Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I strongly opposed the Republicans' efforts to gut the SEC rule regarding transparency for oil and mining industry payments to foreign governments. I hope the American people are paying attention. One of the first substantive legislative matters that Republicans are trying to send to the President is a measure that makes it easier for oil companies to corrupt foreign governments and undermine U.S. foreign policy goals. This bill seeks to unravel human rights and transparency protections implemented by the Obama administration. The rule requires oil and mining companies to tell the SEC how much money they pay to foreign governments to extract natural resources. It is a simple, common-sense requirement to improve transparency and combat corruption in some of the most corrupt and dysfunctional countries in the world. In fact, dozens of other countries require that their companies report payments to foreign governments. Time and again, we have seen oil and mining companies go into other nations that are poor and lack basic democratic institutions and pay huge sums of money to autocratic corrupt regimes. According to a recent article in Foreign Affairs, when Rex Tillerson led Exxon as its chairman and CEO, Exxon ``cut lucrative deals with dictators in oil- rich pockets of Africa, extending the lifespans of autocratic regimes in places such as Angola, Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Equatorial Guinea.'' Thanks to their countries' oil reserves, the leaders of these poor countries have been able to remain in power for decades. Yet the rule is dogged by many myths and falsehoods spurred by the fossil fuels lobby. More than $200 million was spent by opponents of the rule--the oil and gas industry and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce--on political lobbying and campaign contributions. According to a report in POLITICO, when our newly confirmed Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, was the CEO of Exxon Mobil, he personally lobbied vigorously against transparency and disclosure, saying that if other people knew how much his company paid foreign governments, it would be bad for his business. In fact, Rex Tillerson said that there was one country in particular where this rule would be hard for Exxon--Russia. Another Republican myth is that U.S. companies are at a competitive disadvantage because non-U.S. companies do not have to make the same disclosures and the rule applies only to public companies--not true. The U.S. law covers all oil, gas, and mining companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges--not simply companies based in the United States. This includes BP, Shell, and Total, as well as leading state-owned oil companies from China and Brazil, such as PetroChina and Petrobras. Republicans also claim that this rule increases prices at the pump-- again, not true. Corruption costs oil and mining companies millions of dollars every year from instability and fragility in resource-rich countries, which contributes to increased operating risks, waste, inefficiency, and delays. When leaders tap a country's oil revenues to keep themselves in power, it is called petro-authoritarianism. When the United States allows companies to secretly pay authoritarian governments for rights to their petroleum and mineral resources, we become implicit in the resulting human poverty and rights abuses. We cannot let that stand, which is why we have this SEC reporting requirement. I urged my colleagues to vote no on this effort to kill the important protections provided by the SEC rule regarding transparency for extractive industry payments to foreign governments. We should be putting human rights interests ahead of the financial interests of a few powerful oil companies. That is why I urged my colleagues to vote against putting the profits of industry above the interests of our Nation and lesser developed nations all over the world.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I oppose the Republicans' current efforts to gut environmental protections that put industry profits before public health. In repealing the EPA stream protection rule, Republicans are again choosing to put the health and well-being of average Americans in jeopardy in favor of the interests of the Big Coal industry. This bill seeks to unravel clean drinking water protections implemented by the Obama administration. The last time I checked, no one voted to pollute the environment in the last election. The majority of Americans do not agree that we should be dismantling protections that ensure clean air and clean water. The stream protection rule shields communities from toxic pollution from coal mining, updating regulations that are more than 30 years old. These protections bolster those in the Clean Water Act and establish a long-overdue monitoring requirement for water pollutants--including lead, arsenic, and selenium--known to cause birth defects and other severe human health impacts. The rule was updated to better protect public health and the environment from the adverse effects of surface and underground coal mining. This rule would protect or restore about 6,000 miles of streams and 52,000 acres of forest over two decades. It would prevent water pollution by authorizing approval of mountaintop removal mining operations only when natural waterways will not be destroyed, requiring protection or restoration of streams and related resources, such as threatened or endangered species. It gives communities in coal country much needed information about toxic water pollution caused by nearby mining operations. Long-term, the rule would ensure that premining land use capabilities are restored and guarantee treatment of unanticipated water pollution discharges. Mountaintop mining destroys communities. Let's be clear. This rule helps protect communities from the pollution caused by mountaintop removal coal mining. In Appalachia, mountaintop removal coal mining has been responsible for the destruction of 2,000 miles of streams and 2.5 million acres of the region's ancient forests. States have issued advisories that people should not eat the fish in mined areas because of chemical contamination. In dozens of peer-reviewed studies, mountaintop removal mining has been linked to cancer, birth defects, and other serious health problems among residents living near these sites. According to Kentuckians for the Commonwealth, the public health costs of pollution from coal operations in Appalachia are $75 billion every year. According to a 2011 study in the Journal of Community Health, in counties where mountaintop removal occurs, cancer rates are almost twice than those nearby where there is none. As many as 60,000 additional cases of cancer are linked to the practice within those 1.2 million Americans who live in these areas. In addition, a 2011 study in the scientific peer-reviewed journal Environmental Research found that, even after accounting for socioeconomic risks, birth defects were significantly higher in mountaintop mining areas compared to non-mining areas. Likewise, a 2011 study in the Journal of Rural Health found that areas in Appalachia with mountaintop removal have significantly higher death rates from heart disease than other areas with similar socioeconomic conditions. Researchers in the same Rural Health study estimated that more than 700 additional deaths occur annually. Yet the rule is dogged by many myths and falsehoods spurred by the fossil fuels lobby. Almost a quarter of a billion dollars have been spent by opponents of the rule--the coal mining industry, electric utilities, National Association of Manufacturers, railroads, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce--on political lobbying and campaign donations. They--and Republicans--claim that implementing this rule will kill coal production--not true. Coal production is impacted by many factors, including low natural gas prices. The CEO of the coal company Murray Energy even said, ``I've asked President-elect Trump to temper his comments about . . . bringing coal back. It will not happen.'' In comparison, this rule could actually create jobs. Many of the jobs created by the rule will be construction-type jobs easily conducted by former coal miners. Another myth is that the rule is a huge economic burden on industry-- not true. The economic impacts of implementing this rule are small relative to the size of the coal industry. Industry compliance costs are estimated to average only 0.3 percent or less of the coal industry's $31.2 billion 2015 estimated annual revenues. Conversely, the costs of repealing the rule are borne by Appalachian families and small businesses. Families in these communities will be the ones to endure significant health impacts. Businesses like restaurants, farms, and the outdoor recreation industry rely on clean water and are jeopardized by coal contamination in their community's streams. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this effort to kill the important protections provided by the stream protection rule. We must reject efforts to put the interests of the Big Coal industry above the health and well-being of the American people.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, today I wish to honor Elizabeth Howard Swain. Elizabeth was a lifelong champion of community health care centers, as well as the people they serve, and a wonderful colleague, mother, and friend. After graduating from Boston University with a B.A. in sociology and a master's degree in political economics, Elizabeth moved with her family to Seattle, WA. In 1981, she began working at Seattle's 45th Street Clinic, a Federally Qualified Health Center, FQHC, and eventually became the executive director, a position she held for 10 years. Elizabeth founded the Community Health Plan of Washington and worked as the regional health officer at Public Health of Seattle and King County, as well as the assistant vice president for public policy for the Community Health Network of Washington. In 2005, Elizabeth was recruited to be CEO of the Community Health Care Association of New York State, an advocacy organization that supports more than 65 FQHCs. In Albany, she was a strong advocate for community-based primary care and was known for her ability to bring rival forces together and create partners out of adversaries. Elizabeth also championed FQHC's and the importance of community- based primary care in the American health system in regular meetings with members and staff of the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pension Committee. While Elizabeth was grateful that I secured significant funding for FQHCs through the Affordable Care Act, as a strong supporter of universal health care, she was disappointed that neither the ``public option'' provision, much less a single-payer Medicare for all plan, were part of the ACA. Elizabeth remained true to her commitment to provide quality health care for all Americans, and she did all of this with tremendous energy and compassion for the most vulnerable and medically underserved populations. Elizabeth understood the need to move health care dollars into the front end of the system, where they could be used more efficiently to prevent illness, through patient care management, case management and nutrition, and by keeping people out of expensive hospital settings. She also recognized the critical need for all-inclusive and integrated health care, including dental care and mental health services, in both urban and rural communities served by FQHC's. Elizabeth will be sorely missed. She is survived by her sisters Julia, Cynthia, and Judith and children Kalil, Carmen, and Alexis.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record some of the finalist essays written by Vermont high school students as part of the seventh annual State of the Union essay contest conducted by my office. The material follows:

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record some of the finalist essays written by Vermont high school students as part of the seventh annual State of the Union essay contest conducted by my office. The material follows:

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record some of the finalist essays written by Vermont high school students as part of the seventh annual State of the Union essay contest conducted by my office. The material follows:

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the nomination of Mike Pompeo to be the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. At a time when we are facing massive attacks against privacy rights thanks to the explosion of technology, we should be greatly troubled by giving power to a person who has stated flat-out that he wants to expand the surveillance state, not rein it in. Here is the kind of world we are now living in, a world that should be of concern to every freedom-loving American, whether you are Democrat or Republican or Independent, conservative or progressive. We are living in a world where government and the private sector often know where you are at any time. They know where you are. They know where you are traveling. They know what books you are reading, what Web sites you are visiting, and maybe the emails you are sending out or reading. I hear a whole lot of discussion on the floor of the Senate about freedom, about our desire to live and defend a free society. I would ask my colleagues and the American people--when we talk about freedom, one of the attributes of a free society is the right to live our lives the way we want to live our lives, without Big brother knowing everything there is to know about us. You want to do what you want to, it is your business; I want to do what I want to do, it is my business--if we are not harming other people. I believe that is a basic American right and a basic constitutional right, and I want to see people at the CIA, at the NSA, at other intelligence agencies who, yes, will be vigorous about defending us from terrorism but will do it in a way that is constitutional, that protects the civil liberties and the civil rights of the American people. According to the Pew Internet Project, today 95 percent of American adults own a cell phone. More than three-quarters of American adults own a smartphone. Eighty-eight percent of American adults use the Internet. These advancements obviously have enormous advantages. Everybody knows all of the extraordinary things we can do on the Internet and all the information we can gain. It is almost unthinkable that we were living not so many years ago without the advantages of the Internet. All of these advantages, all of these conveniences come with a price. If you have a Google account and the GPS enabled on your phone, Google creates a map for you of every single place you go in a given day. Facebook amasses a massive amount of data on you to better target commercials and advertisements to you. Credit card companies track your spending habits. Even innocuous things like a loyalty program in which you gain benefits by buying at a certain store give the private sector and the government eventually access to a massive amount of information about you. When you go to the grocery store and scan your card, it is very convenient, moves things faster, and you can get a discount, but the store gets to track everything you purchase. Is that really what want? Do you want the whole world to have knowledge of everything you purchase? For just one rather famous example, Target--a huge chain in America--could tell if a woman was pregnant based on what she was purchasing at the store. Do we really feel comfortable about that kind of information getting out into the private sector or the government sector? If you are wearing a tracking device today to count your steps, to count your heart rate and your sleep patterns, you may see it as a way to become healthier. Your employer or health insurance company, however, may see it as a way to charge you more if you don't meet certain employee wellness targets. Are we really comfortable about corporations knowing all about our health? If you are dealing with a serious illness, maybe it is something you and your family want to keep within the bosom of your family and not spread to the whole world. That companies are collecting this much information on their own is very troubling to me, but Mr. Pompeo apparently wants to go even further. Last January, he published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal in which he wrote: Congress should pass a law reestablishing collection of all metadata, and combining it with publicly available financial and lifestyle information into a comprehensive, searchable database. Legal and bureaucratic impediments to surveillance should be removed. Wow. What we are talking about is the U.S. Government having, in many ways, more information about us than we may even understand about our own lives. In many ways, it sounds to me that we are moving toward an Orwellian society where, between the government and the private sector, there is very little about ourselves that is not known by somebody else. I am very, very uncomfortable about that. I want at the head of the CIA somebody who understands thoroughly the Constitution of the United States and privacy rights and understands that we can fight terrorism effectively within the Constitution and the privacy rights guaranteed to the people of our country. Since June of 2013, here is what we have already learned that the NSA collects: phone call metadata, including the numbers of both parties-- my number and the number of the person I call--the location, time, and duration of that telephone call. NSA has access to text messages, email chat, and Internet browsing history, smartphone app data, including map data, which can pinpoint a person's location to within a few yards. They have maps of people's social networks and bank and credit card transactions. That is a lot of information held by the government and/ or the private sector on the personal lives of the American people. As I have mentioned, there is nobody in this Congress who does not understand the threat of terrorism and does not want to see our government be as strong and vigorous as possible in fighting terrorism and getting all the information we need to effectively combat terrorism, to make sure that if somebody is a suspect in terrorist activities, that we go after that person as strongly and as effectively as we can. I believe from the bottom of my heart that we can do that without invading the privacy rights of the American people. It is not acceptable for Senator after Senator to come here and say we are defending freedom, we live in a free society, and then vote to allow the government or the private sector to have an unbelievable amount of knowledge about each and every one of our personal lives. Now more than ever, it is vital to have a head of the CIA who will stand up for our Constitution, stand up for privacy rights. Unfortunately, in my view, Mr. Pompeo is not that individual. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record some of the finalist essays written by Vermont high school students as part of the seventh annual State of the Union essay contest conducted by my office. The material follows:

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, since 2010, I have sponsored a State of the Union essay contest for Vermont students. The contest, now in its 7th year, is an opportunity for Vermont's high school students to articulate what issues they would prioritize if they were President of the United States. A panel of Vermont teachers reviewed all of the essays submitted and selected the top 20. I would like to congratulate each and every finalist and to specifically acknowledge Quinn Nelson Mayo as this year's winner of the contest. I would also like to recognize Musa Mayange for placing second and A.J. DeFelice for placing third. I ask to have printed in the Record the winning essays. The material follows: quinn nelson mayo, st. johnsbury academy junior (winner) The United States was founded on several core values; the most important, as most of us agree, is freedom. This shared belief has been the foundation of our country for over 200 years. And for centuries, media has been a major outlet for people to exercise this freedom because it allows them to share their opinions with the masses. The idea of free speech took on a different meaning with the development of the internet in the late 80s. Since then, this liberty has grown exponentially. Now people have the ability to share their thoughts with a much larger audience. It is possible to do this anonymously and without fear of consequence. The internet is an incredible asset which has helped with globalization and the spread of information. However, this form of media does have its drawbacks. The leading issue is that it enables the spread of false information. So, while the internet embodies our nation's core value of freedom, it can also be detrimental to another vital aspect of our society: educated and well informed citizens. Regardless of one's political views, we can all agree that 2016 has been a tumultuous year for politics, here in the United States and across the globe. The 2016 presidential campaign was a dramatic affair, and just the opening act to one of the most high-stakes elections in our country's history. The actions and rhetoric of the president-elect have inspired a great political shift, as well as a burgeoning sense of xenophobia and hatred throughout the country. During times such as these, it is important to focus on what we can do to create a better future. Much of the hate directed towards certain groups of people is due to ignorance and can be traced back to stereotypes perpetrated by unreliable media sources. Forcing media sites to drastically increase their censorship would rightfully anger their users, on the grounds that it restricts their constitutional right to free speech. Therefore, the most plausible and effective solution to the problem of misinformation is to educate people. As of this year, 78% of the United States population has a social media profile (Statista). Facebook and Twitter have billions of users across the world. It is imperative that we use such sites with care. The recent controversies over fake news have made the influence of the media on politics increasingly apparent. The rumor now known as ``Pizzagate'' is a prime example of a fake news story with tremendous influence. Millions of people believed that Hillary Clinton was involved in a child-prostitution ring run out of a pizza parlor. This is because, for a vast number of people, social media and biased news sources are their only ways of acquiring information. In fact, it is estimated that 62% of American adults use social media at least occasionally as a news source (Pew Research Center). However, many blindly make the assumption that it is accurate. When hundreds of thousands of people are susceptible to hate-driven fake news, it can have a huge impact on our democracy. This is why I propose the incorporation of media literacy as a core subject in all public schools. Public schools educate the majority of our nation's children. Which is why, by teaching America's youth how to approach sources impartially and critically, we can fix this problem of misinformation. Integrating media literacy as a required course at elementary and high-school levels is an investment in our future generations. musa mayange, winooski high school senior (second place) Twelve years and still no change. After fleeing from a civil war in Somalia in 1992, my parents took refuge at a refugee camp in Kakuma, Kenya. After 12 years of struggle, in 2004 we flew from the National Airport of Kenya to J.F.K. International Airport in New York thinking our lives were saved. Finally here, the land of the free and the home of the brave. One of the only places on earth where you can taste opportunity and smell a second chance. At the age of 17, I can see it now. America's resistance to change. Racism exists in America. Surveys reveal that whites apply stereotypical thinking about blacks, considering them lazy and unintelligent. What are we going to do about these attitudes towards persons of color? The American National Election Studies asked voters to rank blacks and whites from hardworking to lazy, from intelligent to unintelligent. In 2012, 62 percent of whites gave blacks a lower score in at least one area. In 2008, 45 percent of whites expressed negative feelings about black stereotypes. (Milbank, Washington Post) For a while, we thought that the issue of racism was over and that our nation was going to move forward and ``leave the past in the past.'' It almost had me fooled because we live in Vermont and we sometimes can be isolated from world issues. But racism is still here. When everyone thought that it was no longer ``relevant,'' it's still alive. As a young African-American immigrant, how can I wrap my head around this? As Vermonters how can we annihilate racism and get our community to be accepting of all races, cultures, and ethnic backgrounds? Ta-Nehisi Coates addresses the disadvantages of living with black skin in Between the World And Me. Coates says ``. . . today, when 8% of the world's prisoners are black men, our race has been refinanced to the Dream of being white. Black life is cheap, but in America, black bodies are a natural resource of incomparable value.'' Black people are born with a disadvantage. We are more likely to go jail than white people. The Center for American Progress says, ``In the United States, black people account for 60 percent of those imprisoned. The prison population grew by 700 percent from 1970 to 2005, a rate that is outpacing crime and population rates. Black people make up 17% of the United States population yet more of us are in jail. A black man is twice as likely to go to jail than a white man, even if they did the same crime. Racism was born when humans identified skin color as a positive or negative factor. If each of us could accept that we are all humans, we come from different places, and have different interests, we could accept racial differences, but not let them divide us. We will never move forward if we don't work together side by side and knock down obstacles. aj defelice, hartford high school freshman (third place) The United States is one of the greatest countries on Earth, prized for its natural beauty, economic opportunities, and democratic principles. However, many challenges face our nation. Among the most pressing issues are climate change, immigration, and income inequality. Perhaps the most daunting problem we face is climate change, and the crucial role our country plays in it. Although President Obama recently signed the Paris Agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions, much must still be done to combat this issue. We can begin by putting unemployed or low- income Americans to work--manufacturing, transporting, and installing renewable energy products--such as solar panels, wind turbines, and more. This would produce a similar effect as the New Deal put into place by President Franklin D. Roosevelt to combat the negative effects of the Great Depression. Additionally, a carbon tax should be established nationally, to lower emissions, and encourage the usage of renewable energy. A carbon tax would also allow for tax reductions in other areas, and combined with employing Americans to transition to widespread renewable energy, would create economic growth, while simultaneously reducing our carbon footprint. Another controversial issue which troubles our nation is immigration. The United States is a country built on the backs of immigrants, and to deny a path to citizenship to millions who long only for a higher quality of life is unpatriotic. We must stop dehumanizing these people and see them only for who they are--people. Immigrants strengthen our economy, whether it be as producers, consumers, or developers. To deny them access to citizenship in our nation would be depriving ourselves of economic growth and cultural diversity. Economic and cultural change that would only strengthen American society. Income inequality is another issue which plagues our nation today. According to countless years of research, income inequality has a direct correlation on social and health issues. A study conducted by the University of Wisconsin found that people who reside in more financially unequal communities are more likely to die before the age of 75. As national income inequality decreases, so do social and health problems. This decline can be seen in Scandinavian countries, where having a more equal gross domestic product per capita results in a higher quality of life. To make this possible for the United States, corporations must be regulated and held accountable by lawmakers to be sure that the American people are receiving the representation they deserve. As citizens, we must be responsible in electing officials who will place the needs of the greater population above the interests of wealthy corporate executives. Our nation is at a turning point in its history, and the choices we make today will have lasting effects on future generations. The United States of America will remain a strong, respected, and prosperous nation if we are able to look past our disagreements and focus on making progress through compromise. We must act wisely, and keep our eyes on what is most important--the liberty we treasure as our nation's crowning promise.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, perhaps people then will ask a simple question: How does it happen? How does the same exact same medicine sold in the United States sell in countries around the world for a fraction of the price that we have to pay? The answer is severalfold. No. 1, we are the only major country on Earth, of course, that does not have a national health care system guaranteeing health care to all people. We are the only major country on Earth not to have that. As part of that problem, we are the only major country not to negotiate drug prices with the pharmaceutical industry. You can walk into a drug store today, and the price could be double or three times what you paid a year ago. There is no law to stop them. They can and they will raise prices as high as the market will allow. If people die as a result of that, not a problem for them. If people get sick, not a problem for them. Perhaps next to Wall Street, the pharmaceutical industry is the most powerful political force in this country. They have spent more than $3 billion on lobbying since 1998, and they have 1,400 lobbyists on Capitol Hill. We have 100 Senators. There are 435 Members of the House. Yet the drug companies have 1,400 lobbyists on Capitol Hill. They have lobbyists all over the country in every State capital. These are no small-time lobbyists. These are former leaders of the Democratic Party, leaders of the Republican Party, people who have enormous contacts. So the drug companies are able to raise prices to any level they want because we as a nation, uniquely among major nations, do not negotiate prices with them. The reason we do not negotiate prices with them is they got lobbyists and they make very hefty campaign contributions to make sure Congress, in fact, does not pass legislation which will lower drug prices in this country. The pharmaceutical industry is an industry that is not only incredibly greedy, but they have a business model which is largely based on fraud. Like Wall Street, their business model is largely based on fraud. Almost every major drug company, not widely known--but almost every major drug company in this country--multi, multibillion-dollar corporations--have been fined for illegal activities and for cheating consumers in our country and all over the world. Since 1991, with lax enforcement--it is not like we have a vigorous Attorney General's office that really goes after these guys. With relatively lax enforcement policies, drug companies over the years since 1991 have paid over $35 billion in fines or reached settlements for fraud and misconduct. Imagine that. This is just when they are caught, and I suspect that most of the times they cheat, they don't get caught--but $35 billion in fines or settlements since 1991 from the major drug companies in this country. Let me give you just a few examples of some of the settlements and fines the major drug companies have made in recent years. In 2013, the Justice Department ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $2.2 billion in fines because they ``recklessly promote drugs for uses that have not been proven to be safe and effective.'' According to the U.S. attorney handling the case, Johnson & Johnson's ``promotion of Risperdal for unapproved uses threatened the most vulnerable populations of our society--children, the elderly, and those with developmental disabilities.'' In 2010, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals paid $520 million to resolve allegations that it illegally marketed the antipsychotic drug Seroquel for uses not approved as safe and effective by the Food and Drug Administration. In 2009, Eli Lilly was fined over $1.4 billion for its off-label promotion of another antipsychotic product known as Zyprexa. According to Federal investigators, Eli Lilly's ``illegal activity increases patients' costs, threatens their safety and negatively affects the delivery of healthcare services to the more than nine million military members, retirees and their families who rely on'' TRICARE. Very interestingly--and I am sure many of the Members saw it-- President-Elect Trump had a press conference this morning, and in his press conference, he said that pharma is ``getting away with murder.'' Mr. Trump: Pharma is ``getting away with murder.'' Do you know what? Mr. Trump is exactly right. Pharma is getting away with murder. Pharma has gotten away with murder for many decades. The interesting issue is, with a Republican President-elect telling the truth, that pharma is getting away with murder, will the Republicans, will all the Democrats have the guts finally to stand up to the pharmaceutical industry and their lobbyists and their campaign contributions and fight for the American consumer and end the disgrace of having our country pay, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs? The good news is--I say to my fellow Republicans and to Democrats-- the good news is that tonight you are going to have that opportunity because as part of the so-called vote-arama, I will be offering a very simple amendment which I hope wins strong bipartisan support. In fact, there have been a number of Republicans over the years--in the House and in the Senate--who have supported the concept of reimportation for many years. What this amendment will do is allow pharmaceutical distributors and pharmacists and those involved in the pharmaceutical industries--those people who sell drugs--to import low-cost medicine from Canada and other countries which will be FDA-approved. In other words, all over this country people ask a very simple question: We can eat fish and vegetables that are grown all over the world, but somehow we cannot get into this country brand-name prescription drugs manufactured by some of the largest drug companies in the world from an advanced country like Canada? The reason we can't do that is for one reason and one reason alone, and that is the power of the pharmaceutical industry. I would hope that tonight, both Democrats and Republicans will stand together and demand that this country be able to import safe, low-cost medicine from Canada and from other countries. I should also mention that I will be introducing legislation with Representative Elijah Cummings from Maryland in the coming days on this very issue, on the issue of reimportation and also another issue that Mr. Trump touched on, I believe, today; and that is, the need for Medicare and the government, in general, to negotiate prices with the pharmaceutical industry. The VA does it. Clearly, Medicare should be doing it as well. I believe we are going to have an amendment on the floor tonight. I would hope people support that amendment. I will be introducing legislation on that issue as well as reimportation. When we talk about the health care crisis in America, one of the issues of concern to most Americans is the outrageously high cost of prescription drugs. The question is whether the Congress has the guts to take on an enormously powerful industry, the pharmaceutical industry, with all of their lobbying and all of their campaign contributions. I certainly hope we will do the right thing, and tonight we can begin that process. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS. Reserving the right to object--and I will not object--I have one mild correction.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I urge a strong ``no'' vote on the Barrasso amendment. The language calls for strengthening Social Security, but we all know what strengthening Social Security means. It means cutting Social Security. It means cutting Medicare. It means cutting Medicaid. We are into Orwellian language. ``Strengthening'' is not cutting programs, it is not throwing 20 million Americans off health insurance, it is not privatizing Medicare, it is not raising prescription drug costs for senior citizens. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Barrasso amendment.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive section 305(b) of that act for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment is not germane to the underlying resolution and, therefore, violates section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, the repeal of the Affordable Care Act will throw perhaps up to 30 million people off of health insurance. I would yield to my friends if they will tell me now what the replacement is. How many of those 30 million people are going to die? What is your plan to cover them, plus the other 28 million people who have no health insurance? How are you going to end the international embarrassment of the United States being the only major country on Earth not to guarantee health care to all people? They don't have a plan. I understand Senator Corker wants more time. Maybe they will develop a plan. Right now what they are talking about is repealing legislation which has brought millions of people health care, and they have no substitute. I would urge the defeat of the Barrasso amendment. Madam President, I raise a point of order on Barrasso amendment No. 181, that the pending amendment is not germane to the underlying resolution and therefore violates section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I won't, I would appreciate it if we could add to the end of that tranche the Klobuchar-Sanders amendment. Would that be all right?

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, this amendment should be aptly called the Orwellian amendment because it says one thing and does something very much the opposite. It talks about strengthening Social Security, affordable coverage for all Americans. What is really going on is a desire to cut Social Security benefits and throw 20 million Americans off of health insurance. I urge the defeat of this amendment.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask that the amendments be called up as under the previous order.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Delaware for yielding. When we talk about the health care crisis in this country, it is not just health care, it is also the outrageously high cost of prescription drugs. I know in my State of Vermont, and in fact throughout this country, millions of people today are unable to afford the medicine they need. In fact, almost one out of five Americans who go to the doctor and get a prescription are unable to afford to buy the medicine their doctors prescribe. Frankly, that is insane because what happens if you don't take the medicine your doctor prescribed, often you are going to get sicker. Sometimes you may die. Sometimes you may end up in the emergency room. Sometimes you may end up in the hospital. It is literally beyond comprehension that almost one out of five Americans today are unable to afford the medicine they need. Meanwhile, while so many of our people cannot afford the medicine they need, the top five drug companies last year made $50 billion in profit--$50 billion in profit. The top 10 CEOs in the pharmaceutical industry earned over $300 million. So what we have is a scenario in which the American people pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. Millions cannot afford the medicine they desperately need, but at the same time the drug companies make out like bandits, and their CEOs earn exorbitant compensation packages. I happen to live 50 miles away from the Canadian border. A number of years ago, I took a busload of Vermonters across the Canadian border, not just to do some sightseeing in Montreal, which is a beautiful city, but to go there to purchase the same exact medicine that Vermonters, many of whom were dealing with breast cancer, were buying but yet buying it in Montreal, Canada, for a fraction of the price they were paying in the United States. In fact, on that particular trip, many of the women who were dealing with breast cancer purchased the medicine they needed for one-tenth of the price they were paying in Vermont--one-tenth of the price. Let me take a moment today to review the costs of some of the exact same drugs sold in the United States compared to their costs in Canada. Here in the United States, EpiPen, as we all know, costs more than $600 a set. That price has skyrocketed in recent years. In Canada, the same exact set costs $290, less than half of what we pay in the United States. Crestor, a popular drug to treat high cholesterol levels, is $730 here but $160 across the border. We are not talking about generics. We are not talking about another drug. We are talking about the same exact same drug manufactured by the exact same company. I may be mispronouncing it, but I think it is Abilify, a drug for depression, is more than $2,600 for a 90-day supply here in the United States but only $436 in Canada. I can go on and on and on. By the way, let's be clear-- Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a chart of drug prices around the world which will show that prices in the United States are not only almost always higher than in Canada but higher than in the UK, Spain, and the Netherlands as well.

Mr. SANDERS. Amendment No. 172 is Klobuchar-Sanders.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive all applicable sections of that act for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, people in the United States pay by far the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. I live 50 miles away from Canada, and in many cases they pay 50 percent less for the same exact medicine that we buy in Vermont or in America, and we all know the reason why. The power and wealth of the pharmaceutical industry and their 1300 lobbyists and unlimited sums of money have bought the U.S. Congress. Let's be clear about it. Today Mr. Trump--a guy I don't quote very often--said that pharma gets away with murder. That is what Trump said. He is right. Year after year, the same old, same old takes place. We get amendments like Senator Alexander's, and the pharmaceutical industry makes more and more money, and the American people pay higher and higher prices. The time has come for us to stand up to the drug companies. Let's do it tonight. Let's defeat the Alexander amendment. Let's support the Klobuchar-Sanders amendment. Madam President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment is not germane to the underlying resolution and therefore violates section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. SANDERS. How am I recorded? On behalf of elderly people who cannot afford higher prescription drugs, I vote no.