency,” Which Must Be Paid For “As A Cost Of War.” “How do you pay for all this stuff? This is expensive stuff. In my view, and what the Senate did–and John McCain was very, very strong on this; John and I disagree on almost everything. But when he was on the floor, he said: ‘If this is not an emergency–if not taking care of people who were hurt in war is not an emergency, what is an emergency?’ And I agree. So, if it is an emergency, we pay for it as a cost of war.” [The Rachel Maddow Show, MSNBC, 7/25/14, 3:25] Sanders Said Of “We Need To Get The Facts And Not Rush To Judgement” On The VA Scandal. “I think there is no member of this committee who disagrees, and no member -- nobody in the United States, that this country has a moral obligation to provide the best quality care possible to those who have put their lives on the line to defend this nation. And I believe that every member of this committee will do everything that we can to get to the truth of these allegations. But if we're going to do our job in a proper and responsible way, we need to get the facts and not rush to judgment. And one of the concerns that I have, to be very honest, is there has been a little bit of a rush to judgment. What happened in Phoenix? Well, the truth is we don't know, but we are going to find out.” [Veterans Affairs Committee Hearing, 5/15/14] Sanders Said That The Koch Brothers And Others Were Part Of A Concerted Effort To Undermine The VA. “So narrative after narrative, Social Security, right now we are dealing with the Veterans Administration. I am Chairman of the Veterans Committee. Let me tell you some news, the Veterans Administration provides very high quality health care, period. It is not perfect. It is good quality health care according to the veterans themselves and according to a number of independent surveys who have looked at it. It’s not perfect. It runs 151 centers. Today 200,000 veterans get healthcare through the VA. There is right now as we speak a concerted effort to undermine the VA. So the point is you government entities itself, Social Security, enormously popular, Medicare, enormously popular, postal service, popular, VA, popular, what are the problems? The problems all is, all of these are large governmental institutions and you have folks out there now, Koch brothers and others who want to radically change the nature of society, and either make major cuts in all of these institutions or maybe do away with them entirely.” [The Nation, via Washington Free Beacon, 5/9/14] Sanders Said That The Veterans Administration Provided “Very High Quality Health Care.” “Let me tell you some news, the Veterans Administration provides very high quality health care, period. It is not perfect. It is good quality health care according to the veterans themselves and according to a number of independent surveys who have looked at it. It’s not perfect. It runs 151 centers. Today 200,000 veterans get healthcare through the VA.” [The Nation, via Washington Free Beacon, 5/9/14] Sanders Said That 200,000 To 300,000 People Die From Medical Errors In Private Hospitals But No One Had Hearings About It. “When you deal with a public system, like the V.A., every problem in a sense sometimes makes the front pages. I mentioned earlier that there are studies out there, 200,000 or 300,000 people are dying from medical errors in private hospitals. You usually don't have hearings like this and TV cameras talking about it.” [Veterans Affairs Committee Hearing, 5/15/14] Sanders Said An Advantage Of A Public System Was That Veterans Groups Had Input Into The Process. On the other hand, the advantage of a public system is that as citizens of the country and as representing millions of veterans, which you guys do, you have input into the process. Let me ask you this question. I don't know what the answer is. My understanding is that the secretary kind of meets with representatives of the organizations fairly frequently, that he wants to hear your input. Is that true, Mr. Dellinger? DELLINGER: Yes, it is, Mr. Chairman. We have a sit-down breakfast with him approximately once a month... SANDERS: Once a month. DELLINGER: ... to discuss -- to discuss the issues. SANDERS: OK. And I assume everybody thinks that that's a sensible idea? Yes? DELLINGER: Yes. Input from the veterans' organizations, of course. SANDERS: Right.” [Veterans Affairs Committee Hearing, 5/15/14] Sanders Supported An Independent Investigation By The VA Inspector General, And Wanted To Learn How To Go Forward After Their Report Was Completed. “Let me begin by just making a few basic points. Very serious allegations have been made about V.A. personnel and their doings in Phoenix and in other locations. I take these allegations very seriously, as I know every member of this committee does, which is why I have supported an independent investigation by the V.A. inspector general. As we speak right now, the inspector general's office is in Phoenix doing a thorough examination of the allegations. And my hope is that their report to us will be done as soon as possible. And what I have stated and repeat right now is that as soon as that report is done, this committee will hold hearings to see what we learn from that report and how we go forward; as soon as we possibly can after their investigation is completed.” [Veterans Affairs Committee Hearing, 5/15/14] Sanders Said That Given The Size Of The VA, Even If It Were Better Than Every Other Health Institution, Thousands Of People Would Complain Every Day. “The point that I want to make is that when you are dealing with 200,000 people, if you did better than any other health institution in the world, there would be thousands of people every single day who would say, "I don't like what I'm getting." And we have to put all of that in the context of the size of V.A.” [Veterans Affairs Committee Hearing, 5/15/14] Sanders Said That In General, Veterans Thought They Received Very Good Quality Care At The VA. “Does V.A. in general provide good quality care to veterans? A simple question. The answer is that some people think that it provides very good quality care. The American customer satisfaction index ranks V.A.'s customer satisfaction among veterans patients among the best in the country. And if you go out and you talk to veterans, generally speaking, I'll tell you in Vermont, not 100 percent, people say, "Yeah, we got pretty good health care, not perfect. Are there problems? Absolutely." [Veterans Affairs Committee Hearing, 5/15/14] Sanders Said That While The VA Had Serious Problems, Health Care In The Rest Of America Was Not All That Wonderful. “There is no question to my mind that V.A. health care has problems, serious problems. But it is not the case that the rest of health care in America is just wonderful -- everybody walks in, gets immediate care, gets great care, at no cost. It's all affordable. That's not the world we live in. And let me give you one example of that, because it is important to put V.A. health care in context. A Scientific American article, September 20th, 2013, less than a year ago, states, quote, "How many die from medical mistakes in U.S. hospitals? An updated estimate says it could be at least 210,000 patients a year, more than twice the number in a frequently quoted Institute of Medicine report."” [Veterans Affairs Committee Hearing, 5/15/14] Sanders Said That Hospital Error Was The Third Leading Cause Of Death In America, Not Just At The VA. “Hospital errors that cause death are now the third- leading cause of death in America behind cancer and heart disease. What does that mean? Have deaths been reported through medical errors in the V.A.? The answer is yes. And every one of those deaths is a shame and something that we have got to address. But it's not just the V.A. Third leading cause of death in America are medical errors in hospitals. That's an issue we have to address. Now, having said all of that, trying to put this debate in a context, there is no doubt in my mind that there are serious problems facing V.A. health care and we have to do everything that we can to address those problems. Let me just discuss a few.” [Veterans Affairs Committee Hearing, 5/15/14] Sanders Wondered If The VA’s Goal Of 14 Day Wait Time At The VA Was Appropriate And Realistic Given Their Staffing Levels. “A few years ago, V.A. changed their wait time measure to an ambitious 14 days. You call up, you're going to get it (ph) in 14 days. Was that appropriate? Can they accommodate that with the level of staffing that they have? We need to discuss that. And what happens to those facilities that are unable, in fact, to bring patients in within the 14-day period? Is it possible that in some cases, unrealistic expectations have created a situation where some staff is in fact, cooking the books? I want to look at that. So with that, I look forward to this hearing to get at the root at some the health care problems facing the V.A.” [Veterans Affairs Committee Hearing, 5/15/14] Sanders Asked Sec. Shinseki Why Problems With Waiting Lists And Scheduling Were Not Dealt With Year After Year. “And the major allegation -- I think everybody here understands that when you treat 230,000 people a day, mistakes are going to be made and that's true of any institution of that size. But here's the major criticism that I hear from Senator Burr, Senator Murray, Senator Begich and others, that this is not new news -- that this is not new news. That these concerns did not arise yesterday, they did not arise in Phoenix. But in fact, there have been reports by the inspector general, by the General Accounting Office on numerous occasions about problems having to do with scheduling and with waiting lists. Could you address how it could happen that year after year these reports were made and there has not been significant action?” [Veterans Affairs Committee Hearing, 5/15/14] Worked To Ensure Health Care For Veterans Sanders Introduced Bill To Automatically Enroll National Guard And Reserve Members In VA Health And Dental Programs Upon Release From Active Duty. “Directs the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs to jointly provide for the enrollment of members of the National Guard and reserve being discharged or released from active duty in the health and dental care programs for veterans of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) during their participation in the demobilization and discharge process. Requires for such members: (1) the protection of privacy and personal information; (2) appropriate assistance in the completion of enrollment activities; and (3) education and outreach about the VA programs, benefits, and services for which they may be eligible.” [S 1798, introduced 10/19/09] Sanders Introduced Bill To Expand Veterans Eligibility For VA Health Services. “Modifies provisions relating to health care services for veterans to: (1) require (currently, authorize) the Secretary of the Veterans Administration (VA) to furnish health care services to veterans who do not qualify under existing VA programs for veterans with a service-connected disability or other impairment; (2) require the enrollment in VA health care programs by December 31, 2014, of veterans who do not have a serviceconnected disability rating; (3) extend the period of the eligibility of veterans with certain combat service to enroll in VA health care programs; (4) limit requirements for providing hospital care, nursing home care, extended care services, and prescription medications to veterans based upon the amount provided in advance in appropriation Acts; and (5) revise criteria for treating veterans as low-income families based upon location and income factors for purposes of enrollment in VA health care programs.” [S 1604, introduced 10/29/13] Sanders Worked To Expand Number Of Community Based Outreach Clinics Serving Vermont Veterans. “Over the last several years, Sen. Sanders fought to improve primary health care by expanding the number of Community-Based Outreach Clinics (CBOCs) that serve Vermont veterans. In addition to the long-standing clinics in Rutland and Bennington, new facilities opened in Brattleboro and Newport, and the Colchester clinic moved to a more convenient location in downtown Burlington in order to provide more services and increase staffing. There are also two CBOCs in New Hampshire, located in Littleton and Keene. The VA Medical Center at White River Junction continues to make improvements that meet the changing needs of Vermont veterans, including a women’s clinic, an inpatient treatment center for substance abuse, and a number of ongoing renovations to the campus.” [sanders.senate.gov, accessed 6/16/15] Sanders Supported Expansion Of VA Community Based Outreach Clinics. “Another key initiative by Sanders for veterans has been opening and expanding VA Community-Based Outreach Clinics. There are now five clinics in Vermont which operate as satellites of VA medical center in White River Junction, Vt., helping veterans cut down on their travel time to receive care. In addition, Sanders coordinated funding and support for a Women's Comprehensive Care Center in Vermont to provide medical services specifically for women veterans. He also successfully fought to raise travel reimbursement rates for veterans who commute long distances to receive medical care, mitigating travel expenses as an obstacle to treatment.” [Sanders press release, 12/12/12] Sanders Sponsored Bill To Add Parkinson’s Disease To List Of Diseases Compensable Under Veteran’s Disability Compensation. “Adds Parkinson's disease (manifested to a degree of disability of 10% or more) to the list of diseases presumed to have been incurred in or aggravated by military service in Vietnam (and therefore compensable under veterans' disability compensation), notwithstanding that there is no evidence of the disease during the period of service, provided a veteran served between specified dates and was exposed to a herbicide used in military operations during that period.” [S 1752, introduced 10/5/09] Sanders Advocated For Funding For PTSD Research. “The senator also has advocated for veterans suffering from PTSD, traumatic brain injuries and other often undiagnosed health issues, helping to secure funding for a new building and budget for the VA's flagship research center, the National Center for PTSD in White River Junction, Vt.” [Sanders press release, 12/12/12] Sanders Sponsored A Bill To Prohibit VA From Collecting Copays from Catastrophically Disabled Veterans. “Prohibits the collection by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) of copayments or other fees for hospital or nursing home care in the case of catastrophically disabled veterans.” [S 821, introduced 4/2/09] Sanders Introduced A Bill To Bring Complementary And Alternative Medicine To VA Medical Centers. “Veterans' Health Promotion Act of 2013 - Directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (VA) to designate and operate at least one center of innovation for complementary and alternative medicine in health research, education, and clinical activities in each of the Veterans Integrated Service Networks. Directs the Secretary to carry out a three-year pilot program to assess the feasibility and advisability of establishing complementary and alternative medicine centers within current VA medical centers in order to promote the use and integration of such services for veterans' mental health diagnoses and pain management. Requires the establishment of at least 15 such centers in 15 different VA medical centers.” [S 852, introduced 4/25/13] Bill Directed VA To Assess Feasibility Of Using Wellness Programs To Compliment Mental Health Care. “Requires the Secretary to establish a three-year pilot program for the award of grants to public or private nonprofit entities to assess the feasibility and advisability of using wellness programs to complement the provision of mental health care to veterans and family members eligible for VA counseling services.” Bill Also Directed VA To Assess Feasibility Of Fitness Facilities And Fitness Center Memberships For Veterans. “Directs the Secretary to carry out a two-year pilot program to assess the feasibility and advisability of promoting health through the payment of fitness center membership for veterans determined to be overweight or obese and who reside more than 15 minutes' driving distance from a VA fitness facility. Requires the Secretary to carry out a threeyear pilot program to assess the feasibility and advisability, through the establishment of VA fitness facilities, of promoting the achievement of a healthy weight in veterans enrolled in the VA system of annual patient enrollment. Prohibits the assessment of a user fee for program participants using such facilities.” [S 852, introduced 4/25/13] Sanders Introduced Bill To Improve Claims Processing At The VA. “Claims Processing Improvement Act of 2013 - Directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (VA) to establish: (1) a working group to assess and develop recommendations for improving the employee work credit and work management systems of the Veterans Benefits Administration, and (2) a task force to assess the retention and training of claims processors and adjudicators employed by the VA and other federal departments and agencies. Requires the Secretary, in providing assistance to a VA benefits claimant, to make no fewer than two attempts to obtain needed records from another federal department or agency, and to notify the claimant of the inability to obtain all of the records sought. Requires a record sought before the adjudication of a claim but received after such adjudication to be considered part of the original record.” [S 928, introduced 5/9/13] 2013: Sponsored Veterans Health And Benefits Improvement Act Sanders Sponsored Veterans Health And Benefits Improvement Act Of 2013. [S 944, introduced 5/14/13] Bill Was Introduced As The Veterans' Educational Transition Act of 2013. [S 944, introduced 5/14/13] Bill Helped Injured Vets Gain Reproductive Services. “With no heed of a debt crisis, the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee voted Wednesday to help more veterans find work, help more injured vets to gain reproductive health services, and to pay caregivers of seriously disabled veterans who left service before 9/11 a monthly stipend plus expenses.” [Military.com, 7/25/13] Bill Gave Caregivers Of All Seriously Disabled Vets A Monthly Stipend. “The program pays a monthly stipend and also caregiver needs for counseling, training, respite periods and travel expenses. The committee agreed by voice vote to extend the program to caregivers of any severely injured veteran. Before the vote, Burr noted the $8.5 billion cost over the first five years, and urged Sanders to find offsets elsewhere in the budget before the full Senate votes on the measure. "You're right," Sanders told Burr. "This is an expensive piece of legislation. So is giving tax breaks to millionaires. So is having one out of four corporations in this county not paying a nickel in taxes." [Military.com, 7/25/13] Bill Did Not Have A Funding Mechanism. “How to cover the $12 billion cost of these initiatives, over just the next five years, is still to be determined, conceded Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), committee chairman. But he promised colleagues to try to find the money. […]Rep. Richard Burr (N.C.), ranking Republican on the committee, was the lone voice opposing all provisions "not paid for," he said, "so we won't continue to saddle future generations of Americans with continued debt."” [Military.com, 7/25/13] Bill Required Public Colleges To Give In-State Tuition To Recent Veterans. “Other initiatives in S 944 would: Require public or state-run colleges and universities to charge veterans who use the GI Bill their lower in-state tuition rates.” [Military.com, 7/25/13] Bill Required A Quarterly Report On Disability Claims Processing Goals And Progress. “Other initiatives in S 944 would: […] Require VA to report publicly once a quarter on disability claims processing goals and how those stack up against actual claim decisions.” [Military.com, 7/25/13] Bill Made It Easier For Veterans Who Were Victims Of Sexual Assault To Gain Disability Compensation. “Other initiatives in S 944 would: […] Make it easier for veterans traumatized by sexually assault in service to gain VA disability compensation.” [Military.com, 7/25/13] Bill Increased Access To Alternative Medicine. “Other initiatives in S 944 would: […] Increase veterans' access to alternative medicine, chiropractic care and other new approaches to care delivery.” [Military.com, 7/25/13] 2007: Sponsored Comprehensive Veterans Benefits Improvement Act Sanders Sponsored Comprehensive Veterans Benefits Improvements Act Of 2007. “Makes various changes or additions to veterans' compensation, pension, health care, housing, burial, and other benefits, including: (1) a report on veterans who were misclassified as not being catastrophically disabled; (2) a pilot program on veterans' lung cancer screening; (3) a repeal of the prohibition against the concurrent receipt of veterans' disability compensation or pension and military retired pay; (4) an increase in the rates of veterans' disability compensation; (5) a repeal of the reduction of Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) annuities by the amount of veterans' dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) received; (6) a report on the adequacy of DIC for survivors of veterans who die from service-connected disabilities; (7) a reduction in premiums under the service-disabled veterans life insurance program; (8) an increase in the veterans' burial plot allowance; (9) an FY2008 authorization of appropriations for the state cemetery grants program; (10) an increase in grant amounts for specially adapted housing for veterans; (11) an increased coverage amount under the veterans' mortgage life insurance program; (12) adjusted veterans' home loan fees; (13) judicial review of the adoption or revision of veterans' disability ratings; (14) establishment of the DOD/VA Clinical Information Data Exchange Bureau; (15) a study and report concerning the disability ratings systems of the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA); and (16) a report on the provision of assisted living benefits for veterans.” [S 1326, introduced 5/8/07] Supported Assistance For Disabled Veterans And Their Families Sanders Sponsored Bill To Authorize Housing Assistance For Family Members Caring For Disabled Veterans. “Disabled Veteran Caregiver Housing Assistance Act of 2009 - Increases the amount of assistance authorized to be provided by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for permanent and total service-disabled veterans who are temporarily residing in housing owned by a family member from: (1) $14,000 to $28,000, in the case of the acquisition of housing with special features; and (2) $2,000 to $5,000, in the case of adaptations to a current residence. Directs the Secretary to adjust such amounts annually based on the residential home cost-of-construction index.” [S 1753, introduced 10/5/09] Sanders Sponsored Bill Extended To All Veterans With Serious Service-Connected Injuries Eligibility To Participate In VA Comprehensive Assistance For Family Caregivers Program. “Caregivers Expansion and Improvement Act of 2013 - Extends to all veterans with a serious serviceconnected injury the eligibility to participate in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) program of comprehensive assistance to family caregivers of such veterans. (Under current law, such eligibility is limited to those veterans who incurred such an injury on or after September 11, 2001.)” [S 851, introduced 4/25/13] Sanders Sponsored Bill Increasing The Amount Of Money The VA Provides To Certain Disabled Veterans To Purchase An Automobile And Any Adaptive Equipment. “Veterans Mobility Enhancement Act of 2009 - Increases from $11,000 to $22,500 the amount authorized to be provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to certain disabled veterans for the purchase of an automobile and any necessary adaptive equipment.” [S 820, introduced 4/2/09] Sanders Introduced Bill To Provide Mental Health Support For Veterans Families And Caregivers. “Mental Health Support for Veteran Families and Caregivers Act of 2013 - Requires the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (VA) to: (1) enter into contracts to conduct a 4-year program (with authorization for a 4year extension) to provide a course of education to family members and caregivers of veterans on matters relating to coping with veterans' mental health disorders; (2) carry out such program in at least 10 VA medical centers, 10 VA clinics, and 10 centers for readjustment counseling and related mental health services for veterans (vet centers); (3) expand such program (within 2 years) to include at least 10 additional medical centers, clinics, and vet centers; and (4) select VA mental health care providers to monitor the progress of the instruction provided under such education program.” [S 1583, introduced 10/28/13] Supported Measures To Eliminate Veteran Homelessness Sanders Proposed Bipartisan Homeless Veterans Prevention Act To Eliminate Veteran Homelessness. “The chairman and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs today proposed legislation to help the Department of Veterans Affairs meet its goal to eliminate veteran homelessness by 2015. The Homeless Veterans Prevention Act of 2013 is sponsored by Sens. Bernie Sanders and Richard Burr (R-N.C.).” [Sanders press release, 4/25/13; S 825, introduced 4/25/13] CEO Of National Coalition For Homeless Veterans Called The “Most Comprehensive And Well-Resourced Homeless Veterans Assistance Bill Ever Introduced.” “John Driscoll, president and CEO of the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, welcomed what he called “the most comprehensive and well-resourced homeless veterans assistance bill ever introduced in Congress.” Driscoll said the bill “provides the support necessary to ensure our nation’s plan to end veteran homelessness succeeds.”” [Sanders press release, 4/25/13] Legislation Would Increase Availability Of Legal Services For Homeless Veterans. “Both legal services and women’s issues are addressed in the legislation by Sanders and Burr. Their bill would allow the VA to enter partnerships with public and private entities to increase the availability of legal services for homeless veterans.” [Sanders press release, 4/25/13] Legislation Would Require Transitional Housing Providers To Meet Gender Specific Needs Of Homeless Women Veterans. “Both legal services and women’s issues are addressed in the legislation by Sanders and Burr. […] It also would require transitional housing providers to meet the gender-specific needs of homeless women veterans.” [Sanders press release, 4/25/13] Legislation Provided Resources For Incarcerated Veterans Transition Program And To Keep Families Together, Incentives To Move To Permanent Housing, And Reauthorized Existing VA Programs For Homeless Vets. “Other provisions in the bill would: Permanently authorize the Department of Labor Incarcerated Veterans Transition Program. Keep veteran families together by allowing VA to house the children of homeless veterans in transitional housing programs. Provide incentives to avoid disruptions that arise when veterans complete transitional housing programs and move on to permanent housing. Expand eligibility for the Homeless Veterans Dental Program. Reauthorize VA programs for homeless veterans, including drop-in centers, transitional housing programs, rapid re-housing programs, and employment programs for homeless veterans.” [Sanders press release, 4/25/13] Sanders Passed Amendment Extending Services For Mentally Ill And Homeless Veterans. “Before passing the bill, the Senate adopted an amendment by Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., that would extend the department's ability to provide referral and counseling services until Sept. 30, 2017, and treatment programs for seriously mentally ill and homeless veterans until Dec. 31, 2014. It also removed provisions for other grant program extensions, which were enacted earlier this year (PL 113-37).” [CQ News, 11/6/13] Sanders Introduced Legislation To Protect Disability Compensation During Government Shutdown, Which Had Particular Impact On Some Homeless Veterans. “Sanders, who is chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, on Monday night introduced legislation designed to ensure that the department may continue to make disability compensation and pension payments to veterans during a prolonged shutdown. […] A suspension of disability compensation would be "very detrimental" to some homeless veterans with service-connected injuries who live at The Veterans' Place in Northfield, a two-year transitional home, said Karen Boyce, administrative manager and co-case manager. "It's all they've got," she said. "They use it to survive." The Post-9/11 GI Bill and vocational rehabilitation programs, which the Sanders bill also aims to protect, are important to the home's veterans, too, she added. "They're using that to get rehabilitated so they can get a different job, go to school and get retrained so they can get a job that can sustain them," she said.” [Burlington Free Press, 10/2/13] Sanders Warned That Sequestration Would Hurt Programs For Homeless And Disabled Veterans. “"The VA itself is protected from sequestration, but other programs that help veterans could be affected," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) told reporters. Sanders mentioned as examples a Department of Labor program to provide job training to veterans and Housing and Urban Development vouchers that are used to house homeless veterans. "Congress was right to protect the VA, but veterans will still be impacted," Sanders said. […] Sanders also repeated an earlier warning that efforts to solve the budget deficit crisis by changing the way annual cost-of-living adjustments are calculated would cut disability benefits for disabled veterans. "It would hit disabled vets," he said.” [Washington Post, 1/30/13] Sanders Announced $1.7 Million Grant For University Of Vermont To Help Homeless Veterans. “A program at the University of Vermont that helps homeless veterans and their families is slated to receive a federal grant of nearly $1.7 million. U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, announced the grant last week, saying it is part of $300 million in funding to help community agencies that provide aid to veterans. Nationwide, homelessness among veterans declined 24 percent from 2010 to 2013. Sanders says the grants will help roughly 115,000 veterans who are homeless or atrisk of homelessness.” [Associated Press, 8/17/14] Sanders Announced Funds For Permanent Housing And Support For 25 Vermont Homeless Veterans. “Vermont's congressional delegation, U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy, Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Peter Welch, announced $153,000 in federal funds to provide permanent housing and support services to 25 homeless Vermont veterans. The funds will bring 25 Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) vouchers to Vermont to cover the cost of qualifying rental apartments for homeless veterans. The vouchers will allow veterans to move from homelessness or temporary shelter into more permanent housing. Today's announcement brings the total number of VASH vouchers in Vermont to 120.” [Addison Eagle, 4/2/12] Supported Bill To Combat Suicide Among Veterans Sanders Praised Bill To Combat Suicide Among Veterans. “Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) was at the White House today when President Barack Obama signed legislation to address suicides among veterans. “This bill says loudly and clearly that we understand suicide among veterans is a national tragedy and it begins the process of addressing the problem,” said Sanders, who headed the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee when the panel late last year passed the measure. […]The Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for American Veterans Act is named for a Marine veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan who took his own life in 2011 after struggling with post-traumatic stress disorder.” [Sanders press release, 2/12/15] Supporting Increasing Disability Benefits Sanders Introduced Bill To Increase Veterans Disability Compensation To Adjust For Cost Of Living. “Directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (VA) to increase, as of December 1, 2013, the rates of veterans' disability compensation, additional compensation for dependents, the clothing allowance for certain disabled veterans, and dependency and indemnity compensation for surviving spouses and children. Requires each such increase to be the same percentage as the increase in benefits provided under title II (Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance) of the Social Security Act, on the same effective date.” [S 893, introduced 5/8/13] Bill Was Passed Into Law. [Public Law 113-52, 11/21/13] Worked To Prevent Sexual Assault In The Military Sanders Supported Legislation To Give Soldiers An Independent Route Outside Of The Chain Of Command To Report Serious Crimes Like Rape. “The Senate advanced a bill to reform the military justice system but blocked stronger legislation by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand to give professional military trial lawyers the power to refer serious crimes to courts-martial. "An estimated 26,000 service members were sexually assaulted in 2012, a 37 percent increase in just one year, according to a recent Department of Defense study. I voted for Sen. Kirsten Gillibrands bill because it would give servicemen and women an independent route outside the chain of command to report serious crimes, and I am disappointed that it was defeated," Sen. Bernie Sanders said after a key Senate vote.” [Sanders press release, 3/6/14] Sanders Supported Senator McCaskill’s Measure To Reform Military’s Procedure For Soldiers Who Were Victims Of Rape, But Was Concerned It Did Not Go Far Enough. “"I also supported a separate measure by Sen. Claire McCaskill that includes some important reforms, but remain concerned that it does not go far enough. Victims of rape and sexual assault in the military deserve a fair and independent system outside the chain of command to report these types of crimes," Sanders said.” [Sanders press release, 3/6/14] Sanders Introduced Legislation To Provide Counseling And Care For Sexual Trauma To Active Duty Members Of The Armed Services. “Survivors of Military Sexual Assault and Domestic Abuse Act of 2013 - Authorizes the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (VA) to provide counseling and care and services for sexual trauma to active-duty members of the Armed Forces. (Under current law, such services are provided only to veterans.) Prohibits such a member from being required to obtain a referral before receiving such services. Directs the Secretary to develop and implement a screening mechanism to be used when a veteran seeks VA health care services to detect if such veteran has been a victim of domestic abuse in order to improve such treatment and assess the prevalence of such abuse in the veteran population.” [S 1581, introduced 10/28/13] Sanders Help Navy Veteran Rape Victim Ruth Moore Resolve Disability Compensation Claim. “Navy veteran and rape victim Ruth Moore struggled for more than two decades to resolve her disability compensation claim with the government. Sheer persistence and help from Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders finally paid off in 2009, when the Veterans Affairs Department granted Moore a permanent disability rating of 70 percent and stated she was unable to work. Moore, who lent her name to legislation the House passed in June aimed at improving the benefits claims process for victims of military sexual trauma, is talking more like an advocate than a victim these days.” [Government Executive, 8/1/13] Sanders’ Veterans Health and Benefits Improvement Act of 2013 Included Provision To Improve Care For Veterans Who Experienced Sexual Trauma. Sanders sponsored the Veterans Health and Benefits Improvement Act, which included a provision to “improve the delivery of care and benefits for veterans who experienced sexual trauma while serving in the military. The Pentagon in May released a survey estimating that 26,000 people in the armed forces were sexually assaulted last year, up from 19,000 in 2010. This legislation was inspired by Ruth Moore. Raped in 1987 by her Navy supervisor, Moore struggled for 23-years to receive VA disability compensation.” [Sanders press release, 7/24/13; S. 944, introduced 5/14/13] Sanders Wrote Letter To VA Secretary Calling For Improvement Of Adjudication Of PTSD Claims Based On Military Sexual Trauma. “We write today about the Department OF Veterans Affairs’ (VA) efforts to improve the adjudication of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) claims based on military sexual trauma. […] As efforts to address this issue continue, VA must concurrently ensure all veterans who have experienced military sexual trauma receive the care and benefits needed to confront the emotional and physical consequences of this horrific experience.” [Sanders and Tester Letter To Sec. Shinseki, 6/21/13] Sanders-McCain Veterans’ Affairs Reform Legislation Increased Access To Health Care For Sexual Assault Victims. “The bill would also provide in-state tuition for all veterans at public colleges and universities, GI Bill tuition benefits to the spouses of troops killed in the line of duty and increased access to health care for sexual assault victims.” [Politico, 6/5/14] Supported Job Training Programs For Veterans Sanders Co-Sponsored Legislation To Reauthorize And Expand Job Training Programs For Veterans. “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) introduced the Putting Our Veterans Back to Work Act of 2013 (S.6). Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the incoming chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, co-sponsored the measure. […] The legislation would reauthorize training and employment services created by the VOW to Hire Heroes Act. A new online employment resource would be established for veterans seeking information regarding employment and job-training resources. At a time when 85 percent of law enforcement agencies experienced budget cuts, grants would be authorized for police and fire departments to train and hire veterans as first responders. The heads of federal agencies would be directed to favorably consider contractors that employ a significant number of veterans on all contracts exceeding $25 million. The measure also would allow federal agencies to suspend or debar contractors who repeatedly violate the employment rights of members of the uniformed services.” [Sanders press release, 1/23/13] Sanders Sponsored Bill To Create A Pilot Program To Provide Subsidies To Employers Hiring Veterans. “Veterans Equipped for Success Act of 2013 - Directs the Secretary of Labor to carry out a three-year pilot program to assess the feasibility and advisability of providing subsidies to employers employing eligible individuals in order to provide such individuals with valuable work experience, increase their skills, and assist them in obtaining long-term employment. Makes eligible for such program an individual who is a veteran who was discharged or released from service under conditions other than dishonorable, is a member of the reserves who served on active duty for more than 180 consecutive days during the two-year period ending on the date of participation in the program, is between the ages of 18 and 34 or 55 and 64, is not in receiving compensation through the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) due to unemployability, is not enrolled in a federal or state job training program, and is considered by the Secretary to be unemployed or underemployed.“ [S 922, introduced 5/9/13] Sanders’s Veterans Reform Bill Reauthorized Provisions From Vow To Hire Heroes Act, Which Provided Job Training For Veterans. “The bill would reauthorize provisions from the VOW to Hire Heroes Act of 2011, including a two-year extension of the Veterans Retraining and Assistance Program which retrains certain unemployed veterans for high demand occupations. The program has helped veterans find work and provided access to job training for more than 74,000 veterans.” [Sanders press release, 2/25/14] Sanders Sponsored Bill To Extend Period In Certain Activities Qualify As Work Study For Veterans. “Extends from June 30, 2013, to June 30, 2016, the period during which certain work-study activities qualify for an additional veterans' educational assistance allowance under the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) educational assistance program. Expands such activities to include, for the same additional period, certain outreach services provided through U.S. congressional offices, including the distribution of information to members of the Armed Forces, veterans, and their dependents concerning available benefits and services.” [S 894, introduced 5/8/13] Sanders Introduced Bill To Give In State Tuition To Recently Separated Veterans. “Yet, there are too many States that still require transitioning veterans to meet stringent residency requirements before they can be considered in-State students. Recently separated veterans may not be able to meet such requirements because of their military service, and once enrolled, they cannot legally establish residency because of their status as full-time students. The Veterans Educational Transition Act of 2013 would require States, as a condition for course approval under the Post-9/11 GI Bill or Montgomery GI Bill, to recognize certain veterans and their dependents using these education benefits as in-State students for purposes of attending a public institution. The veteran must be within 2 years from the date of discharge, and the individual using the benefit must live in the State while attending the school.” [Sanders Remarks, Congressional Record, 5/14/13; S 944, as introduced 5/14/13] Statements From Veterans Groups Sanders Received Congressional Award From VFW For Leading Role In Passing VA Reform Bill. “Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) was honored tonight with the Veterans of Foreign Wars prestigious Congressional Award. […]VFW National Commander John Stroud noted that Sanders played a leading role in winning passage last year of major legislation to improve health care services at the Department of Veterans Affairs. The nation’s largest service organization of combat veterans said Sanders “has been a commanding voice” fighting to preserve benefits for disabled veterans, for the proper care and treatment of women veterans, homeless veterans, for better employment opportunities and improved access to mental health programs. The VFW also lauded Sanders for increased congressional oversight that resulted in improved claims processing by the VA.” [Sanders press release, 3/4/15] Sanders Received Congressional Leadership Award From Disabled Veterans Of America. “Since then he has been tireless in his fight for veterans, eventually helping secure $23 million to expand research to find treatments for the 175,000 veterans still suffering from health problems related to that war. Earlier this year, Sanders won a Congressional Leadership Award from the Disabled American Veterans. He has helped pass legislation to provide over $57 million to help severely disabled veterans adapt their homes to better accommodate their disabilities and supported legislation to assist the caregivers of severely wounded warriors.” [Sanders press release, 12/12/12] Executive Director Of Iraq And Afghanistan Veterans Of America Criticized Sanders As Ineffective. “The 72-year-old lawmaker's stance, which is heavily influenced by his longtime support for government health care for all, has led some to accuse him of being blinded by ideology and not sufficiently using his oversight authority to force changes. "I don't think chairman Sanders has been effective. He has become an apologist for the VA," said Paul Reickhoff, executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the largest veterans group representing veterans who served after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "It seems to have to do with his worldview. He seems to think that any kind of demand for accountability or criticism of the VA is an attack to dismantle the entire system. Nobody is saying that. We're saying if you want VA to be supported, then make VA work."” [Boston Globe, 6/13/14] Sanders’s Ratings From Veterans Groups: Year 2014 2011 2010 2009-2010 2009 2007-2008 2006 2006 2005 2004 2004 2003-2004 2003 2003 Group Disabled American Veterans - Positions (Senate only) Vietnam Veterans of America - Positions Disabled American Veterans - U.S. Senate Score Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America - Positions on Veterans Advocacy Military Officers Association of America - Positions Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America - Positions on Veterans Advocacy Disabled American Veterans - Positions The Retired Enlisted Association - Retired Military Benefits Issues Score Disabled American Veterans - Positions Disabled American Veterans - Positions The Retired Enlisted Association - Positions Vietnam Veterans of America - Positions American Veterans - Positions Disabled American Veterans - Positions Rating 100% 50% 100% B 100% A+ 100% 71% 100% 100% 33% 38% 0% 50% 2003 2001 2001 1999 1997-1998 The American Legion - Positions Disabled American Veterans - Positions Vietnam Veterans of America - Positions Disabled American Veterans - Positions Vietnam Veterans of America - Positions 40% 100% 55% 100% 60% [Project Vote Smart, accessed 6/17/15] Other Veterans Issues Sanders Cosponsored The Jason Simcakoski Memorial Opioid Safety Act. “U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin today announced that support continues to grow for her bipartisan legislation aimed at providing safer and more effective pain management services to our nation’s veterans, the Jason Simcakoski Memorial Opioid Safety Act.” [Tammy Baldwin, US Senate, 7/28/15] Sanders’s First Sponsored Bill Called For Reimbursing Guard And Reserve Veterans For Income Lost While Deployed In Gulf War. “The very first bill Sanders introduced when he came to Congress in 1991 called for reimbursing members of the National Guard and Reserve for income lost while deployed during the Persian Gulf War.” [Sanders press release, 12/12/12; HR 695, introduced 1/29/91] Sanders Sponsored Bill To Restore Cuts To Veterans Disability And Other Benefits Made By Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act Of 1990. Sanders sponsored HR 2304, a bill that among other provisions: “Repeals a Federal provision prohibiting the payment of any disability compensation to an incompetent veteran having neither spouse, child, nor dependent parent until the value of such veteran's estate is reduced to less than $10,000. Presumes a veteran to be permanently and totally disabled if such person is 65 years of age or older or becomes unemployable after age 65. Restores the full permitted monthly pension (currently limited to $90) for veterans having neither spouse nor child and receiving Medicaid-covered nursing home care.” [HR 2304, introduced 5/9/91] Sanders Co-Sponsored GI Bill Of Rights. “A co-sponsor of the new GI Bill of Rights, Sanders has been a leader in helping veterans transition from duty in warzones to life at home. Working with the Vermont National Guard, Sanders helped secure major funding to build and develop a cutting-edge outreach and reintegration program in Vermont to provide proactive assistance to veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and their families. Sanders Sponsored Veterans Outreach Act. “Veterans' Outreach Act of 2013 - Directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (VA) to carry out a two-year demonstration project to assess the feasibility and advisability of using state and local government agencies and nonprofit organizations to increase veteran awareness of available benefits and services, and to improve the coordination of outreach activities between the Secretary and federal, state, and local government and nonprofit providers of health care and benefit services for veterans. Allows the Secretary to extend such program for an additional two years.” [S 927, introduced 5/9/13] Sanders Introduced Bill To Protect Veterans Programs During A Government Shutdown. “Appropriates for FY2014, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for any period during which interim or full-year appropriations for FY2014 are not in effect, such sums as are necessary to administer and provide benefits and services to veterans, dependents, and survivors under specified veterans' benefits laws, including those concerning:” [S 1564, introduced 9/30/13] Sanders Introduced Bill To Expand Availability Of Benefits To Surviving Spouses Of Veterans. “Allows dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) paid through the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to the surviving spouses of veterans to be increased for months occurring during the five-year (under current law, two-year) period beginning on the date of entitlement. Provides that the remarriage after age 55 of the surviving spouse of a veteran shall not bar the furnishing of VA DIC, health care, educational assistance, and housing loans. […] Directs the Secretary to carry out a two-year pilot program to assess the feasibility and advisability of providing grief counseling services for the surviving spouses of veterans who die while serving on active duty.” [S 735, introduced 4/16/13] Sanders Sponsored A Bill To Increase Burial Benefits For Veterans. “Increases from $300 to $600 the authorized allowance for burial and funeral expenses for deceased veterans who: (1) at the time of death were in receipt of veterans' disability compensation or veterans' pension benefits; or (2) were veterans of any war or were discharged or released from active military service for a service-connected disability and for whom there is no next of kin or sufficient resources to cover funeral and burial costs.” [HR 4708, introduced 10/06/98] Sanders Sponsored Bill That Expanded VA Benefits Eligibility For Same Sex Spouses Married In States That Allow Gays To Wed. Sanders sponsored the Veterans Health and Benefits Improvement Act, which included a provision to “expand eligibility for benefits for spouses married in states that allow gays to wed. The measure would bring the VA into conformance with a June 26 ruling by the Supreme Court that struck down a federal law that unconstitutionally denied federal benefits for all legally married couples..” [Sanders press release, 7/24/13; S. 944, introduced 5/14/13] VOTING RIGHTS Voting Rights Act Sanders Opposed Supreme Court Decision On The Voting Rights Act, Said Immediate Legislative Action Was Necessary. “Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) issued the following statement after the Supreme Court ruled today that Congress had not provided adequate justification for continued federal oversight under the Voting Rights Act of 1965: The Supreme Court has turned back the clock on equality in America by striking down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. The landmark civil rights law that Congress passed almost five decades ago, and reauthorized with overwhelming bipartisan support only seven years ago, has been an important tool to protect voters in places with a history of discrimination. The law is as necessary today as it was in the era of Jim Crow laws. We must act immediately to rewrite this vital law.” [Sanders press release, 6/25/13] Sanders Hoped Selma March Would Be A Catalyst For Congress To Fix Voting Rights Act. “Later that year, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act, which protected voters from discrimination until the Supreme Court two years ago invalidated a key portion of the landmark law. Sanders said he hoped the anniversary of the march will be a catalyst for Congress to undo that 2013 court decision.” [Sanders press release, 3/7/15]  Headline: Sanders, bound for Selma, seeks action on voting rights [USA Today, 3/5/15] Sanders Voted For 2006 Voting Rights Bill – The Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, And Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization. Bernie Sanders voted for a voting rights bill that extends expiring provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act for 25 years, including a requirement that jurisdictions with a history of voter discrimination pre-clear any voting law changes with the federal government and a requirement that jurisdictions provide bilingual assistance to non-English speaking voters. It also would clarify congressional intent in the wake of two recent Supreme Court decisions regarding federal standards in approving redistricting plans. It would allow the Justice Department to directly send federal observers to any area in which there is a reasonable believe a violation of voting rights could occur. [HR 9, Vote #374, 7/13/06] Making It Easier To Vote Sanders Said That Democracy Was Supposed To Be About “One Person, One Vote” And “No Voter Suppression.” “In Vermont and at our town meetings we know what American democracy is supposed to be about. It is one person, one vote – with every citizen having an equal say – and no voter suppression. And that's the kind of American political system we have to fight for and will fight for in this campaign.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Burlington Free Press, 5/26/15] Sanders Sponsored The REGISTER Act, Which Would Attempt To Institute Mandatory Opt-Out Automatic Voter Registration. “This bill requires each state to designate agencies (including motor vehicle authorities) to transfer electronically to state or local election officials source information on individuals for automatic voter registration for federal elections, unless an individual disclosing information to the agency opts out of automatic registration. Such information must be transferred in a format that can be reviewed by state or local election officials and uploaded into a computerized statewide voter registration database. Registration of eligible voters not previously registered, and who have not opted out, is mandatory. A state must publish and enforce privacy and information security standards meeting specified requirements.” [Congressional Research Service, accessed 10/6/15; S. 1970, 8/5/15] Sanders Co-Sponsored Universal Voter Registration Act Of 1992. [HR 4366, co-sponsored 3/12/92] Sanders Criticized Republicans For Trying To Roll Back Same Day Registration And Early Voting. “They are trying to roll back same day registration. Eight states have same day registration where you can register on the day you vote. There are states that want to repeal that, they want to repeal or move back early voting which has been very, very successful in getting more people to participate.” [MSNBC, 2/21/12] Sanders Opposed Reductions In Early Voting And Voter ID Laws. “Sanders also has criticized a wave of voter-suppression laws passed in states with Republican legislatures and governors. Reducing opportunities for early voting, making it harder to register to vote and requiring IDs all have discouraged participation in elections.” [Sanders press release, 11/7/14] Sanders Proposed Making Election Day A National Holiday. “After Tuesday’s extremely low voter turnout, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) announced today that he will introduce legislation to make Election Day a national holiday. “In America, we should be celebrating our democracy and doing everything possible to make it easier for people to participate in the political process. Election Day should be a national holiday so that everyone has the time and opportunity to vote. While this would not be a cure-all, it would indicate a national commitment to create a more vibrant democracy,” said Sanders, who was not on the ballot on Tuesday.” [Sanders press release, 11/7/14; S 2918, introduced 11/12/14] 1992: Sanders Sponsored Bill To Move Federal Elections To Saturday Or Sunday. “Amends Federal election law to provide that elections for President, Vice President, and Members of Congress be held on Saturday and Sunday rather than Tuesday.” [HR 5207, introduced 5/19/92] Sanders Supported Bill To Allow Voter Registration By Mail. “The House passed a bill Thursday that would force states to offer easier voter registration. Democrats brushed aside Republican attempts to portray it as "an engraved invitation to fraud." The bill, essentially the same as one vetoed by President Bush last year, tells states to offer voter registration by mail, at their motor vehicle bureaus and other state agencies, including welfare offices. […]Rep. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said opponents' real concern was that "the poor people and the working people in this country" would vote in numbers sufficient to take on powerful interest groups.” [Associated Press, 2/4/93] Sanders Said No American Should Have To Wait Four Hours To Vote. “But I agree with millions of American citizens that no American should have to wait 4 hours to cast a vote. I agree with tens of millions of Americans who are very worried that when they cast a ballot on an electronic voting machine that there is no paper trail to record that vote in the event of a recount. What today is about is to demand that the Federal Government begin to move forward, to guarantee that every voter in America feels secure and confident that all of the votes cast in this country are counted accurately and that all of our voters are treated with respect and dignity. That is what democracy is about and that is what we are fighting for.” [Sanders Floor Remarks, 1/6/05] Sanders: “We Need To Make It Easier, Not Harder, For Poor and Working People To Vote.” “Sanders initiated the request to the GAO. "We must make it easier, not harder, for poor and working people to vote and to participate in the political process. These state laws aren't really intended to discourage fraud, they're intended to discourage voting. The GAO looked at study after study and found no credible evidence of voter fraud having had any impact whatsoever on the outcome of any election in recent history."” [Sanders press release, 10/8/14] Sanders: Media, Corporations, Powerful Do Not Want Young, Lower Income, Or Working People Involved In The Political Process. “The truth of the matter is that the media, large corporations, the people who control politically our country today do not want you to participate. They want a low turnout of primarily upper middle class people, they want big money to dominate the political process. Their nightmare is that young people, lower income people, working people jump into the process. They do not want that.” [Salon, 5/9/15] Voter ID Sanders: “Restricting Access Through Draconian Voter ID Laws And Shortening Early Voting Periods Are Thinly-Veined Efforts To Marginalizes Communities Of Color, Low Income People, And Seniors.” “In addition to immigration reform, we must also pursue policies that empower minority communities. This must start with energizing Latinos all across the country to engage in the democratic process and by thwarting efforts to disenfranchise minority voters. Restricting access through draconian voter ID laws and shortening early voting periods are thinly-veiled efforts to marginalize communities of color, low income people and seniors. These policies must be combatted at both the state and federal levels.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, National Association of Latino Elected Officials, 6/19/15] Sanders Asked GAO To Investigate Voter Identification Laws Passed By State Legislatures. “Last winter Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Bill Nelson, D-Fla., asked for a Government Accountability Office investigation into the flurry of voter identification laws passed by state legislatures. As a threshold question, they asked GAO to determine whether there really is a problem with voter fraud. The GAO agreed to do a study. "On one hand, the Supreme Court has allowed billionaires to buy elections," Sanders said. "On the other hand, what we're also seeing at the state level is what I would call voter suppression, making it harder and harder for low-income people to vote. We're going to do everything that we can to make sure that people in this country are able to participate in the political process."” [Burlington Free Press, 8/7/12] Study Found That Voter ID Laws Eroded Voter Turnout, Especially Among Youth And Af Am Voters. “State laws that make voters show IDs at polling places have put a price on ballot access and eroded turnout - especially among African Americans, young people and recentlyregistered voters - a non-partisan congressional watchdog concluded. The Government Accountability Office report also found scant evidence of voter fraud that the new laws that ostensibly are designed to discourage.” [Sanders press release, 10/8/14] Sanders Requested Study Because Right Wing Republicans Are Trying To Suppress The Vote. “MADDOW: Why did you request the study on voting law and voter registration law changes in the states? SANDERS: Well, it`s clear to me, Rachel, that what right wing Republicans are doing is trying to suppress the vote. What they are trying to do and I have to tell you I really think it`s an absolute outrage, people can have differences of opinion, but to go out of your way to try to make it harder for poor people, for minorities, for students, for older people to participate in our democratic process is totally unacceptable to me.” [MSNBC, 2/21/12] Sanders Wanted GAO To “Expose What The Republicans Are Doing.” “So, what we want is the General Accountability Office to document such issues as how extensive is voter fraud in this country? My understanding is thank goodness it is not a serious problem at all. And I want to use that study to expose what the Republicans are doing. Also, we want documentation of exactly how many people would be impacted by these voter suppression laws.” [MSNBC, 2/21/12] Sanders Said Voter ID Laws Were “100% Partisan.” “I think this is 100 percent partisan. It goes even further than we`ve talked about. They are trying to create a situation where if you`re a college student, you can`t use your college ID card to register to vote.” [MSNBC, 2/21/12] Sanders Said It Was Hypocritical Of Republicans To Attend Selma Rally While Participating In Voter Suppression. “Many of the Republican members will be participating for the first time in the annual commemoration of the 1965 voting rights marches in Selma. […] Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont and a possible candidate for president next year, said lawmakers who join him in Selma this weekend should be working to make it easier, not harder, for people to vote. "To stand up and say, 'Well isn't it wonderful and brave what happened 50 years ago,' while you're actively participating in voter suppression today is to me extremely hypocritical," Sanders said.” [USA Today, 3/5/15] Sanders Said Making It Harder For Vulnerable Populations To Vote Was “An Absolute Disgrace And An Act Of Cowardice.” “Sanders said this "significant attack on voting rights" affects not only African Americans, but lower-income people and the elderly by making it harder for them to vote. "To go out of your way to make it hard or impossible for people to participate in elections is an absolute disgrace and an act of cowardice," he said. "It tells me they don't really believe that they have the votes to win and they're going to make it harder for people who disagree with them to vote."” [USA Today, 3/5/15] Sanders Said Republican Legislatures Were Trying To Make It Harder For Vulnerable Populations To Vote. “What happened on that bridge that day was a huge step forward for democracy in America. But what is happening right now - not just in the South but all over this country - are efforts by Republican governors and Republican legislatures to make it harder for African-Americans, for low-income people and for senior citizens to vote." [Sanders press release, 3/7/15] Sanders On Selma March: “When People Stand Together For Justice, Nothing Is Impossible.” “U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today joined U.S. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) and other civil rights pioneers on the 50th anniversary of an historic civil rights march that led to enactment of the Voting Rights Act. "In 1965, against racist legalized violence, incredibly brave men and women put their lives on the line to demand that all Americans, regardless of their color, have the right to vote. And they won. When people stand together for justice, nothing is impossible," Sanders said.” [Sanders press release, 3/7/15] Sanders Flew With Rep. John Lewis To Selma March. “This weekend offers an opportunity to rally support for a restored Voting Rights Act, he said. "We cannot turn back the clock," he said. "We cannot allow states in this country to make it harder for African Americans, Latinos, elderly people to participate in the political process. We have to move aggressively to pass legislation to protect the right to vote for all of our people." Sanders will fly to Birmingham, Ala., Friday on a chartered American Airlines flight with other lawmakers, including Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., who helped lead the historic 1965 marches.” [USA Today, 3/5/15] Sanders Called For An Increased Federal Role In Redistricting And Voting. “The major issue in terms of our electoral system is truly campaign finance reform. Right now, we are at a moment in history where the Koch brothers and other billionaires are in the process of buying politicians and elections. We need to overturn Citizens United with a constitutional amendment. We need to pass disclosure legislation. We need to move toward public funding of elections. We also have got to see an increased federal role in the outrageous gerrymandering that Republican states have created and in voter suppression. These are the main issues that I'll be tackling in the coming months.” [Reddit, 5/19/15] Expanding Voting Rights Sanders And Clinton Were Original Co-Sponsors Of The District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009. [S 160, co-sponsored 1/6/09] Sanders Co-Sponsored Bill To Restore Voting Rights To Felons. “U.S. Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) has introduced a bill, S. 2235, the Democracy Restoration Act that would reduce recidivism rates by restoring voting rights to individuals after they have served their time and have been released from incarceration. Studies indicate that former prisoners who have voting rights restored are less likely to reoffend, and that disenfranchisement hinders their rehabilitation and reintegration into their community. Original cosponsors of S. 2235 include Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), and Senators Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).” [Cardin press release, 4/10/14] Ballots Sanders Said That He “Would Go Back To Paper Ballots With A Back Up System” In Elections. “CALLER: I want to know is there a guarantee that them voter machines are going to be honest?” […] SANDERS: Let’s be on the safe side. What’s the problem? Let’s be safe rather than sorry. And let’s use a voting mechanism or paper ballots that we know with a backup are absolutely safe. Cause at the end of the day if we’re talking about living in a democracy, there’s nothing more precious, nothing more important than people absolutely with 100% faith know that their vote is being counted accurately. On that one I would go back to paper ballots with a back up system.” [Brunch With Bernie, 2/3/12, 33:30] Sanders Argued For Returning To The Paper Ballot. “People argue that maybe a paper ballot will take so long to count and so on, but the Canadians I think use paper, they get their results out quickly, and I don’t think there’s a whole lot of debate about whether or not the results are accurate.” [Brunch with Bernie, 11/5/14] DC Statehood Sanders Co-Sponsored Legislation To Grant Statehood To Washington, D.C. “Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders and a group of more than a dozen senators are calling for Washington, D.C., to become the 51st state in the nation. In their proposal, the federal government would still maintain control over portions of the nation’s capital that surround the White House, Congress, Supreme Court and National Mall. The rest of the nation’s capital would be renamed New Columbia and given full representation in Congress under the legislation introduced by Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.).” [The Hill, 6/25/15] Sanders Said That It Was “Morally Wrong” For D.C. To Lack Statehood. “Sen. Sanders (IVt.), one of 16 co-sponsors of the New Columbia Admission Act, said it is "morally wrong" to block District residents from federal representation. “Washington D.C. is currently home to more people than the state of Vermont, yet its residents lack voting representation in Congress," Sanders told The Hill in a statement. "I think it is morally wrong for American citizens who pay federal taxes, fight in our wars, and live in our country to be denied the basic right to full congressional representation.”” [The Hill, 6/25/15] 2003: Sanders Expressed Support For Full Congressional Representation For Washington DC. “Well in my state of Vermont there are 620,000 people, we’re the third smallest state in America. We’re a little bit bigger than Washington DC. We have two United States Senators and one United States Congressman who has full voting rights. What do you guys got? Well you have one excellent Congresswoman, but she doesn’t have the right to vote in many instances. Is that fair? So I come from a State that’s just a hair bigger than you guys so I can’t say that that’s fair, it’s not fair. So I believe that Washington DC should be treated, as national capitals are all over the world and people here should have full representation in the United States Congress.” [C-SPAN, 5/21/03, 53:50] Engaging With The Political Process 1987: Sanders Said That Political Agenda Was Set By Big Money Interests, And It Was Imperative For Activists To Band Together And Use Collective Clout To Advance Interests, Rather Than Approach Politics From A “Single Issue” Point Of View. “In this country, today, the political agenda is being set by individuals and organizations which represent the BIG MONEY INTERESTS. It is absolutely imperative, therefore, that citizens who are active in the struggle for social justice and peace ban together, and use their collective clout to advance the interests of the working people, the elderly people and the poor people they represent. If every group continues to go its own separate way, and approach politics from a "single issue" point of view - it will not be possible to defeat the very wealthy people who dominate the political life of this country and, today, set the political agenda.” [Bernie Sanders Statement, 9/22/87] Sanders Said It Was Vital To Restore Power And Decision Making To Local Government To Ensure Americans Were Not Alienated From The Political Process. “In fact, as the modern American citizen becomes more and more alienated from the political process and more and more becomes and observer of historical events, rather than a creator of his or her history, the more vital it becomes to address the issues of how in a modern and complex nation of 250 million Americans we can restore power and decision making to local government and just as clearly, as the economy of this planet become more and more global in nature and the decisions which affect the people are made further and further away from their neighborhoods, this problem becomes even more acute.” [Speech dictated by Bernie Sanders to Richard Sugarman, 10/23/87] Sanders Said Humans Rights “Must Include The Democratic Right To Be Involved In The Decision Making Process.” “So, when we discuss the issue of human rights, one of the first points which we must make is that human rights must include the democratic right to be involved in the decision making process.” [Speech dictated by Bernie Sanders to Richard Sugarman, 10/23/87] Sanders Emphasized That A Disproportionate Number Of Poor And Working Class People Participate “Only Minimally” In Politics. “How many of you know that in US national elections, approximately 50% of the citizens do not vote, and in local elections, the percentage is always much, much smaller. In dissecting these figures, it must be emphasized that, by and large, poor people in the US overwhelming ignore the electoral system and participate only minimally in political life. This is true for [sic] significant percentage of working class people as well.” [Speech dictated by Bernie Sanders to Richard Sugarman, 10/23/87] 1987: Sanders Wrote That A United Coalition Of Progressive Interests Should Address Health Care For All, Focusing The Federal Budget On Domestic Priorities, And Election Reform. Sanders Advocated For A National Health Care Program That Guaranteed Care For All Citizens. “Let me give just a few examples of some very basic issues in which united front activity is going to be needed. The cost of health care is zooming upward, and many of our citizens no longer are able to afford this very basic necessity of life. It seems clear to me that if we are going to develop what is needed in this country, a national health care program which guarantees health care to all citizens.” [Bernie Sanders Statement, 9/22/87] Sanders Called For A Change In The Priorities Of The Federal Budget From A Bloated Military Budget Toward Programs To Help Working People. “Another area in which we need a strong coalition to work together is the need to change the priorities of our federal budget. […] The issue that we have to deal with here – in determining national priorities – is whether the wealth and resources of this nation go into programs which will provide decent and affordable health care for our people, decent housing for our people, decent environmental protection for our people, decent job training for our people - or whether we will continue to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a bloated military budget, and a militaristic foreign policy.” [Bernie Sanders Statement, 9/22/87] Sanders Supported Election Reform To Increase Voter Turnout And Address The High Cost Of Elections. “One last issue which should unite a large number of groups deals with the need for election reform. […] Unless we develop a mechanism to greatly increase voter-turnout and citizen participation, we are not a truly democratic society. Secondly, something must be done about the high costs of elections.” [Bernie Sanders Statement, 9/22/87] WALL STREET/FINANCIAL INDUSTRY Commodity Futures Modernization Act Sanders Voted For The House Version Of The Commodity Futures Modernization Act. “Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 - Title I: Commodity Futures Modernization - Amends the Commodity Exchange Act (Act) to define specified terms. (Sec. 102) Excludes the following agreements, contracts, and transactions, except as otherwise provided for, from coverage under the Act: (1) foreign currency, other than those transactions conducted on an organized exchange between specified regulated entities and persons who are not eligible contract participants; (2) government securities; (3) security warrants; (4) security rights; (5) resales of installment loan contracts; (6) repurchase transactions in an excluded commodity; or (7) mortgages or mortgage purchase agreements. [HR 4541, Vote #540, 10/19/00] Sanders Voted For Conference Report Of Bill That Included Commodity Futures Modernization Act. “Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001 - Enacts the following measures into law: (1) H.R. 5656 (Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001), as introduced on December 14, 2000; (2) H.R. 5657 (Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2001), as introduced on December 14, 2000; (3) H.R. 5658 (Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001), as introduced on December 14, 2000; (4) H.R. 5666 (Miscellaneous Appropriations Act, 2001, with the exception of section 123), as introduced on December 15, 2000; (5) H.R. 5660 (Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000), as introduced on December 14, 2000…” [HR 4577, Vote #603, 12/15/00] December 7: Senator Gramm Reached An Agreement With Industry Representatives On Legislative Language. “Legislation to modernize the Commodity Futures Trading Commission appears to be moving full steam ahead in the wake of an agreement on legislative language late Wednesday night between Senate Banking Chairman Gramm and representatives for the futures industry. The agreed upon language provides legal certainty that a bank's "swaps" products will not be subject to regulation by the CFTC. Virtually identical derivatives products traded on exchanges are subject to CFTC regulation. The agreement between those parties represents a major step forward for the bill, which had been mired in a disagreement about whether bank swaps have the competitive advantage afforded by that blanket exemption. The negotiations have narrowed in recent days to include just Gramm and the futures industry. Drafts of the legislative language on legal certainty were forwarded this morning to the Treasury Department, and also to the Senate and House Agriculture Committees, which have primary jurisdiction over futures trading.” [National Journal, 12/7/00] After Gramm Reached An Agreement, Lawmakers, Regulators, And Industry Representatives Started Working To Attach It To A Spending Bill. “Legislation drafted late last week by the Senate Banking Committee would amend the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to give current and future banking products -- particularly swaps contracts -- ironclad protection from regulation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Lawmakers, regulators, and industry representatives are hurrying to assemble a version of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 that is acceptable to the Senate and does not vary too greatly from a House bill overwhelmingly passed in October. Observers said the goal is to attach the bill to one of several spending packages expected to pass before lawmakers adjourn.” [American Banker, 12/11/00] Legislation Was Added To The Omnibus Bill On The Morning Of The Vote. “Meanwhile, Gramm and Senate Agriculture chairman Richard Lugar, R-Ind., said in a statement that congressional leaders have reached an agreement on the proposed Commodities Futures Modernization Act. The legislation would reauthorize the Commodity Exchange Act, repeal the ban on single-stock futures, and provide enhanced legal certainty for the swaps market. They added that the bill is expected to win passage in Congress today.” [Bond Buyer, 12/15/00] Commodity Futures Modernization Act Exempted Swaps And Derivatives From Regulation By The CFTC. “The final language, which the public was hardly aware of, contained some new sections not in the original Ewing bill that, for all intents and purposes, exempted swaps and derivatives from regulation by both the CFTC, which had already implemented rules that it would not regulate swaps and derivatives, and the SEC. Also, hidden within the bill was an exemption for energy derivative trading, which would later become known as the “Enron loophole” – this loophole would provide the impetus for Enron’s nose dive into full blown corporate corruption.” [Center for Responsive Politics, 4/1/09] Problems With The Unregulated Market Of Credit Default Swaps Led To The Collapse Of Bear Strearns, Lehman Brothers, And AIG. “Ultimately, while the unregulated market in derivatives and swaps did not cause the economic downturn itself, it was a propellant of the crisis, accelerating the collapses of major financial companies across the globe. As of June 30, 2008, the global derivatives market had exploded to $530 trillion, while credit default swaps had grown from mere insignificance to $55 billion. When the credit crisis and the mortgage meltdown began to take hold, major firms found out the swaps made their investments far riskier than they could handle. Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and American International Group (AIG) all collapsed due to problems with the unregulated market of credit default swaps. The major banks were also heavily involved with credit default swaps.” [Center for Responsive Politics, 4/1/09] Omnibus Bill Was Still Being Negotiated On The Day Of The Vote Due To A Dispute Over Efforts To Protect Sea Lions. “The lame-duck 106th Congress moved toward its final votes on Friday after a dispute over endangered Alaskan sea lions was resolved to pave the way for approval of a deal on school spending, Medicare and other issues. The House and Senate planned to vote Friday on the overdue package, which covers more than $450 billion in spending and four of the 13 annual spending bills for fiscal 2001. One of the last roadblocks, a lingering dispute pitting administration efforts to protect the sea lions against the Alaskan fishing industry, was resolved after days of negotiations, White House chief of staff John Podesta said. He said the resolution involves protecting the catches fishing boats are allowed and their workers' incomes as limits are phased in on catching the fish the seals eat.” [Associated Press, 12/15/00] Nine Democrats Voted Against The Conference Report Of The Consolidated Appropriations That Included The Commodity Futures Modernization Act. [HR 4577, Vote #603, 12/15/00] Earlier In The Day, Rep. Stark, Who Voted Against The Bill Was Concerned About Medicare Language In The Bill. “House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee ranking member Fortney (Pete) Stark, D-Calif., decried a word change included in the Medicare package at the last minute that he said would be a boon for pharmaceutical companies. The language would prevent Medicare from lowering its reimbursement price for prescription drugs but not prevent manufacturers from raising them, as had been the original agreement.” [National Journal, 12/15/00] Barney Frank, Who Voted Against The Bill, Said It Turned Out Better Than Most Members Thought It Would. “"I think it came out better than most members thought it would," Barney Frank, D-Mass., said after a meeting House Democrats had Dec. 15 with White House Chief of Staff John D. Podesta and Office of Management and Budget Director Jack Lew. "There were standing ovations. It was a very upbeat situation."” [CQ Weekly, 12/15/00] Bill Passed 292 To 60, With 80 Members Not Voting. “Overall, the House voted 292 to 60 approve the spending bill, which Congress was required to pass before adjourning for the year on Friday. Eighty members did not vote on the measure.” [States News Service, 12/15/00] Clinton’s Signing Statement Of The Omnibus Bill Recognizes That It Includes The Commodity Futures Modernization Act. “I have signed into law H.R. 4577, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY 2001. I am pleased that my Administration and the Congress were able to reach agreement on the remaining appropriations bills and produce a hardwon victory for the American people. […] The bill amends the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) to provide regulatory relief for investors and authorize appropriations of such sums as are necessary to carry out the CEA for FYs 2001-2005. The bill would deregulate most over-the-counter derivatives (financial instruments whose value depends on the value or change in value of an underlying security, commodity, or asset) traded electronically between sophisticated entities such as banks, broker/dealers, and high-net-worth individuals.” [Statement on Signing the Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY 2001, 12/21/00] Before 2008, Financial Crisis, Called On Congress To Close The Enron Loophole 2008: Sanders Called On Congress To Address The So-Called Enron Loophole, Which Passed As Part Of The Commodities Futures Modernization Act, In Order To End Oil Speculation. “Congress has to also address another area where there is strong evidence that speculators, both in hedge funds and in other financial institutions, are driving the price of oil to outrageously high levels. What we have to address is undoing the so-called Enron loophole. This loophole was created in 2000, as part of the Commodities Futures Modernization Act. At the behest of Enron lobbyists, a provision in that bill was inserted in the dark of night with no congressional hearings. Specifically, the Enron loophole exempts electronic energy trading from Federal commodities laws. Virtually overnight the loophole freed over-thecounter energy trading from Federal oversight requirements, opening the door to excessive speculation and energy price manipulation. Of course, nobody knows exactly what the impact of the Enron loophole is. But we do know huge amounts of money are being made, not simply in the production of oil but in driving oil futures prices up.” [Sanders Remarks, Congressional Record, 4/30/08] Sanders Said Enron Loophole Was Inserted “In The Dark Of Night” At The Behest Of Enron Lobbyists Without Congressional Hearings. “This loophole was created in 2000, as part of the Commodities Futures Modernization Act. At the behest of Enron lobbyists, a provision in that bill was inserted in the dark of night with no congressional hearings.” [Sanders Remarks, Congressional Record, 4/30/08] Sanders Praised Efforts To Close The Enron Loophole To Prevent Price Manipulation And Excessive Speculation Of Oil Prices. “Closing the Enron loophole would subject electronic energy markets to proper regulatory oversight by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to prevent price manipulation and excessive speculation. I applaud Senators Levin, Feinstein, Dorgan, and others who have focused on this issue. In addition to an excise profits tax on the oil companies, we must go after the speculation on the part of people within hedge funds and in the financial institutions industry who are simply playing games, making money, and driving the price of oil up. Those are two important steps we must take to lower the price of gas and oil.” [Sanders Remarks, Congressional Record, 4/30/08] Sanders Co-Sponsored Sen. Levin’s Close The Enron Loophole Act. [S 2058, co-sponsored 12/4/07] After Crisis, Blamed CFMA For Lehman Bankruptcy, But Defended Vote 2009: Sanders Spokesman Defended Vote For Commodity Futures Modernization Act Because The Defeat Of The Omnibus Spending Bill Would Have “Shut Down The Government.” “Sanders' spokesman Michael Briggs defended the senator's vote, saying that defeat of the $450-billion omnibus spending bill would have "shut down the government." "Unfortunately, in those kinds of situations ... individual members don't always have the choice to pick and choose between different parts of a bill," Briggs said.” [Inside FERC Gas Market Report, 4/3/09] 2008: Sanders Blamed Commodity Futures Modernization Act For Lehman Bankruptcy. “Still, in Professor Cohen's article: How does this relate to Lehman's bankruptcy? "CDSs were a key factor in encouraging lenders to feel they could make loans without knowing the risks or whether the loan would be paid back." When you and I were younger, Mr. President, banks knew the people to whom they made loans. They didn't give a loan to somebody they knew would not be able to pay it back. But that is no longer the case. "The Commodity Futures Modernization Act freed them of Federal oversight...” And it was due to these CDSs that Wall Street held an emergency session yesterday to try to minimize the damage of Lehman's CDSs and other derivatives. Unfortunately, the session did not produce much, thanks to the built-in lack of knowledge of the risks in these transactions that Gramm's legislation ensured. You are going to be reading more and more about CDSs over the months ahead.” [Sanders Remarks, Congressional Record, 9/17/08] 2009: Sanders Co-Sponsored Legislation To Remove A Provision Of The Modernization Act That Exempted Derivative Traders From State Gambling Regulations. “Moving beyond Dodd's proposal, Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-Washington), Ron Wyden (D-Oregon), and Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) also introduced legislation this week that would give state regulators and attorneys general more authority to monitor and crack down on unregulated derivatives trading. Their proposal would remove a provision in the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000 that exempted derivatives traders from state gambling regulations, a loophole that Cantwell characterized as a contributing factor to the growth of the derivatives market.” [Oil Daily, 11/12/09; S 1682, introduced 9/17/09] 2009: Sanders Blocked Nomination Of CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler In Part For His Role In Clinton Administration Deregulation. “Mr. President, for the past five months, I blocked consideration of the nomination of Gary Gensler to head the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). As a strong supporter of President Barack Obama, I took no pleasure in doing this. But given Mr. Gensler's history as a senior executive of Goldman Sachs for 18 years and the role Mr. Gensler played in deregulating the financial services industry as a senior Treasury Department official from 1999-2001, I did not believe that Mr. Gensler was the right person at the right time to help lead this country out of the financial crisis we are in today.” [Sanders Press Release, 5/19/09] Sanders Was Specifically Concerned About Gensler’s Work On The Commodity Futures Modernization Act. “Gerry Gensler was named the new chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) by a vote of 88-6 this week after Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) withdrew holds they had on his nomination. The senators had concerns regarding Gensler's previous work as an assistant secretary of the Treasury Department under President Clinton, specifically his work on the 2000 Commodity Futures Modernization Act.” [Gas Processors Report, 5/27/09] Sanders Withdrew Hold After Gensler Committed To Specific Reforms Of CFTC. “Sanders and Cantwell expressed doubts that Gensler would be able to lead the CFTC's bid to overhaul the commodities markets. However, Sanders obtained several commitments from Gensler in exchange for removing his hold. These included guiding the CFTC to close the London loophole, which allows traders of U.S. commodities to bypass U.S. regulations and standards when trading on foreign-based exchanges. Congress has already moved to close this loophole, so this commitment is more of a perfunctory pledge.” [Gas Processors Report, 5/27/09] 2013: Sanders Opposed Jack Lew’s Nomination For Treasury Secretary Due In Part To His Support Of Wall Street Deregulation. ““As a supporter of the president, I remain extremely concerned that virtually all of his key economic advisers have come from Wall Street. In my view, we need a treasury secretary who is prepared to stand up to corporate America and their powerful lobbyists and fight for policies that protect the working families in our country. I do not believe Mr. Lew is that person. “We don't need a treasury secretary who thinks that Wall Street deregulation was not responsible for the financial crisis. We need a treasury secretary who will work hard to break up too-big-to-fail financial institutions so that Wall Street cannot cause another massive financial crisis.” [Sanders Press Release, 1/10/13] Jack Lew Was One Of President Clinton’s Top Economic Officials When The Commodity Futures Modernization Act Was Signed. “He was one of the top economic officials in the Clinton administration when the president signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act into law that declared all of those "derivative products" exempt from the reach of any existing government regulation or regulatory agency. It was aimed at silencing the warning of Brooksley Born, who, as head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, attempted to control the burgeoning market in the toxic assets that have carried such a huge human price in foreclosed homes and lost jobs.” [Robert Scheer, Athens Messenger, 1/13/13] Sanders Questioned Lew On Effects Of Deregulation During 2010 Confirmation Hearing. “SANDERS: We are in the midst of a horrendous recession right now; 16 percent of our people are unemployed or underemployed. Clearly the immediate precipitating factor was the collapse on Wall Street. Do you believe that the deregulation of Wall Street pushed by people like Alan Greenspan and Robert Rubin contributed significantly to the disaster we saw on Wall Street several years ago? LEW: […] I do not personally know the extent to which deregulation drove it, but I do not believe that deregulation was the proximate cause. I would defer to others who are more expert about the industry to try and parse it better than that.” [Senate Budget Committee Hearing, 9/23/10] Asked About His Vote For The Commodity Futures Modernization Act, Sanders Said “Yeah, I Know. Of The Many, Many Votes That I Cast. I Was A Leader. I Think The Record Is Very Clear In Doing That.” “Q: So it sounds to me you’re not really or even mainly talking about just separating commercial banking from investment banking as we had in Glass-Steagall, but you’re talking about breaking up the banks along geographic grounds so that they become much more— A: It’s not geographic. We’re talking about re-establishing Glass-Steagall, and you’re looking at a guy who as a member of the House Financial Committee—Services Committee—was a leader in the opposition of deregulating banks and in opposition to ending Glass-Steagall. So I think we do want to bring back GlassSteagall, but we want to go further. Q: But you voted for the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which was the big deregulation. A: Yeah, I know. Of the many, many votes that I cast. I was a leader. I think the record is very clear in doing that. OK, how are we doing here? Because we have to get going fairly soon.” [Fusion, 10/20/15] TARP Bernie Sanders Opposed Wall Street Bailout Because It Required “Ordinary Working People” To “Pick Up The Tab” For Wall Street’s Failures. “The Senate approved a $700 billion Wall Street bailout. Senator Bernie Sanders voted against the bill that would put Wall Street's burden on the backs of the American middle class. "The bailout package is far better than the absurd proposal originally presented to us by the Bush administration, but is still short of where we should be," Sanders said. "If a bailout is needed, if taxpayer money must be placed at risk, if we are going to bail out Wall Street, it should be those people who have caused the problem, those people who have benefited from President Bush's tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, those people who have taken advantage of deregulation who should pick up the tab, not ordinary working people." [Sanders Press Release, 10/1/08] Sanders Proposed A Surtax On Families With Income More Than $1 Million A Year To Fund The Bailout. Sanders proposed a five-year, 10 percent surtax on families with incomes of more than $1 million year and individuals earning over $500,000 to raise $300 billion to help bankroll the bailout. Senators, however, set aside the amendment on a voice vote.” [Sanders Press Release, 10/1/08] Sanders: Those Who Made Out Like Bandits Should Pay For The Bailout. “Last week I placed on my Web site, www.sanders.senate.gov, a letter to Secretary Paulson in support of my amendment. It said that it should be those people best able to pay for this bailout, those people who have made out like bandits in recent years, they should be asked to pay for this bailout. It should not be the middle class. To my amazement, some 48,000 people cosigned this petition, and the names keep coming in. The message is very simple: "We had nothing to do with causing this bailout. We are already under economic duress. Go to those people who have made out like bandits. Go to those people who have caused this crisis and ask them to pay for the bailout.” [Sanders Press Release, 10/1/08] Sanders: “It Would Be Immoral To Ask The Middle Class” To Pay For The Bailout. “The people who can best afford to pay and the people who have benefited most from Bush's economic policies are the people who should provide the funds for the bailout. It would be immoral to ask the middle class, the people whose standard of living has declined under Bush, to pay for this bailout while the rich, once again, avoid their responsibilities. Further, if the government is going to save companies from bankruptcy, the taxpayers of this country should be rewarded for assuming the risk by sharing in the gains that result from this government bailout.” [Bernie Sanders, Huffington Post, 9/19/08] Sanders Said Bailout Should Ensure Assets Purchased Are “Realistically Discounted” So Companies Are Not Rewarded For Risky Behaviors. “Ensure that assets purchased from banks are realistically discounted so companies are not rewarded for their risky behavior and taxpayers can recover the amount they paid for them…” [Bernie Sanders, Huffington Post, 9/19/08] Sanders Said Bailout Should Require Taxpayers Receive Equity Stakes In Bailed Out Companies. “Require that taxpayers receive equity stakes in the bailed-out companies so that the assumption of risk is rewarded when companies' stock goes up.” [Bernie Sanders, Huffington Post, 9/19/08] Sanders Said Economic Recovery Package Should Put Americans To Work At Decent Wages And Protect Working Families. “There must be a major economic recovery package which puts Americans to work at decent wages. Among many other areas, we can create millions of jobs rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and moving our country from fossil fuels to energy efficiency and sustainable energy. Further, we must protect working families from the difficult times they are experiencing. We must ensure that every child has health insurance and that every American has access to quality health and dental care, that families can send their children to college, that seniors are not allowed to go without heat in the winter, and that no American goes to bed hungry.” [Bernie Sanders, Huffington Post, 9/19/08] Sanders Said Bailout Legislation Should Regulate Or Abolish The Financial Instruments That Led To The Economic Crisis. “Legislation must be passed which undoes the damage caused by excessive de-regulation. That means reinstalling the regulatory firewalls that were ripped down in 1999. That means re-regulating the energy markets so that we never again see the rampant speculation in oil that helped drive up prices. That means regulating or abolishing various financial instruments that have created the enormous shadow banking system that is at the heart of the collapse of AIG and the financial services meltdown.” [Bernie Sanders, Huffington Post, 9/19/08] Sanders Called For Breaking Up Banks That Were Too Big To Fail As Part Of Solution To Financial Crisis. “We must end the danger posed by companies that are "too big too fail," that is, companies whose failure would cause systemic harm to the U.S. economy. If a company is too big to fail, it is too big to exist. We need to determine which companies fall in this category and then break them up. Right now, for example, the Bank of America, the nation's largest depository institution, has absorbed Countrywide, the nation's largest mortgage lender, and Merrill Lynch, the nation's largest brokerage house. We should not be trying to solve the current financial crisis by creating even larger, more powerful institutions. Their failure could cause even more harm to the entire economy.” [Bernie Sanders, Huffington Post, 9/19/08] Sanders: Bailout Bill Did Not Effectively Address Ownership Of Toxic Assets, Oversight, Or Foreclosures; Wall Street Insiders “Continue To Make Out Like Bandits.” “This bill does not effectively address the issue of what the taxpayers of our country will actually own after they invest hundreds of billions of dollars in toxic assets. This bill does not effectively address the issue of oversight because the oversight board members have all been hand picked by the Bush administration. This bill does not effectively deal with the issue of foreclosures and addressing that very serious issue, which is impacting millions of low- and moderate-income Americans in the aggressive, effective way that we should be. This bill does not effectively deal with the issue of executive compensation and golden parachutes. Under this bill, the CEOs and the Wall Street insiders will still, with a little bit of imagination, continue to make out like bandits.” [Sanders Press Release, 10/1/08] Sanders: Bailout Bill Did Not Address Problems That Led To Crisis, Including The Concept Of “Too Big To Fail.” “"This bill does not deal at all with how we got into this crisis in the first place and the need to undo the deregulatory fervor which created trillions of dollars in complicated and unregulated financial instruments such as credit default swaps and hedge funds. This bill does not address the issue that has taken us to where we are today, the concept of too big to fail. In fact, within the last several weeks we have sat idly by and watched gigantic financial institutions like the Bank of America swallow up other gigantic financial institutions like Countrywide and Merrill Lynch. Well, who is going to bail out the Bank of America if it begins to fail? There is not one word about the issue of too big to fail in this legislation at a time when that problem is in fact becoming even more serious.” [Sanders Press Release, 10/1/08] Sanders Criticized Giving Bailout Funds To Secretary Of The Treasury Who Was The Former CEO Of Goldman Sachs. “This bill does not deal with the absurdity of having the fox guarding the hen house. Maybe I'm the only person in America who thinks so, but I have a hard time understanding why we are giving $700 billion to the Secretary of the Treasury, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs, who along with other financial institutions, actually got us into this problem. Now, maybe I'm the only person in America who thinks that's a little bit weird, but that is what I think.” [Sanders Press Release, 10/1/08] Sanders Said He Would Not Support To Have Taxpayers Hurt By Wall Street Practices To Bail Them Out From Their Own Greed. “We have seen the financial services industry charge 30 percent interest rates on credit card loans and tack on outrageous late fees and other costs to unsuspecting customers. We have seen them engaged in despicable predatory lending practices, taking advantage of the vulnerable and the uneducated. We have seen them send out billions of deceptive solicitations to almost every mailbox in America. Most importantly, we have seen the financial services industry lure people into mortgages they could not afford to pay, which is one of the basic reasons why we are here tonight. In the midst of all of this, we have a bailout package which says to the middle class that you are being asked to place at risk $700 billion, which is $2,200 for every man, woman, and child in this country. You're being asked to do that in order to undo the damage caused by this excessive Wall Street greed. In other words, the "Masters of the Universe," those brilliant Wall Street insiders who have made more money than the average American can even dream of, have brought our financial system to the brink of collapse. Now, as the American and world financial systems teeter on the edge of a meltdown, these multimillionaires are demanding that the middle class, which has already suffered under Bush's disastrous economic policies, pick up the pieces that they broke. That is wrong, and that is something that I will not support.” [Sanders Press Release, 10/1/08] Sanders Sponsored Bill To Limit Executive Compensation Of Firms Assisted Under TARP. “Stop the Greed on Wall Street Act - Amends the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to limit the amount of aggregate annual compensation for employees and executives of financial institutions assisted under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to the salary of the President of the United States.” [S 3693, introduced 11/19/08] 1995: Sanders Sponsored Congressional Limitation On Executive Bailouts Act. “Congressional Limitation on Executive Bailouts Act of 1995 - Provides that all existing and future budget authority and credit authority available to the exchange stabilization fund shall be effective only to extent provided in appropriation Acts.” [HR 867, introduced 2/8/95] Sanders Sponsored A Bill To Amend The Bailout To Limit Obligations Without The Approval Of Congress. “Amends the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act to revise the process for exercising the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to make purchases of troubled assets in any amount in excess of the $350 billion previously obligated. Changes the Joint Resolution of Disapproval, regarding the exercise of such authority, to a Joint Resolution of Approval. Prohibits the Secretary, that is, from exercising any authority to make any such purchases unless within 15 calendar days after Congress receives a report of the Secretary's plan to exercise the authority, a joint resolution approving the plan is enacted into law.” [S 3694, introduced 11/19/08] Sanders Co-Sponsored A Bill To Amend TARP To Require Congressional Approval Of Any Purchase Of Troubled Assets. “Amends the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act to revise the limitation on the Secretary of the Treasury's authority to purchase troubled assets through the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). Changes the Joint Resolution of Disapproval, regarding authority to purchase troubled assets, to a Joint Resolution of Approval. Prohibits the Secretary, that is, from exercising any authority to make any such purchases with regard to any TARP amount authorized, and unobligated as of November 14, 2008, unless within 15 calendar days after Congress receives a report of the Secretary's plan to exercise such authority, a joint resolution approving the plan is enacted into law.” [S 3683, co-sponsored 11/19/08] Sanders Co-Sponsored A Bill To Increase Reporting Requirements For TARP Funds. “Prohibits the use by a recipient or its subsidiary of Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 for lobbying expenditures or political contributions. Requires the Secretary of the Treasury, through enhanced internal reporting and oversight requirements, to develop and publish corporate governance principles and ethical guidelines for such recipients, including specified restrictions. Sets forth recipient reporting and certifying requirements governing such TARP funds. Requires the Secretary to make such reports and certifications publicly available online and free of charge.” [S 133, co-sponsored 3/5/09] Sanders Sponsored A Bill Calling For An Investigation Of The Causes Of The Financial Crisis. “Amends the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) to direct the Oversight Panel of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to: (1) investigate all causes, domestic and global, of the current financial and economic crisis in the United States, including the collapse of major financial and commercial firms and the deterioration of the credit and housing markets; (2) investigate the role in the financial and economic crisis, if any, of specified governmental and private sector entities; (3) review the nation's existing financial regulatory structure from top to bottom, and its contribution to the stability or instability of financial markets; (4) review all aspects of financial regulation; and (5) refer to federal and state law enforcement officials any person that the Oversight Panel finds may have violated federal law in relation to such crisis.” [S 400, introduced 2/9/09] Sanders Voted For A Bill To Stop Spending The Final $350 Billion In TARP Money, While Clinton Voted Against The Measure, Thereby Continuing TARP. The measure was rejected 42-52. [New York Times, 5/28/15] Breaking Up Banks 1974: Sanders Believed Banks And Corporations Should Be Broken Up. "Sanders believes that the huge multi-billion dollar banks and corporations have got to be broken up and that the economic and political power of the nation must be returned to the people." [Liberty Union Newspaper, 8/1974] Too Big To Exist Act Sanders Introduced Legislation To Break Up The Biggest Banks. “Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist U.S. senator who has launched a bid for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, said on Tuesday he will introduce a bill to break up the biggest banks, a position far to the left of the party's front runner, Hillary Clinton. Calls for Wall Street's largest firms to be cut down were numerous after taxpayers spent billions of dollars to prevent the financial system from collapse during the 2007-09 financial crisis, but they have since gradually died down.” [Reuters, 5/5/15] Under Bill, Regulators On Financial Stability Oversight Council Would Compile A List Of Institutions That Are “Too Big To Fail.” “Under the Sanders proposal, regulators on the existing Financial Stability Oversight Council would compile a list of institutions that are 'too big to fail' and implicitly rely on government support during a crisis. “If an institution is too big to fail, it is too big to exist,” Sanders said in a statement.” [Reuters, 5/5/15] Within A Year, The Treasury Secretary Would Be Required To Break Up Firms Designated As “Too Big To Fail.” “Within a year of enactment of the bill, the Treasury secretary would be required to break up these firms. They would also be prohibited from using any customer funds for risky or speculative activities on financial markets.” [Reuters, 5/5/15] Regulators Would Be Required To Break Up Financial Firms Whose Failure Would Have “Catastrophic Economic Consequences. “Mr. Sanders and Mr. Sherman introduced a bill entitled the “Too Big To Fail, Too Big To Exist Act,” which would require financial regulators to name – and break up – financial firms whose failure would have catastrophic economic consequences. The line of criticism is nothing new for Mr. Sanders, who has introduced similar bills designed to dismantle big banks since 2009.” [Wall Street Journal, 5/6/15] Headline: Bernie Sanders Steps Up Attack on Wall Street [Wall Street Journal, 5/6/15] Baltimore Sun Columnist: Sanders’ “Too Big To Exist” Plan “Sounds Like A Pretty Reasonable Idea.” “Break up giant financial institutions. “If they are too big to fail, they are too big to exist,” Mr. Sanders says. Unless you enjoyed the economic crash of 2008, this probably sounds like a pretty reasonable idea.” [David Horsey, Baltimore Sun, 5/12/15] Breaking Up The Banks “Sound[s] Great In Theory But Less So In Reality.” “Breaking up the banks is one of those ideas that sound great in theory but less so in reality, a no-brainer until you run it through your brain. It’s not that size doesn’t matter at all, but the debate over size has been absurdly one-sided, ignoring the benefits of bigness, the potential costs of breakups, and what’s already been done to address the too-big-to-fail problem.” [Politico, 5/29/15] Banks At The Heart Of The 2008 Crisis Were Not The Biggest; Biggest Banks Were “Indispensable To Defusing The Crisis.” “Did you know that the financial institutions at the heart of the 2008 crisis were not the very biggest banks? That the very biggest banks were actually indispensable to defusing the crisis? That the U.S. banking system is far less top-heavy than its foreign counterparts?” [Politico, 5/29/15] Breaking Up Banks Is “A Radical Solution” And A “Staggering Logistical Challenge.” “It’s a radical solution. The United States government does not normally cap the size of private firms, even gigantic firms like Apple or Wal-Mart. Who would invest in a company that’s legally prohibited from growing? It makes sense that Sanders, who is running for president as a critic of capitalism, would support such heavy-handed interference with the market economy. […] The point is that tearing financial giants down to size—to what size, no one seems to know—would be a staggering logistical challenge. The bare-bones Sanders bill, just four pages in all, makes no effort to grapple with that challenge.” [Politico, 5/29/15] JP Morgan Chase Would Have To Be Split Into At Least Nine Firms To Get Small Enough To Fail. “Bear Stearns wasn’t even one of the fifteen largest U.S. financial institutions in March 2008, when the Fed had to engineer a massive rescue to prevent it from collapsing and dragging down the global economy with it. Lehman Brothers wasn’t even in America’s top ten when its failure did trigger a global meltdown that September. Today, with over $2.5 trillion in assets, JP Morgan Chase is about eight times larger than Bear was when it was deemed too big to fail, so it would presumably have to be split into at least nine firms to get small enough to fail. Bank of America’s CEO recently noted that if it were forced to spin off some of its divisions, like investment banking and retail branches, each of the spun-off companies would still be “systemically important,” banker jargon for too big to fail.” [Politico, 5/29/15] Breaking Up Banks Would Threathen Jobs Of Many American Workers Who Are Not Wealthy Financiers. “Unilaterally enforcing size limits on domestic banks would put the U.S. at a real competitive disadvantage in financial services. That may not tug at anyone’s heartstrings, but not all of those 6 million Americans who work for our financial sector are wealthy financiers. They’re also tellers, loan officers, secretaries, security guards, janitors. And even those wealthy financiers pay U.S. taxes that help pay for our roads, our military and our health care.” [Politico, 5/29/15] Breaking Up Banks Would Make American Banks Less Competitive; Could Make Credit Less Accessible While Increasing Trade Deficit. “The fact is, If Uncle Sam breaks up JP Morgan Chase—the world’s sixth-largest bank, and the only U.S. bank in the top ten—its largest clients would presumably move their business to huge foreign banks that could still provide onestop shopping for a variety of global services. Community banks can’t finance global megaprojects and megamergers. JP Morgan enjoys economies of scale just like Amazon and Home Depot do. We should acknowledge that imposing costs on U.S. banks could impose costs on U.S. companies and consumers, making credit less accessible and more expensive while increasing our trade deficit.” [Politico, 5/29/15] Three Of Four Largest Financial Institutions Are Bigger Because They Swallowed Smaller Banks In Order To Stabilize Financial System During Crisis. “They swallowed smaller too-bigto-fail banks that were failing during the height of the crisis, preventing a financial calamity from becoming a financial apocalypse. Government officials begged them to assume the obligations of their dying competitors to help stabilize the system during a panic, and they agreed, sometimes with government help, sometimes without it. If JP Morgan hadn’t been big and strong enough to absorb the hemorrhaging balance sheets of Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual, we might well have endured a depression.” [Politico, 5/29/15] Flurry Of Relatively Small Bank Failures Launched Great Depression. “By the same token, smallness is no guarantee of stability. It was a flurry of relatively small bank failures that launched the Great Depression. Before the recent crisis, many of the flounder and carp of Sherman’s analogy were even more reliant on sketchy real estate loans than Wall Street’s sharks were. And while mega-rescues for mega-banks dominated the headlines, over 900 community banks and regional banks received bailouts through the Troubled Asset Relief Program as well.” [Politico, 5/29/15] Dodd-Frank Limits Leverage And Forces Banks To Hold More Capital In Order To Prevent Banks From Failing. “The best way to prevent banks from imploding is to make sure they have enough capital to absorb potential losses. In other words, regulators should rein in leverage, which is basically the opposite of capital. […] The main thrust of America’s Dodd-Frank financial reforms and the world’s Basel 3 regulations has been to limit leverage and force banks to hold more capital. The capital requirements get progressively tougher as banks get bigger, essentially a tax on bigness. And they’re working.” [Politico, 5/29/15] Sanders Introduced Legislation To Break Up The Nation’s Largest Banks. “Sanders (I-Vt.) last week unveiled new legislation designed to break up the nation’s largest banks, declaring that “if an institution is too big to fail, it is too big to exist.” Though it stands virtually no chance of passage in the GOP-controlled Congress, the bill has industry leaders fretting. The prospects of it becoming law are nil,” said one banking lobbyist, who described Sanders’s legislations as “shrill, bombastic and misaligned.” “But we care about whether this impacts Hillary and whether she’ll try to pander to the far left.”“ [The Hill, 5/12/15] 2009: Sanders Introduced Too Big To Fail, Too Big To Exist Act. “Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist Act Instructs the Secretary of the Treasury to: (1) submit to Congress, within 90 days after enactment of this Act, a list of all commercial banks, investment banks, hedge funds, and insurance companies that the Secretary believes are too big to fail (" Too Big To Fail List"); and (2) break up entities included on such list so that their failure would no longer cause a catastrophic effect on the United States or global economy without a taxpayer bailout.” [S 2746, introduced 11/5/09] Other Sanders Co-Sponsored Legislation That Would Force Large Banks To Downsize By Capping Their Liabilities And Deposits. “Sanders also wants to change what he sees as the bill's biggest weakness, that it wouldn't do enough to cut banks considered "too big to fail" down to size. He signed onto one measure that would limit the size of the largest financial institutions by capping their liabilities and deposits.” [Gannett News Service, 4/28/10] Sanders Said That The Four Largest Banks Issued Two-Thirds Of All Credit Cards In The U.S. And Half Of All Mortgages And Had $7.3 Trillion In Assets. “Sanders said the four largest U.S. banks -Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Wells-Fargo -- control a combined $7.4 trillion in assets. The four banks have issued about two-thirds of all credit cards in America, have written half of the mortgages and control nearly 40 percent of bank deposits in the United Sates, he said.” [Bennington Banner, 4/21/10] Sanders Said That The Four Largest Banks Issued Two-Thirds Of All Credit Cards In The U.S., Half Of All Mortgages And Had $7.3 Trillion In Assets, Which Was More Than 50 Percent Of U.S. GDP. “SANDERS: OK, good. The second area you have to address, we don't talk about it too much, is the size of these huge financial institutions. ASMAN: Right. SANDERS: Most Americans don't know this. You're talking about the four largest issuing two-thirds of the credit cards in America, half of the mortgages, and combined, collectively, have $7.3 trillion in assets. That is more than 50 percent the GDP of the United States of America. ASMAN: It is huge. Huge.” [Transcript, American Nightly Scoreboard, 4/22/10] 1991 Banking Bill 1991: Sanders Opposed Bush Banking Bill. “I am very fearful that small banks on Main Street in Montpelier or Church Street in Burlington are not going to be able to compete. Now I’ve always had this feeling to be honest here I opposed interstate banking when it was here. Because while I have deep concerns about the banking community, I would like to walk into my neighborhood banker I would like to, and I know I am very conservative, forgive me, for being an old fashioned conservative on this issue, but I would like to know that the members of the Board of Trustees who make investment practices, are neighbors of mine whose names I know from the phone book, I can get them in the phone book.” [SoundCloud, Bernie Sanders, Audio Clip: “1991 Against Bush Banking Bill,” Accessed 6/4/15] Sanders Feared That The Bush Banking Bill Would Hurt Local Banks. “I do not want to walk into a bank in Burlington, a bank in Montpelier, and find out they say ‘well I know you want to invest in this local business, and it sounds good to us, we’ve got to call up California before we get permission.’ Well the truth is they’re not going to care too much about Vermont in California.” [SoundCloud, Bernie Sanders, Audio Clip: “1991 Against Bush Banking Bill,” Accessed 6/4/15] Glass Steagall Opposed Gramm-Leach-Bliley, Mostly Because It Would Increase Fees For Consumers 2015: Sanders Said He Predicted In 1999 That Repealing Glass-Steagall Would Hurt The Economy, But The Financial Crisis Was Even Worse Than His Prediction. ““Sixteen years ago, I predicted that such a massive deregulation of the financial services industry would seriously harm the economy. I would give anything to have been proven wrong about this but unfortunately what happened seven years ago was even worse than I predicted,” Sanders said.” [Politico, 7/17/15] 1995: Sanders Opposed Repeal Of Glass Steagall In Committee Because It Did Not Protect Consumers. “The House Banking Committee took a step Tuesday in laying to rest a Depression-era law that has kept commercial banks out of the securities industry. The committee voted 29-8 to send the legislation to the House floor which would erase the distinctions between banks and brokers. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Jim Leach, R-Iowa, repeals the Glass-Steagall Act. […] Democrats, led by Reps. Joseph Kennedy of Massachusetts, Maxine Waters of California and Kweisi Mfume of Maryland, argued that the bill allows huge corporations to expand their operations but does nothing for the common American. ''Some of us actually think we're here to represent consumers,'' said Rep. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. Rep. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said the bill's fatal flaw is that it does nothing to solve banking's central crisis: ''Too many insured dollars chasing too few low-risk investments.''” [United Press International, 5/9/95] 1999: Sanders Said Gramm-Leach-Bliley Would Lead To “Taxpayer Exposure To Potential Loses Should A Financial Conglomerate Fail. “It will lead to fewer banks and financial service providers, increased charges in fees for individual consumers and small businesses, diminish credit for rural America and taxpayer exposure to potential loses should a financial conglomerate fail.” [Sanders Remarks, House Floor, 7/1/99] 1999: Sanders Opposed Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act Because It Would Lead To Fewer Banks And Financial Service Providers, Increased Fees For Consumers, Diminished Credit For Rural America, And The Further Concentration Of Economic Power. “Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. I support financial modernization if modernization means more choices for consumers, more competition, greater safety and soundness, stopping unfair bank fees and protecting consumers and underserved communities. But Madam Chairman, I believe this legislation in its current form will do more harm than good. It will lead to fewer banks and financial service providers, increased charges in fees for individual consumers and small businesses, diminish credit for rural America and taxpayer exposure to potential loses should a financial conglomerate fail. It will lead to more megamergers, a small number of corporations dominating the financial service industry and further concentration of economic power in this country.” [Sanders Remarks, House Floor, 7/1/99] Sanders Said Bigger Financial Institutions Lead To Bigger Fees. “It is no secret, Madam Chairman, that bigger financial institutions lead to bigger fees-which totaled more than $18 billion last year. The U.S. Public Interest Research Group and the Federal Reserve Bank have conducted studies and confirmed that bigger banks charge higher fees than smaller banks and credit unions. The Public Interest Research Group's 1997 study of deposit account fees at over 400 banks found that big banks charge fees that are 15 percent higher than fees at small banks. Credit union fees, by comparison, were half those of big banks. And the Public Interest Research Group's 1998 ATM surcharging report found that more big banks surcharge non-customers, and big-bank surcharges are higher.” [Sanders Remarks, House Floor, 7/1/99] Sanders Said Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act Was Good For Big Banks, And It Was Time To Protect Consumers. “This bill is in fact, however, good for big banks, but the big banks are doing just fine without this bill. Government-insured banks earned a record $18 billion in just the first 3 months of this year, 2.1 billion more than they earned in the same period last year. At a time of increasing bank fees, increasing ATM surcharges, increasing credit card fees, increasing minimum balance requirements, it is time for the Congress to stand up for the consumers. The big banks are doing fine. Let us protect the consumers. Let us vote no on this legislation.” [Sanders Remarks, House Floor, 7/1/99] Sanders Opposed Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act Because It Did Not Expand Services For Low And Moderate Income Americans. “This bill has everything the big banks want, but it has little or nothing for consumers. It does not modernize the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) by applying CRA requirements to new financial conglomerates. It does not stop ATM surcharges. It does not safeguard stronger consumer protection laws passed by the various States. It does not provide the strong privacy provisions that will be needed with the creation of large financial service conglomerates, It does not require that banks serve low- and moderate-income consumers by offering basic, lifeline accounts. And it does not even include provisions to protect women and minorities from discrimination in homeowner's insurance and mortgage services. These anti-discrimination provisions were included in the version of the bill that was reported out the Banking Committee, but they mysteriously disappeared from the bill when it came out of the Rules Committee.” [Sanders Remarks, House Floor, 7/1/99] In Response To Gramm-Leach-Bliley, Sanders Called On Congress To Pass Pro-Consumer Legislation. “At a time of increasing bank fees, ATM surcharges, credit card fees, increasing minimum balance requirements, discrimination against women and minorities, and the loss of many locally-owned banks to large, multi-billion dollar corporate institutions, Congress should consider pro-consumer legislation to directly address those problems. But this bill is not good for consumers, or small businesses, or taxpayers, or under-served communities. I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.” [Sanders Remarks, House Floor, 7/1/99] Sanders Voted Against House Passage Of Financial Services Act. [HR 10, Vote #276, 7/1/99] Sanders Voted For Motion To Instruct Conferees On Financial Services Modernization Act To Include Consumer Protections, Including Protections From Inappropriate Marketing, Equal and Non-Discriminatory Access To Financial Services, And Medical Privacy Protections. “MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES - Mr. LaFalce moves to instruct conferees on the part of the House on the bill S. 900 and the House amendments thereto, to ensure, consistent with the scope of the conference, that: 1. Consumers have the strongest consumer financial privacy protections possible, including protections against the misuse of confidential information and inappropriate marketing practices, and ensuring that consumers receive notice and the right to say "no" when a financial institution wishes to disclose a consumer's nonpublic personal information for use in telemarketing, direct marketing, or other marketing through electronic mail; and 2. Consumers enjoy the benefits of comprehensive financial modernization legislation that provides robust competition and equal and non-discriminatory access to financial services and economic opportunities in their communities; and 3. Consumers have the strongest medical privacy protections possible, and thereby prevent financial institutions from disclosing or making related uses of health and medical and genetic information without the consent of their customers, and therefore agree to recede to the Senate on subtitle E of Title III of the House amendment.” [S 900, Vote #355, 7/30/99] Sanders Voted Against Conference Report Of Financial Services Modernization Act. [S 900, Vote #570, 11/4/99] Co-Sponsored Bill To Modernize Community Reinvestment Act In Wake Of Gramm-Leach-Bliley Sanders Co-Sponsored Community Reinvestment Modernization Act Of 2000. “Modernization of Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 and Community Service Obligations - Amends the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 to subject to the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (CRA) in the same manner as regulated financial institutions all nonbank affiliates of bank holding companies that engage in lending or offer banking products or services.” [HR 4893, co-sponsored 7/19/00] Community Reinvestment Modernization Act Updated Community Reinvestment Act In Wake Of Changes To Financial Marketplace Caused By Financial Modernization Act. “Since 1997, CRA has encouraged banks and thrifts to commit more than $1 trillion in private reinvestment dollars for mortgages, small business loans and community development loans for traditionally underserved communities. […] Unfortunately, CRA will become less effective if it is not updated to keep pace with the rapid changes that are occurring in the financial services marketplace as a result of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Modernization Act of 1999. While this new law allows banks to merge with securities and insurance firms in a new ``holding company;'', it does not require that all of a holding company's banking and lending products and services be covered by CRA. Essentially, the law creates a two-tiered banking and lending industry, with one part being covered by CRA and the other part not. […]The bill we are introducing today will update CRA to match the increased market powers the Financial Modernization Act creates.” [Rep. Barrett Remarks, House Floor, 7/19/00] Supported Reestablishing Glass-Steagall Sanders Co-Sponsored A Bill To Reinstate Glass-Steagall In 2013. “Bernie Sanders is backing a bill to break up the big banks after advisers to presidential rival Hillary Clinton made clear earlier this week she will not support reinstating the Glass-Steagall act. […] By moving quickly to reassert his support for a proposal from liberal superstar Warren, Sanders is highlighting the differences between his platform and Clinton’s more centrist positions on financial regulations, a major issue among progressives. Sanders actually cosponsored a version of the bill in 2013, well before he began challenging Clinton for the Democratic nomination, and in a press release reminded reporters of a speech he gave in 1999 as a House member.” [Politico, 7/17/15] Sanders Supported Reestablishing Glass Steagall. “In terms of Glass-Steagall, when I was in the House, I voted against all of this stuff. I predicted that by deregulating Wall Street and allowing a handful of these mega-financial institutions to grow and to merge that it would be disastrous for the economy. Of course I believe in reestablishing Glass Steagall. But let me go further. I do not believe that, given that six financial institutions have assets today around $10 trillion — 60 percent of the GDP of the United States — I do not believe that Congress has the capability of regulating Wall Street. I believe that Wall Street regulates the Congress and that you gotta break these guys up.” [Washington Post, 5/1/15] Sanders Supported Bill Sponsored By Sens. Warren And McCain To Reinstate Glass-Steagall, Said Ending Too Big To Fail Necessitated Breaking Up The Country’s Largest Financial Institutions. “Bernie Sanders is backing a bill to break up the big banks after advisers to presidential rival Hillary Clinton made clear earlier this week she will not support reinstating the Glass-Steagall act. Noting that he’s long supported reimposing a firewall between investment and commercial banks, the Vermont senator said he’s officially rejoining an effort led by Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and John McCain (RAriz.) to break up the big banks because “if we are truly serious about ending too big to fail, we have got to break up the largest financial institutions in this country.”” [Politico, 7/17/15] Sanders Said Repealing Glass-Steagall “Precipitated The Largest Taxpayer Bailout In The History Of The World” And “Substantially Increased Wealth And Income Inequality.” ““Allowing commercial banks to merge with investment banks and insurance companies in 1999 was a huge mistake. It precipitated the largest taxpayer bailout in the history of the world. It caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs, homes, life savings and ability to send their kids to college,” said Sanders, who said that change in the financial world “substantially increased wealth and income inequality.”” [Politico, 7/17/15] Co-Sponsored Bills To Reform Financial Sector Sanders Co-Sponsored A Bill To Combine The Functions Of The CFTC And SEC To Establish A Single Regulatory Body With Jurisdiction Over Securities And Derivatives. “To establish a Securities and Derivatives Oversight Commission in order to combine the functions of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission in a single independent regulatory commission, and for other purposes. […] The purposes of this Act are-- (1) to establish a single Federal regulatory body with jurisdiction over securities and derivatives, including options, futures, swaps, and related markets and instruments and including over-the-counter derivatives; (2) to consolidate and revise the authority for setting margin requirements on all such instruments; (3) to coordinate the regulation of all financial markets; (4) to strengthen investor confidence in United States financial markets; and (5) to ensure the competitiveness of those markets.” [HR 4038, co-sponsored 3/20/02] Sanders Co-Sponsored A Bill To Create A Federal Bureau of Audits. “Investor, Shareholder, and Employee Protection Act of 2002 - Establishes within the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) an independent regulatory agency to be known as the Federal Bureau of Audits, which shall conduct an annual audit of the financial statements submitted to the SEC by reporting issuers. Requires the President to appoint the Director of the Bureau, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.” [HR 3795, introduced 2/26/02] Sanders Co-Sponsored A Resolution Disapproving Of Certain Regulations Issued By The Comptroller Of The Currency. “Declares that Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Comptroller of the Currency relating to: (1) the scope of the Comptroller's exclusive visitorial powers over national banks; and (2) the exception for visitorial powers "vested in the courts of justice".” [HR 4236, cosponsored 4/28/04] Rep. Ron Paul Opposed OCC Action Because It Undermined State Authority On Mortgage Brokers, Sub-Prime Lenders And Check Cashing Centers. “This new OCC authority will have far-reaching and unintended consequences. State law governing mortgage brokers, sub-prime lenders, check cashing centers, leasing companies, and even car dealers could be preempted under the new proposal. This proposal may also give national banks and their subsidiaries a competitive advantage over small mortgage companies. OCC undoubtedly will need to hire new staff. Yet the OCC still may be unable to handle the flood of new responsibilities. Unless Congress resists any expansion of OCC, it risks creating another huge, unaccountable, bureaucratic agency. Therefore, I respectfully urge all my colleagues to support Mr. Gutierriez's legislation disapproving the OCC's preemption regulation.” [Rep. Paul Remarks, House Floor, 4/28/04] Sanders Co-Sponsored The Preservation Of Federalism In Banking Act. “Preservation of Federalism in Banking Act - Amends the Revised Statutes of the United States to set forth State law preemption standards for national banks and their subsidiaries. Declares that any State: (1) consumer law of general application (including any law relating to unfair or deceptive acts or practices and any consumer fraud law) shall also apply to any national bank; and (2) law applicable to State banks shall also apply to any national bank if it was enacted pursuant to, or consistent with, Federal law permitting the States to exceed or supplement Federal law requirements.” [HR 5251, introduced 10/7/04] Sanders Co-Sponsored A Bill To Enhance Regulation Of Public Auditors And Overhaul Corporate Disclosure. “Comprehensive Investor Protection Act of 2002 - Amends the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to set forth auditor independence requirements, including a prohibition against: (1) nonaudit services for audit clients; and (2) improper influence exerted upon the conduct of audits. Establishes the Public Accounting Regulatory Board to: (1) establish audit quality standards; (2) review public accounting firms and individual audits; (3) conduct disciplinary and investigation proceedings; and (4) suspend or revoke registration for noncompliance.” [HR 3818, co-sponsored 4/9/02] Sanders Co-Sponsored Bill To Require Companies To Disclose All Payment Obtained By An Officer Or Director Who Had Engaged In Misconduct. “Instructs the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to require disgorgement of salaries, commissions, fees, bonuses, options, profits, and losses avoided through securities transactions obtained by an officer or director of an issuer during a reporting period when such officer or director engaged in misconduct resulting in the filing of a false or materially misleading financial statement.” [HR 4083, co-sponsored 4/9/02] Dodd-Frank Voted For Passage Of Senate Version April 2010: Sanders Was Concerned That The Senate’s Financial Reform Legislation Would Not Be “Meaningful.” “"I hope we just don't take up a financial reform bill. I hope that we take up a meaningful financial reform bill," said Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. Dodd will face his caucus during its policy lunch today and is sure to hear an earful about not caving in, said one Democratic aide.” [National Journal, CongressDaily, 4/27/10] April 28, 2010: Sanders Said That While He Could Support The Senate’s Bank Reform Bill In Its Current Form, He Would Support A Stronger Bill And Would Consider Voting Against It If It Were Significantly Weakened. “Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent, wants to break up and limit the size of big banks, increase transparency at the Federal Reserve and cap interest rates for credit cards. Both said the Democratic bill before the Senate would help solve the problems that led to the financial crisis and the recession. "It's pretty tough right now," Leahy said of the bill. "It may be toughened as we go along. That's why Wall Street wants their allies to keep filibustering it." Sanders said he could support the bill in its current form although it is "nowhere near as strong as I would like it to be." "If during the course of the debate, there are amendments that are passed that significantly weaken it, well, it's not for sure that I would support it," he said.” [Gannett News Service, 4/28/10] May 2010: Sanders Voted For Senate Passage Of The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. On May 20, 2010, Bernie Sanders voted yes on Senate Vote #162. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would create a new consumer protection regulator with the authority to write new rules for banks and non-banks offering consumer financial services. It also would create a systemic-risk council to monitor companies whose failure could threaten the economy. By a two-thirds vote, the council could allow the Federal Reserve to require large, complex financial institutions -- if they pose a "grave threat" to financial stability -- to divest some holdings as a last resort. In some cases, the bill would allow the Treasury, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and Federal Reserve to agree to put a company into an orderly liquidation process. A panel of three bankruptcy judges would have to convene and agree within 24 hours whether such a company is insolvent. It would mandate that derivative transactions be processed through a regulated central clearinghouse, with an exemption for some end users. It also would prohibit financial institutions from claiming the clearing exemption and would require a bank that qualifies as a "swap dealer" or a "major swap participant" to divest its swap desk or forgo access to federal credit assistance. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #162, 5/20/2010] Sanders Said That Senate Vote Was About Proper Regulations For Wall Street After Wall Street “Destroy[ed] Our Economy.” “SEN. REID: Senator Sanders. SEN. SANDERS: Thank you, Mr. Leader. The greed, the recklessness, the illegal behavior on Wall Street has plunged this country into the worst economic crisis we have experienced since the Great Depression. From one end of the country to the other, California to Vermont, people are hurting. And people understand the cause of this crisis is, we let Wall Street do whatever they wanted to do. And to the surprise of nobody, what they did is destroy our economy. And today, what we are trying to do in the Senate is to bring regulation and transparency back to Wall Street, to hold them accountable.” [Press Conference, Federal News Service, 5/19/10] Sanders Said That Wall Street Was “The Most Powerful Institution In The Entire Country.” “SEN. REID: Senator Sanders. SEN. SANDERS: Thank you, Mr. Leader. […] Now, nobody should be naive that when you take on Wall Street, you're taking on the most powerful institution in the entire country. It's not the insurance companies, not the drug companies.” [Press Conference, Federal News Service, 5/19/10] Sanders Called The Legislation “A Positive Step Forward” But Called For Tighter Regulations On Wall Street. “Sanders called the overall legislation a "positive step forward" but he said that much more has to be done to end the greed and recklessness by the Wall Street financiers responsible for the worst economic collapse since the 1930s. The senator faulted the legislation for not breaking up banks deemed "too big to fail." Incredibly, three of the four biggest banks in the country are larger today than they were before taxpayers bailed them out. Sanders also wanted the bill to impose a cap on runaway credit card interest rates. Senators rejected an even more modest proposal to let states enforce their own usury laws.” [Press Release via States News Service, Sen. Bernie Sanders, 7/15/10] Sanders Said The Financial Reform Bill Was “A Step Forward. It Is Nowhere Near As Strong As It Should Be.” “MR. RATIGAN: Are you surprised by the letter from the so-called New Democrats trying to weaken the transparency and capital requirements in the derivatives market from Blanche Lincoln? SEN. SANDERS: Hey, nothing surprises me. Remember during the deregulation process, Wall Street spent $5 billion over a 10-year period in order to get where they are today, allowing them to do anything they want. They're spending hundreds of millions of dollars right now saying to Congress, let us continue to do what we have been doing, which was just so wonderful, that drove this country into a horrendous recession. So nothing surprises me. You know, my view is that this financial reform bill is a step forward. It is nowhere near as strong as it should be. I think, among other things, what we did not deal with is essentially breaking up these huge financial institutions, the top four of which have assets worth 50 percent of the GDP of this country.” [Transcript via Federal News Service, MSNBC, “Dylan Ratigan Show,” 6/31/10] Voted For Conference Report Sanders Voted For The Conference Report Of The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. On July 15, 2010, Bernie Sanders voted yes on Senate Vote #208. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the conference report on the bill that would overhaul the regulation of the financial services industry. The measure would create new regulatory mechanisms to assess risks posed by very large financial institutions and facilitate the orderly dissolution of failing firms that pose a threat to the economy. It would create a new federal agency to oversee consumer financial products, bring the derivatives market under significant federal regulation for the first time and give company shareholders and regulators greater say on executive pay packages. The costs would be offset by terminating the Trouble Asset Relief Program and increasing deposit insurance premiums paid by some banks. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #208, 7/15/2010] Sanders Said Legislation Would “Rein In The Worst Abuses By Wall Street,” Praised His Provision To Audit The Federal Reserve. “The following information was released by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders: Responding to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, the Senate today passed legislation to rein in some of the worst abuses by Wall Street. The measure sent to President Obama includes an historic provision by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to audit the Federal Reserve and lift the veil of secrecy at that enormously powerful agency.” [Press Release via States News Service, Sen. Bernie Sanders, 7/15/10] Sanders Voted For Dodd-Frank “Despite Worries It Didn’t Go Far Enough.” “He secured a provision for an audit of the Federal Reserve in the final version of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, which he voted for despite worries that it didn't go far enough.” [Huffington Post, 6/4/15] Opposed Rolling Back Legislation Sanders Opposed “Cromnibus” Funding Bill Over Rider That Rolled Back Part Of Dodd-Frank. “Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said he plans to vote against the $1.1 trillion government funding bill unless a provision is removed that changes the Wall Street reform law. Sanders, a self-described socialist who is eyeing a run for the White House in 2016, said he objects to a number of provisions in the bill that cater towards big business and the financial sector. That includes a rider that would roll back part of the DoddFrank financial reform law, which was passed in the wake of the 2008 financial crash.” [The Hill, 12/11/14] Sponsored Amendment To Dodd-Frank To Audit Federal Reserve Sanders Amendment To Require The GAO To Audit The Federal Reserve Once To Reveal Which Banks Accepted Emergency Bailouts Received A Unanimous Vote. “The U.S. Senate gave unanimous approval to a measure Tuesday that will force the Federal Reserve Bank to reveal the names of banks that accepted emergency taxpayer funds. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., the lead sponsor of the amendment to a larger financial reform bill, called passage of the measure a major victory for transparency and "a historic vote for the American people." The amendment calls for an audit of the Federal Reserve bank and will require the central bank to reveal which banks accepted more than $1 trillion in emergency aid lent to banks. "This will lift the veil of secrecy on the Fed," Sanders said in a telephone interview. According to the Sanders amendment, the Government Accountability Office, Congress' non-partisan investigative arm, will conduct a one-time, comprehensive audit of the emergency actions undertaken by the Fed since the outset of the financial crisis in 2007 that led to a worldwide recession. […] The amendment, approved by a vote of 96 to 0, was a combined effort by conservative and progressive senators and a wide spectrum of grass-roots organizations, Sanders said. The wide margin of passage is somewhat misleading, though, he said.” [Bennington Banner, 5/12/10] Sanders’ Proposal To Audit The Fed Was Narrowed In Order To Gain More Support. “The GAO audit was reduced in scope to help secure passage. Sanders said he made a "political decision" to clarify the time period to be audited. "In order to win this thing I had to make that change. Right now, what the focus is on is 2007 to when the president signs the bill," he said. "In some ways I think it's stronger."” [Bennington Banner, 5/12/10] Some Senators Were Concerned That A Wide-Ranging Audit Could Be Seen As Impacting The Fed’s Monetary Policy. “A growing number of senators, Republicans and Democrats alike, were concerned that granting the GAO open-ended authority to audit the Fed could allow the Senate to exert undue pressure on the central bank to "involve the Congress in the monetary policy of the Fed." "It was never my intention to have Congress debating whether or not you raise interest rates," Sanders said.” [Bennington Banner, 5/12/10] The Bailout Funds Targeted By The Sanders Amendment Were Separate From The Bailout Funds In The Troubled Asset Relief Program. “The lending to be revealed by the Fed under the amendment is separate from the $700 billion bailout plan approved by Congress under the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Recipients of those funds have been posted on the Treasury Department's Website, Sanders said.” [Bennington Banner, 5/12/10] Rep. Ron Paul Criticized Sanders, Said That His Support For Weakening Fed Audit Provision Amounted To Having “Sold Out.” “The Senate's financial reform bill moved forward this week, and some key battles about the future of bank regulation are now being settled out in the open rather than in back rooms. It's a process filled with partisan mudslinging as well as Senate-floor votes. Rep. Ron Paul (R) of Texas blasted Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) of Vermont for having "sold out" on elements of a Federal Reserve audit that both support.” [Christian Science Monitor, 5/7/15] Sanders’ Amendment To Financial Reform Legislation To Audit The Fed Through The GAO Was Modified In Conference. “Conference members also discussed Senate language on reviewing the activities of the Federal Reserve. The legislation passed by the upper chamber last month calls for the one-time audit of the nation's central bank and gives the Government Accountability Office the authority to review the Fed's emergency lending program in a defined window from Dec. 1, 2007, to the day the Wall Street reform is signed into law. The deal on the measure was the result of a last-minute compromise between Dodd and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who agreed to weaken some of his language to gain enough votes to move forward. The Senate on Wednesday accepted two significant changes on the Fed provision as offered by the House - calling for an ongoing GAO review of open-market transactions and the discount window, which allows institutions to borrow money from the Fed, usually on a short-term basis to meet emergency shortages of cash. The House offering also included a requirement of the Fed to publicly disclose the names of discounted window borrowers two years after they have sought loans from the central bank. Disclosing the names of borrowers initially faced Fed resistance on fears that outing borrowers would weaken those firms' positions in financial markets. But the two-year cushion was enough to ease lawmakers' concerns.” [Politico, 6/17/15] Criticized Removed Of Rating Agency Provisions Sanders Criticized The Removal Of A Provision Of Financial Reform Legislation That Attempted To Address Conflicts Of Interest Between Banks And Rating Agencies. “MR. RATIGAN: Ratings agencies, were you surprised to see the effort to try to get the conflict of interest between the ratings agencies and the banks which Al Franken so admirably attempted to address that obvious conflict, but it appears to have hit a roadblock in the conference. SEN. SANDERS: I think that's unfortunate. I think, obviously, there is a huge conflict of interest. Look, Dylan, if I hire you and I say I want a triple-A rating and you say, well, you know, Bernie, it's only a single-A. I'd say, well, thank you very much; I'm going to go to somebody else; don't bother to come back to me. The conflict of interest is obvious. If I pay you, you're going to give me a good rating. As I recall, 92 percent of the subprime mortgages were rated tripleA, and they ended up being junk.” [Transcript via Federal News Service, MSNBC, “Dylan Ratigan Show,” 6/31/10] Supported Regulations Of Derivative Trading And Speculation Sanders Praised The Financial Reform Bill’s Provisions On Derivatives And Auditing The Federal Reserve. “[SANDERS:] We have not put a lid on what credit card companies can charge consumers in terms of their interest rates. Having said that, the derivatives provision in there is strong. The Fed audit is strong. There are other provisions in there that are strong. It is a step forward. But we are taking on -we've got a lot more to do, and the American people have got to join us in this fight. You're taking on, when you're taking on Wall Street, you're taking on the most powerful people in the world.” [Transcript via Federal News Service, MSNBC, “Dylan Ratigan Show,” 6/31/10] Sanders Claimed That Wall Street Was Investing Too Little In Small And Medium-Size Businesses And Too Much Into Speculation. “SEN. SANDERS: All right, but Dylan, here's the point. Dylan, here's the point on that one. Take a breath for a moment and think about where we're at. You have our middle class collapsing. You have small and medium-size businesses desperately in need of affordable credit so they can expand and create jobs. They're not getting that help. What you have is a Wall Street living in a parallel universe, playing with trillions of dollars in gambling casinos instead of investing in the real economy and producing real products and helping us create real jobs. That is the ultimate issue. We need a new Wall Street where Wall Street lives in the real world, not just in a world in which they can use their greed and recklessness to make as much money as they possibly can, any way they can. And by the way, I don't think Goldman Sachs is the only financial institution out there engaged in these type of activities.” [Transcript via Federal News Service, MSNBC, “Dylan Ratigan Show,” 4/21/10] Sanders Co-Sponsored An Amendment To The Senate’s Financial Reform Bill To Prohibit Banks From Engaging In High-Risk Proprietary Trading. “U.S. Sens. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., and Carl Levin, DMich., are introducing an amendment today [PDF] to the Wall Street Reform Bill that will get high-risk proprietary trading out of the nation's banks and ensure that other financial companies' trading doesn't endanger the banking system. The amendment will help end conflicts of interest like those revealed at Goldman Sachs, focus banks on their primary mission of lending to businesses and individuals, and ensure that taxpayers are never again forced to bail out Wall Street's sour bets. [...] The amendment is cosponsored by Sens. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, Ted Kaufman, D-Del., Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Bob Casey, D-Pa., Bill Nelson, D-Fla., Roland Burris, D-Ill., Mark Begich, D-Alaska, Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Conn., Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., Mark Udall, D-Colo., Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Tom Udall, D-N.M.” [Press Release via Congressional Documents and Publications, Sen. Carl Levin, 5/10/10] Amendment Would Prohibit Banks And “Other Large, Important Financial Institutions” From Engaging In Speculative Trading. “The Merkley-Levin amendment would restrict proprietary trading at banks and other large, important financial institutions. By keeping our banks and other large, complex financial institutions away from these risky ac-tivities, the bill will help protect the taxpayer from bailouts and the damage to the economy that comes from the failure of critical financial institutions. At the same time, the bill leaves plenty of space for smaller firms to do speculative trading, but outside of taxpayer-supported commercial banks.” [Press Release via Congressional Documents and Publications, Sen. Carl Levin, 5/10/10] Supported Amendments Regulating Interest Rates Sanders Co-Sponsored Amendment That Would “Restore To Each State Its Historic Power To Protect Citizens From Unscrupulous Lenders Based In Other States.” “Following last week's introduction by U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) of an amendment to address high credit card interest rates, a coalition of more than 200 national and state organizations -- including the AARP, Consumer Federation of America, and Consumers Union -- is urging members of the Senate to support this reform. In a letter dated yesterday, Americans for Financial Reform asked that all Senators support the consumer protections provided by the Whitehouse amendment. Whitehouse's amendment, which is cosponsored by Senators Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Carl Levin (DMI), Roland Burris (D-IL), Al Franken (D-MN), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), and Robert Menendez (D-NJ) would restore to each state its historic power to protect citizens from unscrupulous lenders based in other states.” [Press Release via Congressional Documents and Publications, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, 5/6/10] Amendment Would Close Loophole And Require Lenders To Abide By Interest Rate Limits For Consumers Set By The State Where The Consumer Resided. “For over 200 years, each state had the ability enforce usury laws against any lender doing business with its citizens. In 1978, a Supreme Court case, Marquette National Bank of Minneapolis v. First of Omaha Service Corporation, opened up a loophole through which big national banks have been able to avoid state law interest rate caps. The Whitehouse amendment would change the law to make clear that credit card companies and other lenders -- no matter where in the country they are located -must abide by the interest rate limits of the states in which their customers reside.” [Press Release via Congressional Documents and Publications, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, 5/6/10] Sanders Proposed An Amendment To Financial Reform Legislation To Cap Credit Card Interest Rates. “The greed and recklessness of Wall Street has created the most severe economic recession since the 1930s. Millions of people have lost their homes and savings, and 17 percent of our people are unemployed or underemployed. Wall Street is now spending billions of dollars on lobbying and campaign contributions to make sure that they can continue to act in the reckless and unregulated manner which led us to where we are today. We cannot allow that to happen. Among other very important reforms, Congress must stop big banks from ripping off consumers by charging credit card interest rates of 35 percent or more. That is why I will offer an amendment to stop usury in America and place a reasonable cap on what lenders may charge credit card customers, similar to the limit already in place and working well for credit unions.” [Press Release, Sen. Bernie Sanders, 3/26/10] Sanders’ Legislation Would Create A Federal Usury Limit Of 15 Percent. “Sen.Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, has sponsored an amendment that imposes strict size restrictions on banks, limiting them from holding no more than 10 percent of the country's deposits. Sen.Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., has language to establish a federal usury rate of 15 percent.” [National Journal, CongressDaily, 5/3/10] Financial Transaction Tax Sanders Pushed For A Vote On A Financial Transaction Tax. “Sanders, I-Vt., said in an interview that he was working with allies such as Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, to press for a vote on attaching his proposal to other legislation. Supporters say the levy on stock and bond sales would be structured to raise the most revenue from high- volume traders, including hedge fund managers. “We would like to get a vote. the American people understand that Wall Street is getting away with murder. It’s a way to raise substantial sums of money. And it would also put a damper on speculation,” said Sanders, the ranking member on the Budget Committee.” [Roll Call, 6/24/15] Sanders: Wall Street Tax Should Pay For College Because They Have The Resources To Help, And It Would Put A Damper On Dangerous Speculation. “Well, the answer is two fold. Number one, folks on Wall Street and people were trading in huge amounts of stocks are becoming phenomenally wealthy. Hedge fund managers are doing extraordinarily, extraordinarily wealth and they have got to help us build with some of the major crisis that we face as a nation including making college affordable. Second of all, Ed, what this legislation most is not only race a very substantial sum of money and a fair and progressive way and also puts a damper on the speculation that is ramping Wall Street. So it serves a purpose in that direction as well.” [MSNBC, 5/19/15] Concord Monitor Editorial: “Tax Pushed By Sanders Is A Sensible Idea” [Editorial, Concord Monitor, 6/23/15] Concord Monitor Editorial: A Financial Transaction Tax Was A Good Idea. “A financial transaction tax, a tiny surcharge on the sale of stocks, bonds, derivatives, treasury securities and other financial instruments traded daily in vast quantities could, by different estimates, raise $50 billion to $350 billion per year in a way that for most taxpayers would be painless. Nearly twodozen nations levy an FTT and 11 members of the European Union plan to have one in place next January. The United States, which had an FTT from 1914 to 1966, will re-institute the tax if Vermont Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders gets his way. Barring campaign finance reform or a mass uprising against America’s growing income inequality, he probably won’t. K Street lobbyists will load their trebuchets with bags of Wall Street cash, lob them at members of Congress and back the opponents of members who don’t see things their way. That doesn’t mean that a financial transaction tax isn’t a good idea. It is.” [Editorial, Concord Monitor, 6/23/15] Proposed Tax on Wall Street To Pay For College Tuition For All Sanders Announced Legislation To Make Public Colleges Tuition Free. “Sanders said in a statement that he will introduce legislation Tuesday outlining plans to make tuition free at public four-year colleges and universities. “We live in a highly competitive global economy and, if our economy is to be strong, we need the best-educated work force in the world,” Sanders said. “That will not happen if, every year, hundreds of thousands of bright young people cannot afford to go to college, and if millions more leave school deeply in debt.”“ [CBS Boston, 5/18/15] Sanders Said Bill Was Only A Radical Idea Because Congress Was Dominated By Wall Street. Sanders “unveiled a new bill intended to provide free tuition at public colleges and universities and pull American students out of the rapidly sinking morass of debt. “This is not a radical idea,” Sanders said, responding to a reporter's question about the prospects for the bill's passage. “Only in a Congress dominated by Wall Street is this a radical idea.”“ [Mic, 5/19/15] Sanders Modeled His Plan Off Countries Like Germany, Denmark, and Sweden. “Sanders said his plan is similar to how European countries like Denmark, Sweden and Germany handle college costs.” [CBS Boston, 5/18/15] Headline: Sanders: Make Wall St. pay college tuition [Burlington Free Press, 5/18/15] $70 Billion Legislation Paid For By Creating Fee On Large Stock Transfers. “Sen. Bernie Sanders says he's about to introduce a bill that would provide free tuition at public colleges and universities by using Wall Street stock transfer fees. […]”The program that we're offering will be a grant program by which the federal government puts in $2 and the states put in $1,” Sanders said. “Now, $70 billion is a lot of money, but in a nation in which we lose $100 billion every year because corporations stash their money in tax havens around the world, that's one way you can approach it. “What we are going to be dealing with tomorrow is a transaction fee on large stock transfers,” Sanders continued. “So we're going to ask Wall Street, whose greed and recklessness drove us into the recession that we're climbing out of right now, to start helping us fund college education.”“ [Burlington Free Press, 5/18/15] So Called “Robin Hood Tax” Would Set A 50 Cent Tax On Every $100 Of Stock Sales. “On Tuesday, Sanders will hold a press conference in the nation's capital at which he will introduce a plan to use a so-called Robin Hood tax on stock transactions to fund tuition at four-year public colleges and universities. Sanders' bill sets a 5a0-cent tax on every “$100 of stock trades on stock sales, and lesser amounts on transactions involving bonds, derivatives, and other financial instruments,” the group Robin Hood Tax on Wall Street said Monday in a press release.” [Bloomberg, 5/18/15] Sanders Would Pay For College Tuition Bill With A Tax On The Transference Of Large Amounts Of Stock. “And today, I just introduced legislation that would make public colleges and universities tuition-free. BLITZER: Where is the money going to come from? SANDERS: A tax on Wall Street speculation, where it should come from. BLITZER: What does that mean, a tax on Wall Street speculation? SANDERS: What it means is, right now, you have people who are becoming phenomenally wealthy by speculating in derivatives and every other type of esoteric instrument they can. People are getting very rich on Wall Street. We're going to impose what exists in dozens of countries around the world, a modest tax on the transference of large amounts of stock.” [CNN, 5/19/15]  Sanders: This Tax Could Bring In Nearly $300 Billion A Year. “This is an effective and progressive way to raise money. The estimate is it could bring in as much as $300 billion a year.” [CNN, 5/19/15] Sanders: Wall Street Tax Should Pay For College Because They Have The Resources To Help, And It Would Put A Damper On Dangerous Speculation. “Well, the answer is two fold. Number one, folks on Wall Street and people were trading in huge amounts of stocks are becoming phenomenally wealthy. Hedge fund managers are doing extraordinarily, extraordinarily wealth and they have got to help us build with some of the major crisis that we face as a nation including making college affordable. Second of all, Ed, what this legislation most is not only race a very substantial sum (ph) of money and a fair and progressive way and also puts a damper on the speculation that is ramping Wall Street. So it serves a purpose in that direction as well.” [MSNBC, 5/19/15] Executive Bonuses and CEO Pay Sanders Blasted AIG For Paying Executives Bonuses After The Government Bailout. “And when you look at the many many hundreds of billions of dollars that taxpayers had been forced to spend to bailout these huge financial institutions, which year after year paid their CEOs tens and tens of millions of dollars in some cases making these guys billionaires, and then we find today that AIG, one of the major perpetrators of this financial disaster, still wants to pay out some hundred and sixty five million dollars in bonuses, despite the fact that they have been heavily bailed out by the Federal government to my mind and to the minds of most Americans, this is completely unacceptable.” [AIG Bailout, 5/18/09, 0:10] Sanders Co-Sponsored Stop Subsidizing Multimillion Dollar Corporate Bonuses Act On September 16, 2015. [S 1127, co-sponsored 9/16/15] Sen. Jack Reed Said Stop Subsidizing Multimillion Dollar Corporate Bonuses Act Would Put “An End To Unlimited Tax Write-Offs On Performance-Based Executive Pay.” "At a time when essential federal programs from education to Medicare to defense spending are facing growing budget austerity, U.S. Senators Jack Reed (D-RI) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) are reintroducing the Stop Subsidizing Multimillion Dollar Corporate Bonuses Act. This legislation would close a major loophole in current corporate tax law by putting an end to unlimited tax writeoffs on performance-based executive pay. In their most recent estimate, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that this loophole costs U.S. taxpayers about $50 billion over a 10 year timeframe." [Press Release, Sen. Jack Reed, 4/29/15] Sanders Supported SEC Vote To Require Companies To Disclose The Pay Ratio Between CEOs And Median Workers. “Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) issued the following statement after the Securities and Exchange Commission voted to adopt a rule requiring companies to disclose how much more chief executives are paid than workers: “The decision to require companies to disclose how much more CEOs are paid than workers is an important step in the fight against income inequality. The average chief executive in America now makes nearly 300 times more than the average worker – and the gap between the people at the top and working families is growing wider and wider. I hope that shining a spotlight on the disparity will help working families.”” [Press Release, Sen. Bernie Sanders, 8/5/15] Punishing Illegal Behavior Sanders Said It was Not Acceptable For Young People To Be Criminalized For Smoking Marijuana, While The CEOs Of Banks Whose Illegal Behavior Destroyed The Economy Are Not. “After years of shrugging off criminal prosecutions for Wall Street activity that fueled the 2008 financial crisis, the Department of Justice said Thursday that it will more aggressively target white-collar crime going forward. In a memo, the DOJ said it would now seek to hold both corporations and individual employees accountable for misdeeds. It's about time, according to Sanders. "One of the biggest mistakes our government made after the financial crisis was not prosecuting the people responsible for the greed, recklessness and illegal behavior that crashed our economy and ruined the lives of millions of Americans," the socialist senator from Vermont told HuffPost in a written statement. "It is not acceptable that many young people have criminal records for smoking marijuana, while the CEOs of banks whose illegal behavior helped destroy our economy do not."” [Huffington Post, 9/10/15] Federal Reserve Sanders Introduced Bill To Require That Federal Reserve Board Members Are Not Employed By Or Have A Financial Stake In A Stockholding Bank. “Amends the Federal Reserve Act regarding class A membership on the board of directors of a Federal Reserve Bank to require the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve Board) to designate members from among persons who are not employed in any capacity by a stockholding bank. Requires the Federal Reserve Board to designate the class B members of such board of directors (class B members represent the public). Prohibits employees of any Federal Reserve Board-regulated entity from serving on the board of directors of any Reserve Bank. Prohibits any employee of the Federal Reserve System or any board member of a Reserve Bank from owning stock or investing in any company regulated by the Federal Reserve Board. Directs the Comptroller General to report annually to Congress to ensure implementation of this Act.” [S 3219, introduced 5/22/12] Sanders Opposed Abolishing The Federal Reserve, But Wanted To See “Significant Reform” To Make It A “Much More Democratic And Accountable Institution.” “The Federal Reserve is a complicated issue. Do I believe in abolishing the Federal Reserve? No. But, do I believe in significant reform of the Federal Reserve and making it a much more democratic and accountable institution? Yes I do. During the Dodd-Frank debate, we got an amendment that I offered, it became the first amendment to audit the Fed in American history during the period of the financial crisis, and we learned a lot from that. So, yes, the Federal Reserve is a very important issue that we need to focus a lot more attention on.” [Brunch With Bernie, 7/31/14, 36:17] Sanders Called For The Fed To Disclose The Financial Institutions It Made Loans To. “Basically what we’re asking among many other things is the fact that the Fed has lent out over $2 trillion to financial institutions at zero interest loans. Do you know who those financial institutions were? You don’t. Nobody does. That’s absurd. $2 trillion, $2 trillion of American taxpayers money at risk, we don’t even know who got it, we don’t know what the terms are, repayment schedule, etc. So we need a lot more transparency in the Fed, an institution which has enormous power over our economy.” [Sanders Returns to Washington, 9/10/09, 1:30] Community Banking Sanders Supported Moving Away From Big Banks And Towards Community Banking. “BERNIE SANDERS: I think if we break up, as you know, Wall Street, preys on minorities, prey on the Hispanic community, the African American community, with subprime loans and cause an enormous amount of damage. If we move toward a banking system based on community banking where people know the community, I think a lot of those issues will be addressed and obviously at the federal level we need we need to punish any bank that rips off or takes advantage of people [inaudible] that they should not.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Jasper County Town Hall, 9/26/15] Sanders Sought For One Of Wall Street’s Primary Roles To Ensure Credit Access To Small And Medium Sized Businesses. “Mark Halperin: You mentioned Wall Street in your speech today, and Wall Street got booed. I’m wondering what for you the proper role for Wall Street is in our society? Bernie Sanders: A very different role. We need a financial system in which banks are making affordable loans to smaller and medium sized business, where they are part of the productive economy, helping us create jobs.” [With All Due Respect, Bloomberg, 9/18/15] 1993: Sanders Co-Sponsored A Bill To Create A Community Development Banking And Financial Institutions Fund. “Community Development Banking and Financial Institutions Act of 1993 - Establishes the Community Development Banking and Financial Institutions Fund as a wholly-owned Government corporation to provide financial and technical assistance and training to enable community development financial institutions to invest in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods and Indian reservations. Prescribes program parameters. Requires the Fund to: (1) establish an information clearinghouse in coordination with certain Federal agencies; and (2) study and report on its practices and performance. Authorizes appropriations.” [HR 2666, co-sponsored 8/4/93] Credit Unions Sanders Was An Original Co-Sponsor Of A Bipartisan Bill To Reduce The Minimum Net Worth Radio Requirements For Credit Unions. “Credit Union Regulatory Improvements Act of 2005 - Amends the Federal Credit Union Act to reduce the minimum net worth ratio requirements of well-capitalized, adequately capitalized, under capitalized, and significantly undercapitalized credit unions. Sets the minimum risk-based net ratio at 8%. Revises the requirement that the National Credit Union Administration Board design the risk-based net worth standard to take account of any material risks to insured credit unions. Requires the standard to be designed in relation to risk assets, and to be based on comparable standards for taking into account material risks to insured depository institutions under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act that are applicable to credit unions.” [HR 2317, co-sponsored 5/12/05] Sanders Was An Original Co-Sponsor Of A Bipartisan Bill To Redefine Net Worth As The Retained Earnings Balance Of A Credit Union. “Net Worth Amendment For Credit Unions Act - (Sec. 2) Amends the Federal Credit Union Act relating to the requirement of prompt corrective action to resolve the problems of an insured credit union at the least possible long-term loss to the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund. Redefines net worth as the retained earnings balance of a credit union (as determined under generally accepted accounting principles, as under current law), together with any amounts that were previously retained earnings of any other credit union with which the credit union has combined.” [HR 1042, introduced 3/2/05] Interest Rates And Predatory Lending Sanders Supported Capping All Interest Rates At 14 Percent. “Senator Bernie Sanders offered an amendment to cap all interests rates, including mortgage rates, credit card rates and payday loan rates at 14%. Offering biblical references and classical references to usury, Sanders said, "The bible speaks of usury as sin and Dante reserved a special place in hell -the inner ring of the seventh circle- for usurers. It's an outrage for Americans to be paying rates as high as 21% to 40% when credit card companies reported $90.1 billion in interest income alone." [Credit Union Times, 4/3/08] Sanders Supported Capping All Interest Rates At 15 Percent. “Rep. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont Independent, has proposed a bill that places a 15% cap on consumer loans, including credit cards. The law would supercede a 1978 Supreme Court decision allowing banks to charge whatever was allowed by the state in which its lending or card operations were based. Sanders called his proposed 15% ceiling a "national usury law." Sanders expressed dismay that some lenders, including Capital One, were raising carholders' APRs to 18% even in cases were the cardholder had been paying on time and was not delinquent. He said the focus on mortgage interest rates was distracting policymakers from practices he referred to as "loan sharking" going on at some banks.” [Credit Union Journal, 3/23/09] Sanders Supported Capping Credit Card Interest Rates At 15 Percent. “KEY ACTIONS: Supports capping credit card interest rates at 15 percent.” [Issues Page, Bernie 2016, accessed 8/12/15] Sanders Co-Sponsored The Save Our Homes Act. “Save Our Homes Act - Amends the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 to: (1) mandate itemization and disclosure of the annual percentage rate of mortgage loans and other loans secured by residential real property originated by the lending institution, including the amount of fees and points imposed in connection with loan origination, grouped according to census tract, income level, racial characteristics, age, and gender; and (2) prohibit regulatory exemptions of depository institutions from such reporting requirements.” [HR 2531, introduced 7/17/01] Save Our Homes Act Intended To Protect Homeowners From Growing Predatory Lending Practices. “U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) today unveiled a comprehensive initiative that will protect homeowners and buyers from the growing predatory lending practices in the mortgage industry. At a news conference at the home of predatory lending victim Mary White, in the Chicago Lawn neighborhood, Schakowsky announced the introduction of the “Save Our Homes Act of 2001,” legislation to expand current law to prohibit predatory practices by lenders and brokers.” [Rep. Schakowsky Press Release, 7/16/01] Industrial Holding Banks Sanders Co-Sponsored A Bill To Require Industrial Bank Holding Companies To File Certain Reports With The FDIC. “Industrial Bank Holding Company Act of 2006 - Requires an industrial bank holding company to register and file certain reports with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) within ninety days after becoming an industrial bank holding company Prohibits such holding company from being controlled by a commercial firm. Grandfathers certain institutions to exempt them from the requirements of this Act.” [HR 5746, co-sponsored 9/26/06] Sanders Co-Sponsored A Bill To Provide That Any Company That Controls An Industrial Loan Or Bank Become A Financial Holding Company. “Financial Safety and Equity Act of 2005 - Amends the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 regarding interests in nonbanking organizations to provide that any company that controls an industrial loan company, industrial bank, or similar institution shall become a financial holding company. Requires such entity to comply with all federal conditions, requirements, restrictions and limitations applicable to a financial holding company.” [HR 3882, co-sponsored 7/12/06] Speculation Sanders Called On President Obama To Replace Gensler As CFTC Chairman With “Someone Who Will Enforce Speculation Limits On Wall Street Oil And Gas Traders.” “Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today urged President Barack Obama to replace Gary Gensler as the Commodity Futures Trading Commission chairman with someone who will enforce speculation limits on Wall Street oil and gas traders. Sanders said Wall Street speculators were responsible for a spike in crude oil prices that, in turn, artificially drove up gasoline prices this spring to a nationwide average of almost $4 a gallon for regular unleaded. Under Gensler, the commission has failed to enforce a provision in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which required rules to be implemented by no later than January 17, 2011, to eliminate, prevent, or diminish excessive oil speculation.” [Sanders Press Release, 6/4/12] 2014: Sanders Introduced Legislation To Reduce Speculation On Wall Street, Which He Blamed For Driving Up Gas Prices. “The price of gas has soared. There are a couple of reasons for that. Number one, the oil companies, the big oil companies–Exxon Mobil and the others–continue to rip off the American people. [...] These guys are making huge, huge amounts of money. But the other reason, interestingly enough, that gas prices are going up has to do with speculation on Wall Street. Most people think that the oil futures market is controlled by people who actually use oil, like fuel dealers, or airline companies, or trucking companies. That’s not the case. Some eighty percent of the oil futures market is controlled by Wall Street companies like Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, etc. They don’t use a drop of oil. Their job is to engage in speculation, drive prices up, and make a lot of money–and they do. [...] So we’ve introduced legislation to essentially significantly reduce speculation on the oil futures market, which will drive prices down.” [Brunch With Bernie, 6/27/14, 3:50; S 2548, introduced 6/26/14] Wall Street Lobbying Sanders Said That Wall Street Spent $300 Million On Lobbying For Deregulation And $5 Billion Over A Ten-Year Period. “SEN. SANDERS: You're absolutely right. Look, the bottom line is that Wall Street is the most powerful special interest in the United States of America amidst a whole lot of other special interests. They spent, last year alone, $300 million in lobbying in order to get deregulated so we could have the disaster that we had a year and a half ago. They spent $5 billion over a 10-year period.” [Transcript via Federal News Service, MSNBC, “Dylan Ratigan Show,” 6/31/10] Sanders Said That Wall Street “Spent Billions To Get Deregulation [And] Last Year Alone Spent $300 Million To Make Sure That Congress Does Nothing” On Financial Regulations. “SEN. REID: Senator Sanders. SEN. SANDERS: Thank you, Mr. Leader. […] It is Wall Street that spent billions to get deregulation, last year alone spent $300 million to make sure that Congress does nothing, that they are able to continue to do what they have done in recent years, which is to lead this country to economic devastation. And what this vote today was about is whether we can go forward with a cloture vote so that finally we can vote up or down as to whether or not we hold Wall Street accountable. It is incomprehensible to me that every Republican save two has said, let the status quo continue, let Wall Street continue to do what they have been doing. That is unacceptable, and we got to keep going forward to pass this strong legislation.” [Press Conference, Federal News Service, 5/19/10] Sanders Accused Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein Of Lobbying The Federal Reserve To Bailout AIG, From Which Goldman Sachs Indirectly Profited. “SEN. SANDERS: Okay. We don't know what goes on because they operate in virtual secrecy. For example, during the financial crisis you had people like the CEO of Goldman Sachs sitting in a room with the Fed, arguing in favor of $182 billion AIG bailout. MR. SANCHEZ: Yeah, you're talking about Lloyd Blankfein, right? I mean SEN. SANDERS: That's who I'm talking about. MR. SANCHEZ: And he was going to benefit from that. SEN. SANDERS: Only to the tune of $12 billion that went from AIG to Goldman Sachs, 100 cents on the dollar for a company that was about to go bankrupt. How's that? MR. SANCHEZ: So if he's going to be --- by golly, if he's going to be represented in that meeting, we ought to either, a, have a representative ourselves, for the people, in that meeting, or, b, at least SEN. SANDERS: Or open the damn window and let everybody look in. MR. SANCHEZ: The sunshine law as we call it in Florida. SEN. SANDERS: Exactly. MR. SANCHEZ: Let everybody know what's going on.” [Transcript via Federal News Service, CNN, 5/12/10] Sanders Said He “Cannot Imagine…Almost Any Piece Of Legislation” Being Law That Wall Street Opposes. “Here’s what we have to understand, and never forget, not for one day. Wall Street is enormously powerful, I mean you can talk about the oil companies, you can talk about the high tech companies, information technology companies, all of which are incredibly powerful. But at the top of that whole list is Wall Street. I cannot imagine Thom almost any piece of legislation passing the Congress or being supported by the President that Wall Street opposes.” [Brunch With Bernie, 7/19/13, 23:00] Anti-Trust Sanders Co-Sponsored The Baseball Fans And Communities Protection Act, Also Known As The Curt Flood Act. “Amends the Clayton Act to apply the antitrust laws to any unilateral terms and conditions of employment in restraint of trade or commerce imposed by any party to an agreement between two or more major league baseball clubs and the labor organization representing the baseball players. States that the antitrust laws shall not apply to a term or condition imposed solely with respect to a player party to a uniform player contract that is assigned, at the time such imposition occurs, to a nonmajor league professional baseball club.” [HR 4994, co-sponsored 10/5/94] Securities And Exchange Commission Sanders Praised The SEC For Expanding Investigations Into A Number Of Banks. “MR. RATIGAN: Yeah. I think it's clear. And speaking of that, where do we stand on expanding the investigations into, for instance, Merrill Lynch, UBS or Deutsche Bank, or Bear Stearns, for that matter, who were among the most active in structuring the type of bets Goldman Sachs is now taking heat for making? SEN. SANDERS: Well, let's give the SEC credit for finally waking up and being prepared to take on one of the most powerful institutions in the world. But they've got a lot more to do. Remember, under the Bush administration, these guys were comatose. So we're making some progress, but we've got a long way to go.” [Transcript via Federal News Service, MSNBC, “Dylan Ratigan Show,” 4/21/10] WOMEN Equal Pay 2014: Bernie Sanders Voted For The Paycheck Fairness Act. “On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on S. 2199).” [S.2199, Vote #262, 113 th Congress, 9/15/14] 2014: Bernie Sanders Voted For The Paycheck Fairness Act. “On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 2199).” [S. 2199, Vote #103, 113 th Congress, 4/9/14] 2012: Bernie Sanders Voted For The Paycheck Fairness Act. “On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to Consider S. 3220 )” [S.3220, Vote #115, 6/5/12] Sanders Said If The Senate Had 80 Women Instead Of 80 Men, Pay Equity Bill Would Pass Immediately. “Senate Republicans on Monday blocked a bill to promote equal pay for equal work. The vote was 52-40 on a procedural motion that needed 60 votes to pass. Not a single Republican voted for giving women the tools they need to ensure they receive the same pay as men for performing the same work. “If the U.S. Senate had 80 women rather than 80 men as it does now, this bill would pass immediately. It is absurd that women receive 77 cents for every dollar a man makes,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders.” [Sanders press release, 9/15/14] Sanders Supported Equal Pay Legislation. “So the next issue we deal with is the issue of pay equity and that has everything to do with the fact that women in this country earn 75 cents for every dollar that men earn. We want to address that. Women should get the same pay as men, that goes without saying, so we've got legislation to move that along.” [Brunch with Bernie, 4/4/14] 2012: Sanders Blamed Republicans For Obstructing Equal Pay Legislation. “Just this past week, Republicans successfully filibustered a paycheck fairness piece of legislation that would have given more strength to the effort to provide equal pay for equal work for all Americans. Right now, women get 77 cents for a dollar’s work that a man gets. Minority women get even less than that. The idea that people would vote against Americans getting equal pay for equal work regardless of their gender is hard for me to imagine but that is exactly what happened.” [Brunch With Bernie, 6/8/12, 33:45] Sanders Lamented The “Significant Attack On Women” From An Economic And Social Perspective. “So I think what we’re seeing at all levels on economic issues, on social issues, is in fact a significant attack on women. And what makes that so sad is that women have fought for so long in order to gain their place in American society, to gain the access to any job that they want to perform, to get equal pay, to be able to control their own bodies, and all of those efforts are under attack right now.” [Brunch With Bernie, 6/8/12, 35:45] According To Free Beacon, Sanders’ Senate Office Pay Gap Was 47.6%. “Other notable Senators whose “gender pay gap” was larger than 23 percent: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.)—47.6 percent […] Sen. Sanders, who is an avowed socialist who caucuses with the Democrats, has the worst gender gap by far. He employed more men (14) than women (10), and his chief of staff is male. Like many of his fellow partisans, he has previously accused Republicans of “trying to roll back the clock on women’s rights.”” [Washington Free Beacon, 5/24/12] 1983: Sanders Commissioned Study To “Establish Pay Equity And Assure Equal Pay For Equal Work,” Noting That “Pay Inequities Do Exist” In Burlington City Government. “I recognize that pay inequities do exist and that women are clustered in the lower pay grades of the City. It is obvious that women are segregated into overwhelmingly female occupations, which have traditionally been underpaid and undervalued. We are undertaking a comprehensive and objective classification and compensation study of City positions. Implementation of the study will establish pay equity and assure equal pay for equal work. We are committed to affirmative action in both hiring and promoting women.” [Draft, Remarks of Bernard Sanders Mayoral Forum on Women’s Issues, 2/23/83] Sanders Joined House Democrats In Sending A Letter To The CEO Of Wal-Mart Asking For Pay Equity For The Company’s Female Employees. “The Democratic House members, plus independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont, sent a letter to Lee Scott, chief executive officer of Wal-Mart. ‘As you know,’ the letter says, ‘pay inequity is a serious issue in the United States, with women still earning only 76 cents for every dollar that a man earns. That is why it is of great concern to us that Wal-Mart, America's largest employer, does not pay its women the same wage as men for the same work.’” [Arkansas DemocratGazette, Little Rock, 5/13/05] Pregnant Women Sanders Sponsored Bill To Create A Program To Provide Comprehensive Health Coverage For Children And Pregnant And Post-Partum Women. “Amends the Social Security Act (SSA) to establish under a new title XXII (All Healthy Children Program) a state-operated program receiving federal financial assistance to provide comprehensive health coverage for children and pregnant and post-partum women in place of benefits previously provided for them under SSA titles XIX (Medicaid) and XXI (State Children's Health Insurance Program) (SCHIP). Establishes a Commission on Children's Health Coverage to: (1) evaluate annually for Congress the status of children's health coverage in the United States; and (2) report to Congress a legislative proposal that would assure health benefits coverage for all U.S. children.” [S 1564, introduced 6/7/07] Violence Against Women Sanders Sponsored A Resolution That Sports Promotes Respect And Deters Violence, Including Domestic Violence And Sexual Assault. “Calls for a national summit to develop a multifaceted action plan to promote citizenship through sports, emphasizing the aspects of sports culture that promote selfrespect and respect for others, and that deter acts of violence, including domestic violence and sexual assault. Calls upon summit members and other sports, community, religious, and political leaders to assume leadership roles in promoting measures developed by the summit.” [H Con Res 199, introduced 7/24/96] Sanders Sponsored Bill To Prohibit Health Insurers And Carriers From Discriminating Against Victims Of Abuse. “Prohibits insurers and health carriers from engaging in specified acts (such as denying, terminating, or limiting coverage) on the basis that the applicant or insured (or any person with whom the applicant or insured is associated) is, has been, or may be the subject of abuse involving household or family members, current or former spouses, or individuals in or formerly in a sexually intimate relationship. Prohibits insurers from using, disclosing, or transferring information about an applicant's or insured's abuse status or abuse-related medical condition for any purpose unrelated to the direct provision of health care unless required by an order of an insurance regulatory entity, a court order, or abuse reporting laws.” [HR 2654, introduced 11/16/95] Stay At Home Parents Sanders Supported Special Provisions To Extend IRA Options To Spouses Who Stay Home To Nurture Children Under Six-Years Old. “The fifth bill in the Progressive Promise is The American Homemakers and Caregivers Act, which target IRA’s and other savings incentives on middle- and low-income Americans; special provisions to extend generous IRA options to spouses who stay home to nurture children under 6 years of age, thus recognizing the importance of parental childrearing; to allow penalty-free IRA withdrawals for home health care, education expenses, or to start a small business; and targeted deduction for child care expenses.” [Rep. Bernard Sanders, Congressional Record, 1/26/95] Child Support Sanders Proposed Strengthening Child Support Collection. “The fourth bill in the Progressive Promise is Family Foundation Act, which will enable parents to get decent-paying, stable jobs in order to afford child care and health care for their families; to raise the minimum wage and index it for inflation; to strengthen child support collection; to abolish financial penalties for two parent families; to protect the sanctity of the family and safeguard the health and well-being of all our children; and to ensure that all Americans are well fed.” [Rep. Bernard Sanders, Congressional Record, 1/26/95] Rape Culture Sanders Did Not Co-Sponsor The Campus Accountability And Safety Act. “A bipartisan group of 34 Senators has proposed the Campus Accountability & Safety Act to protect students and boost accountability and transparency at colleges and universities. The new legislation incorporates input from survivors, students, colleges and universities, law enforcement and advocates.” [S 590, introduced 2/26/15; S 2692, introduced 7/30/14; Gillibrand Press Release, accessed 9/11/15] As President, Sanders Would “Demand” Colleges And Universities Do “A Lot Better Job” Stopping Sexual Assaults On Their Campuses. “We would demand that colleges and universities do a lot better job than they’re doing right now. I think this has been an issue that until fairly recently has been swept under the rug. And I think that that is unacceptable. Woman have the right, and Men in some cases, have the right to know they can walk their campuses safely, and that if women are harassed or raped or attacked in anyway, there will be a very, very, very heavy penalty to be paid. That is just unacceptable.” [Bernie Sanders at Johns Hopkins, 6/3/15] In 1972, Sanders Wrote An Essay About The “Typical” Rape Fantasies Of Men. “…an essay that Sanders wrote in February 1972 about the “typical” rape fantasies of men and women. In an article entitled “Man -- And Woman,” published in an alternative newspaper called the Vermont Freeman, Sanders spun his theories: “A man goes home and masturbates his typical fantasy,” wrote Sanders. “A woman on her knees. A woman tied up. A woman abused.” Sanders didn't specify as to how he had gained such a deep understanding of the male psyche. In terms of his understanding of female sexual fantasies, Sanders provided similar insight. “A woman enjoys intercourse with her man -- as she fantasizes about being raped by 3 men simultaneously.” [Newsbusters, 5/28/15] Sanders Hoped Sexual Revolution Would Change Things. “Sanders was hoping a sexual revolution would change things: “Women for their preservation, are trying to pull themselves together. And it’s necessary for all of humanity that they do so. Slavishness on one hand breeds pigness on the other hand. Pigness on one hand breeds slavishness on the other. Men and women – both are losers.” [Newsbusters, 5/28/15] Sanders Spokesman Said Essay Was A “Dumb Attempt At Dark Satire” That “Looks As Stupid Today As It Was Then.” “Michael Briggs, Sanders' newly minted campaign spokesman, said the article was a "dumb attempt at dark satire in an alternative publication" that "in no way reflects his views or record on women." "It was intended to attack gender stereotypes of the '70s, but it looks as stupid today as it was then," Briggs told CNN.” [CNN, 5/28/15]  Headline: Bernie Sanders distances himself from 'dumb' 1972 essay on rape [CNN, 5/28/15] Sanders Explained His “Rape Essay” As A Poor Attempt At Fiction Writing. “CHUCK TODD: This week you found out what it's like to become a nationally recognized candidate for potentially, and potentially, a threat to somebody. A leaking of an essay you wrote in the '70s from Alternative Weekly, your campaign described it as satire. I'll be honest with you, Senator Sanders, it's uncomfortable to read. The only excerpt I'm going to put up is, you wrote this in February of '72, was sort of a fantasy of men and women, you said, ‘A woman enjoys intercourse with her man as she fantasizes being raped by three men simultaneously.’ Your campaign described it as satire. Can you explain this essay? SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: Sure. Look, this is a piece of fiction that I wrote in 1972, I think. That was 43 years ago. It was very poorly written. And if you read it, what it was dealing with gender stereotypes, why some men like to oppress women, why other women like to be submissive. You know, something like 50 Shades of Gray, very poorly written 43 years ago.” [“Meet the Press,” NBC News, 5/31/15]   Headline: Bernie Sanders Compares Rape Fantasy Essay to Fifty Shades of Grey [Bloomberg, 5/31/15] Headline: Bernie Sanders Likens Salacious 1972 Essay To 'Fifty Shades Of Grey' [NPR, 5/31/15] In 1963, Sanders Crusaded For Sexual Freedom In A “2,000 Word, ALL CAPS Laced Manifesto”. “In 1963, as a junior, he waged a crusade for sexual freedom, assailing the school's leaders for forcing their puritan views on undergraduates—and ruining their students' sex lives. In doing so, Sanders made national news. This crusade was emblematic of the way Sanders conducted himself in Hyde Park and throughout his political career—firm in his beliefs, fiery in his rhetoric, and unafraid of confrontation. It began with a 2,000-word, ALL-CAPS-laced manifesto in the Maroon, the daily student newspaper, outlining the intellectual case for sexual freedom.” [Mother Jones, 5/29/15] Dave Weigel: Pundits “Hyperventilat[ed]” Over Sanders “Rape Essay.” “Murphy embedded the story, but did not quote it. That job was taken on gleefully by pundits and conservatives who asked whether Sanders’s 43-year-old essay would hobble him out of the gate. [...] That's because the pundit class generally prefers hyperventilation and narrative to any serious analysis of a text. Todd Akin's Senate candidacy in Missouri imploded over a rape quote, therefore rape quotes are dangerous. It hardly matters that Akin argued that ‘the woman's body’ automatically could prevent pregnancy from ‘legitimate rape,’ a pseudoscientific belief with real policy implications. (If violent rape could not cause pregnancies, the rape exception to abortion laws would not be necessary.) [...] The Sanders situation was even sillier. Anyone who read the essay looking for a point, rather than a gaffe, could tell that a 30-year old amateur psychologist was wondering whether violent sexual fantasies were the result of shattered gender norms. Sanders's hypothetical woman with a ‘typical fantasy’ of gang rape would be discovered by psychological researchers. According to a 2010 summary of the data in Psychology Today, around four in 10 women have violent fantasies like this at least once a month, and more imagine being ‘overpowered.’” [Dave Weigel, Bloomberg Politics, 6/3/15] Mother Jones Reporter Tim Murphy Denied Receiving Sanders’ “Rape Essay” From An “Oppo Dump.” “Now that the saga has run its course, it's worth dissecting. On May 26, just an hour after Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders held a kickoff rally for his presidential bid, Mother Jones reporter Tim Murphy appeared to bury a lede. He published a profile on Sanders’s early days as a shambling left-wing activist, working odd jobs and crashing in friends’ homes. Sanders even contributed ‘a stream-ofconsciousness essay on the nature of male-female sexual dynamics,’ wrote Murphy. That was the cue for ‘Man and Woman,’ a 1972 essay by ‘Bernard Sanders’ on the subject of sexual repression in a time of sexual revolution. ‘A man goes home and masturbates his typical fantasy,’ wrote Sanders. ‘A woman on her knees, a woman tied up, a woman abused. A woman enjoys intercourse with her man—as she fantasizes being raped by 3 men simultaneously.’ Murphy embedded the story, but did not quote it. [...] Murphy himself recognized the piece as ‘undoubtedly something people would want to dig into.’ He did not, as speculated, get it in an oppo dump. His story was about the young Sanders.” [Dave Weigel, Bloomberg Politics, 6/3/15] Sanders Asked His Senate Opponent If He Believed A Woman Should Be Forced To Give Birth To A Rapist’s Baby. “SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I), VERMONT: Do you believe that a woman should be forced by the government to give birth to a rapist’s baby against her will? JOHN MACGOVERN (R-VT), FORMER SENATE CANDIDATE: I`ve always in my career and to this day been loyal to the principle of life. I’m pro-life. I’m profoundly pro-life. I’m pro-life to my core.” [2012 US Senate Candidate Debate, Vermont Public Radio, 10/12/12] Sanders Supported Legislation To Give Soldiers An Independent Route Outside Of The Chain Of Command To Report Serious Crimes Like Rape. “The Senate advanced a bill to reform the military justice system but blocked stronger legislation by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand to give professional military trial lawyers the power to refer serious crimes to courts-martial. "An estimated 26,000 service members were sexually assaulted in 2012, a 37 percent increase in just one year, according to a recent Department of Defense study. I voted for Sen. Kirsten Gillibrands bill because it would give servicemen and women an independent route outside the chain of command to report serious crimes, and I am disappointed that it was defeated," Sen. Bernie Sanders said after a key Senate vote.” [Sanders press release, 3/6/14] Sanders Supported Senator McCaskill’s Measure To Reform Military’s Procedure For Soldiers Who Were Victims Of Rape, But Was Concerned It Did Not Go Far Enough. “"I also supported a separate measure by Sen. Claire McCaskill that includes some important reforms, but remain concerned that it does not go far enough. Victims of rape and sexual assault in the military deserve a fair and independent system outside the chain of command to report these types of crimes," Sanders said.” [Sanders press release, 3/6/14] Sanders Help Navy Veteran Rape Victim Resolve Disability Compensation Claim. “Navy veteran and rape victim Ruth Moore struggled for more than two decades to resolve her disability compensation claim with the government. Sheer persistence and help from Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders finally paid off in 2009, when the Veterans Affairs Department granted Moore a permanent disability rating of 70 percent and stated she was unable to work. Moore, who lent her name to legislation the House passed in June aimed at improving the benefits claims process for victims of military sexual trauma, is talking more like an advocate than a victim these days.” [Government Executive, 8/1/13] Sanders Signed Letter In Support Of Bill To Fund Processing Of Backlog Of Rape Evidence. “Reps. Mark Green (R-WI) and Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY) were joined by thirty of their colleagues in sending a letter to Senate Majority Leader Frist and Minority Leader Daschle asking them to schedule H.R. 3214, the "Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act of 2003," for a vote in the Senate as soon as possible. The legislation, which will bring long overdue justice to rape victims and their families […] The "Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act of 2003" contains legislation, "The Debbie Smith Act," introduced by Maloney and Green, that would provide the necessary funding for processing the backlog of DNA evidence, for training Sexual Assault Forensic Examiners (SAFE), for training prosecutors and law enforcement in using and gathering DNA evidence, and for establishing a national standard for the collection of DNA evidence. […] List of Members signing the letter: […] Bernie Sanders (I-VT)…” [Maloney press release, 3/9/04] Sanders Co-sponsored Bill To Help Clear Backlog Of Untested Rape Kits. “Senator Chuck Grassley this week introduced the Justice for Survivors of Sexual Assault Act of 2011, along with Senator Al Franken of Minn., to help clear the backlog of untested rape kits around the country. Senators Dianne Feinstein of Calif., Michael Bennet of Colo., Richard Burr of N.C., Bernie Sanders of Vt., and Bob Casey of Pa, also cosponsored the bill.” [Grassley press release, 2/4/11] Sanders Introduced Bill To Ensure Victims Are Never Billed Or Forced To Pay For Their Rape Kits. “Today, Sens. Al Franken (D-Minn.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Dianne Feinstein (DCalif.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Bob Casey (D-Pa.) introduced the Justice for Survivors of Sexual Assault Act of 2011 to ensure that survivors of sexual assault are never billed or forced to pay for their own rape kits. Under current law, states and localities can bill victims for their rape kits so long as those individuals are subsequently reimbursed. Victims billed under this provision are then forced to navigate the maze of insurance companies and state crime victims' funds to get reimbursed.” [Franken press release, 2/2/11] Opponent Accused Sanders Of Voting Against Allowing Victims Of Rape From Finding Out HIV Status Of Their Attacker. “In one of his more vicious and disgusting negative attacks, Republican Rich Tarrant is accusing Congressman Bernie Sanders of favoring rapists over their victims. The attack ad states that Bernie voted against victims of rape being able to find out the HIV status of their attacker. It is of course completely untrue. Bernie has voted to give rape victims the right to know if their attacker has HIV” [Bernie Sanders for Senate, via archive.org, 10/18/06] Sanders Supported Allowing Victims Of Rape To Have Access To Information About The HIV/AIDS Status Of Their Attacker. “Like every rational American, Congressman Bernie Sanders supports allowing victims of rape to have access to information about the HIV/AIDs status of their attackers. That's why he voted to give rape victims the power to get a court order to force their assailants to have HIV/AIDs tests. [Vote # 416, Aug, 21, 1994. H.R. 3355, passed 235195.]” [Bernie Sanders for Senate, via archive.org, 10/18/06] Sanders Campaign Said He Voted Against Bill Cited By Opponent Because It Intended To “Play Politics With The Very Serious Issue Of Sexual Assault.” “Republican Rich Tarrant tries to support his horrendous allegation by pointing to Congressman Sanders vote against H.R. 3088 in 2000. This supposed purpose of this bill was to give rape victims the right to have their attackers tested for HIV/AIDS. The real purpose of the bill was to play politics with the very serious issue of sexual assault. In fact, H.R. 3088 was so poorly crafted that the United States Senate refused to even consider it. […] But what Congressman Bernie Sanders does not support is politically motivated legislation that fails to protect the rights of innocent people, that fails to protect the privacy of rape victims themselves, that essentially overturns similar laws in 44 states, and that provides no counseling, health care or other assistance to victims of rape.” [Bernie Sanders for Senate, via archive.org, 10/18/06] Sanders Campaign Said HR 3088 Stripped Away Protections Of Innocent People And Privacy Rights Of Rape Victims. “H.R. 3088 strips away protections of innocent people. H.R. 3088 would require the HIV/AIDs testing of anyone accused of sexual assault even if the conduct created NO risk of transmission and without ANY evidence being presented or considered by a court or grand jury. That means, for instance, that even if someone accused of some sort of sexual assault could prove 100% that he or she was hundreds of miles away at the time of the attack, they would be still be required to submit to an HIV/AIDs test. H.R. 3088 strips away the privacy rights of rape victims. Moreover, the bill is so poorly drafted there is no requirement that the test results be kept confidential EVEN IF THE VICTIM DOESN'T WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW THAT HE OR SHE HAS BEEN EXPOSED TO HIV/AIDS. The sad truth is that there is still, for many people, a significant social stigma attached to having HIV/AIDs. Despite that reality, under this bill, a rape victim who has been exposed to HIV/AIDs as a result of a sexual assault has absolutely no right to have the information about this exposure kept confidential.” [Bernie Sanders for Senate, via archive.org, 10/18/06] Sanders Defended Vote Against Bill Allowing Rape Victims To Know HIV Status Of Their Attacker Because Information Would Be Made Public. “Does a woman who was raped, god forbid, have the right to know whether the rapist has HIV? Of course she does. The particular bill that I voted against would among other things say that that information would be made public. You think thats a good idea? I don’t think that that’s a good idea at all. So I have voted to make sure that any woman who is raped would have that information but there was another bill, a very political bill, which was not a good bill.” [Vermont Senate Debate, C-SPAN, 10/23/06, 7:41] Sanders Campaign Said That, Contra Tarrant, Sanders Voted To Give Rape Victims The Right To Know If Their Attacker Had HIV, Citing His 1994 Vote For VAWA. “The attack ad states that Bernie voted against victims of rape being able to find out the HIV status of their attacker. It is of course completely untrue. Bernie has voted to give rape victims the right to know if their attacker has HIV. What a truly despicable and desperate attack against Congressman Bernie Sanders - one of the leading supporters of the federal Violence Against Women Act. (VAWA). This is the same Bernie Sanders who has brought federal money into Vermont for a battered women's shelter and for a new program to help locate kidnapped children. In fact , this is the same Bernie Sanders who VOTED FOR legislation to give victims of rape access to the HIV/AIDs status of their attackers. [Vote # 416, Aug, 21, 1994. H.R. 3355, passed 235-195]” [Bernie.org via Archive.org, accessed 8/24/15] Sanders Campaign Said That Tarrant Pointed To A 2000 Vote On Rape Victims, Which Sanders Said Was Designed To “Play Politics With […] Sexual Assault.” “Republican Rich Tarrant tries to support his horrendous allegation by pointing to Congressman Sanders vote against H.R. 3088 in 2000. This supposed purpose of this bill was to give rape victims the right to have their attackers tested for HIV/AIDS. The real purpose of the bill was to play politics with the very serious issue of sexual assault.” [Bernie.org via Archive.org, accessed 8/24/15] Sanders Campaign Claimed That 2000 Bill Was Poorly Drafted And Would Have Required HIV/AIDS Testing Even If An Alleged Sexual Assault Had No Risk Of Transmission And Would Not Have Required Evidence To Be Presented Or Considered By A Court Or Grand Jury. “In fact, H.R. 3088 was so poorly crafted that the United States Senate refused to even consider it. […] H.R. 3088 strips away protections of innocent people. H.R. 3088 would require the HIV/AIDs testing of anyone accused of sexual assault even if the conduct created NO risk of transmission and without ANY evidence being presented or considered by a court or grand jury. That means, for instance, that even if someone accused of some sort of sexual assault could prove 100% that he or she was hundreds of miles away at the time of the attack, they would be still be required to submit to an HIV/AIDs test.” [Bernie.org via Archive.org, accessed 8/24/15] Sanders Campaign Said Bill Would Have Required Anyone Accused Of Sexual Assault To Submit To An HIV/AIDS Test, Even If They Were Innocent. “H.R. 3088 strips away protections of innocent people. H.R. 3088 would require the HIV/AIDs testing of anyone accused of sexual assault even if the conduct created NO risk of transmission and without ANY evidence being presented or considered by a court or grand jury. That means, for instance, that even if someone accused of some sort of sexual assault could prove 100% that he or she was hundreds of miles away at the time of the attack, they would be still be required to submit to an HIV/AIDs test.” [Bernie.org via Archive.org, accessed 8/24/15] Sanders Campaign Said Bill Had No Requirement That The Test Results Would Be Withheld If Victims Did Not Want People To Know That They Had Been Exposed To HIV/AIDS. “H.R. 3088 strips away the privacy rights of rape victims. Moreover, the bill is so poorly drafted there is no requirement that the test results be kept confidential EVEN IF THE VICTIM DOESN'T WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW THAT HE OR SHE HAS BEEN EXPOSED TO HIV/AIDS. The sad truth is that there is still, for many people, a significant social stigma attached to having HIV/AIDs. Despite that reality, under this bill, a rape victim who has been exposed to HIV/AIDs as a result of a sexual assault has absolutely no right to have the information about this exposure kept confidential.” [Bernie.org via Archive.org, accessed 8/24/15] Sanders Campaign Said Bill Did Not Provide Health Care Funding For Sexual Assault Victims. “H.R. 3088 did nothing to aid victims . H.R. 3088 was presented as a bill to help victims of sexual assault but it provided NOT A SINGLE PENNY to help provide health care service or health care referrals to victims of sexual assault.” [Bernie.org via Archive.org, accessed 8/24/15] Sanders Campaign Said Bill Threatened Federal Drug Control Grants To States And Effectively Overturned Law In 44 States. “H.R. 3088 threatened states federal drug control grants and effectively overturned state laws in 44 states. According to the National Center for Victims of Crimes, 44 states [already had] laws for the mandatory testing of sexual offenders. Of these states, 16 require mandatory testing before conviction, 33 require testing after conviction, and six require testing both before and after testing. [Congressional Record, Statement of Rep. Henry Waxman, Oct. 2, 2000]” [Bernie.org via Archive.org, accessed 8/24/15] Sanders Campaign Said Bill Would Have Overturned Laws Found In The 1994 Crime Bill And That Sanders Voted For The Crime Bill. “H.R. 3088 overturned existing federal law that REP. BERNIE SANDERS HAD VOTED FOR that required states to give victims access to the HIV/AIDs status of their attackers. At the time H.R. 3088 was passed, "[u] nder Federal law, HIV testing of convicted sexual offenders is a mandatory condition of States' receipt of certain prison grants. Under the Crime Control Act of 1994, Congress allowed victims of sexual assault to obtain a court order requiring the defendant to submit to testing. "Under current law, such an order may be obtained provided that probable cause has been determined, the victim seeks testing of the defendant after appropriate counseling, and the court determines both that test would provide information necessary to the victim's health and that the defendant's alleged conduct created a risk of transmission." [Congressional Record, Statement of Rep. Henry Waxman, Oct. 2, 2000]; [Vote # 416, Aug, 21, 1994. H.R. 3355, passed 235-195” [Bernie.org via Archive.org, accessed 8/24/15] Sanders Campaign Cited Section Of 1994 Crime Bill That Sanders Supported Which Authorized Victims Of Sexual Assault To Require That Defendants Were Tested For AIDS. “Summary of language supported by Rep. Sanders in 1994 Crime Bill: (Sec. 40503) […] Authorizes the victim of any such offense to obtain a U.S. district court order, after notice to the defendant and an opportunity to be heard, requiring that the defendant be tested for the presence of the etiologic agent for acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). [emphasis original] Requires the results to be communicated to the victim and the defendant accompained by appropriate counseling. Sets forth provisions regarding: (1) the showing by the victim required to obtain such an order; (2) follow-up testing; (3) termination of testing requirements; and (4) confidentiality, disclosure of test results, and contempt for disclosure. Requires the Sentencing Commission to study and report to specified congressional committees concerning revision of sentencing guidelines applicable to HIV infected individuals who engage in sexual activity with intent to expose another to HIV. [H.R. 3355, as presented to the President for signature]” [Bernie.org via Archive.org, accessed 8/24/15] Sanders Campaign Said He Had A Strong Record Fighting Crimes Against Women. “Bernie Sanders has a strong record of achievement in Congress when it comes to fighting the worst kinds of crimes against women. He has voted to give rape victims the right to request the HIV status of their attacker; voted for community notification of violent sex offenders; voted for the creation of the national sex offender database; and voted for life sentences without parole for repeat sex offenders. Bernie has also done so much to help Vermont women who are the victims of violence. In November 2001, he secured $100,000 for the building renovation and construction of a battered women's shelter in St. Albans . In November 2004, he secured $72,750 in funding for the Vermont Network Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault for the construction and rehabilitation of domestic violence shelters in Vermont.” [Bernie.org via Archive.org, accessed 8/24/15] Bernie Sanders Voted to Allow Victims of Rape or Sexual Assault the Right to Request the HIV Status of Their Attacker. [Vote #416, 8/21/94, H.R.3355, passed 235-195, Sanders: Y] Bernie Sanders Voted for Community Notification of Violent Sex Offenders. [Vote #416, 8/21/94, H.R.3355, passed 235-195, Sanders: Y] Bernie Sanders Voted for the Creation of the Sex Offender Database. [Vote #436, 9/26/96, passed 423-1, H.R.3456, Sanders: Y; Senate version of bill passed by unanimous consent and became Public Law No: 104-236] Bernie Sanders Voted for Life Sentences Without Parole for Repeat Sex Offenders or Rapists. [Vote #146, 5/7/96, H.R.2974, passed 411-4, Sanders: Y] Bernie Sanders Secured $72,750 for Domestic Violence Shelters in Vermont. In November 2004, Sanders secured $72,750 in funding for the Vermont Network Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault for the construction and rehabilitation of domestic violence shelters in Vermont. [H.Rept.108-792 , November 19, 2004] Bernie Sanders Secured $100,000 for a Battered Women's Shelter in St. Albans. In November 2001, Sanders secured $100,000 for the building renovation and construction of a battered women's shelter in St. Albans . The funding was used for a portion of the capital expenses associated with the development of an emergency shelter facility in St. Albans for homeless women and children who are victims of domestic violence. [PL 107-73, November 26, 2001] Bernie Sanders Voted for Violence Against Women Act and is a Leader in Restore It After the Supreme Court Overturned it in 2000. In 1994 Sanders voted for the 1994 Crime Bill that created the Violence Against Women Act and he voted in 2000 to reauthorized the program. The program provided grants to combat violence against women, created a domestic violence hotline, funding battered women's shelters, and educating judges and court personnel. In 1998, Sanders also was an original cosponsor of legislation to further the program and provided additional assistance to children who are victims of violence. In May 2000, the Supreme Court ruled that the act violated portions of the commerce clause that allows Congress to regulate interstate commerce. Sanders cosponsored legislation to restore provisions of the program and is currently a cosponsor of legislation to reauthorize the program. [Vote #416, 8/21/94, conference report on H.R.3355, Sanders: Y; Vote #491, 9/26/00, H.R.1248, passed 415-3, Sanders: Y; H.R.3514, 105 th Congress, introduced 3/19/98; H.R.5021, 106 th Congress, introduced 7/27/00; H.R.3171, 109 th Congress, introduced 6/30/05] Bernie Sanders Secured $130,000 for the State of Vermont 's “A Child is Missing Program.” In 2005, Sanders secured funding for “A Child is Missing,” which is instrumental in the search and early recovery procedures for missing children, elderly and mentally/physically challenged individuals during the first crucial hours of disappearance. The program provides statewide training sessions and materials not only for all Vermont policemen but for any employee of an association that deals with children, Alzheimer's patients, the elderly and the disabled. These funds would also be used to pay for the phone bills accrued by this service and the salaries of the phone technicians who staff the program 24 hours a day, 365 days a year . [H.R.2862, 109 th Congress, Vote #581, 11/9/05, H.R.2862, passed 397-19, Sanders: Y; Became Public Law No: 109-108, 11/22/05] Sanders Co-Sponsored Violence Against Women Act. “The Senate voted 68-31 Thursday to renew the Violence Against Women Act, the federal law to help women and children escape abuse. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) was a cosponsor of the bill authored by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). "The act has been extremely successful in Vermont and across the country," Sanders said. "While we are reducing the incidence of domestic violence, much more has to be done. Too many girls and women are still suffering from domestic violence and sexual abuse and that must end. I applaud Sen. Leahy for leading the effort to reauthorize this extremely important law." Since the law was first enacted in 1994, the annual incidence of domestic violence has dropped by more than 50 percent. At the state level, laws were passed in all 50 states making stalking a crime and criminal rape statutes have been strengthened.” [Sanders press release, 4/26/12] Sanders Decried Right Wing’s “War On Women.” “The right-wing in this country is waging a war against women and, let me be very clear, it is not a war that we are going to allow them to win. But if they want political warfare, we must expand the field of battle, and we must be on the offensive. Let us wage a moral and political war against the billionaires and corporate leaders, on Wall Street and elsewhere, whose policies and greed are destroying the middle class of America.” [Bernie Sanders, Huffington Post, 4/30/12] Sanders Said We Must Protect And Expand Laws That Deal Directly With Women’s Rights, Including Abortion, Birth Control, VAWA, And Pay Equity Laws. “We are not returning to the days of back-room abortions, when countless women died or were maimed. The decision about abortion must remain a decision for the woman, her family and physician to make, not the government. We are not going back to the days when women could not have full access to birth control. […] We are not going back to the days of wide-scale domestic violence, even if 31 Republican men in the Senate recently voted against the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act because it expanded coverage to the gay community and Native Americans. We are not going back to the days when it was legal for women to be paid less for doing the same work as men, even if the governor of Wisconsin recently signed a bill to repeal that state's pay-equity law. Further, not only are we going to protect and expand those laws which deal directly with women's rights, we are going to vigorously defend the important laws and programs which protect all working people in our country -- women and men alike.” [Bernie Sanders, Huffington Post, 4/30/12] Bernie Sanders: United Against The War On Women [Bernie Sanders, Huffington Post, 4/30/12] Sanders Said Republicans Were “Trying To Roll Back The Clock On Women’s Rights.” “In Vermont and around the country, there is growing anger that members of Congress, mostly men I should add, are trying to roll back the clock on women's rights, in this case the right of women to receive contraceptive services through their insurance plans.” [Sanders press release, 3/1/12] 1983: Sanders Placed Mayoral Campaign Ad In Sexually Explicit Feminist Newspaper. In 1983, Bernie Sanders placed a mayoral campaign advertisement in the February edition of Commonwomon, telling voters, “Vote Sanders on March 31st!” The ad was printed next to an article titled, “So when do you masturbate, Louise?” The newspaper contained explicit accounts of sexual encounters, including in bathroom stalls in the workplace and at relatives’ houses, among others. [Commonwomon, February 1983] Anonymous Note: Parents Should Reconsider Their Children’s Involvement In City Hall Activities Because Newspaper Was Being Distributed On Main Floor Of City Hall. An anonymous handwritten note on the February 1983 edition of Commonwomon stated: “This newspaper is being distributed on the main [floor] at City Hall. Even on of our Mayoral candidates ad [is] in it. Maybe you want to reconsider your child’s involvement in City Hall activities.” [Anonymous Handwritten Note, Commonwomon, February 1983] YOUTH Drinking Age 1985: Sanders Opposed Raising The Drinking Age: “You’re Just Penalizing Young People.” “…but would like to keep the drinking age right where it is. “My feeling is that raising the drinking age is not the proper way to deal with the problem of alcoholism on the road. I think you’re just penalizing young people,” he said.” [unknown, 11/7/85] 1998: Sanders Said Drinking Age Was Primarily A State Issue. “Moderator: ‘Some years ago the federal government made the state’s raise the drinking age to 21, or face the prospect of losing federal highway money. This year we lead the nation in teenage drunk driving deaths. With that as an introduction, for you Mr. Sanders: when we ended prohibition we said liquor control is a state issue. Shouldn’t it be a state issue and not subject to this kind of federal blackmail?’ Sanders: ‘I think the federal government has it wrong. But I think it is primarily a state issue. And I think the question that we have to ask, and I know it’s being experienced right here in the city of Burlington, is why are so many kids doing so much drinking? What is going on? Why would kids want to get drunk out of their minds?’ Moderator: ‘So you would repeal this federal--’ Sanders: ‘I, as it happens, when I was mayor of the City of Burlington opposed the raising of the age to 21, because I thought that was discriminatory against young people. But I think drunken driving for example is a terribly serious problem, I think we need vigorous law enforcement on that, primarily at the statewide level. But I would not absolve the federal government from playing a role in that area.’” [Sanders’s Remarks, Vermont At-Large Congressional Debate, 10/17/98] Sanders Said It Was Unfair To Penalize All 18 To 20 Year Olds By Raising The Drinking Age, As Most Were Law-Abiding People. “The overwhelming majority of citizens 18 to 21, like the overwhelming majority of citizens of all age groups, are sensible and law-abiding people. That generation should not be singled out, punished and made the scapegoat for a very serious problem which affects people of all ages. Let us develop a sensible approach which will work in dealing with drunk driving for all ages -'not just 18 to 21.” [Letter, Office of the Mayor, Bernard Sanders, 1/17/86] Sanders Opposed Raising Vermont’s Legal Drinking Age To 21. “Dear Member of the Chittenden County Delegation: AS Mayor of Burlington, I am strongly opposed to the passage of legislation which would raise the drinking age to 21 in the state of Vermont. I am enclosing a statement I recently made on this subject. […] As a City 'which hosts four colleges, and which has many citizens in it under 21, I would like to comment briefly on the bill currently before the Legislature which would raise the drinking age in Vermont from 18 to 21. I am strongly opposed to the passage of this bill, my reasons are as follows.” [Letter, Office of the Mayor, Bernard Sanders, 1/17/86] Right To Party Sanders Said Students Unequivocally Have A Right To Party 365 Days A Year. “What is the issue that we are attempting to tackle here? It's simple. Do students at DVM, and all citizens, have the right to party 365 days a year if they wish? The answer is, unequivocally, "yes." Citizens over 18 years of age have the right to conduct their personal lives in any lawful way they wish and certainly, social activity and partying is an important part of student life.” [Bernie Sanders Letter to The Editor, Vermont Cynic, 9/15/87] Sanders Said It Was Morally Wrong and Illegal To Wake People Up In The Middle Of The Night. “Do students or any citizens at 1 a.m., 2 a.m. or 3 a.m. have the right to wake up babies, elderly people, ill people or just ordinary citizens who have to get up for work in the morning? The answer is unequivocally, “NO!" Not only is it morally wrong to wake people up in the middle of the night, but it happens to be against the laws of the State of Vermont and the City of Burlington. Students (and all citizens) do have the right to party--but they do not have the freedom to disturb the basic rights of others.” [Bernie Sanders Letter to The Editor, Vermont Cynic, 9/15/87] “Disturbing people's sleep in the middle of the night is not a joke; it is very serious. Lack of sleep can lead to ill health, irritability, loss of job, accidents on the job, and is very distressing to families with babies. The City and State have laws to protect citizen’s rights to peace and quiet, and it is our intention to enforce those laws.” [Bernie Sanders Letter to The Editor, Vermont Cynic, 9/15/87] Hitchhiking 1972: Bernie Sanders Proposed That Vermont Legalize And Promote Hitchhiking. “One of the brightest ideas of a very dull primary campaign for governor has come from the least likely candidate, Bernard Sanders, the Liberty Union hopeful. Sanders’ topic is hitchhiking, and he offers the astoundingly sensible suggestion that since hitchhiking is a necessary way of transportation for many people, it ought to be not only legal, but that the state ought to facilitate it.” [Editorial, Bennington Banner, 9/18/72] 1972: Bernie Sanders: “Instead Of Wasting The Time… Arresting Hitchhikers And Bringing Them To Court, We Should Be Working To Make Hitchhiking In The State Easier And Safer.” ““Said Sanders: ‘Hitchhiking is an important means of transportation for people who lack cars. It is the means by which thousands of people are able to travel around the state. Instead of wasting the time and money of the state police and the state court system by arresting hitchhikers and bringing them to court, we should be working to make hitchhiking in the state easier and safer.’” [Bennington Banner, 9/18/72] SANDERS’S REVOLUTION/SOCIALISM SANDERS IS PROUD OF HIS OUTSIDER, RADICAL IMAGE Sanders Was “A Committed Radical.” “For Sanders, one of a tiny handful of socialist mayors in the country, is a committed radical, as dedicated to the remaking of American society as to providing competent administration to a city that had not seen it for years.” [Washington Post, 3/1/83] Sanders “Was Preaching Idealism, Not Compromise.” “But Sanders was preaching idealism, not compromise. He told students not to let the system overshadow their own thoughts and feelings. “Stand up and ask the hard questions,” he said.” [Southern Vermont Bureau, 4/14/87] Sanders: “My Goal Is To Bring Radical Change To This Country.” “I am a radical who believes radical change is needed on the national level, the state level and the local level," Sanders said. "My goal is not to remain mayor, popular or otherwise, for 50 years simply presiding over government functions. My goal is to bring radical change to this country."” [Burlington Free Press, 12/26/85] Sanders’s Radicalism Was “Economic, Not Countercultural.” “For all the facile generalizations about Burlington's backpack socialism, the roots of Bernie Sanders's radicalism are economic, not countercultural. ''I'm probably the only one in my generation who got through the 1960s without taking LSD," he once admitted. Bernie's world was folk music, not acid rock; early ban-the-bomb rallies, not the Weathermen; a year on a kibbutz in Israel, not a stoned summer hitchhiking through Europe.” [New England Monthly, 12/1985] 1982: Then-Mayor Bernie Sanders Co-Hosted A Conference At Burlington City Hall Called “Alternative Solutions To Local Problems” With The Union For Radical Political Economists. Sanders sent an invitation addressed to a “Union Member” that called to attention sessions that “[dealt] with ways in which workers can play a greater role in decision making processes affecting their own jobs as well as exerting a greater influence on the political life of their communities.” [Bernie Sanders, 5/24/82] The Union For Radical Political Economics Described Its Goals As “Emphasis On A Continuing Critique Of The Capitalist System And Of All Forms Of Exploitation And Oppression.” “The Union for Radical Political Economics is an interdisciplinary educational association founded in 1968 by a group of socialist intellectuals and activists. The primary work of the organization, publications and conferences, is oriented toward the development and application of political-economic analysis to social problems […] We encourage the development of radical political-economic theory and its application. Emphasis is on a continuing critique of the capitalist system and of all forms of exploitation and oppression, the construction of progressive social policy, and the creation of socialist alternatives.” [Union For Political Radical Economies Pamphlet, Undated] In A Speech At Harvard’s Kennedy School, Then-Mayor Sanders Said That “There Will Be No Substantial Improvement In The Standard Of Living […] Until The Second Revolution Takes Place – The Economic Revolution.” A press release from the Office of the Mayor said, “Mayor Bernard Sanders, in a speech at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, said tonight there will be no substantial improvement in the standard of living for the majority of Americans, or the quality of life in the nation, until the second American Revolution takes place—the economic revolution.” [Mayor’s Office Press Release, Undated] Sanders Criticizes Capitalism Sanders Critiqued Capitalist Economics. “Sanders took the occasion to critique not only capitalist economics, but television, the Vermont Legislature, peace activists and the education system. The bottom line for socialists, he said, is that “we relate economics to politics. You can’t do otherwise. The real issue is, who owns, who controls, and who is going to perpetuate that power?”” [unknown, 4/10/86] 1984: Sanders Did Not Believe In The Capitalist System. “As a U.S. city mayor, Sanders said he was unique in being neither a Democrat nor a Republican and in not believing in the capitalist system. Sanders said it was “morally indefensible” for this country to permit some persons to live in poverty while others accumulated millions of dollars.” [Rutland Herald, 1/14/84] Sanders: “Capitalism As An Economic System Has Got To Be Radically Altered And Changed.” “This was what Todd was talking about, that we can fundamentally remake the society to make it a just society. And certainly that capitalism as an economic system has got to be radically altered and changed. And that we have to move into a new type of economic relationship in order for that to come about.” [The Gadfly, 12/1/87] 1976: Sanders Said That He Was “Clearly Anti-Capitalistic.” “To wit: Sanders described himself as “clearly anti-capitalistic” in a 1976 interview with the Cynic, UVM's weekly student newspaper. “Contrast what the young people in China and Cuba are doing for themselves and for their country as compared to the young people in America,” he said. “It’s quite obvious why kids are going to turn to drugs to get the hell out of a disgusting system or sit in front of a TV set for 60 hours a week.”” [New Republic, 7/15/15] Sanders Said That He Won The Burlington Mayoral Election Because The People “Decided To Send The Capitalist System A Clear Message.” “The journalists and the curious came and went, and Garry Trudeau projected the Queen City’s odd new image in hundreds of newspapers. In that July 5 Doonesbury, Tom Snyder asks, “Let’s be candid, okay? You’re a Socialist. You’re a Jew. You’re from New York. So how the heck’d you get elected?” And Bernie explains that the people “decided to send the capitalist system a clear message.”” [Vermont Vanguard Press, 12/31/81] Sanders: “I Don’t Ascribe To The Capitalist Ethic That Greed Motivates People.” “I don’t ascribe to the capitalist ethic that greed is what motivates people. I’m a success if I come up with a company that produces garbage and makes a lot of money? Somebody’s got to say that’s not a success.” [Waterbury Republican, 5/10/87] Sanders Defends His Socialist Views Sanders To Voter Fearful Of His Socialist Views: “Have You Seen Anybody In Concentration Camps” In Burlington? “Sanders introduced himself, but Denyse Geake already knew who he was. ‘I’m a little scare of you,’ she told Sanders. ‘I don’t like socialism. It’s a lot like communism.’ ‘Have you been to Burlington?’ retorted Sanders, who has been mayor since 1981. ‘Have you seen anybody in concentration camps?’” [Burlington Free Press, 7/27/86] Sanders: I Am “The Most Progressive Member Of The United States Senate.” “I think it's fair to say that I am perhaps the most progressive member of the United States Senate. And by the way, Bob, I have made a decision to run within the Democratic primary process and I will abide by all of the regulations that come down in each of the states. I made that decision. That's what we're going to do.” [Face the Nation, 5/10/15] Sanders Was The Third Most Liberal Senator In The 113 th Congress. “On the issues, Sanders was the third-most liberal senator in the last Congress, behind only Warren and Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI).” [Sabato’s Crystal Ball, 5/14/15] Sanders Disputed Idea That 100 Perfect Voting Record With Democrats Was The Correct Measure Of Liberalism In The Senate. “Sanders appears chagrined that in the National Journal’s annual ideological rankings of the Senate, he clocked in as the 32nd most liberal member of the body — ostensibly to the right of Vermont’s other Senate delegate, Democrat Patrick Leahy, who came in at 24. “Why is that? Because the assumption is what the Democrats want is liberal, so someone with a 100 percent voting record with the Democrats is the most liberal,” Sanders says. “I vote against a lot of those proposals because I don’t think they’ve gone far enough.”” [Seven Days Vermont, 3/13/13] Sanders Considered The Senate’s “Most Left-Wing Member.” “Mr. Sanders is considered the Senate’s most left-wing member, and he has been inspiring fervor among the Democratic base at recent rallies and town-hall-style meetings, including on Wednesday in the first presidential primary state, New Hampshire.” [New York Times, 5/31/15] Sanders: “Democracy Means Public Ownership Of The Major Means Of Production […] Rather Than Having Bosses And Workers It Means Having Democratic Control Over The Factories And Shops.” “I think what Todd was referring to, is democracy. Democracy is pretty revolutionary. What democracy means to the greatest extent possible is that people have the right to control their own lives. […] Democracy means public ownership of the major means of production, it means decentralization, in [sic] means involving people in their work. Rather than having bosses and workers it means having democratic control over the factories and shops to as great a degree as you can. It means people actually participating in the political life of their country rather than sitting back and listening to thirty second TV adds [sic] as a basic for electing their government.” [The Gadfly, 12/1/87] Sanders Said People Needed To Examine The “Institutions Which CONTROL Their Lives” Periodically. “There comes a time when the people of a nation must become honest with themselves, when they must examine the basic values and premises under which they exist and the institutions which CONTROL their lives. While our rulers will strenuously object, if democracy is to survive in our nation the time for such a basic reevaluation is NOW. We are in trouble, deep trouble and only honesty and courage can save us.” [Reflections of a Retiring Mayor, Bernard Sanders, likely 1989] Sanders Said “Our Rulers” Would “Strenuously Object” To Such Examination. “There comes a time when the people of a nation must become honest with themselves, when they must examine the basic values and premises under which they exist and the institutions which CONTROL their lives. While our rulers will strenuously object, if democracy is to survive in our nation the time for such a basic reevaluation is NOW. We are in trouble, deep trouble and only honesty and courage can save us.” [Reflections of a Retiring Mayor, Bernard Sanders, likely 1989] 1989: Sanders Said People Needed To Reevaulate Their Values And Premises And The Institutions That Controlled Their Lives “NOW.” “There comes a time when the people of a nation must become honest with themselves, when they must examine the basic values and premises under which they exist and the institutions which CONTROL their lives. While our rulers will strenuously object, if democracy is to survive in our nation the time for such a basic reevaluation is NOW. We are in trouble, deep trouble and only honesty and courage can save us.” [Reflections of a Retiring Mayor, Bernard Sanders, likely 1989] Sanders Said His Major Concern Was Increasing Control The “The Corporate Ruling Class” Had Over The Country. “My major concern is the rapidly increasing control which the Corporate Ruling Class has over this nation; the lack of knowledge on the part of the American people as to why and how decisions [sic] are made which affect their lives, and the increased feeling of powerlessness on the part of the ordinary American.” [Reflections of a Retiring Mayor, Bernard Sanders, likely 1989] Sanders: 200 Years After Overthrowing The British, “We Have A New Set Of Masters – The Multinational Bankers And Corporation Heads.” “In 1776, the people of this nation overthrew their British masters and gained the political freedom to establish a new and independent nation. Today, 200 years later, we find ourselves with a new set of masters – the multinational bankers and corporation heads who determine the flow of hundreds of billions of dollars worth of capital, the kind and quality of jobs that our people will have – if any, and the nature of our foreign policy and survival.” [Mayor’s Office Press Release, Undated] SANDERS HOLDS SCANDANAVIAN COUNTRIES IN HIGH ESTEEM VIDEO Sanders: We Can Learn A Lot From Social Democratic Countries Like Denmark and Norway. “When we talk about Democratic socialism, I think it's important to realize that there are countries around the world like Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, who've had social democratic governments on and off for many, many years. And we can learn a whole lot from some of those countries. For example, the United States is the only major country on earth that doesn't guarantee health care to all people as a right. And if you look at the health care systems in those countries, you know what? Not only do they cover all their people, much more cost effective than we are. We end up spending almost twice as much as they do, in terms of education, Bob, all of those countries; in Germany, Austria, many other countries.” [Face the Nation, 5/10/15] Sanders Supported The Socialist Sandinista Government In Nicaragua As It Fought A Proxy War Against The United States. “He used to be a “Sandernista.” As mayor, Sanders attracted national attention and controversy for supporting the socialist Sandinista government in Nicaragua, which was fighting a proxy war with the United States under Ronald Reagan. In 1985, he became the highestranking American official to visit Nicaragua at the time, and met with President Daniel Ortega. In his book, he called the trip “profoundly emotional” and praised Ortega. Burlington and Managua, Nicaragua’s capital, became sister cities.” [MSNBC, 5/28/15] Sanders Was The Only Elected US Officials To Attend Anniversary Of Sandinista Revolution In Managua. “When he first got elected Mayor of Burlington he was the only elected U.S. official to attend the anniversary of the Sandinista Revolution in Managua. The Gannett owned Burlington Free Press said he had to be removed from office “by any means necessary.” Now that same Burlington Free Press endorses his Congressional candidacy.” [Will Miller, Liberty Union, 1999] Sanders: “It’s Time For Us To Learn” From Countries Like Germany And Scandinavia. “So it`s time for us to learn from what countries around the world that doing Germany, Scandinavia, countries all over the world. And they are saying that they want a capitalized on the intelligence and energy of their young people that all young peoples deserve the ability to get higher education, regardless of the income of their family. And if furthermore, young people should not be strangled by this oppressive debt around there next which go on year, after year, after year so...” [MSNBC, 5/19/15] Participated In Socialist Party Events Socialist Workers Party Advocated For Nationalization Of American Industries And A Withdrawal Of U.S. Troops Abroad. “The SWP was founded in 1938 when the Communist Party of the United States of American expelled the followers of Leon Trotsky from party ranks. […] The SWP advocated nationalization of American industries and a withdrawal of U.S. troops abroad.” [John McClaughry, Burlington Free Press, 4/28/86] In 1980, Sanders Backed The Socialist Workers Party Candidate For President. According to Vanguard Press, “By now most residents know at least that he is a Brooklyn-born radical who helped build the anti-war, anti-capitalist Liberty Union Party of Vermont about 10 years ago. In 1977, he left Liberty Union in disgust, yet in 1980 he backed the Socialist Workers Party presidential candidate.” [Vanguard Press, 3/13/81] 1980 SWP Platform Included Eliminating The Defense Budget And Nationalizing The Auto, Steel, And Oil Industries. “The 1980 platform – the one on which presidential elector Sanders stood – called for elimination of the defense budget, nationalization of the auto, steel and oil industries, and closing all nuclear power plants immediately.” [John McClaughry, Burlington Free Press, 4/28/86] Socialist Workers Party Thanked Sanders For His Message For The Rally To Kick Off Their Presidential Campaign. “Dear Mayor Sanders: On behalf of Mel Mason and Andrea Gonzalez, I want to thank you for your message to the rally to kick off the Socialist Workers Presidential Campaign. Mel and Andrea, in speaking to the over 800 present at the rally in St. Louis, pledged to spend the next year bringing socialist ideas on how to meet the capitalist crisis to thousands of working people across the United States. We look forward to campaigning in Vermont later this year. In solidarity, Andrea Morell Campaign Manager.” [Letter from Morell to Sanders, 1/20/84] Sanders Planned To Speak At The 1983 National Convention Of The Socialist Party. “Dear Bernard, We are delighted that you will be able to speak at our national convention Saturday night, September 3, 1983. I have informed Rick Kissell, National Secretary of the Socialist Party, and he will be contacting you in regard to reimbursement for expenses.” [Letter from Greenberg-Edelstein to Sanders, 8/2/83] Sanders Was The Featured Speaker At The 1982 Massachusetts Socialist Workers Campaign KickOff Rally. [Campaign Flyer] Sanders Received Maurer-Stump Award for Outstanding Contributions to American Socialism. “Recipient of the Maurer-Stump Award for outstanding contributions to American democratic socialism, presented by the Reading-Berks County Democratic Socialists in Pennsylvania.” [Recent Political Highlights--National and International, 10/1987] The National Secretary Of The Socialist Party Wrote Then-Mayor Sanders A Note Thanking Him For Presenting To Their Convention. [Rick Kissell, 10/22/83] Liberty Union SANDERS HELPED FOUND THE LIBERTY UNION PARTY Bennington Banner: Bernie Sanders Helped Found The Liberty Union Party. “Two members of the Liberty Union party today renewed their biennial assault on the establishment by announcing their candidacies for statewide office. They coupled the announcement with a disavowal of terrorist bombings and a charge that many such incidents may be instigated by government agencies to undermine legitimate efforts to bring about change. Bernard Sanders of Burlington, who helped found Liberty Union six years ago, said he will seek the gubernatorial nomination.” [Bennington Banner, 6/16/76] 1973: Bernie Sanders Was Selected To Serve As The Chairperson Of The Liberty Union Party. “The Liberty Union party today announced the selection of Bernard Sanders as the party’s ne ‘chairperson.’ He succeeds Martha Abbott who resigned to work as a Vista with Low Income Advocacy Council.” [Bennington Banner, 12/12/73] Sanders Said Liberty Union’s “Revolutionary” Ideas Were Taken Seriously. Vanguard Press reported, “Sanders insists that the party’s revolutionary ideas were not laughed at: ‘We talked to working people and we got through to working people’. And he believes that he was effective. ‘If you say that we have to take over the banks and have a substantial number of people vote for that position, that idea suddenly becomes acceptable reality,’ he argues.” [Vanguard Press, 6/27/78] While In The Liberty Union Party, Sanders Considered Himself A Radical, A Third-Party Independent, But He Did Not Call Himself A Socialist. Liberty Union was a ragtag new party – small, anti-war, left-wing – that existed only in Vermont. Some people called it a socialist party, but it had no official affiliation. Sanders and other members had generally egalitarian sensibilities, advocating for the young, the old, the poor and the rights of women and workers. Sanders was more Old Left than New Left, ‘a 1930s radical, not a 1960s radical,’ as Garrison Nelson, a University of Vermont political science professor, would later put it. He was not a hippie. He did not live in a commune. He considered himself a radical, a third-party independent, but he didn’t call himself a socialist. The Liberty Union, he thought, was ‘a reason to knock on doors,’ ‘a good way to organize and educate people.’” [Politico, Politico Magazine, 7/9/15] Sanders And Liberty Union Member Peter Diamondstone Were Close Friends During Liberty Union Days, Sometimes Arguing All Night. “Peter Diamondstone of Brattleboro, a senior member of Vermont's Liberty Union Party, recalled late-night political discussions with Sanders many decades ago, when Sanders was living on Maple Street and affiliated with that party. "We were sort of like arguing brothers," Diamondstone said. "I'd sleep downstairs, and he'd sleep upstairs, and we'd fight all night. And one of us would say, 'Oh, we got to stop and go to sleep.' After five minutes of silence, we'd start fighting again." Diamondstone said he appreciates the language that Sanders' candidacy will insert into the political debate.” [Burlington Free Press, 5/5/15] Diamondstone And Sanders Had A Falling Out In 1984 When Sanders Backed Walter Mondale. “Although Diamondstone said he's "delighted by" Sanders' candidacy, he added that he was "through with" Sanders in 1984. "That was the year he backed Fritz Mondale," Sanders said. "Usually he would say, 'Vote for the Democrat and hold your nose.' But in '84 he actually went out and stumped the state for Mondale. That was the end for me."” [Burlington Free Press, 5/5/15] Peter Diamondstone Said Children Should Be Able to Leave Their Parents. According to Vanguard Press, “His political ideas are not philosophical, but pragmatic, says Diamondstone. He proposes, for instance, a $3,000 minimum guaranteed income for all Americans [...] Even children would get money. ‘I want children to have the option to leave their parents.’ He also believes that children should have the right to vote.” [Vanguard Press, 6/27/78] Peter Diamondstone Said He Would Work To Impose A $50,000 Limit On Personal Income, Corporations Should Be Subject To Similar Limits. According to Vanguard Press, “Diamondstone would also work to impose a $50,000 a year limit on personal income. In the capitalist system, he says, ‘we keep rewarding the winner, making the loser less and less able to compete.’ He feels that corporations should be similarly restricted in profit making. ‘If a corporation has all the privileges of a person,’ he says, ‘it should have the obligations and responsibilities.’” [Vanguard Press, 6/27/78] SANDERS REPEATEDLY RAN FOR OFFICE UNDER THE LIBERTY UNION BANNER 1971: Bernie Sanders Ran On The Liberty Union Ticket In A Special Election For U.S. Senate. “Democratic congressional candidate Dennis Morrisseau has won a spot on the Jan. 7 special election on the Liberty Union ticket, which also nominated a Burlington man as a senatorial candidate. Bernard Sanders, a carpenter and free-lance writer, is a newcomer to the political scene. To be 30 next month, he edged out Peter Diamondston of Brattleboro for the union’s senatorial nomination at a convention Saturday.” [UPI, 10/25/71] 1976: Bernie Sanders: “Liberty Union Is Far And Away The Most Libertarian Political Party. [As Governor,] I Would Support Elimination Of All Sorts Of Legislation Which Impinge Upon Personal Rights.” “Liberty Union is far and away the most libertarian political party. As governor.” Sanders pledged, “I would support elimination of all sorts of legislation which impinge upon personal rights.” [Bennington Banner, 10/27/76] SANDERS LEFT THE PARTY IN 1977 BECAUSE HE DID NOT THINK IT COULD BRING THE CHANGE HE WANTED 1977: Bernie Sanders Quit The Liberty Union Party Because He Did Not Believe It Could Carry Socialist Reform In Vermont. “It was easy, at times, to laugh at Bernie Sanders, with his Brooklyn accent, his disheveled hair and his outrageous rhetoric. But to do so was to underestimate the intensity of his beliefs. At any rate, the laughs didn’t come so easily this week when he announced he was divorcing the Liberty Union party, which he helped give birth to and keep alive for seven arduous years. I was an obviously painful experience for Sanders—who had poured much of his considerable energy into the radical third party—to admit it had failed. He didn’t admit it in so many words, of course. But it was clear that he no longer believed the Liberty Union was a vehicle that could carry socialist reform to Vermont.” [Bennington Banner, 10/17/77] SANDERS AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY NOW SANDERS IS RUNNING AS A DEMOCRAT 2016: To Raucous Cheers, Bernie Sanders Proclaimed, “I Am Running For The Democratic Nomination!” “At a town hall Friday in Nevada, a supporter said some of her friends were still concerned Sanders would be running as a third-party candidate in the mold of Ralph Nader — whom his campaign has explicitly cited as a model they wanted to avoid. ‘I am running for the Democratic nomination!’ Sanders said loudly into the mic, drawing raucous cheers from the crowd.” [Politico, 6/20/15] Sanders: “I Have Been In The Democratic Caucus In The House And The Senate From The First Day That I Was—Took Office.” “Okay. First, I'm not a registered Independent. In Vermont, we don't register. You go in and you vote on primary day for either the Democrat or Republicans and I go into the Democratic primary and vote for candidates within that primary. It is true. I always win in Vermont as an Independent, but I have been in the Democratic caucus in the House and the Senate from the first day that I was -- took office and will abide by all of the rules and regulation of secretaries of state around this country in the Democratic party and intend to be in on the ballot in 50 states and intend to do everything I can to win this election.” [Diane Rehm Show, 6/10/15] BUT BEFORE HE WAS OPENLY CRITICAL OF THE PARTY Politico Magazine: Sanders Sought To Be The Democratic Nominee For President Despite Disavowing The Democratic Party His Entire Career. “The most surprising thing about the independent Vermont senator’s surprisingly successful campaign so far is not that he’s doing it as a self-described democratic socialist. It’s that he’s seeking the nomination of a party he caucuses with in the Senate but is not a part of, isn’t a registered member of and has never been a registered member of—a party he’s spent his 40-year career beating at the polls and battering in the press.” [Politico, Politico Magazine, 8/10/15] Sanders Called The Democratic Party “Ideologically Bankrupt.” ““My own feeling is that the Democratic Party is ideologically bankrupt.” […] Bernie Sanders, everybody—the same Bernie Sanders who is running to become the Democratic Party’s candidate for president of the United States. The most surprising thing about the independent Vermont senator’s surprisingly successful campaign so far is not that he’s doing it as a self-described democratic socialist. It’s that he’s seeking the nomination of a party he caucuses with in the Senate but is not a part of, isn’t a registered member of and has never been a registered member of—a party he’s spent his 40-year career beating at the polls and battering in the press.” [Politico, Politico Magazine, 8/10/15] 1970s: Sanders Called Both Parties “Cowardly” And Said That “There Essentially Is No Difference” Between Them. “For Sanders in the ’70s, Liberty Union wasn’t a chance to win—it was an opportunity to talk. And he talked a lot. He said to a reporter for United Press International that both major parties were “cowardly.” In an interview with the Valley Voice of Middlebury, Vermont, he said “there essentially is no difference” between them.” [Politico, Politico Magazine, 8/10/15] October 1973: Bernie Sanders Wrote A Letter Expressing Dissatisfaction With The Political System And Calling For Working People To “Fight Back” For “Fundamental Changes” To Society. “There are an increasing number of people, including those of us in Liberty Union, who believe that the present state of affairs is unjust and intollerable [sic] and that if working people and students, low income people and senior citizens get together and fight back – we can bring about some fundamental changes in this nation and state which are very long overdue.” [Bernard Sanders Letter To The Editor, Vermont Spectrum, 10/16/73] Liberty Union: Winning Elections Was Not The Primary Goal; Victories Would Be “An Invasion” Of The Political System, Not An “Affirmation” Of It. “Securing election and winning election are not our primary goals. Should any Liberty Union candidate be elected we would consider it not an affirmation of the existing political system but an invasion of it and the beginning of its total transformation.” [D. Morriseau, Liberty Union Alternative Statement, 4/22/71] 1972: Bernie Sanders Said The Republican And Democratic Parties Are “Identical,” “Cowardly,” And Create Phony Issues On Which To Campaign.” “The 30-year-old free-lance writer, who’s a carpenter as well, said Stafford and Major refuse to discuss ‘the real issues’ because ‘they are afraid to lose votes.’ Sanders said the two major parties are ‘identical,’ ‘cowardly,’ and create phony issues on which to campaign.’” [Bennington Banner, 1/5/72] 1972: Bernie Sanders: “Election Time For Democrats And Republicans Is Nothing Different Than A Corporation When It Attempts To Push Its Products.” [Bennington Banner, 1/5/72] 1972: Bernie Sanders Suggested Voting For Democrats Was A “Waste.” “Sanders denies a vote for the third party is a wasted vote. He says the ‘wasted vote is the one cast for a candidate other than who you feel is best—a candidate other than the one whose position you agree.’ In his eyes, a vote for Humphrey over Nixon was a wasted vote, as was a vote for Johnson over Goldwater.” [Bennington Banner, 1/5/72] 1972: Sanders Felt That Democracy In America Would “Not Make It,” Decaying Into A State Of “Chaos” And A Yearning For A “Strong Man” Reminiscent Of 1920s Germany. “I came away from these [George] Wallace interviews with two basic feelings. First, the democracy in America (in any sense of the word) just might not make it. My mind flashed to scenes of Germany in the late 1920’s. Confusion, rebellion, frustration, economic instability, a wounded national pride, ineffectual political leadership—and the desire for a strong man who would do something, who would bring order out of the chaos.” [Movement, Vol.1, No.2, June 1-15, 1972] Sanders On Blacks And Political Dissidents Becoming “The Jews And Communists Of The Nazi Experience”: “I See No Reason Why It Couldn’t [Happen].” “Could it happen here? With the inability of the national leadership to solve real problems facing this country, could the blacks, long-hairs, ‘welfare chiselers,’ and political dissidents become the Jews and Communists of the Nazi experience? Could it happen here? I see no reason why it couldn’t.” [Movement, Vol.1, No.2, June 1-15, 1972] 1974: Bernie Sanders: “The Democratic And Republican Parties Are Essentially One Party—Both Actively Working To Protect The Interests Of The Tiny Handful Of People Who Own And Dominate This State And Nation.” “The convention, which is open to the public, begins a 10 a.m. The party’s chairperson, Bernard Sanders, stated in a press release, ‘it is becoming increasingly clear to the people of this state and nation that the Democratic and Republican parties are essentially one party—both actively working to protect the interests of the tiny handful of people who own and dominate this state and nation.” [Bennington Banner, 6/5/74] 1976: Bernie Sanders: Democrats And Republicans “Represent Exactly The Same Ideology Which Is To Support The Interests Of The 2 Or 3 Percent Of The People Who Own Most Of The Country.” “CYNIC: What do you think about a two party system which doesn’t offer the voters a sizable difference in candidates? SANDERS: In my particular race, there is no two-party system. It’s a one-party system. The Democrats and Republicans represent exactly the same interests. […] So [my opponents] represent exactly the same ideology which is to support the interests of the 2 or 3 percent of the people who own most of the country. On every single issue they stand exactly the same.” [Vermont Cynic, 9/30/76] 1976: Bernie Sanders: “On Every Single Issue [Democrats And Republicans] Stand Exactly The Same.” “CYNIC: What do you think about a two party system which doesn’t offer the voters a sizable difference in candidates? SANDERS: In my particular race, there is no two-party system. It’s a one-party system. The Democrats and Republicans represent exactly the same interests. […] So [my opponents] represent exactly the same ideology which is to support the interests of the 2 or 3 percent of the people who own most of the country. On every single issue they stand exactly the same.” [Vermont Cynic, 9/30/76] 1976: Bernie Sanders Told Members Of A Labor Forum, By Voting For Candidates Like His Democratic And Republican Opponents They Were, “Saying To The People Of Vermont That You’re S--!’” “Sanders, who noted that what he was about to say would cost him the three votes he head among labor forum members, told the audience ‘you’ve sold out. We have the power to turn the sate around. When you endorse candidates like Hackel or Snelling,’ he said, ‘you are saying to the people of Vermont that you’re s--!’” [Bennington Banner, 10/18/76] 1976: Bernie Sanders Called His Two Democratic And Republican Opponents, “Frauds.” “Liberty Union gubernatorial candidate Bernard Sanders, on the scent of a respectable showing at the polls, has hurled three challenges at his Democratic and Republican opponents. He said they would prove whether Democrat Stella Hackel or Republican Richard Snelling really care about low and middle income Vermonters. ‘All their talk about taxes is totally irrelevant to working people…’ Sanders said. ‘They are frauds and representatives of the corporate interests.’” [UPI, 10/13/76] 1976: Bernie Sanders Said The Only Difference Between His Republican And Democratic Opponents Was Their Sex, And That “Beyond That, On Every Basic Issue Facing The Working People Of This State, The Differences Stop.” “Bernard Sanders, a Liberty Union candidate for governor, says the only difference between his two opponents is their sex. ‘The only difference between Richard Snelling, a Republican, and Stella Hackel, a Democrat, is that one of them is a man and one a woman,’ Sanders said Tuesday. ‘Beyond that, on every basic issue facing the working people of this state, the differences stop,’ he said. According to Sanders, Snelling and Mrs. Hackel, are part of ‘an elite handful of people’ already ruling the state as directors of financial corporations.” [UPI, 9/23/76] Sanders In 1982: “I Don’t Want To Become A Moronic Liberal.” “Being mayor has meant walking a tightrope, and Sanders is still refining his balancing act. ‘On the one hand, I don't want to become a moronic liberal,’ he explained in a recent interview. ‘On the other hand, I don't want to cry revolutionary socialism and scare people away.’ Choosing the latter, he believes, would drastically reduce his chances for reelection.” [Vanguard Press, 1/8/82] 1985: Sanders Argued That The “Disgust” Ordinary People Had With Democrats And Republicans Was “Far Greater” Than Experts Perceived. “Observing little difference between the major parties – ‘the Democrats in Burlington seem to be concentrated in insurance, while the Republicans are in banks’ – Sanders argued that ‘the disgust ordinary people have for both parties is far greater than most so-called ‘experts’ perceive.’ He urged the left to abandon its electoral timidity, work within third parties and ‘knock on doors’ to articulate the issues and ideas.” [Vanguard Press, 12/8/85-12/15/85] 1986: Sanders Said “The Democratic Party Is Bad And Unresponsive And The Republican Party Is Worse.” “‘The Democratic Party is bad and unresponsive and the Republican Party is worse,’ Sanders told some 40 people attending the annual business meeting of Southeastern Vermont Community Action’s board of directors.” [Vermont Press Bureau, 5/24/86] 1986: Sanders Said Democrats Were “Ideological Bankrupt” And That Democrats “Have No Ideology. Their Ideology Is Opportunism.” “In ’86, he decided to run for governor, against Kunin, which bothered her [...] In that summer’s issue of Vermont Affairs magazine, he called the Democratic Party “ideologically bankrupt,” then added: “They have no ideology. Their ideology is opportunism.”” [Politico, Politico Magazine, 8/10/15] Sanders Said That Democrats And Republicans In Burlington Tried To Destroy Its Progressive Government. “What this election is about is very simple. It is about the fact that the Democratic and Republican parties, including the most reactionary members of both parties, have come together to put an end to progressive government in Burlington. All over the country, we see Republicans telling us how bad Democrats are, and we see Democrats telling us how bad Republicans are….but not in Burlington, Vermont. In our city, with some notable exceptions, the leadership of both parties have come together to try to destroy progressive government in Burlington and all that we've accomplished. But they're not going to succeed.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, dated 3/1/89] 1989: Sanders Attacked “The Corporate-Controlled Democratic And Republican Parties.” “And in a 1989 op-ed in the Burlington Free Press, Sanders lambasted “the corporate-controlled Democratic and Republican parties,” and praised the National Organization of Women “for supporting the need for a progressive third party in this country.”” [Buzzfeed, 7/16/15] 1989: Sanders Praised The National Organization Of Women “For Supporting The Need For A Progressive Third Party In This Country.” “And in a 1989 op-ed in the Burlington Free Press, Sanders lambasted “the corporate-controlled Democratic and Republican parties,” and praised the National Organization of Women “for supporting the need for a progressive third party in this country.”” [Buzzfeed, 7/16/15] 1989: Sanders Said The Democratic And Republican Parties “Are Intellectually And Morally Bankrupt.” “And in a 1989 op-ed in the Burlington Free Press, Sanders lambasted “the corporatecontrolled Democratic and Republican parties,” and praised the National Organization of Women “for supporting the need for a progressive third party in this country.” “Like millions of other Americans, NOW understands that the Democratic and Republican parties are intellectually and morally bankrupt,” Sanders wrote.” [Buzzfeed, 7/16/15] 1989: Sanders Said The Democratic And Republican Parties “Have No Substantive Ideological Differences And Are, In Reality, One Party – The Party Of The Ruling Class.” “And in a 1989 op-ed in the Burlington Free Press, Sanders lambasted “the corporate-controlled Democratic and Republican parties,” and praised the National Organization of Women “for supporting the need for a progressive third party in this country.” “Like millions of other Americans, NOW understands that the Democratic and Republican parties are intellectually and morally bankrupt,” Sanders wrote. “We do not have an effective national political movement which is prepared to fight for power,” argued Sanders, “and which challenges the basic assumptions and priorities of the corporate-controlled Democratic and Republican parties – two political parties which have no substantive ideological differences and are, in reality, one party – the party of the ruling class.”” [Buzzfeed, 7/16/15] 1989: Sanders Called The Democratic And Republican Parties “Tweedle-Dee” And “TweedleDum”; Said They Both Supported An “Ideology Of Greed And Vulgarity.” “Biding time between the ’88 election and the ’90 election, his sights set on another shot at Smith, he lectured at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, taught classes on social democracy and urban sociology at Hamilton College in Clinton, New York—and continued his public bombardment of the Democratic Party. In an op-ed in the New York Times in January 1989, he called the Democratic and Republican parties “tweedle-dee” and “tweedle-dum,” both adhering in his estimation to an “ideology of greed and vulgarity.”” [Politico, Politico Magazine, 8/10/15] Sanders Thought The Failure Of Ronald Reagan Would Lead To The Rise Of A Third Party And The Rejection Of The Democratic And Republican Parties. “When people see that Ronald Reagan’s policies do not work, they will be looking for new options, he said. “And I think Ronald Reagan is going to fail, and he’s going to fail big,” Sanders predicted. […] “Out of that will come a third party,” he suggested. Sanders said he would participate in the campaign to bring a new party to power. “The only hope for the party is the rejection of the Democratic and Republican parties,” Sanders said.” [Burlington Free Press, 11/13/81] Bernie Sanders Accused The Democratic Party Of Helping Carry-Out Reagan’s Policies Which, “Essentially Favors The Rich At The Expense Of Working People And The Poor People.” “Who is addressing the issues that face the vast majority of our people? I think Congress, in a sense, no longer represents the ordinary people. And Congress is made up of the Democrats and Republicans. You know people were very often yelling at the Republicans and Reagan, look at the horrible priorities he established, all the terrible things that he did to the poor people. But they forgot that both Houses of Congress for four out of eight years were controlled by the Democrats. So I think you have a bipartisan policy of which essentially favors the rich at the expense of working people and the poor people." [CSPAN, 2/3/89] Bernie Sanders Held Congressional Democrats Responsible For Failing To Stymie Reagan And Bush’s Agenda. “‘What I get upset about, is people say, well, Ronald Reagan is the most reactionary president in the history of this country. Well, that may be true. But what they forget to point out is that for Reagan’s eight years, the House of Representatives was controlled by the Democratic Party. And at any time if the Democratic Party said, sorry, Mr. Reagan, we ain’t going along with it, they could have stopped certainly at least the most harmful and dangerous aspects of those programs,’ he said. ‘Today, brothers and sisters the Democratic party controls the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives. Tomorrow they could come out with an alternative program to Bush – of course they don’t.’” [Rutland Herald, 4/16/90] 1981: Sanders Said The Time Was Ripe For A New Radical Third Party To Gain Influence In Vermont. “Burlington Mayor Bernard Sanders suggested Thursday that the time is ripe for a new radical third party to begin exerting influence in Vermont. “To me there is no question that people are up against the wall now and are hurting,” said the socialist mayor. “People are angry and they’re upset and they’re looking for alternatives.”” [Burlington Free Press, 11/13/81] Sanders: “I Am Not Now, Nor Have I Ever Been A Liberal Democrat.” “"All of Bernie's ideas are liberal Democratic ideas,” he sniffs, "or else they're borrowed from other cities." For Sanders, who devoutly believes that neckties bind and establishment politics corrupt, those are fighting words. Sitting in his drab mayoral office, with two separate memorials to Eugene V. Debs on the walls, Sanders snarls, "I am not now, nor have I ever been a liberal Democrat." This is the Bernie Sanders credo, his way of defining himself, his way of convincing himself that he has not abandoned his radicalism in the quest for political power. For if he were a liberal Democrat, that would make him merely another little-city mayor of thirtyeight thousand people, merely another it's-a-pleasure-to-meet-with-my-old-friends-at-the-Rotary-Club politician. Instead. Sanders retains a palpable need to shock, to outrage, to test the limits of laid-back Vermont tolerance.” [New England Monthly, 12/1985] Sanders Called The Two Party System A “Sham.” “Politics in America are “ultimately” a struggle between life and death, according to Bernard Sanders, Socialist mayor of Burlington, Vt. […] “By and large if you’re going to deal with the human issues, the Democrats and Republicans are far more alike in their view than they are different. One can argue that the two party system is a sham.”” [Iowa State Daily, 10/16/85] Sanders: The “Good News” Is That The “Two Party System And The Corporate Establishment Are Not Invincible.” “We are demonstrating in Burlington the peoples’ contempt for conventional oldfashioned Democratic and Republican politics. The good news here is that the two-party system and corporate establishment are not invincible.” [Los Angeles Times, 4/28/85] Sanders Said Democrats And Republicans Would Never Talk About “The Real Problems In Our Society” “In A Million Years.” “If nothing else, Mr. Sanders hopes the textbooks will not shy away from labeling his politics. ''We are not afraid of the word 'socialism,' '' he said. ''Michael Dukakis was trembling at the suggestion that he might be a liberal. Everybody in the state of Vermont knows that I am a socialist. That is important, because when you acknowledge being a socialist you can begin then attacking some of the real problems in our society which Democrats and Republicans will never talk about in a million years.''” [New York Times, 3/6/89] Sanders Said That Democratic And Republican Leadership Had Destroyed Governments In Latin America. “You also know that it is not an accident that the U.S. is attempting to destroy the government of Nicaragua and that this policy toward Latin and Central America has gone on for 100 years under Democratic and Republican leadership. Recently, for example, we in Burlington commemorated the overthrow of the democratically-elected government of Chile in 1973 by the C.I.A., and the establishment of the fasciset [sic] Pinochet government. You also know that the C.I.A. overthrew the democratically elected government of Guatamala [sic] in 1954 when that government attempted serious land reform for its peasants.” [Sanders statement, 9/29/87] 1989: “The Old Democratic-Republican, Tweedle-Dee Tweedle-Dum, Two-Party System Needs To Be Challenged.” "If there was one profound message from the Presidential election, it's that the old Democratic-Republican, tweedle-dee tweedle-dum, two-party system needs to be challenged. We need a new, third-party progressive political movement to represent the needs and interests of working people, minorities, the elderly, farmers, environmentalists, peace activists and all people who believe they are not represented by status quo politics." [Bernard Sanders, Op-ed, New York Times, 1/3/89] 1989: “Both Major Parties, Dominated By Wealthy Individuals And Corporate Interests, Are Deeply Out Of Touch With These Citizens.” "The United States has the lowest voter turnout of any industrialized nation. While there are many reasons why Americans don't vote, the main reason is that Democratic and Republican candidates have little or nothing to say to tens of millions -mostly the poor, working people and youth. Both major parties, dominated by wealthy individuals and corporate interests, are deeply out of touch with these citizens." [Bernard Sanders, Op-ed, New York Times, 1/3/89] 1989: The United States Needs A Third-Party “To Restore A Democratic Vision That Today Is Being Overwhelmed By The Ideology Of Greed And Vulgarity Perpetuated By The Democrats And Republicans.” "The United States needs a progressive, third-party movement not only to boldly address glaring social inequities and environmental crises but to restore a democratic vision that today is being overwhelmed by the ideology of greed and vulgarity perpetuated by the Democrats and Republicans." [Bernard Sanders, Op-ed, New York Times, 1/3/89] Sanders: Democratic Party Actively Supported The “Bipartisan Effort” To Pass Reagan’s Agenda, Protecting The Interests Of The Rich And Powerful. “But let me give you some interesting news that most of you already know. Throughout the eight years of the Reagan presidency another political party, it's called the Democratic Party, controlled the U.S. House of Representatives, controlled every important committee in the House of Representatives. For six out of the eight of the Reagan presidency the Democratic Party controlled the U.S. Senate. The "Reagan Revolution" was not brought about by Reagan and the Republicans. It was brought about the Reagan with the active support of the Democratic Party. It was a truly bipartisan effort. Democrats and Republicans working together--protecting the interest of the rich and the powerful.” [Monthly Review, 12/01/89] Sanders Was Described As “A Socialist Who Has Long Fought The Democrats.” “In the state's largest city of Burlington, Jackson won 60 percent of the delegates at a caucus highlighted by the appearance of Burlington Mayor Bernard Sanders, a Jackson backer and a socialist who has long fought the Democrats.” [Associated Press, 4/19/88] Sanders Called Democratic And Republican Parties "Tweedledee And Tweedledum.” “For Sanders to attend and participate in a Democratic Party function is something new both for the mayor and the party. It is not just that Sanders has been critical of the Democrats – he describes the Democratic and Republican parties as "tweedledee and tweedledum" – but that he has worked to defeat Democrats.” [Associated Press, 4/18/88] Sanders Got A Lot Done, But His Style Was “Top-Down And Confrontational.” “He got a lot done, but not through the art of gentle persuasion. Bernie's style was top-down and confrontational. Political opponents and staff members alike were subject to pointed criticism.” [Jim Condon, Hartford Courant, 6/11/15] Sanders: The Political Reality Of Burlington Shows “There Is No Serious Difference” Between Democrats And Republicans. “In some parts of the country there still exists a debate, I suppose, as to whether or not there are real ideological differences between the Democratic and Republican parties. In Burlington, very few people engage in that debate any more because the political reality of the city, demonstrated on an almost daily basis, shows that there is no serious difference between those two parties.” [Monthly Review, 12/01/89] Sanders: In Burlington, We Are Demonstrating “People’s Contempt For Conventional OldFashioned Democratic And Republican Politics.” “"I think from one end of this country to the other people are ripe for political revolution. Fifty percent of the people do not bother voting in the presidential and statewide elections. The vast majority of those not voting are low-income people who have given up on America. The whole quality of life in America is based on greed. I believe in the redistribution of wealth in this nation. We are demonstrating in Burlington the peoples' contempt for conventional old-fashioned Democratic and Republican politics. The good news here is that the two-party system and corporate establishment are not invincible." [Los Angeles Times, 4/28/85] 1987: Sander Said It “Usually Does Not Matter Terribly Much Which Democrat Or Republican Politician Is Elected Because The Status Quo Economic Relationships Will Continue.” “The truth of the matter is that given the real alignment of wealth and power in the US, it usually does not matter terribly much which Democrats or Republican politician is elected because the status quo economic relationships will continue.” [Speech dictated by Bernie Sanders to Richard Sugarman, 10/23/87] Sanders: The Success Of The Progressive Movement In Vermont Due To The “Overwhelming” “Contempt” For the Democratic And Republican Parties. “In my view, the success of the progressive movement in Vermont is based on a simple concept. The contempt for the Democratic and Republican parties, and status-quo politics, is overwhelming. Almost no one feels positive about the these parties. In Vermont we have been able to present the people with a progressive alternative, primarily based on a class analysis, and the people have supported us.” [Monthly Review, 12/01/89] Sanders: Democrats And Republicans “Sure As Hell” Won’t Talk About And “Will Never Honestly Deal With” Issues Important To Progressives. “Now I'd like to touch briefly on three or four issues on which I think we as progressives have got to concentrate. Sure as hell the Democrats and Republicans won't talk about them. […] They know what's going on, and they want a movement which will speak to these issues, the issues that are wrenching out the guts of this country, but which the Democrats and Republicans and the corporate media will never honestly deal with.” [Monthly Review, 12/01/89] Sanders: “Very, Very Few People Have Faith Or Belief” In Either The Democratic Or Republican Parties. “Now what I think is crying out in his country is the need for a new political movement which talks truth and common sense to the ordinary people. I often speak on campuses and other places around the country, and the disgust with the two-party system is incredible. Very, very few people have faith or belief either of those parties. People will vote for one of their candidates because they'll say that this guy is better than that guy, but it's very much a question of the "lesser of two evils." The people know that the present political system is failing. They want an alternative.” [Monthly Review, 12/01/89] Sanders Opponent Once Circulated A Documents Of His “Less Than Flattering Observations On The Democratic Party.” “One Democratic congressional opponent passed around an opposition research document detailing “my less than flattering observations on the Democratic Party,” Sanders writes. “I have been extremely critical of the Democratic Party,” he writes at one point.” [MSNBC, 5/28/15] 1989: Sanders Said That Politicians Routinely Do Not Focus On The “Real Issues,” Particularly The Class Issues That, “If Really Raised Would Bring Forth The Wrath Of The Owning Community, The Ruling Class.” “Politicians invariably do is not deal with the real issues whether it’s radar detection, or whether it’s taking people to the morgue if you’re convicted of DW… there will be thirty of these things that will be on the front pages of the newspapers. But the real issues, the class issues, the fact that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, the fact about who owns the society, whether people can afford housing, or healthcare, or live on the wages that they earn, those are two deep issues, two important issues, they’re issues that if really raised would bring forth the wrath of the owning community, the ruling class.” [SoundCloud, Bernie Sanders, Audio Clip: “1989 Legislature Avoids Real Issues,” Accessed 6/4/15] Bernie Sanders Suggested There Wasn’t “A Whole Lot Of Difference” Between Michael Dukakis And George H.W. Bush. “We just came through a Presidential election, I think it's fair to say -- even if people don't hold my own political perspective that most people are to say the least disenchanted with the election. You have a situation where half of the American people didn't bother voting, okay? We have in the United States today the lowest turnout of any industrialized nation in the world. By-in-large poor people in the United States no longer vote. You know we all sit and say isn't it terrible that blacks in South Africa can't vote? Let's face reality -- in the United States the vast majority of poor people don't vote. Why do half the people not vote for President and in an off Presidential years even fewer people vote, state elections, local elections -- very few people vote. And I think the reason is, people perceive that government does not represent their interest -- what difference does it really make if Michael Dukakis says my campaign is about competence not ideology? What he's really saying is, folks... there's not a whole lot of difference between the Democrats and the Republicans.” [CSPAN, 2/3/89] Bernie Sanders Compared The Choice Of Bush And Dukakis To “The Choice Between Coke And Pepsi.” “‘The Democratic Party, as well as the Republican Party, deserve criticism for not dealing with the major issues,’ he said. Democrats are afraid to challenge the Republicans and give the American people what they really want and need, he said. Sanders blamed America’s lack of exposure to alternate views on political apathy and on the television networks. ‘To too many Americans, the choice between (George) Bush and (Michael) Dukakis (in the 1988 presidential election) was like the choice between Coke and Pepsi,’ he said. ‘Alternative views, like mine and Mayor Nichols,’ are not allowed on, are in fact highly censored, on major networks.’” [Burlington Free Press, 4/26/15] 1988: Bernie Sanders Said Of The Democratic And Republican Parties, “The Two Parties Are Looking More And More Alike.” “As much as Republican politics run counter to Sander’s socialism, he credits the party for heeding its own ideals. ‘The Republicans are honest,’ he said. They say, ‘We own this country.’ The Democratic party alleges to be the party of the working people.’ As Sanders sees them, ‘the two parties are looking more and more alike.’” [Rutland Herald, 7/22/88] 1988: Sanders: “I, Personally, Am Not A Democrat Or Republican…Because I Believe That, Ultimately, Both Of These Parties Are Dominated By Big Money Interests” And Delivered Few Results. “As many people know I, personally, am not a Democrat or a Republican—and I don't have a lot of faith in the traditional two-party system because I believe that, ultimately, both of these parties are dominated by big money interests who will promise the people anything that can be squeezed into a 30second TV ad--but will, in the long run, delivery very little of benefit to working people, elderly people or poor people.” [Sanders, “What President Jesse Jackson Could Mean for Vermont,” 1988] 1989: Sanders Said “There Are No Substantial Differences Between The Corporate Controlled Democratic And Republican Parties.” “It is not a widely kept secret that, in the deepest sense, there are no substantial differences between the corporate controlled Democratic and Republican parties.” [Reflections of a Retiring Mayor, Bernard Sanders, likely 1989] Sanders: “I Do Not Believe That The Democratic Party Is Fighting The Kind Of Fights That Have To Be Fought.” “STAHL: (Voiceover) After the inauguration on January 3rd, Speaker of the House Tom Foley will assign Bernie Sanders to congressional committees, but he will not allow him to join the Democratic Caucus, and that's just fine with Bernie. Mr. B. SANDERS: I am not a Democrat. I do not believe that the Democratic Party is fighting the kind of fights that have to be fought. Maybe they did 30 or 40 years ago; they're not doing it today. But if we talk about Democrat socialists, OK, and we talk about having a society in which all people have a decent standard of living, in which all people have a say about the future of this country, in a democratic way, you see--I'm not a Communist, never have been a Communist, OK? I'm a Democratic socialist. I'm not a Communist, because I happen to believe in democracy, and because I believe in democracy, I'm deeply concerned about the movement away from democratic traditions in this country right now.” [CBS, America Tonight, 12/20/90] Rutland Herald Headline: “Sanders Heaps Scorn on Democratic Party.” “Speaking before one of the largest gatherings of socialists in the nation, Bernard Sanders, the independent U.S. House candidate and former mayor of Burlington, heaped sharp criticism on the Democratic Party last weekend and called for creation of a new, independent third party.” [Rutland Herald, 4/16/90] Sanders Said The Two-Party System Was “In Many Ways A One-Party System Dominated By Big Money.” “Well, I think what the election here in Vermont signifies is that people are disgusted with status quo politics. They're extremely frustrated with a two-party system, which in many ways is a one-party system dominated by big money.” [CBS News, America Tonight, 12/20/90] 1990: The Democratic And Republican Parties “Essentially One Party With Two Wings, Both Dominated By Corporate Pacs.” “Sanders said the Democratic and Republican parties were ‘essentially one party with two wings, both dominated by corporate PACs.’ He said, they were ‘not only incapable of solving the nation’s problems,’ but ‘have no interest in them.’” [Rutland Herald, 6/29/90] Sanders: “What The Two Major Candidates Are Saying Is Irrelevant Regarding The Problems Facing This Country.” “"What the two major candidates are saying is irrelevant regarding the problems facing this country," Sanders said in a 1971 special election campaign for a U.S. Senate seat. "The people who make decisions which affect this country have little to do with the average man in the street."” Associated Press, 11/01/90] 1988: “On The Most Important Philosophical Issues In Our Society Today The Democrats And The Republicans Are The Same.” “Sanders portrayed himself as a candidate willing to take on the system and fight for labor, the elderly and the poor. ‘On the most important philosophical issues in our society today the Democrats and the Republicans are the same,’ he said. For instance, he said by choosing Bentsen as the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, Dukakis essentially picked a ‘man whose politics are indistinguishable from those of George Bush.” [Rutland Herald, 7/30/88] “Bashing” Democrats and Republicans “Is Nothing New For Sanders.” “Bashing the two major political parties -- and being bashed by them -- is nothing new for Sanders, who for 20 years has been saying the Republicans and Democrats are pawns of the wealthy. He makes no bones about his political beliefs. "I am proud to call myself a socialist," he once said.” [Los Angeles Times, 9/8/91] Sanders Became A Socialist When He “Began To Understand The Futility Of Liberalism.” “And he draws a clear line between socialism and communism. "I am not a communist." He latched on to the philosophy as a student in the early 1960s. "When I went to the University of Chicago, I began to understand the futility of liberalism," he said.” [Los Angeles Times, 9/8/91] After Election To House, Democrats Were Upset With His “Harsh Criticism” Of Democrats During His Campaign. “In 1990, Sanders won his House seat, defeating Smith by 16 points. With Sanders' victory came lots of national press attention but also some thorny questions as the (Democratic) leadership in the House tried to figure out what to do with him. It had been nearly half a century since the election of a true independent who did not affiliate with the Democratic or Republican parties after the election. At first the Democrats, upset with his harsh criticism of the party during the campaign, didn't want anything to do with Sanders. He was the odd man out: an independent in an institution that revolves around the two-party system; a socialist in a chamber dominated by moderates and conservatives; a freshman in a world that favors seniority. As abrasive as ever, his style clashed rudely in an institution that rewards collegiality.” [Politico, 2/7/07] Rep. Bernie Sanders: “Democrats Do Not Talk About” Falling Wages For American Workers. “Federal Reserve figures from 1989, the most recent available, show that the wealthiest 1 percent of American households, with net worth of at least $2.3 million each, own nearly 40 percent of the Nation’s wealth. That in contrast to Britain where the richest 1 percent only own 18 percent of the wealth. So in other words, we are now living in a country from which the richest 1 percent own 40 percent of the wealth, which is more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. Rich are getting richer, poor are getting poorer, the middle class is shrinking, and I think that explains or begins to explain why it is that American people and especially working people, the middle-income people are feeling very, very anxious. Because the bottom line is, and we do not talk about that too much here, Democrats do not talk about it, Republicans do not talk about it, Rush Limbaugh somehow forgets to talk about it, but the reality is that since 1973, four-fifths, 80 percent of the American workers have experienced falling or stagnant real incomes.” [Rep. Sanders floor remarks, 5/3/95] Rep. Bernie Sanders: “Some Of The Most Important Issues Facing Our Country Are, Unfortunately, Not Talked About… By Our Democratic Friends.” “The first point that I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is that some of the most important issues facing our country are, unfortunately, not talked about terribly often. They are not talked about by our Republican friends, they are not talked about by our Democratic friends, they are not talked about by the corporate media, and I think one of the reasons that we have a great deal of anxiety in this country is that people are hurting, they are in pain, they know that something is wrong, but they turn on the television, they read the papers, and they do not see that the realities of their life are being discussed, and I think that further alienates them from the political process, it confuses them, it gets them angry.” [Rep. Sanders floor remarks, 11/13/95] Sanders: Policies Of Both Democrats and Republicans Are Contributing To Income Inequality. “Under the current policies supported by the Republican and Democratic Parties in Washington the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer and the middle-class is shrinking.” [Bernie Sanders, Chicago Tribune, 1/6/90] Sanders Campaign Message Was That “The Party Is Over.” “…a vote Sanders uses as a foil for his message that "the party is over," that the rich have gotten richer and the poor poorer.” [Los Angeles Times, 10/31/90] Running For The House, Sanders “Dismissed The Two Major Parties As Indistinguishable Tools Of The Wealthy.” “In this regard, Sanders has not always been smart, especially when he was first elected to the House in 1990. He called Congress ''impotent'' and dismissed the two major parties as indistinguishable tools of the wealthy. He said it wouldn't bother him if 80 percent of his colleagues lost reelection -- not the best way to win friends in a new workplace.” [New York Times, 1/21/07] Sanders: National Priorities Are Developed By The Billionaires Who Dominate The Republican And Democratic Parties. “The truth must be stated. The priorities developed by the billionaires who dominate the two major political parties and the federal government are not a little bit wrong-they are totally wrong. We do not need to spend $300 billion on the military. We can make drastic cuts in military spending and start building the housing, day care centers, nursing homes, mass transit, alternative energy systems, infrastructure and the new industries we desperately need. We do not need to give more tax breaks to the rich through reduced capital gains taxes, or spend huge sums of public money bailing out the swindlers who wrecked the savings and loans industry through their avarice and lust for quick profits.” [Bernie Sanders, Chicago Tribune, 1/6/90] Sanders: Voters Are Fed Up With Both Democrats And Republicans Because Most Politicians Are “Bought And Sold By Large Multinational Corporations.” “He advocates a third party, saying voters are fed up with Republicans and Democrats. "Most of them are bought and sold by large multinational corporations, and most of them do not have the courage to fight for the rights of ordinary people," Sanders said at a recent campaign gathering. "We need in this country a political revolution."” [Los Angeles Times, 10/31/90] Sanders Said He Did Not Believe The Political System Generally Worked, And That Voter Turnout Is Poor Due To Lack Of Trust In The System. In response to Representative Ehrlich’s suggestion that the political system “generally works,” Sanders responded: “Bob, honestly, I don’t think it generally works. Let’s look at the result. The result is that if we’re having an election–you’re coming up in ‘98, I’m coming up in ‘98, right? Two-thirds of the American people aren’t going to vote. They’re so disgusted with the system, that they don’t even want to participate. I don’t think the system generally works.” [C-SPAN, 1/15/98, 27:43] Sanders Said That He And The Progressive Movement In Burlington Supported Rev. Jackson For President In 1988. “I think also that many people in Vermont know that I, and many of us in the progressive movement here in Burlington, are strongly supporting and actively working for Jesse Jackson to become the next president of the United States. We are supporting Jackson because he, uniquely and alone of the major party candidates, has shown the courage to tackle the most important and basic issues facing working-class America, poor people, elderly people, environmentalists, peace activists, women, and America's minorities.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Bernie Speaks: The Mayor Show, 3/30/88] Sanders Said He And Other Progressives Were Not Sure What Role They Should Take To Help Jackson Because They Were Not Democrats. “For me personally, and for many of us in the progressive movement who are not Democrats, Jackson's candidacy has raised an awkward question. What role should we take, how far should we go, given the fact that we are not Democrats?” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Bernie Speaks: The Mayor Show, 3/30/88] Sanders Said He Would Have Rather Seen Jackson Run Independently Outside Of The Democratic Party. “As many people know, there has been within the National Rainbow Coalition a serious debate over whether Jesse Jackson should in fact run within the Democratic Party or whether he should have begun his campaign outside of the Democratic Party running as a third party individual. I am not active in that Rainbow Coalition. My own preference would have been, and I would rather have seen, Jesse Jackson run independently, third party, outside of the Democratic Party.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Bernie Speaks: The Mayor Show, 3/30/88] Sanders Said He Would Have Been More Enthusiastic About Jackson’s Candidacy If He Ran As An Independent. “My preference would have been that Jackson run as a third party person. My enthusiasm would have been significantly greater. He has chosen not to do that. So the options that we have are to stay outside of the process, not do everything we can to seize this historical moment and elect the guy who might be the best president that this country has had in the 20th century. We could sit it out or we could get involved.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Bernie Speaks: The Mayor Show, 3/30/88] Sanders Said It Would Have Been Irresponsible For Progressives To Not Support Jackson In The Democratic Primary. “While we are not members of the Democratic Party, we are strongly supporting Jackson's historic candidacy and have got to do everything in our power to see that he wins that party's nomination. Clearly in a convention that may come down to a few votes in Atlanta, it would be irresponsible for us not to do our best to attend these caucuses, to elect the delegates, and to give Jackson as much strength and as many votes as he can have in that convention.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Bernie Speaks: The Mayor Show, 3/30/88] Sanders: “It Is Awkward For Me To Walk Into A Democratic Party Caucus.” “No it doesn't, Andy, and I'm glad you asked that question and I tried to articulate that as clearly as I could. Okay. It is awkward, I truly admit, it is awkward for me to walk into a Democratic Party caucus. Believe me, it is awkward.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Bernie Speaks: The Mayor Show, 3/30/88] Sanders Said Progressives Were “Caught In A Bind” About Supporting Jackson As A Democrat. “And it's taken a little bit of thinking on my part before I, and I think other progressives, have been prepared to make that statement. But we're caught in the bind. We see an historical moment here, where we see a candidate who is the strongest candidate that working people and poor people have ever had, okay. We have already participated in the process. We asked people to come out on March 1st and to vote for Jackson. Do we simply say, okay, we have done that but here in Burlington or in Rutland or where our supports are, we shouldn't walk into the caucuses and vote for him so that he can actually get the delegates to win the nomination in Atlanta. That would be hypocritical.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Bernie Speaks: The Mayor Show, 3/30/88] Sanders: “I Am Not A Democrat. Period.” “But, from my point of view, I am not a Democrat. Period. And it's, you know... (shrugs)” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Bernie Speaks: The Mayor Show, 3/30/88] Sanders Said That, As Part Of The Progressive Movement, It Would Have Been Logical To Not Endorse Anyone In The Democratic Primary. “I mean, it may. That's why, in fact, I've called this press conference. In the real world, you know, you have an option. It would have been totally logical and consistent for me and other people in the progressive movement to say, you know what, we're not Democrats, we're not going to participate. That would be a logical and reasonable statement to make. We're going to sit this one out. It doesn't matter whether Jackson does well in Vermont or not. That would have been a reasonable, rational statement to make. I think to have done that would be a tragic mistake. Something of historical importance is happening right now.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Bernie Speaks: The Mayor Show, 3/30/88] Sanders: “It Is Right And Proper For Progressives To Play A Stronger Role As They Could Play In Doing Everything They Can To Get Votes For Jesse Jackson.” “Politics is a funny thing, you know. You could be rigid, you can say, hey, I'm not a Democrat. I'm not participating. You could do that. I think that that would be a mistake and I think when you're in politics, when you're dealing with life and death issues of what's going to happen to this state and to this nation, you got to be fluid. You've got to be flexible. At this particular moment, I think it is right and proper for progressives to play a stronger role as they could play in doing everything they can to get votes for Jesse Jackson.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Bernie Speaks: The Mayor Show, 3/30/88] Sanders Said Democratic and Republican Parties Had Not Done A Good Job Speaking For Working People. “"Neither the Republican nor Democratic Party has been doing a good job speaking up for the working people in this country," Sanders said in a statement Thursday. "Fortunately, Vermonters have rightly decided to seek representation outside the two-party system. "Vermont has had a long history in independent thinking. We are a state that prides itself on our innovative ideas and diverse politics," said Sanders.” [Associated Press, 8/1/02] Sanders “Bemoaned The Drift Of The Democratic Party.” He bemoaned the drift of the Democratic Party. “There was a time when we had a center-right party in this country and a center-left party,” he said. “Now we have a rightwing extremist party, and a centrist party. And Democrats are proposing ideas that ten years ago no Republicans would propose.” Sanders didn’t shy away from criticizing Barack Obama. He blamed Obama for continuing “the Bush trade policies,” saying, “Free trade has been an unmitigated disaster for American workers.” He noted that 50,000 factories have closed down here in the last decade.” [The Progressive, 9/19/11] Sanders Called The Democratic Party a “Centrist Party” With Some Strong Progressives And Some “Conservative People In It Who Are Not Very Different From Many Republicans.” "I wanted to get back to, if I could, a question that Esther asked a moment ago, because I didn't answer it as satisfactorily as I should. She asked, in a sense, about third-party politics. And I think the answer, Esther, has to do with balancing two things. There is no question that in terms of the Republican Party now, you have a party has gone extremely right wing. Democratic Party is a centrist party. It has some strong progressives in it, it has some pretty conservatives, pretty conservative people in it who are not very different from many Republicans." [Bernie Sanders Remarks, The Thom Hartmann Program, 12/29/11] Sanders: “The Democratic Party Does Not Represent The Interests” Of Working, Middle Class People And Is “Heavily Influenced” By Corporate, Big Money Interests. “I am not a Democrat because the Democratic Party today does not represent-and has not for many years-the interests of my constituency, which is primarily working families, middle-class people, and low-income people. While, obviously, the Democratic Party is far preferable to the rightwing extremist Republican Party, one would be very naive not to know that the Democratic Party is also heavily influenced by corporate interests and big money interests.” [The Progressive, 11/2013] Sanders Said The Democratic Party Not Doing Enough To Represent Ordinary Americans. ““It’s a tough decision for me, because … I am the longest-serving independent in the history of the United States Congress. I’ve always won as an independent in the state of Vermont,” Sanders said. “Furthermore, I think it’s fair to say that there is an enormous amount of anger and frustration against the two-party system. I think people see, in most parts of the country, the Republican Party having moved very far to the right, the Democratic Party not doing what it should do in terms of representing ordinary Americans…”” [Quad City Times, 12/18/14] Bernie Sanders Said Democrats Are Not As “Strong As They Should Be” In “Standing Up And Fighting For The Working Class Of This Country.” “Tavis: And yet part of your indictment over the years has been, quite frankly, of the two-party system that Washington is bought and bossed by big money and big business, and it matters not which party you are a part of. Sanders: Well, let me just say that, you know, that is true, but I think clearly right now what you have is a Republican Party which has become moving away from being a moderate conservative party to a kind of a right wing extremist party heavily, heavily influenced by the Koch Brothers. Are the Democrats as a party standing up and fighting for the working class of this country as strong as they should be? Absolutely not. Are there great members in the Senate who are Democrats who are fighting? There are. So, you know, it would be wrong to equate both parties in the same language. But I think there’s no question the Democrats have got to be a lot stronger and tougher in standing up to big money.” [PBS, 7/21/15] Bernie Sanders: “The Democrats Have Got To Be A Lot Stronger And Tougher In Standing Up To Big Money.” [PBS, 7/21/15] 2015: Sanders Said His Longtime View Was That The Democratic Party Should Be Stronger In Standing Up For The Working Class Against Big-Money Interests. “In an interview with Politico on the Senate subway, Sanders didn’t walk away from his criticism of Democrats—although he insisted he has developed over his long career a strong relationship with the party in Vermont, in Washington and the nation. Asked whether he still believed the party is “ideologically bankrupt,” Sanders answered by not answering the question. “I think what we have today is, I think, a Republican Party which has moved from a center-right party over the last decades to a right-wing extremist party,” he said, the subway whooshing him from the Capitol to his office. “I think you have a Democratic Party which is not as strong as it should be in standing up for the working class of this country and taking on big-money interests. And that’s been my view for a long time.” Sanders shut down follow-ups. “That’s about it,” he said.” [Politico, Politico Magazine, 8/10/15] 2010s: Sanders Said That The Democratic Message Was “We’re Pretty Bad, But They’re Worse, Vote For Us.” ““In real terms,” he told a reporter doing an interview for Playboy, “what the Democratic campaign program is about is: We’re pretty bad, but they’re worse, vote for us. That’s true: We’re pretty bad, but the Republicans are worse, and that’s the reason you should vote for Democrats.” […] Sanders didn’t say those things in the ’70s or the ’80s. He said those things not even two years ago.” [Politico, Politico Magazine, 8/10/15] 2010s: Sanders Said That The Democratic Party Did Not And Had Not Represented Working Families, The Middle Class And The Poor. ““I am not a Democrat,” he told the Progressive, “because the Democratic Party does not represent, and has not for many years, the interests of my constituency, which is primarily working families, middle-class people and low-income people.” Sanders didn’t say those things in the ’70s or the ’80s. He said those things not even two years ago.” [Politico, Politico Magazine, 8/10/15] Sanders Criticized Working Within The Democratic Party Sanders Said “You Don’t Change The System From Within The Democratic Party.” ““You don’t change the system from within the Democratic Party.” […] Bernie Sanders, everybody—the same Bernie Sanders who is running to become the Democratic Party’s candidate for president of the United States. The most surprising thing about the independent Vermont senator’s surprisingly successful campaign so far is not that he’s doing it as a self-described democratic socialist. It’s that he’s seeking the nomination of a party he caucuses with in the Senate but is not a part of, isn’t a registered member of and has never been a registered member of—a party he’s spent his 40-year career beating at the polls and battering in the press.” [Politico, Politico Magazine, 8/10/15] Sanders Said “Why Should We Work Within The Democratic Party If We Don’t Agree With Anything The Democratic Party Says?” ““We have to ask ourselves, ‘Why should we work within the Democratic Party if we don’t agree with anything the Democratic Party says?’” […] Bernie Sanders, everybody—the same Bernie Sanders who is running to become the Democratic Party’s candidate for president of the United States. The most surprising thing about the independent Vermont senator’s surprisingly successful campaign so far is not that he’s doing it as a self-described democratic socialist. It’s that he’s seeking the nomination of a party he caucuses with in the Senate but is not a part of, isn’t a registered member of and has never been a registered member of—a party he’s spent his 40-year career beating at the polls and battering in the press.” [Politico, Politico Magazine, 8/10/15] Buzzfeed: 1987: Sanders “Criticized Jesse Jackson’s Decision To Try And Affect Change By ‘Working Within The Democratic Party.’” ““Kennedy was young and appealing and ostensibly liberal,” Sanders reminisced in a 1987 interview with The Gadfly, a student newspaper at the University of Vermont. […] In the same interview, he also criticized Jesse Jackson’s decision to try and affect change by “working within the Democratic party” and offered some pointed remarks about Walter Mondale.” [Buzzfeed, 7/16/15] Sanders: “I Disagree With Working Within The Democratic Party” But It Was Important To Educate A National Audience On Progressive Issues. “I do not agree with Jessie Jackson on all of his issues by any means and I disagree with working within the democratic party. O.K.? But when you have a person who commands a national audience, talking about Nicaragua, talking about the basic inequities which exist in our country, talking about environmental protection or the progressive point of view and communicating to millions of people… Is it important, or is that not important? I think it’s important.” [The Gadfly, 12/1/87] 1988: Sanders Said That, Unlike Jackson, He Did Not Believe That Real Change Was Possible While Working Within The Democratic Party. ““Kennedy was young and appealing and ostensibly liberal,” Sanders reminisced in a 1987 interview with The Gadfly, a student newspaper at the University of Vermont. […] In a Rutland Herald article published the following year, Sanders explained the crucial difference between himself and Jesse Jackson: “‘Jesse believes that serious social change is possible within the Democratic Party. I don’t.’”” [Buzzfeed, 7/16/15] 1988: Sanders Announced Candidacy For U.S. House “To Advance The Changes Jesse Jackson [Was] Working To Bring About.” “I'd like you to consider another potentially historymaking campaign ....and that's the one I'm involved in-the race for the U.S. House of Representatives. I can't predict what's going to happen to Jesse Jackson's candidacy in the next few weeks or months-but I know that, no matter what, he'll be a major force in American politics in the coming years. I would like to be in Washington representing Vermont next year, and working as hard as I can to advance the changes that Jesse Jackson is working to bring about.” [Bernie Sanders letter, 5/4/88] 1984: Sanders Said The Core Issue Was That The Democratic Party Had Not Proven Itself To Be A Vehicle For Change. “The issue is not Anthony Pollina. The issue is whether the Democratic Party can be a vehicle for change. Within the City of Burlington, and within the State of Vermont, Some of the most reactionary elements function within the Democratic Party. I happen to like Anthony Pollina, personally, and intend to vote for him. Other then [sic] Mondale/Ferraro, there are no other Democrats whom I have endorsed.” [Mayor Sanders letter to Sarah L. Koch, 11/6/84] 1986: Sanders Said The Democratic Party Was Not A Vehicle For Social Change. “”I dislike what you’re saying, you say people can’t afford to vote for who they want, but must choose between the lesser of two evils,” Sanders said. “Is the Democratic Party a vehicle for social change?,” Sanders asked the group of 40 people. “It is not,” he answered.” [Rutland Herald, 4/10/86] 1988: Bernie Sanders Stated He Did Not Believe That “Serious Social Change Is Possible Within The Democratic Party.” “Sanders said he and Jackson were very close in ideology, except for one important rift. ‘Jesse believes that serious social change is possible within the Democratic Party. I don’t.’” [Rutland Herald, 7/22/88] 1990: Sanders Wondered, “Why Should We Work Within The Democratic Party If We Don’t Agree With Anything The Democratic Party Says?” “Among those credentials Moakley said, the caucus would look at comments Sanders has made in the past and during the year, critical of the Democratic Party. ‘Those carry weight,’ he said. Among Sanders’ more recent quotes, he said in March, ‘We have to ask ourselves… why should we work within the Democratic Party if we don’t agree with anything the Democratic Party says?’” [Burlington Free Press, 10/27/90] Sanders Said He Had “No Hope Of Working Within The Democratic Party In Burlington To Make Changes He Thinks Are Needed.” “He did, however, say, he has no hope of working within the Democratic Party in Burlington to make changes he thinks are needed. “In my city the people who are fighting me the hardest are the Democrats, so I don’t have time to worry about Republicans,” he said. “We upset the machine and they are fighting back with all their resources,” he said.” [Burlington Free Press, 9/27/81] Liberty Union Party Grew Out Of Disillusionment With “Do-Nothing Policies” Of Democratic And Republican Party. “Four years ago, a small group of Vermonters, disgusted with the do-nothing policies of the Democratic and Republican parties, formed a new political party to fight for the interests of working people. They called the "Liberty Union and in the last four years that party has grown from a handful of people to a party which is now supported by thousands of working Vermonters.” [Liberty Union Newspaper, Vol. 1, No. 1, August 1974] Sanders: Neither Political Party Will Take On The System Because They Are Tied To The Big Money System. “Neither party will ever have the courage to stand out to take on the system, because they’re tied to that big money system,” he said. “What the system will do is allow you to participate in the system as long as you don’t threaten the system. If you do, they call you a socialist and if they really want to get nasty, they call you a communist.” [Waterbury Republican, 5/10/87] Sanders: “I Don’t” Believe The Democratic Party Can Be Turned Around. “Now I know that there are people, good and honorable people, people who are friends of mine, who believe that the Democratic Party can be turned around. I don't believe that what we have got to do right now is create a progressive, independent political movement which brings together all of the single-issue groups who are currently banging their heads against the wall.” [Monthly Review, 12/01/89] Sanders: “I Think It’s Impossible To Get People Excited” Or “Motivated” To Make Real Social Change Working Within The Democratic Party. “Secondly, and equally important, if we are interested in getting people excited about politics and the possibility of real social change, how can you do that within the Democratic Party? I think that it's impossible to get people excited, to get people motivated, when you say to them, "Come on into the party of Jim Wright, Lloyd Bentsen, and worse. We're really going to change things around and here's my good friend Lloyd Betsen." You can't do it.” [Monthly Review, 12/01/89] Sanders: “I Honestly Don’t Believe” We Can Raise The Political Consciousness Of Americans From Within The Democratic Party. “In a country which has such a low level of political consciousness; in a country where the level of political "debate" is so pathetically low, it is absolutely imperative that the progressive movement raise the issues and the analyses which will educate the people of our nation to begin to understand what the hell is going on. And I honestly don't believe that that can take place within the Democratic Party.” [Monthly Review, 12/01/89] Sanders: We Must “Change The Entire Nature Of Political Discussion” In America, And “That’s Just Not Going To Happen Within The Democratic Party.” “To my mind, it is absolutely imperative that we build an independent, democratic socialist left which has the guts to raise the issues that all of us know to be true, but which are very rarely even discussed within establishment politics. Our major task is to change the entire nature of political discussion in the country. In my view that's just not going to happen within the Democratic Party.” [Monthly Review, 12/01/89] Sanders Hit At Democrats As “Ineffective” During Run For House, Making Democrats Choose “A Socialist Who Derides Their Party.” “Sanders, who is running as an independent, maintains that the major parties have become ineffective and that the political process no longer serves lower- and middleclass Americans. But hitting at Democrats, as Sanders does, could lose him votes. That's because Sandoval has been able to raise little money thus far and has shown in the low single digits in polls. If that continues, and the perception takes hold that this is a two-way race, most Democratic voters will have to choose between a moderate-to-liberal Republican and a socialist who derides their party. The same holds true for Democratic officials in the state, some of whom already have opted for Smith. Furthermore, if Sanders continues lambasting congressional Democrats, it presumably could stymy his efforts to join their caucus if he wins - a necessary step for obtaining committee assignments, and helping win support for legislation.” [Boston Globe, 7/22/90] Sanders Said He Could Justify Voting No On Every Piece Of Legislation For It’s Imperfections, But “That’s Kind Of Irresponsible.” “But that’s not the whole story. Despite his bellicose rhetoric, Sanders tends to vote in favor of major Democratic initiatives — from health care reform to the last-minute New Year’s Day deal to avert the fiscal cliff — only to rail against their shortcomings later. “What you’re voting on is very rarely something that’s really good,” he explains. “Trust me, you could say no to every piece of legislation that comes down here and justify it. On the other hand, that’s kind of irresponsible.”” [Seven Days Vermont, 3/13/13] Sanders Was A Reluctant Member Of The Democratic Caucus 2015: Sanders Downplayed His Lack Of Affiliation With The Democratic Party. “TODD: Fair enough. Let me ask you something that Martin O'Malley said. Clearly was a reference to you earlier this week. "I don't think it's a problem for the Democratic Party but it might be a problem long term for Senator Sanders. I am a life-long Democrat and I believe very deeply in the principles of our party, that's why I choose to be a Democrat, not just in presidential years but every years of my life." This reference that you have not become a registered member of the Democratic Party. What do you say in response? SANDERS: Well, legally in the state of Vermont you can't legally become a member. You vote in the Democratic primary. I have done that. I have supported and helped Democratic candidates for governor in my state. I have been a member of the Democratic caucus for 25 years in the House and Senate. I'm not [sic] the ranking member of the budget committee.” [Meet the Press, NBC, 8/16/15] August 2015: Sanders Declined To Say Why He Refused To Identify As A Democrat. “Why then, Politico asked, why not just say so? Why not become a Democrat? Especially now. Sanders wouldn’t say. “I’m running for the Democratic nomination,” he said. He assured he would meet “all the regulations and requirements.” “I look forward to doing that,” he said. Another non-answer.” [Politico, Politico Magazine, 8/10/15] Politico Magazine: Sanders Refused To Identify As A Democrat Because His Independent Status Was Core To His Political Identity. “The real answer courses through his career. “Ideologically bankrupt …” “You don’t change the system …” “Why should we work …?” Many people, in Washington and Vermont, Sanders supporters and not, say that since his earliest, more radical start, the tenor of his rhetoric has changed. But the essence of his beliefs, the core of who he’s been and who he is—that unapologetic, almost confrontational “I”—has not.” [Politico, Politico Magazine, 8/10/15] July 2015: Bernie Sanders: “I Am An Independent.” “Sanders: It’s absolutely true. I am an Independent, was elected as an Independent, longest serving Independent in Congressional history.” [PBS, 7/21/15] 1985: Sanders Said “I Am Not Now, Nor Have I Ever Been, A Liberal Democrat.” ““I am not now, nor have I ever been, a liberal Democrat,” he said in a profile in New England Monthly. He said that in ’85.” [Politico, Politico Magazine, 8/10/15] Sanders On Why He Caucuses With Democrats: “I Don’t Think You Have Much Of An Option.” “Likewise, Sanders is quick to criticize congressional Democrats, though he continues to caucus with the party’s Senate majority. “I don’t think you have much of an option,” he says. “That’s the way the system is. I was able to function as mayor [of Burlington] outside of that, but when you’re here, you need a caucus.”” [Seven Days Vermont, 3/13/13] Sanders Claimed He Had Been In The Democratic Caucus In The House And Senate “From The First Day,” And Said He Would “Abide By All The Rules And Regulations Of The Secretaries Of State Around The Country.” I always win in Vermont as an Independent, but I have been in the Democratic caucus in the House and the Senate from the first day that I was -- took office and will abide by all of the rules and regulation of secretaries of state around this country in the Democratic party and intend to be in on the ballot in 50 states.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Diane Rehm Show, 6/10/15] 1990: New York Times: House Democrats Refused To Allow Sanders To Join Their Caucus. “After considerable internal debate, Democratic leaders agreed last week to give Vermont's newly elected House member, Bernard Sanders, a seat on some committee of his choice, but not to permit him to join the Democratic Caucus.” [New York Times, 12/4/90] 1990: Sanders Explained That He Requested Entry But Was Not Accepted Into The Democratic Caucus. “And what I had pledged the people of Vermont during the campaign is that I would request entry into the Democratic caucus because I wanted to make sure that I was not pushed aside and put on irrelavent committees. I am not a Democrat, but clearly of the two caucuses my political philosophy is much closer to the progressive wing of the Democratic party than clearly to the Republican party and that was what I had campaigned on. In fact during this last week the other Democratic caucus and party has been very generous to me in allowing me to attend a number of the panel discussions and some of the functions and so forth. But, for a variety of reasons they have made the decision that I will not be accepted into the Democratic caucus.” [C-SPAN, 12/5/90, 3:06] 1990: Sanders Explained That He Would Receive Committee Assignments As If He Were A Democrat. “What has evolved which is absolutely satisfactory to me is their willingness to say, ‘Okay Bernie, we will treat you the same as we will any Democrat in terms of committee assignments.’ So I will put forth my requests, they will assign me essentially to the committee of my choice and I can’t complain. So I’m happy about that. I will accrue seniority so I think the agreement is a satisfactory one.” [C-SPAN, 12/5/90, 3:47] 1990: New York Times: Sanders “Had Sought Admission To The Caucus So That He Could Work With Like-Minded Members On Legislation.” “Mr. Sanders, a socialist who won election as an independent, has refused to join the Democratic Party, but had sought admission to the Caucus so that he could work with like-minded members on legislation.” [New York Times, 12/4/90] BuzzFeed: Sanders Was Not Allowed To Join The Democratic Caucus In 1991, When He First Came To Congress, And Was Not A Member Of The Caucus In 1993. “After being elected as an Independent congressman from Vermont, Sanders, who is now a senator, tried to gain admission to the Democratic Caucus and was not allowed. He was still not a member of the Democratic Caucus as of 1993, his second session in the House. He is now a member of the Senate Democratic Caucus.” [BuzzFeed, 6/11/15] 1993: Sanders Said “No, Actually, I Don’t” Caucus With House Democrats. “But in 1993, while on Larry King Live, Sanders corrected substitute host Bob Beckel when Beckel said that, though he wasn’t a Democrat, ‘you caucus with the Democrats.’ ‘No, actually, I don’t,’ Sanders said.” [BuzzFeed, 6/11/15] BuzzFeed: Sanders Distanced Himself From The Democratic Party As A Member Of The House. “Meanwhile, during the 1990s, Sanders often tried to distance himself from the Democratic Party, both while speaking on the House floor and to the press. For instance, in remarks on the House floor in 1992, he described himself as ‘the only Member who is not a Democrat or beholden to the Democratic leadership, or a Republican beholden to the Republican leadership.’” [BuzzFeed, 6/11/15] Buzzfeed: “It Is Unclear When Sanders, Who Was Elected To The Senate In 2007, Joined The Democratic Caucus.” “It is unclear when Sanders, who was elected to the Senate in 2007, joined the Democratic Caucus.” [BuzzFeed, 6/11/15] Buzzfeed: “Sanders’ Senate Office Did Not Return Requests For Comment.” “Sanders’ Senate office did not return requests for comment.” [BuzzFeed, 6/11/15] 1990: Sanders Declared He Would Try To Join The House Democratic Caucus While Remaining An Independent. “So, as Sanders plotted a rematch against Smith two years later, he emphatically declared that he would attempt to join the House Democratic Caucus even though he had no relationship to the party. Voters could reasonably doubt whether such a maneuver was even possible: no independent had been elected to the House in 40 years. Even as he dismissed the two parties as interchangeable—he had long called them “tweedle-dee” and “tweedle-dum” in speeches and op-eds—Sanders realized he would need to be able to tell voters he would have a home in one of them. “We would fully expect the issue to be raised again this year,” he wrote in a private letter in May 1990.” [Bloomberg, 8/20/15] Sanders “Promptly Refused” To Be Become A Democrat In Order To Join House Democratic Caucus. “Although of a more liberal bent, Democratic Caucus Chairman Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) met with Sanders last week and said pretty much the same thing, advising Sanders that "if he wanted to become a member, he had to be a Democrat," according to an aide. Sanders, to no one's surprise, promptly refused.” [Boston Globe, 12/4/90] Bernie Sanders Rather Than Accept An Offer To Join The Democratic Party And Caucus With The Party, Chose To Remain An Independent And Have No Party To Caucus With. “Independent Congressman-elect Bernard Sanders refused an offer to join the Democratic Party Thursday, killing his only hope of being allowed to participate in the party’s caucus during his first term in Congress. Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., chairman of the Democratic caucus, said Thursday he had asked Sanders to join the party, bust Sanders declined. That refusal cost him a seat in the caucus, Hoyer said.” [Rutland Herald, 11/30/90] 1990: Sanders Participated In Secret Negotiations With Washington Democrats Hoping To Gain Acceptance From The House Democratic Caucus. “It's a balancing act Sanders has been practicing for at least 25 years. The meeting with Schroeder and other Democratic legislators was one of a series of crucial secret negotiations with Washington Democrats, extending over the summer of 1990, in which he worked to get members of a club he refused to join to nonetheless announce publicly that they were willing to have him as a member.” [Bloomberg, 8/20/15] May 1990, Sanders Met With Liberal Democratic Members Of The U.S. House. “In the first week of May in 1990, the former mayor of Vermont’s largest city met with some of the most liberal members of the U.S. House of Representatives, a body he hoped to join after that November’s election. “I look forward to working with you on my issues come next January,” he wrote to one, Colorado’s Patricia Schroeder, a week later.” [Bloomberg, 8/20/15] May 1990: Sanders Sent A Letter To Then Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-CO) Asking Her To Issue A Statement Saying That She Would Be Happy To Have Sanders Join The Democratic Caucus. “In the first week of May in 1990, the former mayor of Vermont’s largest city met with some of the most liberal members of the U.S. House of Representatives, a body he hoped to join after that November’s election. “I look forward to working with you on my issues come next January,” he wrote to one, Colorado’s Patricia Schroeder, a week later. […] “It would be very helpful to show that I could work within the Democratic caucus, and particularly, with progressive Democrats like you,” Sanders wrote to Schroeder, the Colorado congresswoman who in 1988 had undertaken a two-month dalliance with a presidential campaign. “Not an endorsement, but simply a statement that if I were elected, you would be glad to have me join the Democratic caucus.”” [Bloomberg, 8/20/15] 1991: Democrats Were Critical Of Sanders Early In His Congressional Career For His Identity As An Independent. ““I am extremely proud to be an independent,” he told the Associated Press seven months into his congressional career. […] The flip side at first was this: “He screams and hollers,” Rep. Joe Moakley (D-Mass.) said to the AP at the time, “but he is all alone.” Rep. Bill Richardson (D-N.M.) called Sanders “a homeless waif.” Said Rep. Barney Frank, in ’91: “Bernie alienates his natural allies. His holier-than-thou attitude—saying in a very loud voice he is smarter than everyone else and purer than everyone else—really undercuts his effectiveness.”” [Politico, Politico Magazine, 8/10/15] 1991: Democratic Leaders Allowed Sanders To Effectively Join The Caucus In All But Name, But Penalized Sanders In Seniority. “Speaker Tom Foley and Majority Leader Dick Gephardt struck a compromise with Sanders. He would not join their caucus, but for the purposes of seniority and committee assignments they would count him as one of their own. Democratic leaders would, however, levy one penalty on Sanders for remaining an outsider: he would be treated, in perpetuity, as the most junior member of the class of 1990. After that, Sanders quickly began to build his own political home. That year, he and DeFazio invited colleagues to join them in establishing a identity-neutral counterpart to the black, Latino, and women’s caucuses that served as an umbrella for much of the work undertaken by liberal lawmakers. The Congressional Progressive Caucus launched in 1991 with five members. Its first chairman was Bernie Sanders. He ran unopposed.” [Bloomberg, 8/20/15] 1993: The Vermont Democratic Party Urged Congressional Democrats Not To Allow Bernie Sanders Into The Caucus Since He Had Said “Such Horrible Things About Democrats.” “Micque Glitman, executive director of the Vermont Democratic Party, said the message might not carry any weight with House Democrats, but said it was important the party go on record. ‘The state party felt it was worthwhile to add our voice to the debate. We felt that it’s important that the benefits of the caucus be tied somewhere to obligations,’ Glitman said. Sanders, she added, has said “such horrible things about Democrats and Vermont Democrats” that Democrats should not extend privileges to him without subjecting him to the same discipline as party members.” [Burlington Free Press, 2/9/93] 2008: Sanders Complained Democrats Weren’t Progressive Enough And Said “I Know What My Heart Is… That Hasn’t Changed.” “Sanders believes independents hold the key to an Obama victory, and he is hoping to rally them to the cause. He also wants to counter the Senate’s only other independent, Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. Lieberman, who became an independent after losing his Democratic primary, has endorsed Republican presidential candidate John McCain and will be speaking at the GOP primary. ‘Experience is a fine thing,’ Sanders said, speaking about McCain to the Vermont delegates. ‘But I don’t know that we need the kind of experience that gets us into wars that we should not have gotten into.’ While Sanders caucuses with Democrats in the Senate and supports their members in congressional leadership contests against Republicans, he still complains they are not progressive enough. ‘I know what my heart is,’ Sanders said. ‘That hasn’t changed.’” [Gannett News Service, 8/29/08] Sen. Bernie Sanders “Never Joined The [Democratic Party] Because He Believes It Isn’t Liberal Enough.” “Sen. Bernard Sanders is an independent who caucuses with the Democrats but has never joined the party because he believes it isn’t liberal enough.” [Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 8/28/08] Sen. Bernie Sanders “Declined To Join The Democratic Party Because He Believes Its Agenda Isn’t Sufficiently Or Consistently Progressive.” “Bernard Sanders, a senator for two years, is an independent who calls himself a socialist. He caucuses with Senate Democrats but has declined to join the Democratic Party because he believes its agenda isn’t sufficiently or consistently progressive.” [Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 8/28/08] Rep. Bernie Sanders: “It Is Not That I Want To Identify With The Democrats, Who Threw In The Towel Years Ago.” “What our Republican friends are upset about is that for the last 15 years their side has been winning this war, and that we should concede. It is not that I want to identify with the Democrats, who threw in the towel years ago. As the only Independent in this body, what I concede and congratulate my Republican friends about is that ‘You won. Reaganomics and the trickle-down theory was a fraud, but you got enough of the Democrats to go along with you.’” [Rep. Sanders floor remarks, 2/26/92] Sanders “Minded Not At All When He Was Rejected For Membership In The Democratic Caucus.” “The self-proclaimed socialist minded not at all when he was rejected for membership in the Democratic Caucus. ''Now Bernie doesn't have to pretend like he's a Democrat,'' said Doug Boucher, his press aide. Democratic leaders have assured Sanders he will be treated fairly when committee assignments are made.” [United Press International, 1/3/91] Sanders Was “Proud” To Be An Independent, Said It Gave Him An Opportunity To Speak Out On The House Floor And Vote Against Both Parties. “He has no regrets. "I am extremely proud to be an independent. The fact I am not a Democrat gives me the freedom to speak out on the floor of the House, to vote against both the Democratic and Republican proposals," he said. "You'll find me time after time voting against both proposals. You can't do that if you are within the caucus, because you get punished. The name of the game here is if you want to move up the ladder, you don't criticize."” [Los Angeles Times, 9/8/91] 1991: Sanders Said He Was “Extremely Proud To Be An Independent.” ““I.” That letter next to Sanders’ name is more than a political classification. It’s a personal declaration. He was, when he arrived in Washington, the only one of the 535 members of Congress who didn’t identify as either a Democrat or a Republican. “I am extremely proud to be an independent,” he told the Associated Press seven months into his congressional career. “The fact that I am not a Democrat gives me the freedom to speak out on the floor of the House, to vote against both the Democratic and Republican proposals.”” [Politico, Politico Magazine, 8/10/15] Bernie Sanders Was The Only Member Not Aligned With Either The Democratic Or Republican Caucus. “It isn’t the first time Sanders has been the odd man out in Congress; in fact, he is making a career of it. Sanders is the sole socialist in the House and the lone representative of his small state. Officially he is an independent, the only one of the 435 members not aligned with either the Democratic or Republican caucus.” [Los Angeles Times, 9/8/91] 1992: Sanders Bragged About Being The Only Member Not Beholden To Leadership. “But as the only independent in the Congress, the only Member who is not a Democrat or beholden to the Democratic leadership, or a Republican beholden to the Republican leadership, I just want to share a few views with you.” [Sanders floor remarks, 3/12/92] Sanders: “I Am Neither A Democrat Nor A Republican.” “"I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican because the two-party system refuses to recognize the fact that a handful of banks and corporations run the economy," Mr. Sanders explains, from behind the wheel of his beat-up Honda, on his way to a parks and recreation committee meeting at the arena.” [Globe and Mail, 9/8/87] Sanders “Strenuously Resisted” Calling Himself A Democrat. “Sanders has always been an easier fit in Vermont than in Washington. Being a Socialist in the seat of two-party orthodoxy will do that. While he has generally championed liberal Democratic positions over the years -- and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee endorsed his Senate campaign -- Sanders has strenuously resisted calling himself a Democrat. And he has clung to a mantle -- socialism -- that brings considerable stigma, in large part for its association with authoritarian communist regimes (which Sanders is quick to disavow).” [New York Times, 1/21/07] Sanders Was Formally A Member Of The House Democratic Caucus Early In His Congressional Career; Rep. Sherrod Brown Said “He Was Not Really A Member Of The Caucus.” “Today, looking back, colleagues in interviews with Politico recalled questions from party elders about whether to allow Sanders to sit on committees. Sanders mentioned as much at a lunch with Senate Democrats last month, telling them it was like wandering around “in the desert” when he first came to the House. While Sanders formally was part of the House Democratic Caucus, said Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who served with Sanders in the House, “he was not really a member of the caucus.”” [Politico, Politico Magazine, 8/10/15] Sanders Later Became Better Integrated Into The House Democratic Caucus. “It eventually worked out when the Democratic speaker, Tom Foley, reached the conclusion that it was better to expand his party’s membership than shrink it. That became even more important in ‘94, when the Newt Gingrich-led Republican takeover meant the Democrats needed every potential vote they could get.” [Politico, Politico Magazine, 8/10/15] According To An Anonymous Democratic Senator, Sanders’ Entrance Into The Senate “Was The First Time He’s Ever Been Part Of A Democratic Family.” “Sanders spent a decade and a half in the House. He was seldom even challenged by a Democrat in Vermont. He won the Democratic primary for the 2006 Senate race as a write-in candidate — there was no serious opposition — but he declined to accept the nomination before going on to beat his Republican opponent by 33 percentage points. The Senate was a better fit. “The Senate,” one of his Democratic friends told Politico, “was the first time he’s ever been part of a Democratic family.”” [Politico, Politico Magazine, 8/10/15] Criticizing the Clinton Administration 1999: Sanders Challenged President Clinton’s Assertion That The Economy Was Booming, Noting Workers’ Longer Hours, High Wealth Inequality, And Lack Of Access To Health Care. “We’ll probably hear tonight from the President of how booming the economy is. Well, in many, many respects, the economy is a lot better than it was eight years ago or ten years ago. But let us not forget, that despite all the media hoopla about the booming economy, the average American today is working longer hours for lower wages than was the case 25 years ago. In my state of Vermont, and I am sure it is duplicated all over this country, you have folks who are working not one job, but two jobs, three jobs trying to earn enough money to pay the bills. The fact of the matter is, the average American today is working 160 hours a year more than was the case 20 years ago. We have the greatest gap between the rich and the poor of any industrialized country. 43 million Americans have no health insurance. We have twenty-two percent of our kids living in poverty–the highest rate of childhood poverty in all of the industrialized world. Now how is that a booming economy?” [C-SPAN, 1/19/99, 5:34] 1995: Sanders Criticized President Clinton For Not Being “As Strong As He Should Be On” Speaking Out Against Unnecessary Cuts To Social Welfare Programs. “In my view, the President has not been anywhere near as strong as he should be on this issue. He should be dealing with these issues, and telling the American people, ‘You don’t have to slash Medicare, Medicaid, and student loans.’ Has he been doing that? No. When one talks to him privately, ‘Yes,’ he says, ‘I am concerned, I’m sympathetic to the effort.’ Publicly, we have not been hearing enough from him on this issue, in my view.” [C-SPAN, 10/25/95, 28:56] Sanders Turned Down Democratic Nominations 1986: Sanders Said He Had No Intentions Of Joining The Democratic Party Or Running In The Future As A Democrat. “Sanders says he himself has no intentions of joining the Democratic Party and running in the future as a Democrat. In fact, he said, one of the most important aspects of his successful mayoral campaigns and his thus-far-unsuccessful gubernatorial effort has been the voters’ willingness to reject the two-party system.” [San Francisco Bay Guardian, 7/30/86-8/6/86] 1988: Sanders Said That He Wanted To Win Election To Congress As An Independent And Defeat The Democratic And Republican Parties’ Candidates. “I want to run for Congress, and in doing so, do something that no one in modern American history has ever done, and that is to win a statewide election on an independent, progressive basis--taking on and defeating the candidates of the Democratic and Republican parties." [Bernie Sanders Remarks, 1/25/88] Critics Said Sanders Was “Reluctant To Be Accountable To A Political Organization, Preferring To Act As A One-Man Show.” “Sanders has been reluctant to be accountable to a political organization, preferring to act as a one-man show, according to critics, who cited for example, his unwillingness to run as a Rainbow Coalition candidate.” [Rutland Daily Herald, 11/1/86] While Sanders Lost His Congressional Race In 1988, Getting 37 Percent Of The Vote Convinced Him That He Did Not Need To Run As A Democrat To Win A Statewide Race. “In his own race for Congress that year—he was still mayor—Sanders lost, to Republican Peter Smith, but he was emboldened by the fact that he finished second, not third. Sanders, as an independent, got 37 percent of the vote; Paul Poirier, the Democrat, got 19 percent. In any serious analysis of Sanders’ career, this registers as a major moment. It convinced Sanders he didn’t need to become a Democrat to win a statewide election in Vermont. Perhaps more importantly, it convinced Vermont’s voters, too.” [Politico, Politico Magazine, 8/10/15] 1990: Sanders Said It Would Be Hypocritical For Him To Run As A Democrat. “At the Socialist Scholars Conference in New York City in April 1990, he asked, “Why should we work within the Democratic Party … ?” He said at the gathering he was running for Congress that year again as an independent because it would be “hypocritical” of him to run as a Democrat considering the kinds of things he had said about the party.” [Politico, Politico Magazine, 8/10/15] 1990: Bernie Sanders Said It Would Be “Hypocritical” For Him To Run As A Democrat Given His Criticism Of The Party. “Sanders has promised to work with the Democratic caucus in the House if he is able to unseat incumbent Rep. Peter P. Smith, R-Vt. But Sanders has steadfastly refused to consider running under the Democratic Party label, despite the urging of some Democrats. He has said it would be ‘hypocritical’ for him to run as a Democrat in light of his criticisms of the party. And though he has toned down his criticisms of the Democratic Party somewhat, Sanders has said he would continue to fault the party where appropriate.” [Rutland Herald, 4/16/90] 1990: Bernie Sanders “Steadfastly” Refused To Consider Running As A Democrat In 1990, Despite Urging From Prominent Vermont Democrats. “Sanders has won support from more than a dozen prominent Democrats, including gubernatorial candidate Peter Welch and various Vermont legislators. Sanders has promised to work with the Democratic caucus in the House if he is able to unseat incumbent Rep. Peter P. Smith, R-Vt. But Sanders has steadfastly refused to consider running under the Democratic Party label, despite the urging of some Democrats.” [Rutland Herald, 4/16/90] Sanders Once Said He Would “Respectfully Decline” Nomination If Elected On Democratic Ballot. “Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat. He may be running for president as a Democrat, but (at least when he wrote the book) he had no interest in being formally involved with the party. “There wasn’t a helluva big difference between the two major parties,” he writes. When supporters tried to put him on the Democratic ballot in a congressional reelection race, he was adamantly opposed: “If, by chance, I win the Democratic nomination I will respectfully decline. I am an independent and proud of it,” he said he told supporters.” [MSNBC, 5/28/15] 2006: Bernie Sanders Declined Nomination As The Democratic Party’s Candidate For U.S. Senate In 2006 After Winning The Democratic Primary. “U.S. Rep. Bernard Sanders said thanks but no thanks to Vermont Democrats on Wednesday, turning down the party's nomination for U.S. Senate a day after winning handily in a primary.” [AP, 9/13/06] In 2006, Sanders Won The Democratic Primary But Refused The Mantle Of Nominee. “Democrats were faced with a decision: field their own candidate and create a risky three-way race or line up behind the popular Sanders. The debate played out publicly. In May of 2005, comments from the state Democratic Party forced national Democrats to scale back their proSanders rhetoric. After much hand-wringing, Sanders's name was placed on the Democratic primary ballot. He won easily, even though he refused the mantle of nominee. He also won the general election handily. Like Jeffords, Sanders caucuses with the Democrats as he did in the House.” [National Journal, 3/7/12] Sanders Had Consented To Being On The Democratic Ballot. “Independent Rep. Bernie Sanders will be on the ballot in the Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate. But he won't accept the party's nomination if he wins it. Sanders intends to continue running as independent, as he's done for more than two decades. Sanders is seeking the seat being vacated by retiring Sen. James Jeffords. Leaders of the Vermont Democratic Party filed a petition to put Sanders' name on the primary ballot, which they said they did to show their support. The petition required Sanders' signature to be valid. He now faces Larry Drown, Craig Hill, Peter Moss and Louis Thabault in the September primary. If he wins the primary, that would prevent any other candidate who does not have party support from running as a Democrat. If Sanders declines the nomination, the party can pick another candidate or have no candidate. The Democrats have nominated Sanders in three of his U.S. House campaigns by writing in his name on primary ballots, but he has turned down the nominations each time, said Jeff Weaver, his chief of staff and campaign manager.” [“Sanders consented to be on Democratic ballot,” AP, 7/18/06] In 2006, Sanders Worked With The Vermont Democratic Party To Keep Democratic Candidates Off The Ballot. “Vermont's Democratic Party is maneuvering to keep the Democratic candidates for the state's open US Senate seat off the November ballot, as party leaders seek to clear the way for independent Representative Bernard Sanders in his bid for the Senate. State Democratic leaders are spearheading efforts to gather signatures to put Sanders on the ballot as a Democrat, even though Sanders has repeatedly said he would turn down the party's nomination if he wins the primary. At least three other candidates have announced their intention to run for the Democratic nomination in the Sept. 12 primary, but party leaders prefer Sanders to any of them.” [“Party shuns Vermont Democrats in race; Seeks to clear way for independent in US Senate bid,” Boston Globe, 7/13/06] Democratic Primary Losers Filed Complaints Against Sanders And Democratic Party Chair. “Two men who unsuccessfully ran for U.S. Senate in last week's Democratic primary are now suing over it, saying party leaders deprived voters of having a Democrat on the general election ballot by backing U.S. Rep. Bernard Sanders. Larry Drown, of Northfield, and Peter D. Moss, of Fairfax, said Wednesday they have filed complaints because Sanders who won the primary in a landslide declined the nomination, leaving no Democrat running Nov. 7. Sanders spokesman Jeff Weaver called the actions "much ado about nothing," and state Democratic Party Chairman Ian Carleton said Sanders was the only candidate in the five-way primary who had sought the party's endorsement. Drown, 62, said he filed a petition Tuesday in Superior Court for Washington County alleging that Sanders and Carleton conspired to violate election laws by running Sanders when they knew he wouldn't run as a Democrat in the Nov. 7 election. Drown asked the court to order the party to put a Democrat on the ballot either the primary's second-place finisher, Louis W. Thabault, or another Democrat of their choosing. Deputy Court Clerk Jane Grady wouldn't confirm the filing Wednesday, saying the complaint wasn't a public document until the named defendants were served with a copy. Sanders, 65, is running against businessman Richard Tarrant, a Republican, for the right to succeed U.S. Sen. James Jeffords, who is retiring. The eight-term congressman, who has had a hot-and-cold relationship with Vermont Democrats through the years, captured 94 percent of the vote in the five-way Democratic primary but then declined the party's nomination. Drown, who got 403 votes to Sanders' 35,954, said he and other Democrats were disenfranchised by having Sanders run in and win the primary.” [AP, 9/20/06] Some Said 2006 Election Was Rigged To Favor Sanders. “Still, the party’s decision to shun self-described Democrats in Vermont has led some to accuse their leaders of rigging the election. Peter Moss, a retired chemical engineer who announced last week that he will run for the Democratic Senate nomination, called the party establishment’s support for Sanders ‘highly unethical’ and unfair to outsider candidates. ‘If you’re not a longstanding member of the clique, you’re not only out, but they’ll keep you out,’ Moss said. […] Though Sanders has had a sometimes rocky relationship with Democratic leaders, Vermont's Democratic state committee voted to endorse him anyway in January. Sanders's campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, said Sanders appreciates the party's support, even though Democratic leaders know he isn't one of them.” [“Party shuns Vermont Democrats in race; Seeks to clear way for independent in US Senate bid,” Boston Globe, 7/13/06] 2012: Bernie Sanders Declined Nomination As The Democratic Party’s Candidate For U.S. Senate In 2012 After Winning The Democratic Primary. “Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent, pounced most voraciously on the Republican Party, imploring the crowd to re-elect President Barack Obama and a Democratic Congress to prevent the far right from taking control. "This is an election of huge consequences. Everybody here is going to have to roll up their sleeves," Sanders said. (Sanders did not publicly address the fact that though he won the Democratic Party vote in the primary Tuesday, he will decline the nomination as he did six years ago and run as an independent.)” [Burlington Free Press, 7/30/12] Sanders Supported A Third Party Alternative Sanders Called For A Third Party To Rise Up Against “Those Political Institutions Which Represent The Rich And The Powerful, And Ignore Our Needs” In Order To Establish A “Decent Standard Of Living” For All Americans. “THE TIME IS NOW FOR A NATIONAL GRASS-ROOTS EFFORT TO CREATE A PROGRESSIVE THIRD PARTY MOVEMENT OF WORKERS, FARMERS, MINORITY GROUPS, WOMEN, PEACE ACTIVISTS, ENVIRONMENTALISTS AND THE ELDERLY WHICH WILL TAKE ON AND DEFEAT THE DEMOCRATICREPUBLICAN PARTY. THIS NATION HAS THE WEALTH, NATURAL RESOURCES AND TECHNOLOGY TO PROVIDE A DECENT STANDARD OF LIVING FOR ALL ITS PEOPLE. WE MUST FIGHT FOR THAT VISION AND NO LONGER SUPPORT THOSE POLITICAL INSTITUIONS WHICH REPRESENT THE RICH AND THE POWERFUL, AND IGNORE OUR NEEDS.” [Reflections of a Retiring Mayor, Bernard Sanders, likely 1989] Sanders: “There Is Nothing Sacrosanct About The Two Party System.” [Vermont Press Bureau, 5/24/86] Sanders Said “One Can Argue That The Two-Party System Is A Sham” At An Event Called “Socialist Week.” ““One can argue that the two-party system is a sham,” he said in a talk at Iowa State University during an event called Socialist Week.” [Politico, Politico Magazine, 8/10/15] 1976: Bernie Sanders Said The Two-Party System “Never Gives People Real Alternatives.” “From Sanders’ viewpoint, the reason for his prediction of success—in terms of the growing popularity of Liberty Union—is the Tweedle Dum, Tweedle Dee appearance of the Democratic and Republican parties. As far as Sanders is concerned, the two-party system ‘never gives people real alternatives. Voters have to decide whether to cut programs for the elderly or raise the sales tax, pay higher utility rates or face a deterioration in service. ‘The questions raised by the Democrats and Republicans are phrased so that the working person never wins. I expect Liberty Union will get a lot of votes, the disgruntled vote, and we’ll take all with thanks.’” [Bennington Banner, 10/27/76] Sanders Said That Tens Of Millions Of Poor People, Working People And Young People Did Not Vote Because They “Not Incorrectly” Believed That No Party Represented Their Interests. “The United States today has, far and away, the lowest voter turnout of any industrialized democracy in the world. In South Africa, Black people don-t vote because it is against the law. They CAN-T vote. In the United States, tens of millions of poor people, working people and young people CHOOSE not to vote because they believe, not incorrectly, that there is no party to support which represents their interets, [sic] or candidates who will address the real issues facing their lives.” [Reflections of a Retiring Mayor, Bernard Sanders, likely 1989] Sanders Mounted “A One-Man Assault On The American Two-Party System.” “THE flamboyant, independent socialist and former mayor of Burlington, Bernard Sanders, will mount a one-man assault on the American two-party system next week in an attempt to take the capitalism out of Capitol Hill. At the head of a leftwing group called the Progressive Coalition, Mr Sanders, known simply as Bernie, won four consecutive mayoral terms from 1981 to 1988.” [The Guardian, 3/15/90] Sanders “Defied Both The Republican And Democratic” Establishments. “In the process, he defied both the Republican and Democratic party establishments and won national attention for his home-spun brand of red-green politics.” [The Guardian, 3/15/90] Sanders Aspired To Be The Alternative To The “Stale Promises” Of Democratic And Republican Parties. “Sanders, 48, aspires to nothing less than the revitalization of a disillusioned electorate and the establishment of an alternative to the "stale promises" of the Republican and Democratic parties, what he calls a "progressive political party." Citizens of the nation, unite. You have nothing to lose but your party.” [Boston Globe, 12/4/90] Sander’s “Political Dream” Was To Develop A Strong Third Party. “Despite Burlington's three-party status, Sanders' Independent Progressive Party has never held a majority on the 13-member board of aldermen. Currently, it comprises four Democrats, three Republicans and six Progressives, the most favorable balance since Sanders took office. Regardless of the gains, "this is still one small city in a capitalist country. My political dream is to develop a strong third party. The reality is that the majority of people are Democrats and Republicans."” [Associated Press, 7/3/88] Sanders Said It Was “Absurd To Believe” That People Would Only Vote Democrat Or Republican. “Now the argument, and I'm sure that we'll discuss this later on because some of you will disagree with me, the argument for working within the Democratic party is that, presumably, that's where the people are. […] They discovered that their fingers didn't fall off when they pulled the lever for someone outside of the two-party system. People can do that. Not only in Vermont but all over the country. It is absurd to believe that, for some mysterious reason, people will only vote for a Democrat or a Republican, and that we will always have to support the two-party system.” [Monthly Review, 12/01/89] Sanders Said Being An Independent Candidate Meant “Choosing Not To Be The Spokesperson For The American Socialist Movement.” “He was the country’s only independent mayor. He was elected “in opposition to the two major political parties” and was also later the first independent elected to Congress in 40 years. But being an independent meant “choosing not to be the spokesperson for the American socialist movement.”“ [MSNBC, 5/28/15] Sanders Said That Burlington Created A Movement That “Defeated The Status Quo Politics Of The Democratic And Republican Parties.” “Allover Vermont, and in fact throughout this country, people talk about the political life that exists in the City of Burlington-- a small city of 40,000. Why is that? It is because that what is happenng [sic] in Burlington is literally unique in the United states [sic] of America today. There are thousands and thousands of cities and towns in our country; there is ~ city, Burlington, Vermont, which has elected a Mayor and six members of the Board of Alderpersons who have taken on and defeated the status quo politics of the Democratic and Republican parties, which has developed a strong political movement which has time and time again stood up to the political and economic establishment which dominates the economic and political life of our community, our state, and our nation.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, dated 3/1/89] Sanders Associated With Liberty Union, A Network Of Leftist Parties That Intended To Uproot Two Party System And End Vietnam War. “Sanders was aimless. Then he discovered Liberty Union. The Liberty Union party was conceived in 1970 as part of an informal network of leftist state parties that would uproot the two-party system and help end the Vietnam War. In Vermont, the party's leaders hoped to find a receptive audience amid the hippie emigrants. Its cofounder, a gruff, bushy-bearded man named Peter Diamondstone, had predated Sanders at the University of Chicago by a few years; Diamondstone likes to joke that they "knew all the same Communists" on the South Side.” [Mother Jones, 5/28/15] Sanders Was “A Consistent Critic Of The Two Party System. “But his new challenger, who cut his political teeth as a city alderman, has threatened to galvanize opposition against Sanders, who is a consistent critic of the two-party system. In the past three races Sanders has won, he faced Democratic and Republican opposition, but this year the GOP did not field a candidate.” [United Press International, 2/28/87] Sanders “Disparages The Two-Party System.” “Among them is the unlikely support that Sanders - a socialist who disparages the two-party system, wants to slash military spending and redistribute wealth apparently will get from conservative gun enthusiasts.” [Boston Globe, 10/21/90] Sanders “Advocates Scrapping The Two-Party System Entirely.” “WHEN it comes to portraying themselves as "outsiders" running against "politics as usual", New England's would-be governors have got nothing on Mr Bernard Sanders. Mr Sanders, the former mayor of Burlington, the largest city in Vermont, is an avowed socialist who advocates scrapping the two-party system entirely. As he did in 1988, he is running as an independent for Vermont's sole seat in the House Representatives.” [Economist, 9/22/90] Sanders Was “Proud” That Vermonters Elected Him Outside Of The Two-Party System. “Sanders rode the anti-incumbent wave to victory and benefited from Smith's poorly run campaign. "I am proud of the people of this state who went outside the two-party system and showed the courage to stand up to the president, the vice president and every multinational corporation in America and say that something is fundamentally wrong in Washington," he told a cheering throng of supporters at his victory celebration Tuesday night.” [Newsday, 11/8/90] Sanders Said Low Turn Out In Midterms Indicative Of American Rejection Of The Two-Party System. “Independent senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont argued Monday that the low voter turnout in the midterm elections reflected widespread negative opinions about both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. "What I think really happened is about 64 percent of the American people rejected the two-party system," Sanders said on Comedy Central's "Colbert Report." "They rejected Washington as it now functioned. They rejected a political system and a Congress which spends more time representing the wealthy and the powerful than ordinary Americans." Only about 36% of voters cast their ballots in this month's elections, marking the lowest midterm turnout in decades, according to the United States Election Project.” [CNN, 11/18/14] Sanders Worked To Defeat Democrats Former Rep. Barney Frank Said That Sanders Should Answer For His Long History Attacking The Democratic Party. “Sanders is nipping at Clinton in the polls, for now—but anybody who wants to, like Clinton, her campaign or its associated machinery, can fill fat files with quotes from Sanders in which he denigrates the Democratic Party whose mantle of legitimacy gives him a stature that unaffiliated candidates rarely enjoy. “Clearly, it’s something he should answer for,” Democratic former Congressman Barney Frank said.” [Politico, Politico Magazine, 8/10/15] 1972: Bernie Sanders Backed Peoples’ Party Candidates, Benjamen Spock, Over Democrat George Mcgovern For President, Saying, “Spock Agrees With Liberty Union… And Mcgovern Does Not.” “Sanders does not support Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. George S. McGovern, but instead stands behind Peoples’ Party Candidate Dr. Benjamen Spock. ‘Spock agrees with Liberty Union,’ Sanders said flatly, ‘and McGovern does not.’ [Bennington Banner, 9/5/72] Liberty Union Issued Recruitment Plea To Vermonters Who Were “Disgusted With Democrats And Republicans.” “If you are an ordinary citizen who is disgusted with the Democrats and Republicans we urge you "to run for office on the Liberty .Union, work with the Liberty Union, and vote for Liberty Union. If we stand together, we can win.” [Liberty Union Newspaper, Vol. 1, No. 1, August 1974] Sanders Proclaimed That He And His Supporters Has “Destroyed The Democratic Party.” “The Democrats did not find a candidate until almost one month before the election. Sanders opinion of their troubles was clear, “We have destroyed the Democratic Party, that’s it! I don’t think they have a base with the people anymore.” [Draft, Bernie Sanders: Rebel Without A Cause] Sanders Said That Burlington Created A Movement That “Defeated The Status Quo Politics Of The Democratic And Republican Parties.” “Allover Vermont, and in fact throughout this country, people talk about the political life that exists in the City of Burlington-- a small city of 40,000. Why is that? It is because that what is happenng [sic] in Burlington is literally unique in the United states [sic] of America today. There are thousands and thousands of cities and towns in our country; there is ~ city, Burlington, Vermont, which has elected a Mayor and six members of the Board of Alderpersons who have taken on and defeated the status quo politics of the Democratic and Republican parties, which has developed a strong political movement which has time and time again stood up to the political and economic establishment which dominates the economic and political life of our community, our state, and our nation.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, dated 3/1/89] Sanders Said That Democrats And Republicans “Virtually Combined Their Parties In Opposition” To Him And “Progressive Municipal Government In America” While He Was Burlington Mayor. “In my city, Burlington, Vermont, the leadership of the Democratic and Republican parties have, for the last 8 years, virtually combined their parties in opposition to the only third party, Progressive municipal government in America.” [Reflections of a Retiring Mayor, Bernard Sanders, likely 1989] Sanders Said That Democrats And Republicans In Burlington Tried To Destroy Its Progressive Government. “What this election is about is very simple. It is about the fact that the Democratic and Republican parties, including the most reactionary members of both parties, have come together to put an end to progressive government in Burlington. All over the country, we see Republicans telling us how bad Democrats are, and we see Democrats telling us how bad Republicans are….but not in Burlington, Vermont. In our city, with some notable exceptions, the leadership of both parties have come together to try to destroy progressive government in Burlington and all that we've accomplished. But they're not going to succeed.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, dated 3/1/89] Sanders On 1981 Election: “We Destroyed The Democratic Party In The City Of Burlington On That Day” After A Bitter Year In Government. “[The Democratic Party’s] theory was that if I could not accomplish anything, people would say, ‘why did we elect this guy?’ So it was a very bitter and brutal year. At the end of the year, half of the council was up for election-seven seats. We campaigned, funning candidates for every seat that we could. Now the theory was that my election was a fluke, that the Democrats had nothing to worry about. On election day, the five Democrats up for election found we took three seats from them and forced the other two into a run-off election. Basically, we destroyed the Democratic Party in the city of Burlington on that day.” [Against the Current, undated] 1982: Sanders, “Frustrated By Opposition From The Democratic-Dominated Board,” Endorsed A Challenger To Every Alderman. “Seven of the 13 members of the city’s Board of Alderman are up for reelection March 2, and Mr. Sanders, who feels frustrated by opposition from the Democratic-dominated board, has endorsed a challenger in every ward.” [New York Times, 2/28/82] Sanders Initially Had A Very Difficult Relationship With Burlington Democrats After He Was Elected Mayor. “In ’81, when he was elected mayor of Burlington—by 10 votes, after a recount—the city’s Democrats tried to stonewall Sanders. He had “an enormously contentious relationship” with them, said Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.), then a state senator. “Back in those days,” said Maurice Mahoney, the head of the Democratic Party in Burlington in the ’80s, “his goal was to destroy Democrats—certainly on the local level.” “It was a Democratic town that he basically took from them,” said Bill Conroy, who wrote a dissertation on Sanders’ tenure as mayor. Said Hamilton Davis, a longtime Vermont reporter and Sanders watcher: “They hated him, and he hated them—unreservedly.”” [Politico, Politico Magazine, 8/10/15] After Sanders’ “Sanderistas” Won City Council Seats, Democrats Were Forced To Work With Sanders. “As the so-called “Sanderistas” who made up a left-wing coalition won more council seats in subsequent elections, the city’s Democrats were forced to change their posture. They had to work with him. “The animosity slowed way down,” said Paul Lafayette, a Democrat on the council. Tensions cooled, somewhat—but not the heat of Sanders’ rhetoric.” [Politico, Politico Magazine, 8/10/15] Sanders Said He Would Not Run Against Incumbent Democratic Governor If She Adopted His Whole Platform. “At the meeting Sanders himself stated: "The only circumstance I can see in which I won't run is if Kunin adopts my whole program and runs on it," according to those who attended the gathering. Asked about the statement in a telephone interview Wednesday, Sanders acknowledged, "It sounds like something I might have said, yes.”” [unknown, 2/27/86] Sanders Insisted There Was Little Difference Between Kunin And Her Republican Opponent. “He insisted that there was little difference between Governor Kunin and her Republican opponent, so voters should not worry about his helping in a Republican victory. “It is absolutely fair to say you are dealing with Tweedledum and Tweedledee,” he said.” [New York Times, 5/12/86] Sanders Argued In Favor Of A Primary Challenge To President Obama. “Sanders’ relationship with Washington Democrats remains fraught. Though he argued in favor of a primary challenge to President Barack Obama in July 2011, he campaigned for the president’s reelection in New Hampshire last fall. “I’m disappointed but not surprised,” Sanders says of the first few months of Obama’s second term, citing agreement with the president on gay rights and immigration issues and disagreement on economic policy.” [Seven Days Vermont, 3/13/13] HEADLINE: “Bernie Sanders: Obama Primary Challenge From A Progressive Would 'Enliven' 2012 Debate” [Huffington Post, 5/25/11] Sanders Said That If A Progressive Democrat Ran Against President Obama In A 2012 Primary, “I Think It Would Enliven The Debate.” “Between the tax cut compromise and new rounds of spending cuts, Senator Sanders doesn't see the government confronting the problem either. He's made his dissatisfaction with Democrats, Republicans and even President Obama loud and clear. Which begs the question: would a progressive candidate—perhaps Sanders— consider challenging Obama in a 2012 primary? Sanders' name came up as a possibility following December's epic filibuster. It helped that the speech was also in the wake of a November beating suffered by Democrats, which challenged confidence in an Obama reelection effort. However, the Senator said he has ruled out a run. [Sanders:] I'm not a Democrat. I'm an Independent. But if a progressive Democrat wants to run, I think it would enliven the debate, raise some issues and people have a right to do that. I've been asked whether I am going to do that. I'm not. I don't know who is, but in a democracy, it's not a bad idea to have different voices out there.” [WNYC, 3/16/11] Sanders Supported A Primary Challenge Against President Obama From The Left. “Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., in an interview with progressive talk show host Thom Hartmann on Friday, said it would be good for America if Obama faced a primary challenger from the left. “I think it would do this country a good deal of service if people started thinking about candidates out there to begin contrasting a progressive agenda as opposed to what Obama is doing,” Sanders said.” [VTDigger.org, 7/25/11] Sanders Said “I Think There Are Millions Of Americans Who Are Deeply Disappointed With The President.” “A guest caller to the program urged Bernie to run, but his office confirmed Monday that the senator who has served Vermont in Washington since 1991, is not considering a presidential run. “I think there are millions of Americans who are deeply disappointed with the president,” said Sanders.” [VTDigger.org, 7/25/11] Sanders Defeated A Conservative Democrat To Win Mayoral Race In Burlington. “Sanders defeated conservative Democratic Mayor Gordon H. Paquette, who had been in office 10 years. Sanders was elected by only 10 votes. The mayor and 13-member Board of Aldermen are elected for two-year terms along partisan lines. In 1981, Sanders won with 43% of the votes. He was reelected in 1983 with 53% of the votes and again last month with 55%.” [Los Angeles Times, 4/28/85] Sanders Worked To Defeat Democratic Governor Madeleine Kunin. “It is not just that Sanders has been critical of the Democrats _ he describes the Democratic and Republican parties as "tweedledee and tweedledum" _ but that he has worked to defeat Democrats. Sanders was an independent candidate for governor in 1986, receiving 15 percent of the vote in his unsuccessful bid to oust the Gov. Madeleine Kunin, a strong Dukakis support who will attend the same caucus as Sanders.” [Associated Press, 4/18/88] Sanders Wrote That Liberal Were “Angry” He Ran Against A Female Democrat. “In Outsider in the House, he wrote that "liberals were angry I was running against a female Democrat" in the 1986 Vermont governor's race. Madeleine Kunin prevailed in that election with 47 percent of the vote, to Republican Peter Smith's 38 percent and a bit more than 14 percent for independent candidate Bernie Sanders.” [Seven Days Vermont, 4/16/14] 1986: Sanders Antagonized Democrats To The Extent That It Worried The Incumbent Democratic Governor. “In ’86, he decided to run for governor, against Kunin, which bothered her—Sanders’ “daily diet consisted of vitriol,” she would write in her memoir—and worried many Vermont Democrats, who thought he might peel away enough votes to foil the reelection bid of the state’s first female governor. Democrats, Welch recalled, were “extremely upset.”” [Politico, Politico Magazine, 8/10/15] 1986: Sanders Said That The Main Difference Between Democrats And Republicans In Burlington Was That “Democrats Are In Insurance And The Republicans Are In Banking.” “In ’86, he decided to run for governor, against Kunin, which bothered her—Sanders’ “daily diet consisted of vitriol,” she would write in her memoir—and worried many Vermont Democrats, who thought he might peel away enough votes to foil the reelection bid of the state’s first female governor. Democrats, Welch recalled, were “extremely upset.” Sanders responded by intensifying his invective. “The main difference between the Democrats and the Republicans in this city,” he said in an interview in Burlington in July with a Cornell student writing a master’s thesis, “is that the Democrats are in insurance and the Republicans are in banking.”” [Politico, Politico Magazine, 8/10/15] 1988: Sanders Said That Al Gore Was Not The Candidate Who Understood The U.S. Needed To Be The Leader In The Struggle For World Peace, Not In Arms Sales. “[The Media] has not told us about the one candidate who understands that in a world of nuclear weaponry, a world in which the nations on this earth are spending nearly $1 trillion a year on weapons of destruction that there’s a crying need to make the United States of America the leader in the struggle for world peace, rather than the leading arms merchant in the world. And that candidate is not Albert Gore.” [Sanders Speech Introducing Jesse Jackson, 1988] In 1988 Congressional Race, Sanders Pulled Votes From Democratic Candidate, Allowing Republican Rep. Peter Smith To Win Election. “Mr. Sanders's contest with Mr. Smith was remarkably similar to the 1988 Congressional race, with one important exception. In that race, a Democratic candidate, Paul Poirier, won a large chunk of votes that might otherwise have gone to Mr. Sanders.” [New York Times, 11/7/90] Democratic Candidate In 1990 Congressional Race Was Not Supported By Vermont’s Major Democratic Figures. “In this election, Dolores Sandoval, the Democratic candidate, was not supported by any of the state's major Democratic figures, including the Governor, Madeleine Kunin, and she did not make a dent in Mr. Sanders's tally.” [New York Times, 11/7/90] 1990: The Democrat Who Ran Against Sanders For Congress Received Little To No Institutional Backing. “At the Socialist Scholars Conference in New York City in April 1990, […] Not that strong—he predicted that his Democratic opponent, Dolores Sandoval, might not get even 5 percent come November. But he was right. Sandoval couldn’t compete. She had no backing from the state’s Democrats, or organizations that typically would have been on her side— EMILY’s List, the National Organization for Women, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “It was all very odd,” she told Politico. Except it wasn’t. It was practical. Democrats all over the state had reached the point with Sanders that Democrats in Burlington had reached not quite 10 years before. He won them over because he ground them down.” [Politico, Politico Magazine, 8/10/15] 1990: Sanders Ridiculed The Democratic Party Of Vermont, Called It Vermont’s The Third Party. “At the Socialist Scholars Conference in New York City in April 1990, he asked, “Why should we work within the Democratic Party … ?” He said at the gathering he was running for Congress that year again as an independent because it would be “hypocritical” of him to run as a Democrat considering the kinds of things he had said about the party. Also, he pointed out, his self-confidence bordering on braggadocio, “in Vermont now, when you talk about third-party politics, we have a very, very strong third party—it’s called the Democratic Party.”” [Politico, Politico Magazine, 8/10/15] By 1990, Vermont Democrats Decided That Attempting To Defeat Sanders Was Not Worth The Cost. “Except it wasn’t. It was practical. Democrats all over the state had reached the point with Sanders that Democrats in Burlington had reached not quite 10 years before. He won them over because he ground them down. “There was an understanding with the Democrats,” said Hamilton professor Dennis Gilbert, who worked for Sanders’ campaign that year doing polling and writing policy papers. “They realized that if he was running, they couldn’t win.” “For a lot of Democrats, Bernie was our candidate,” said Poirier, the Democrat who finished behind Sanders in ’88. “By 1990, he had pretty much won the support of most elected Democrats.” He was their only real option. Welch endorsed him, he said, “because he had the best chance of winning.” “He basically expropriated their base of voters,” said Fred Bailey, a Republican city councilman during Sanders’ time as mayor. “They couldn’t out-Bernie Bernie.”” [Politico, Politico Magazine, 8/10/15] 1990: Sanders Predicted That His Democratic Opponent Might Not Receive 5 Percent Of The Vote; She Received 3 Percent. “At the Socialist Scholars Conference in New York City in April 1990 […] he predicted that his Democratic opponent, Dolores Sandoval, might not get even 5 percent come November. But he was right. […] and Sanders won in a landslide. And Sandoval, the Democrat? She didn’t get 5 percent—she got 3. It was official. In Vermont, in Sanders’ races, the second major party was … Bernie.” [Politico, Politico Magazine, 8/10/15] Before 2006 Senate Run, Democratic Vermonters Reportedly Harbored Ill Will Toward Sanders For His Support For Progressive Party At Expense Of Democrats. “Roll Call (5/3, Duran) reports Rep. Bernie Sanders' (I) "unofficial Senate campaign got a boost over the weekend when Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas (R) announced that he will not try to succeed retiring Sen. Jim Jeffords (I) next year." Despite "earning favorable comments from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Charles Schumer (N.Y.), national Democrats still dance around the issue of whether the party will get behind Sanders." There are Democrats "in Vermont who continue to harbor ill will toward Sanders for his stoking of the Progressive Party, which usually wins support in statewide, legislative and local elections at the expense of Democrats."” [Frontrunner, 5/3/05] Sanders Was Involved With National And State Democratic Party Committees 1990: At A Bernie Sanders Press Conference, The Vice-Chair Of The Vermont Democratic Party Announced That The Democratic Candidate Dolores Sandoval “Wasn’t Viable” And That The Race Was “Really Between Bernie And Smith.” “In Brattleboro, Bernie held a mid-morning press conference with prominent local Democrats and labor activists. Sen. Jan Backus, who was married to a well-known local doctor, said she supported Bernie because of his call for national health care. ‘He is the only one who understands the intricacies of the problem and takes it on,’ she said. Ron Squires of Guilford, the Vermont Democratic Party vice chair, said the race really was between Bernie and Smith. ‘This is a difficult situation,’ he said. ‘It’s a difficult decision not to work for a Democratic candidate,’ But Sandoval wasn’t viable, he said. ‘I have respect for her, but she is naively going after the race.’ Bernie hoped to display similar coalitions in all parts of the state.” [Steven Rosenfeld, “Making History in Vermont: the Election of a socialist to Congress,” 1992, P.113-4] Sanders Received Little Serious Opposition Once He Won His Seat In Congress. “Sanders spent a decade and a half in the House. He was seldom even challenged by a Democrat in Vermont. He won the Democratic primary for the 2006 Senate race as a write-in candidate — there was no serious opposition — but he declined to accept the nomination before going on to beat his Republican opponent by 33 percentage points. The Senate was a better fit. “The Senate,” one of his Democratic friends told Politico, “was the first time he’s ever been part of a Democratic family.”” [Politico, Politico Magazine, 8/10/15] 1996: DCCC Political Director Discouraged Democrat From Running Against Sanders. “Jack Long made a boo-boo. A few weeks ago he was practicing law in Burlington, Vt., and increasingly distressed because there was no Democrat in the race for Vermont's lone House seat. So he decided to run. […] Think again, Jack. The evening before his June 27 announcement, he got a call from Rob Engel, political director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the folks who coordinate the party's national campaign strategy. Engel was not pleased. It turned out that the DCCC was totally committed to Sanders, who votes with the Democrats most of the time, and had no interest in one of their own muddying the waters and maybe handing the election to Sweetser. The Democrats are fiercely intent on regaining control of the House, and every seat counts. No time to back quixotic losers.” [Columbus Dispatch, 7/11/96] 1996: Sanders Had Never Gotten Money From Democratic Party. “Bernard Sanders has never gotten any money from the Democratic Party, and was rebuffed as a dangerous pinko when he tried to join the Democratic House Caucus after his first election to Congress in 1990.” [Columbus Dispatch, 7/11/96] 1996: “The Enemy Of My Enemy Is My Friend, And For This Reason, If For No Other, The DCCC Wants Sanders To Win In November.” “But that was then, and this is now: ''These are unusual times,'' Jane Sanders said. ''Our country's at a crossroads.'' And the Democratic Party is pretty sure what fork Sanders is taking. ''Bernie Sanders has stood with us for a year and a half since 1995, and against Newt Gingrich,'' Engel said. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and for this reason, if for no other, the DCCC wants Sanders to win in November.” [Columbus Dispatch, 7/11/96] 1996: Rep. Eliot Engel Advised A Burlington Democrat To Not Challenge Sanders For His Seat. ““I think that probably goes against him,” said Rep. Elliot [sic] Engel (D-N.Y.), who served with Sanders in the House—and who back in ’96 even advised a Democrat in Burlington not to run against Sanders. But now? “The nominee of the Democratic Party you would think would be a Democrat.” He paused. “In fairness to Bernie, he always caucused with the Democrats. He’s a socialist in name … but in terms of political affiliation, he’s just like any other Democrat.”” [Politico, Politico Magazine, 8/10/15] 2004: Sanders Contributed $5,000 To The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. In 2004, Sanders for Congress contributed $5,000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. [Political Moneyline, accessed 6/2/15] Sanders Spoke To DSCC About A Potential Senate Run In 2000. “U.S. Rep. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., is giving serious consideration to running for the U.S. Senate next year, Roll Call reported today. Roll Call, a newspaper that covers the Congress, also quoted Sen. Robert Torricelli, D-N.J., the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, as saying there have been preliminary talks with Sanders about a race.” [Associated Press, 2/4/99] DSCC Committed To Backing Sanders If He Ran; Sanders Was Promised An Equal Shot At Committee Assignments. “Representative Bernard Sanders, Vermont's only House member, has not said whether he will run. But he is seriously considering it. If he runs, he would have the backing of the Democratic Party, and if he wins, the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Robert Torricelli, has promised that Sanders would have an equal shot at committee assignments, even though he is a registered Independent. Other opponents are lining up as well.” [Boston Globe, 9/19/99] Sanders Called DSCC Chairman Chuck Schumer Ahead Of 2006 Campaign Announcement. “Mr. Sanders is hugely popular in Vermont, where as the state's only House member he runs statewide, and Democrats said they would probably embrace his candidacy, even though he is technically an independent. Vermont has been trending Democratic -- Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts beat President Bush there by 20 percentage points -- and Democrats sounded confident that they could retain the seat. ''There is not a view among Democrats that we have to have our own candidate,'' said Senator Charles E. Schumer, the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which is responsible for electing Democrats. He said Mr. Sanders had already called him.” [New York Times, 4/21/05] UVM Political Science Professor Said That Sanders Made A Deal With Democrats In 2006 Cycle To Run Unopposed For Senate In Exchange For Convincing The Progressives Not To Run For His House Seat. “University of Vermont political scientist Garrison Nelson cites a respected source in suggesting that Sanders made a deal with the Dems to ensure the success of his first senatorial bid nine years ago. Nelson said then-congressman Barney Frank told him the Democratic Party agreed not to run a candidate against Sanders in Vermont's 2006 U.S. Senate race in return for Sanders persuading the Progressives to stay out of the contemporaneous race for the state's lone U.S. House seat. Sanders easily defeated Republican Rich Tarrant in a Senate race the Dems did not contest, while Democrat Peter Welch prevailed over Republican Martha Rainville in the Prog-free battle for an open House seat.” [Seven Days, 9/9/15] WCAX Reported That Sanders And Democratic Party Reached A Deal In 2005. “Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, denied the Nelson-sourced claim of a Sanders-Dems deal when WCAX reported it in 2005. Such a mutually beneficial arrangement had been "my inference," Frank told Roll Call, a Capitol Hill publication. "There is no actual 'deal' that I know of."” [Seven Days, 9/9/15] Rep. Barney Frank Denied That Democrats Reached A Deal With Sanders. “Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, denied the Nelson-sourced claim of a Sanders-Dems deal when WCAX reported it in 2005. Such a mutually beneficial arrangement had been "my inference," Frank told Roll Call, a Capitol Hill publication. "There is no actual 'deal' that I know of."” [Seven Days, 9/9/15] 2005: Sanders’ Chief Of Staff, His Current Presidential Campaign Manager, Said That Sanders Did Not Reach A Deal With Democrats But That There Were “Ongoing Talks” With Democrats As Well As Communications With Progressives. “Jeff Weaver, then Sanders' chief of staff and now his presidential campaign manager, told Seven Days columnist Peter Freyne in May 2005 that while there was "no deal" between Dems and Progs, "ongoing talks" between the two parties were taking place. Sanders' office had communicated with leaders of the Vermont Progressive Party, Weaver added.” [Seven Days, 9/9/15] Sanders Was Courted Or Supported By The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Senate Democratic Leadership And Then Sens. Barack Obama And Hillary Clinton. “The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, led by New York’s Chuck Schumer, quickly got behind Sanders when he ran, and Nevada’s Harry Reid happily welcomed him to the Senate Democratic Caucus once he won. In December of that year, a month after his election, Ted Kennedy invited Sanders and the rest of the Democrats on the Senate’s Health, Education and Labor and Pensions Committee to an intimate dinner at his Washington home. Also in attendance? Barack Obama. And Hillary Clinton. This embrace of Sanders was about politics, too: Democrats wanted to increase their numbers, and they needed Sanders to caucus with them to help win back the Senate majority. The move paid off for both sides. Sanders climbed the ladder: In the last Congress, he was the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee; now, he is the top Democrat on the Budget Committee.” [Politico, Politico Magazine, 8/10/15] DSCC Contributed Over $37,000 To Sanders’ 2006 Senate Race. In 2006, the DSCC contributed $37,300 to Sanders’ Senate race in 2006. [FEC.gov, 3/29/06] April 2006: Sanders Raised More Than $97,000 From PACs and The DSCC. “Sanders received most of his money from individual contributors, including about 3,500 Vermonters and thousands of out-of-state residents. He also received more than $97,000 from political action committees and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.” [Gannett News Service, 4/14/06] DSCC Included Sanders In Fundraisers For Democratic Candidates. “State and national Democrats, however, are backing Sanders in the Vermont Senate race because Sanders has said he would caucus with Democrats in the Senate, as he has in the House. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is involving Sanders in fund-raisers for Democratic Senate candidates.” [Boston Globe, 7/13/06] DSCC Endorsed His Senate Campaign. “Sanders has always been an easier fit in Vermont than in Washington. Being a Socialist in the seat of two-party orthodoxy will do that. While he has generally championed liberal Democratic positions over the years -- and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee endorsed his Senate campaign -- Sanders has strenuously resisted calling himself a Democrat. And he has clung to a mantle -- socialism -- that brings considerable stigma, in large part for its association with authoritarian communist regimes (which Sanders is quick to disavow).” [New York Times, 1/21/07] HillPAC Donated $10,000 To Sanders 2006 Senate Campaign. “Hill PAC, representing Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., gave Sanders $10,000 and Welch $2,500. Hopefund, representing Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., also gave Sanders $10,000 and Welch $7,500, including $2,500 in the last two weeks of the campaign. Smaller contributions were made by Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., to Sanders and by Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., to Welch.” [Burlington Free Press, 12/10/06] Sanders Regularly Contributes Dues To The DSCC. “Sanders caucuses with the Democrats in the Senate, which enabled him to become chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs He works closely with Democratic majority leader Harry Reid and a half dozen or so liberal Democratic senators. Like any Dem, Sanders regularly pays dues to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which works to preserve that party's majority. In January, his Progressive Voters of America leadership PAC contributed $15,000 to the DSCC.” [Seven Days Vermont, 4/16/14] In 2014 Cycle, Progressive Voters Of America Donated $30,000 To The DSCC. [Center for Responsive Politics, accessed 6/3/15] In 2010 Cycle, Progressive Voters Of America Donated $10,000 To The DSCC. [Center for Responsive Politics, accessed 6/3/15] In 2008 Cycle, Progressive Voters Of America Donated $15,000 To The DSCC. [Center for Responsive Politics, accessed 6/3/15] Sanders Attended DSCC Annual Summer Soiree. “Senators Max Baucus, Chris Coons, Bernie Sanders and more partying at the oh-so-swish Harborview Hotel and Boathouse on Martha's Vineyard at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee's annual summer soiree…” [Boston Herald, 7/15/12] Sanders' Progressive Voters Of America PAC Ended The 2014 Cycle With $134,048 Cash On Hand After Donating Almost $170,000 To Democratic Candidates. Beginning Cash On Hand Ending Cash On Hand Net Contributions $4,133 $134,048 $528,328 Net Operating Expenditures Contributions To Committees $213,926 $169,450 [FEC.gov, accessed 6/5/15] In 2014, Sanders's Progressive Voters Of American PAC Donated To Conservative Democrats. Sanders donated to conservative Democrats through his leadership PAC, including $10,000 to Mark Begich, $2,500 to Alison Lundergan Grimes, $10,000 to Mary Landrieu, $5,000 to Mark Pryor, and $12,500 to Kay Hagan. [FEC.gov, accessed 6/5/15] Friends Of Bernie Sanders Ended First Quarter Of 2015 With $4.6 Million Cash On Hand. [FEC.gov, accessed 6/5/15] 2015: Sanders Said That His Relationship With The Democratic Party Was “Pretty Positive.” “In a second interview with Sanders in the Capitol, he talked more with Politico about his relationship, and his tussles, with Democrats. “By definition, when I was elected mayor of the city of Burlington, I defeated Democrats,” he said with a chuckle. He talked about the importance of the ’88 race. “Since that time, in Vermont, I’ve had a lot of support from the Democrats. “I was the first independent elected in 40 years, and that caused some confusion,” he continued. “And there were some conservative Democrats who were not enthusiastic about me being in the Democratic Caucus. But that worked itself out over a couple weeks. “I’ve supported the Democratic candidates for president,” he added. “I think the relationship is pretty positive.”” [Politico, Politico Magazine, 8/10/15] Sanders Participated In Some Democratic Party Activities Bloomberg: Sanders “Left No Record Of The Party Primaries For State Or Local Office In Which He Chose To Cast A Ballot.” “At the time, Sanders’ entire career in Vermont had been defined in opposition to the party he accused of maintaining an unhealthy monopoly on left-of-center politics in the state. Like every Vermonter registered without party affiliation. He left no record of the party primaries for state or local office in which he chose to cast a ballot.” [Bloomberg, 8/20/15] Sanders Said He Voted In The Democratic Primary. “TODD: Fair enough. Let me ask you something that Martin O'Malley said. Clearly was a reference to you earlier this week. "I don't think it's a problem for the Democratic Party but it might be a problem long term for Senator Sanders. I am a life-long Democrat and I believe very deeply in the principles of our party, that's why I choose to be a Democrat, not just in presidential years but every years of my life." This reference that you have not become a registered member of the Democratic Party. What do you say in response? SANDERS: Well, legally in the state of Vermont you can't legally become a member. You vote in the Democratic primary. I have done that.” [Transcript via Federal News Service, Meet the Press, NBC, 8/16/15] Sanders Emphasized That He Supported Democratic Presidential Nominees In 1984 And 1988 As Well As Democratic Sen. Pat Leahy In 1986. “It would be very helpful to show that I could work within the Democratic caucus, and particularly, with progressive Democrats like you,” Sanders wrote to Schroeder, the Colorado congresswoman who in 1988 had undertaken a two-month dalliance with a presidential campaign. “Not an endorsement, but simply a statement that if I were elected, you would be glad to have me join the Democratic caucus.” In requesting what he called a “favor,” Sanders emphasized that he had backed the Democratic nominees for president in both 1984 and 1988, and Leahy for Senate in 1986.”” [Bloomberg, 8/20/15] Bloomberg: “Sanders Did Not Mention That He Had Run Against Leahy In 1974.” “In requesting what he called a “favor,” Sanders emphasized that he had backed the Democratic nominees for president in both 1984 and 1988, and Leahy for Senate in 1986.” (Sanders did not mention that he had run against Leahy in 1974.)” [Bloomberg, 8/20/15] Sanders Reluctantly Endorsed Mondale In 1984 And Endorsed Jackson In 88, Even Though He Said It Was “Awkward” And That “I Am Not A Democrat, Period.” “After having reluctantly supported Walter Mondale, the Democrats’ presidential nominee in ’84, because he considered Ronald Reagan’s administration disastrous, he endorsed Jesse Jackson in the Democratic primaries of ’88—even as he, Sanders, ran as an independent. He conceded it was “awkward.” Still, he stressed: “I am not a Democrat, period.”” [Politico, Politico Magazine, 8/10/15] 1984: Sanders Met With Jackson, But Declined To Endorse His Candidacy For The Democratic Nomination For President. “Jackson and Sanders share a long history of dialogue. When the former visited the latter in 1984, the two discussed "national and international issues," according to a Burlington Free Press story from the time. […] Sanders described Jackson as "an interesting, dynamic man," but declined to endorse the Democratic candidate, saying he would not involve himself in party politics. The mayor later told the Rutland Herald that though he and Jackson shared a similar ideology, "Jesse believes that serious social change is possible within the Democratic party. I don't."” [Seven Days, 8/18/15] Politico Magazine: Sanders’ Support For Dukakis In 1988 “Was So Tepid It Almost Didn’t Even Qualify”; Sanders Called Dukakis “The Lesser Of Two Evils.” “Sanders’ support for Michael Dukakis, the eventual nominee, was so tepid it almost didn’t even qualify. He dubbed Dukakis “the lesser of two evils” as opposed to George H.W. Bush.” [Politico, Politico Magazine, 8/10/15] Sanders Criticized Dukakis For “[Announcing] That The 1988 Election Was “NOT About Ideology.” “After 8 years of the most reactionary, big business leadership in the history of the nation, Democratic presidential candidate Mike Dukakis announced that the 1988 election was "NOT about ideology." He then proceded [sic] to select as his vice-presidential running mate a man whose views were essentially identical to the Republican candidate for President.” [Reflections of a Retiring Mayor, Bernard Sanders, likely 1989] Sanders Criticized Sen. Lloyd Bentsen As “A Man Whose Views Were Essentially Identical” To President George H.W. Bush. “After 8 years of the most reactionary, big business leadership in the history of the nation, Democratic presidential candidate Mike Dukakis announced that the 1988 election was "NOT about ideology." He then proceded [sic] to select as his vice-presidential running mate a man whose views were essentially identical to the Republican candidate for President.” [Reflections of a Retiring Mayor, Bernard Sanders, likely 1989] 1988: Bernie Sanders Called Going To A Local Democratic Caucus, “Strange” And “Awkward.” “REPORTER: Does the notion of you going to a local Democratic caucus and rubbing elbows with the likes of Ester Sharell and Mark Kaplan and... SANDERS: Yes, strange feeling, right. REPORTER: Does this represent some kind of milestone in your political career? SANDERS: No it doesn't Andy and I'm glad you asked that question and I tried to articulate that as clearly as I could, okay. It is awkward, I truly admit, it is awkward for me to walk into a Democratic Party caucus, believe me it is awkward. [...] From my point of view, I am not a Democrat, period.” [Bernie Sanders, 3/10/88] 1988: Sanders Was Not Well-Received When He Attended A Burlington Democratic Caucus Meeting In Support Of Rev. Jesse Jackson. “In the first week of May in 1990, the former mayor of Vermont’s largest city met with some of the most liberal members of the U.S. House of Representatives, a body he hoped to join after that November’s election. […] But the famously socialist Sanders also knew the key to winning his three-way race for Congress was persuading Vermont Democrats that his hard-earned independence wouldn’t cripple him once elected. Two years earlier, when Sanders attended a Democratic caucus in Burlington, a number of caucusgoers he recognized as “old-time Dems” stood and turned their backs as he gave a speech in support of presidential candidate Jesse Jackson. When Sanders returned to his seat afterwards, a woman slapped him in the face.” [Bloomberg, 8/20/15] 1987: Sanders Said That Endorsing And Campaigning For Mondale In 1984 “Was A Very Difficult Thing To Do.” ““Kennedy was young and appealing and ostensibly liberal,” Sanders reminisced in a 1987 interview with The Gadfly, a student newspaper at the University of Vermont. […] In the same interview, he also criticized Jesse Jackson’s decision to try and affect change by “working within the Democratic party” and offered some pointed remarks about Walter Mondale. Sanders told The Gadfly that endorsing the Democratic ticket in 1984 and “campaigning for Mondale […] was a very difficult thing to do.” ” [Buzzfeed, 7/16/15] 1987: Sanders Said That “If You Go Around Saying That Mondale Would Be A Great President, You Would Be A Liar And A Hypocrite.” ““Kennedy was young and appealing and ostensibly liberal,” Sanders reminisced in a 1987 interview with The Gadfly, a student newspaper at the University of Vermont. […] “When I’d go around talking about Walter Mondale I would say that if elected president, I felt, Walter Mondale was going to be a pretty bad president,” explained Sanders. “Now sometimes you may have to make painful decisions.” “If you go around saying that Mondale would be a great president, you would be a liar and a hypocrite,” concluded Sanders. “That is not what I was saying.”” [Buzzfeed, 7/16/15] Vermont Democrats Opposed His Involvement In Democratic Caucus Supporting Jesse Jackson. “"I have no apologies to make to anybody," Sanders said before the caucus, responding to Democrats who opposed his appearance at their event.” [Associated Press, 4/19/88] Local Party Leaders Were Upset Sanders Planned To Speak At Democratic Caucus Events To Support Jesse Jackson. “The socialist mayor of Vermont's largest city has exasperated Democrats for years, siphoning off votes that might otherwise go to Democratic candidates. Burlington Mayor Bernard Sanders has finally found a Democrat he likes – presidential candidate Jesse Jackson – but even that irks some local party leaders. "Sanders has been bashing Democrats for years and it seems totally incongruous for him now to come and speak as a Democrat," said city Alderwoman Nancy Chioffi, who supports Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis for president.” [Associated Press, 4/18/88] Sanders Promised Not To Be Negative At Caucus Event, Though His Feelings About The Democratic Party Remained Unchanged. “For his part, Sanders vows to mind his manners at the Democratic caucus. "It is my intention absolutely not to insult anybody, not to pick any fights. ... My views about the Democratic and Republican parties remain unchanged. But (Tuesday) night is not the time. There will be no negative words coming out of my mouth about anybody or any party."” [Associated Press, 4/18/88] On His First Day In Congress, Sanders Voted For Democratic Rep. Tom Foley For Speaker Of The House. “Brooklyn-born Sanders, who worked as a carpenter and documentary film maker before serving eight years as mayor of Burlington, cast his first House vote for a Democrat. There was a smattering of applause when he voted for Thomas Foley of Washington as speaker of the House, but Sanders is a political outsider and proud of it.” [United Press International, 1/3/91] Former Democratic Governor Of Vermont Madeleine Kunin Said That Sanders “Plays It Both Ways” On Being Independent But Working With Democrats. ““He plays it both ways,” said former Vermont Governor Madeleine Kunin, a Democrat who once successfully fended off Sanders from the left in a reelection bid. “He wants to be different, and yet he wants to belong—for political purposes.”” [Politico, Politico Magazine, 8/10/15] Criticized By Leftists For Involvement With Democratic Party Liberty Union Member Criticized Sanders For His “Descent Into De Facto Membership [In] The Democratic Party” And “Selling Out.” “His descent into de facto membership the Democratic party has been a major setback for the task of building a real electoral alternative to the two factions of the corporate property that monopolize what passes for political choice in the United States. Bernie’s selling out says clearly to working people and those unable to find work that even leftists become mainstream politicians, when and if they win office.” [Will Miller, Liberty Union, 1999] Liberty Union Member: Since Joining Congress, Sanders Has Worked Against Third Party Building. “The Vermont Democratic Party leadership has allowed no authorized candidate to run against Bernie in 1990 (or since) and in return, Bernie has repeatedly blocked third party building. His closet party, the Democrats, are very worried about a left 3rd party forming in Vermont. In the last two elections, Sanders has prevented Progressives in his machine from running against Howard Dean, our conservative Democratic Governor who was ahead of Gingrich in the attack on welfare.” [Will Miller, Liberty Union, 1999] Socialist Worker: Sanders Supported John Kerry And Said He Would “Do Everything I Can” To Dissuade People From Voting For Ralph Nader. “During the 2004 election, Sanders announced on Vermont Public Television, “Not only am I going to vote for John Kerry, I am going to run around this country and do everything I can to dissuade people from voting for Ralph Nader... I am going to do everything I can, while I have differences with John Kerry, to make sure that he is elected.”” [Socialist Worker, 11/15/06] Socialist Worker: Sanders Voted To Give President Bush A Blank Check To Launch War On Terror. “So outraged were peace activists over Sanders’ support of the Kosovo War that they occupied his office in 1999. Sanders had them arrested. Under the Bush regime, Sanders’ militarism has only grown worse. While he called for alternative approaches to the war on Afghanistan, he failed to join the sole Democrat, Barbara Lee, to vote against Congress’ resolution that gave George Bush a blank check to launch war on any country he deemed connected to the September 11 attacks.” [Socialist Worker, 11/15/06] Sanders Said He Was Running For President As A Democrat Because It Is More Convenient Sanders Ran As A Democrat Because Running Outside The Two-Party System Was Logistically More Challenging. “In terms of your first question, it’s a good question and I thought long and hard about it. The problem is essentially that, if you would run as an Independent outside of the the two-party system, it would take an enormous amount of time and energy and money just to get on the ballot and likelihood is you couldn’t even get on the ballot in 50 states in this country. So it seemed to me that, if we wanted to be in the mix, if we wanted to run a campaign which would have the opportunity to debate my leading opponents, if we wanted to get media attention, the only path was working within the Democratic primary process, and that’s what I’m going to do.” [PBS, 5/11/15] Sanders Dismissed Questions About Democratic Primary As “Inside Baseball.” “For his part, Sanders dismisses the independent-versus-Democratic primaries debate as "inside baseball." Such considerations are of little interest to Americans not obsessed by the political process, the senator said on Sunday. [Seven Days Vermont, 4/16/14] Sanders Wrestled With The Idea Of Running Democratic Or An Independent, Acknowledging That Getting On State Ballots As An Independent “Ain’t So Easy.” “One of the things that I have been thinking about is whether one runs as an Independent, I’ve always won office as an Independent, or whether you run within the Democratic caucus. It’s not a question of being endorsed by the Democrats, you can run in the Democratic caucus. And the pluses and the minuses are that when you run as an that is a lot of people no longer have faith in either the Democratic or Republican and that’s appealing. The negative of that is trying to get on the ballot in 50 states as an independent outside of the two party system ain’t so easy and you have to spend a lot of time and money to do that in a sense you have to build a kind of strong political organization and there is a question about how the media would respond to you if you were not involved in debates and so forth. So it is an issue that I am wrestling with…” [Brunch With Bernie, 2/13/15] Bernie Sanders Said He Decided To Run As A Democrat Because Of The Difficulty Of Getting On The Ballot As An Independent And The Media Attention And Opportunity To Debate It Offers. “Tavis: As we saw in that clip at the top of this conversation, you’ve been an Independent for a long time, the longest serving Independent in the history of Congress, and yet you decided to run as a Democrat […] why run for the Democratic nomination and not as an Independent? […] Sanders: In terms of your first question, it’s a good question and I thought long and hard about it. The problem is essentially that, if you would run as an Independent outside of the two-party system, it would take an enormous amount of time and energy and money just to get on the ballot and the likelihood is you couldn’t even get on the ballot in 50 states in this country. So it seemed to me that, if we wanted to be in the mix, if we wanted to run a campaign which would have the opportunity to debate my leading opponents, if we wanted to get media attention, the only path was working within the Democratic primary process, and that’s what I’m going to do.” [PBS, 7/21/15] Sanders Said That Many Of The Thousands Of People At His Rallies Were Not Registered Democrats. “SANDERS: Well, legally in the state of Vermont you can't legally become a member. You vote in the Democratic primary. I have done that. I have supported and helped Democratic candidates for governor in my state. I have been a member of the Democratic caucus for 25 years in the House and Senate. I'm not the ranking member of the budget committee. But it is true, I am the longest serving independent in the history of the United States congress. And let me tell you this, I think it is an advantage, because when I speak to 28,000 people in Portland, Oregon, 27,000 people in Los Angeles, the vast majority of those people, they're not, quote/unquote, registered Democrats. They are ordinary people who are sick and tired of politics as usual.” [Transcript via Federal News Service, Meet the Press, NBC, 8/16/15]