April, 26 2022, 06:42pm EDT

Sanders Asks President Biden to Fulfill Campaign Promise and Cancel Amazon's Federal Contracts
During remarks on the floor of the U.S. Senate, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) Tuesday called for President Joe Biden to fulfill his campaign promise to prevent companies that are engaged in illegal anti-union activities, like Amazon, from receiving lucrative contracts from the federal government on the taxpayers dime. Sanders urged President Biden to sign an Executive Order to implement this plan.
Sanders' remarks, as prepared for delivery, are below.
WASHINGTON
During remarks on the floor of the U.S. Senate, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) Tuesday called for President Joe Biden to fulfill his campaign promise to prevent companies that are engaged in illegal anti-union activities, like Amazon, from receiving lucrative contracts from the federal government on the taxpayers dime. Sanders urged President Biden to sign an Executive Order to implement this plan.
Sanders' remarks, as prepared for delivery, are below.
M. President, the American people are increasingly disgusted with the level of corporate greed that we are seeing in this country.
As you know, while prices are rapidly increasing corporate profits are soaring - in the oil industry, in the food industry, in housing, and many other areas. Meanwhile, while the very rich get richer because of inflation many workers are seeing a decline in their real wages.
During this pandemic, unbelievably, while workers struggle, the billionaire class has seen a $2 trillion increase in their wealth - and the level of income and wealth inequality today is the highest it's been in over 100 years. Two people, Mr. Musk and Mr. Bezos, now own more wealth than the bottom 42 percent - over 130 million Americans.
In the midst of all of this, working people have declared loudly and clearly that enough is enough. We must end this corporate greed.
Workers are now fighting back to improve their standard of living, to get the wages and benefits they need, and to get a seat at the negotiating table in a way that we have not seen in many years. They are organizing unions at a grassroots level and they are prepared to go out on strike when the greed of large corporations prevents them from receiving decent wages and decent benefits.
During the last couple of years I have personally been involved in a number of union organizing campaigns and strikes throughout the country - from the John Deere, Nabisco and Kellogg's strikes in the Midwest, to the Warrior Met strike in Alabama, to the Kroger's grocery store strike in Colorado. I have been enormously impressed by the courage and tenacity of these workers who are demanding nothing less than economic justice.
M. President, as you may know, an historic union victory was achieved nearly one month ago by Amazon workers in Staten Island.
Amazon, as you know, is one of the most profitable and one of the most powerful corporations in America. It is also one of the largest employers in America with close to a million employees.
We're talking about a company that made a record-breaking $36 billion profit last year - a 453% increase from where it was before the pandemic. In other words, Amazon is doing better today than it has ever done.
We're talking about a company that is owned by Jeff Bezos, the second wealthiest person in America worth $170 billion.
Interestingly, given our regressive and unfair tax system, we're talking about a company that paid nothing in federal income taxes in 2017 and 2018 and paid a lower tax rate than a nurse or a firefighter last year after making billions in profits.
We're also talking about Mr. Bezos, who, in a given year, despite his extraordinary wealth, also pays nothing in federal income taxes. That's what you can do when you make campaign contributions and have an army of accountants and lawyers working for you.
M. President, during the pandemic, Mr. Bezos, like other billionaires, became much richer. In fact, since March of 2020 Mr. Bezos became $65 billion richer. M. President, do you know why people in this country are angry? During the pandemic, tens of thousands of essential workers had no choice but to go to work. And they died. That's what happens when you live paycheck to paycheck. And during that same period, Mr. Bezos became $65 billion richer.
Mr. Bezos has enough money to own a $500 million, 417-foot mega-yacht.
He has enough money to afford a $175 million estate in Beverly Hills that includes a 13,600 square-foot mansion.
He has enough money to afford a $78 million, 14-acre estate in Maui.
He has enough money to own a $23 million mansion in Washington, DC with 25 bathrooms.
He has enough money to buy a rocket ship to blast William Shatner to the edge of outer space.
And yet, even though Mr. Bezos can afford all of those mansions and all of those yachts and all of those rocket ships, Mr. Bezos refuses to pay his workers decent wages, decent benefits or provide decent working conditions. This is what excessive greed is all about. And the American people want action.
From the very beginning of the union organizing effort until today, Mr. Bezos and Amazon have done everything possible, legal and illegal, to defeat the union.
In fact, Amazon cannot even come to grips with the reality that the workers in Staten Island won their union election fair and square. In order to stall the process out, their lawyers have appealed that election result to the NLRB. Their strategy is obviously to use their incredible wealth to stall, stall and stall.
In every way possible, they are refusing to negotiate a fair first contract with the Amazon Labor Union.
In fact, Amazon has been engaged in a massive attempt to undermine the union organizing drive - in direct violation of labor laws and regulations.
Let's be clear: Amazon has already been penalized more than $75 million for breaking federal discrimination and labor laws.
Amazon is currently being sued by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to reinstate a worker who was illegally fired for organizing a union.
To date, there are currently 59 unfair labor cases against Amazon pending at the NLRB.
Several current and former employees have alleged that Amazon has engaged in illegal harassment and discrimination based on race, gender, and sexual orientation.
Amazon misclassifies delivery drivers as independent contractors rather than employees to evade tax, wage, and benefit responsibilities.
Amazon's inadequate workplace safety policies also pose grave risks to workers. If you can believe it, according to a New York Times investigation, Amazon has a 150% percent turnover rate. Workers come into the warehouses, they are worked as hard as humanly possible, and they leave. And a whole set of new workers come in to replace them.
Further, in some locations, their workplace injury rates are more than 2.5 times the industry average.
Last December, six Amazon workers died after they were required to continue working during unsafe weather conditions in a warehouse that did not have appropriate safety facilities or policies.
It is abundantly clear that time and time again Amazon has engaged in illegal anti-union activity.
Amazon may be a large and profitable corporation, it may be owned by one of the wealthiest people in America, but it cannot be allowed to continue to violate the law and the rights of its employees. If working people are asked to obey the law they do it or they are punished by the law. That same principle must be upheld for a large and powerful corporation like Amazon.
And that is why, this morning, I sent a letter to President Biden urging him to sign an executive order to prohibit companies like Amazon that have violated labor laws from receiving federal contracts paid for by the taxpayers of America.
Let me quote from this letter:
"Dear President Biden:
Last September, I was delighted to hear you state that you 'intend to be the most pro-union President leading the most pro-union administration in American history.'
At a time of massive income and wealth inequality, where too many workers are falling behind, your sentiment is exactly right. We need to build the trade union movement in America and allow more workers to engage in collective bargaining.
One of the most effective ways for you [President Biden] to begin accomplishing this important goal would be to ensure that no corporation that is engaged in illegal anti-union activities receives a contract paid for by the taxpayers of the United States.
As you will recall, during the presidential campaign you [President Biden] promised to 'institute a multi-year federal debarment for all employers who illegally oppose unions' and to 'ensure federal contracts only go to employers who sign neutrality agreements committing not to run anti-union campaigns.'
That campaign promise was exactly right. Today, I am asking you [President Biden] to fulfill that promise ... As you may know, Amazon, one of the largest and most profitable corporations in America, is the poster child as to why this anti-union busting Executive Order is needed now more than ever."
M. President: I ask unanimous consent to include the full text of my letter into the record.
President Biden, more than any other president in modern American history, has talked over and over again about being pro-union - and I appreciate the President's rhetoric and know him to be sincere on this issue.
Just this afternoon, in an article in Politico, in response to my letter, "A White House official said that the president 'has stated consistently and firmly that every worker in every state must have a free and fair choice to join a union and the right to bargain collectively with their employer.' The official, who declined to be named, added that Biden believes 'there should be no intimidation, no coercion, no threats, and no anti-union propaganda from employers while workers are making that vitally important choice about a union.'"
But that is exactly what is happening at Amazon. There is intimidation. There is coercion. There are threats and anti-union propaganda. In fact, all of that is precisely what Amazon is doing.
In my view, the time for talk is over. The time for action is now.
Taxpayer dollars should not go to companies like Amazon and multi-billionaires like Jeff Bezos who repeatedly break the law.
No government - not the federal government, not the state government and not the city government - should be handing out corporate welfare to union busters and labor law violators.
So today I say to President Biden: You promised to prevent union busters like Amazon from receiving lucrative contracts from the federal government. Please keep that promise.
LATEST NEWS
Mike Johnson Touts $901 Billion Military Budget Plan After Gutting Medicaid, SNAP
"At such a time, bipartisan agreement to provide additional funds to the Pentagon would deliver a cruel message to the American public," advocacy groups warned.
Dec 08, 2025
Republican congressional leaders unveiled a sprawling military policy bill late Sunday that would authorize $901 billion in US military spending for the coming fiscal year, just months after GOP lawmakers and President Donald Trump pushed through the largest-ever cuts to Medicaid and federal nutrition assistance.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who aggressively pushed cuts to Medicaid by peddling false claims of large-scale fraud, touted the 3,086-page National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) as legislation that would "ensure our military forces remain the most lethal in the world."
The bill, a compromise between House and Senate versions of the annual legislation, would authorize $8 billion more in US military spending than Trump asked for in his 2026 budget request.
If passed, the 2026 NDAA would pump billions of dollars more into the Pentagon, a cesspool of the kinds of waste, fraud, and abuse that Johnson and other Republicans claim to be targeting when they cut safety net programs, stripping health insurance and food aid from millions. The Pentagon has never passed an independent audit and continues to have "significant fraud exposure," the Government Accountability Office said earlier this year.
"The surge in Pentagon spending stands in sharp contrast to the drastic cuts in healthcare and food assistance programs imposed by the reconciliation package."
Final passage of the NDAA would push total military spending authorized by Congress this year above $1 trillion, including the $150 billion in Pentagon funds included in the Trump-GOP budget law enacted over the summer.
Last month, as Common Dreams reported, a coalition of watchdog and anti-war groups implored Congress not to approve any funding above the originally requested $892.6 billion, warning that additional money for the Pentagon would enable the Trump administration's lawless use of the military in US streets and overseas.
The groups also noted that "the surge in Pentagon spending stands in sharp contrast to the drastic cuts in healthcare and food assistance programs imposed by the reconciliation package."
"At such a time," they wrote in a letter to lawmakers, "bipartisan agreement to provide additional funds to the Pentagon would deliver a cruel message to the American public, one out of step with Democratic messaging over healthcare, reconciliation, and the shutdown."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Billionaire Palantir Co-Founder Pushes Return of Public Hangings as Part of 'Masculine Leadership' Initiative
"Immaturity masquerading as strength is the defining personal characteristic of our age," said one critic in response.
Dec 07, 2025
Venture capitalist Joe Lonsdale, a co-founder of data platform company Palantir, is calling for the return of public hangings as part of a broader push to restore what he describes as "masculine leadership" to the US.
In a statement posted on X Friday, Lonsdale said that he supported changing the so-called "three strikes" anti-crime law to ensure that anyone who is convicted of three violent crimes gets publicly executed, rather than simply sent to prison for life.
"If I’m in charge later, we won’t just have a three strikes law," he wrote. "We will quickly try and hang men after three violent crimes. And yes, we will do it in public to deter others."
Lonsdale then added that "our society needs balance," and said that "it's time to bring back masculine leadership to protect our most vulnerable."
Lonsdale's views on public hangings being necessary to restore "masculine leadership" drew swift criticism.
Gil Durán, a journalist who documents the increasingly authoritarian politics of Silicon Valley in his newsletter "The Nerd Reich," argued in a Saturday post that Lonsdale's call for public hangings showed that US tech elites are "entering a more dangerous and desperate phase of radicalization."
"For months, Peter Thiel guru Curtis Yarvin has been squawking about the need for more severe measures to cement Trump's authoritarian rule," Durán explained. "Peter Thiel is ranting about the Antichrist in a global tour. And now Lonsdale—a Thiel protégé—is fantasizing about a future in which he will have the power to unleash state violence at mass scale."
Taulby Edmondson, an adjunct professor of history, religion, and culture at Virginia Tech, wrote in a post on Bluesky that the rhetoric Lonsdale uses to justify the return of public hangings has even darker intonations than calls for state-backed violence.
"A point of nuance here: 'masculine leadership to protect our most vulnerable' is how lynch mobs are described, not state-sanctioned executions," he observed.
Theoretical physicist Sean Carroll argued that Lonsdale's remarks were symbolic of a kind of performative masculinity that has infected US culture.
"Immaturity masquerading as strength is the defining personal characteristic of our age," he wrote.
Tech entrepreneur Anil Dash warned Lonsdale that his call for public hangings could have unintended consequences for members of the Silicon Valley elite.
"Well, Joe, Mark Zuckerberg has sole control over Facebook, which directly enabled the Rohingya genocide," he wrote. "So let’s have the conversation."
And Columbia Journalism School professor Bill Grueskin noted that Lonsdale has been a major backer of the University of Austin, an unaccredited liberal arts college that has been pitched as an alternative to left-wing university education with the goal of preparing "thoughtful and ethical innovators, builders, leaders, public servants and citizens through open inquiry and civil discourse."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Hegseth Defends Boat Bombings as New Details Further Undermine Administration's Justifications
The boat targeted in the infamous September 2 "double-tap" strike was not even headed for the US, Adm. Frank Bradley revealed to lawmakers.
Dec 07, 2025
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Saturday defended the Trump administration's policy of bombing suspected drug-trafficking vessels even as new details further undermined the administration's stated justifications for the policy.
According to the Guardian, Hegseth told a gathering at the Ronald Reagan presidential library that the boat bombings, which so far have killed at least 87 people, are necessary to protect Americans from illegal drugs being shipped to the US.
"If you’re working for a designated terrorist organization and you bring drugs to this country in a boat, we will find you and we will sink you," Hegseth said. "Let there be no doubt about it."
However, leaked details about a classified briefing delivered to lawmakers last week by Adm. Frank Bradley about a September 2 boat strike cast new doubts on Hegseth's justifications.
CNN reported on Friday that Bradley told lawmakers that the boat taken out by the September 2 attack was not even headed toward the US, but was going "to link up with another, larger vessel that was bound for Suriname," a small nation in the northeast of South America.
While Bradley acknowledged that the boat was not heading toward the US, he told lawmakers that the strike on it was justified because the drugs it was carrying could have theoretically wound up in the US at some point.
Additionally, NBC News reported on Saturday that Bradley told lawmakers that Hegseth had ordered all 11 men who were on the boat targeted by the September 2 strike to be killed because "they were on an internal list of narco-terrorists who US intelligence and military officials determined could be lethally targeted."
This is relevant because the US military launched a second strike during the September 2 operation to kill two men who had survived the initial strike on their vessel, which many legal experts consider to be either a war crime or an act of murder under domestic law.
Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, watched video of the September 2 double-tap attack last week, and he described the footage as “one of the most troubling things I’ve seen in my time in public service.”
“Any American who sees the video that I saw will see its military attacking shipwrecked sailors,” Himes explained. “Now, there’s a whole set of contextual items that the admiral explained. Yes, they were carrying drugs. They were not in position to continue their mission in any way... People will someday see this video and they will see that that video shows, if you don’t have the broader context, an attack on shipwrecked sailors.”
While there has been much discussion about the legality of the September 2 double-tap strike in recent days, some critics have warned that fixating on this particular aspect of the administration's policy risks taking the focus off the illegality of the boat-bombing campaign as a whole.
Daphne Eviatar, director for security and human rights for Amnesty International USA, said on Friday that the entire boat-bombing campaign has been "illegal under both domestic and international law."
"All of them constitute murder because none of the victims, whether or not they were smuggling illegal narcotics, posed an imminent threat to life," she said. "Congress must take action now to stop the US military from murdering more people in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


