CBS News
Transcript: Sen. Bernie Sanders on “Face the Nation,” March 10, 2024
The following is a transcript of an interview with Sen. Bernie Sanders, Independent of Vermont, that aired on March 10, 2024.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Good morning and welcome to Face The Nation. We are coming off a big week in politics. But there are challenges ahead, particularly with the war between Israel and Hamas reaching a critical point as the holy month of Ramadan begins. And we turn now to that crisis in the Middle East and renewed fears of violence in Jerusalem. I do want to note that we have an extensive bipartisan conversation with the chairs of the Senate Intelligence Committee that will be coming up in a moment, but we’re going to begin with Senator Bernie Sanders from Burlington, Vermont. Good morning to you, Senator.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Morning.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You have long been a critic of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The other night, President Biden was heard on a hot mic after the State of the Union address saying he has to have a come to Jesus talk with Netanyahu about letting humanitarian aid into Gaza. Have you spoken to President Biden about whether he’s had this conversation? If he hasn’t, what is he waiting for? And if he already had it, has it made any difference?
SEN. SANDERS: Well, I’ve spoken to people very high up in his administration. Here’s the bottom line. Margaret, what we are seeing in Gaza today is literally an unprecedented crisis. It’s not just that 30,000 people, two thirds of them are women and children have already been killed. We are looking at the possibility of hundreds of thousands of children starving to death. The United States of America cannot be complicit in this mass slaughter of children. So it is one thing to talk to Netanyahu to pressure Netanyahu. But here is the bottom line. Year after year, we have provided billions of dollars in military aid to the Government of Israel. Right now, you have a right wing extremist government under Netanyahu. There are plans to provide him with another $10 billion in unfettered military aid. What you can say to Netanyahu, stop the slaughter, allow the massive amounts of humanitarian aid that we need to come in to feed the children. Please, please, please. Oh, but by the way, if you don’t do it, here’s another $10 billion to continue the war. Now we have written a letter to the president, it turns out that Israel is in violation of the law, stopping American humanitarian aid is in violation of the law. That should be clear, no more money to Netanyahu’s war machine to kill Palestinian children.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You said Israel’s in violation of the Foreign Assistance Act as have a handful of other Democratic senators, they may also be in violation of the Leahy Act, the President himself has the national security powers to suspend. Do you really think though, in a presidential election year, that the President of the United States would halt or pause or condition aid to one of the closest allies in the Middle East?
SEN. SANDERS: Well, I think it is the right thing to do. You can’t beg Netanyahu, you got to tell him if you want any money, you got to change your policy. Allow the trucks to come in to feed their children. And by the way, in terms of politics —
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah.
SEN. SANDERS: — Which is secondary, to my mind in this issue. The truth is, whether you’re a conservative Republican or a progressive, you do not want to see children in Palestine starve to death. So I think it’s good politics, and it’s the moral and right thing to do.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you stand by your view that a full ceasefire with Hamas is unrealistic? Because that terror group seeks to destroy Israel?
SEN. SANDERS: Look, what you have, what you need right now is a ceasefire tomorrow so that the trucks, the massive amount of humanitarian aid can come in to feed the people who are starving. But you have Hamas has dedicated to destroying Israel. You have the Natenyehav- Netanyahu government which is dedicated to destroy Hamas. I think at the end of the day, commands cannot be continuing to run Gaza. And Netanyahu government cannot continue to run Israel, if we’re going to ever leave- bring peace to that region,
MARGARET BRENNAN: But a temporary ceasefire is sufficient for you?
SEN. SANDERS: To feed the children right now is —
MARGARET BRENNAN: — Understood.
SEN. SANDERS: What we’ve got to exactly do.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay. Yesterday, President Biden was asked about Israel’s plans to launch an operation into the southern city of Rafah in southern Gaza. Listen to what he said.
(START SOUND ON TAPE)
JONATHAN CAPEHART: Would invasion of Rafah, which you have urged him not to do, would that be a red line?
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: It is a red line, but I’m never gonna leave Israel. The defense of Israel is still critical. So there’s no red line. I’m going to cut off all weapons so they don’t have the Iron Dome to protect them. They don’t have- but there’s red lines that if he crosses, they can cannot have 30,000 More Palestinians dead.
(END SOUND ON TAPE)
MARGARET BRENNAN: Was that clear to you in terms of where that red line is? And what do you make of it?
SEN. SANDERS: Look, Margaret, 1.7 million Palestinians, 80% of their population have been driven from their homes and displaced. Many of them end up in Rafah. To go in there and to displace them again and start a major military campaign would be an unmitigated disaster. So my view is, of course, we cannot support an attack of that kind on Rafah. Bottom line is, though, Netanyahu has got to be told no more money for his war machine, unless there is humanitarian aid coming in to feed the people.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, that’ll be in the hands at the moment of- of the House of Representatives, which hasn’t scheduled a vote. On the politics of this, more than 100,000 voters in Michigan went uncommitted to protest Mr. Biden’s policy. In the state of Minnesota in the recent primary there, you saw a similar boycott, almost 20% went uncommitted. Giving your moral objections, your personal issues here, can you, in good conscience, ask your supporters to vote for Mr. Biden?
SEN. SANDERS: Well, look, the contrast that I think President Biden made it very clear in the State of the Union address. If you believe that climate change is real, you’ve got to vote for President Biden, if you believe that women have a right to control their own bodies, you’ve got to vote for President Biden. If you think that at time of massive income and wealth inequality, you don’t give trillions of dollars in tax breaks to the 1%, you’ve got to vote for Biden. If you want to lower the cost of prescription drugs, you’ve got to vote for Biden. If you believe in democracy, and involving people in the process, rather than keeping people from voting, you have to vote for Biden.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So you’re saying —
SEN. SANDERS: — So I am in talk —
MARGARET BRENNAN: — Progressives need to put this aside?
SEN. SANDERS: I am saying we’ve got to come, not put it aside. The fight continues to change Biden’s policy in Gaza. But the contrast between Biden and Trump is day and night. The election of Trump would be a disaster for this country. And in my view of the world, we’ve got to come together, reelect Biden, but at the same time, we have to demand that we have a progressive agenda, where we have an economy that works for all, not just a few.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So you’re standing by your endorsement of Mr. Biden’s election, despite the current policy?
SEN. SANDERS: No, I’m not supporting Mr. Trump, no —
MARGARET BRENNAN: — No, no, no Mr. Biden.
SEN. SANDERS: The election of Trump would be- yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Senator Bernie Sanders, thank you for your time this morning.
SEN. SANDERS: Thank you.
President-elect Donald Trump made claims about the history of U.S. tariff collection as he defended his plan to raise tariffs on goods from countries like China and Mexico in a news conference this week, claims historians say are at odds with the facts.
In particular, Trump exaggerated the impact of tariff hikes during his first term, falsely claiming that “no other president took in 10 cents” of revenue from trade collections on Chinese imports. Trump also pointed to 19th-century tariff increases championed by former President William McKinley as evidence that his plan could benefit the economy.
But data shows the federal government had been taking in billions in revenue from tariffs on Chinese imports long before Trump came to office, and historians say the high tariff era of the 1890s was economically rocky for Americans.
Tariffs are taxes on imports, often charged as a percentage of the price that importers pay foreign sellers. They aren’t paid by foreign nations, but by U.S. companies who often pass the cost to American consumers by raising prices.
In his next term, Trump has pledged to put an additional 10% levy on all Chinese goods, along with a 25% tariff on all products from Mexico and Canada. Americans spend more than $1 trillion on goods from those three countries each year, according to data from the Census Bureau.
What Trump gets wrong about history of tariffs on China
In his news conference this week, Trump repeated a claim he made frequently on the campaign trail: that his predecessors essentially took in no money from tariffs on Chinese goods, while his administration took in billions.
Tariffs on Chinese imports have existed since the 1700s, generating billions in revenue for years before Trump came into office.
During President Barack Obama’s final year in office, tariff revenue from Chinese imports totaled over $12 billion, according to data from the U.S. International Trade Commission. That amount increased after Trump’s first round of tariff hikes to over $22 billion, the same federal data shows.
Trump did dramatically raise the total revenue generated from Chinese imports by adding tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of goods. However, even with that increase, tariff collections have not accounted for much more than 2% of federal revenue at any point in the last 70 years, according to the Congressional Research Service this month.
The president-elect has argued his tariff plan for his next term could bring in revenue to help defray the cost of income tax cuts. Goldman Sachs estimated that Trump’s proposed levies on goods from China, Mexico and Canada could generate just under $300 billion in tariff revenue per year, which would be up from $77 billion in fiscal year 2024.
But tariffs had not been viewed as a primary way to raise revenue since the federal income tax was introduced in 1913, said Judith Goldstein, a political science professor at Stanford.
“As the U.S. became more involved in the world, the effect of tariffs on domestic production and prices were increasingly a problem,” Goldstein said.
Trump has also repeatedly argued his tariff plan will help protect U.S. companies. There’s some evidence that the customs duties he imposed in his first term boosted jobs in specific industries like washing machine manufacturing, according to research from the Brookings Institution, a think tank. However, manufacturers also faced higher costs for raw materials and retaliatory tariffs from other nations, according to the Federal Reserve.
What Trump gets wrong about the McKinley tariffs
This week, Trump also cited McKinley’s 1890 tariff hikes as evidence that these customs taxes can enrich the U.S.
“You go back and look at the 1890s, 1880s, McKinley, and you take a look at tariffs, that was when we were proportionately the richest,” Trump said.
In 1890, tariff hikes raised the average duties on foreign imports from 38% to nearly 50%. McKinley, a representative for Ohio at the time, pushed for the taxes to protect his state’s steelworkers from foreign competition, according to Dartmouth College economics professor Doug Irwin.
However, the decade that followed these hikes was marked by economic trouble.
“The U.S. went into a depression in 1893, and we didn’t really emerge out of it until the mid-1890s. So in general the 1890s was not a great decade for the U.S. economy,” Irwin said.
Additionally, McKinley’s tariff bill raised prices of goods like shoes and clothes, leading to voter backlash that cost Republicans 93 seats in the next election, according to the House of Representatives Office of the Historian.
Trump’s transition team did not respond to a request for clarification on why he said America was “proportionately the richest” after this bill passed.
Historic data shows gross domestic product per capita for Americans has vastly increased from about $6,400 in the early 1890s (in 2017 dollars) to roughly $69,000 today (in 2024 dollars).
“It is unclear why he’s picking on the 1890s as this golden age. It wasn’t considered good times, at least by the people living through it at the time,” Irwin said.
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
