Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SANDERS. Exactly right.

Mr. SANDERS. My friend is exactly right. Neither a Republican nor a Democratic administration will have the guts to stand up to the pharmaceutical industry. Today, if you have a salad, it is likely you are going to get your salad with tomatoes and lettuce that are from Mexico or some other country with very poorly inspected farms. That is no problem, but somehow or another, we are led to believe that it is impossible to bring in brand-name medicine from Canada or the United Kingdom or France, that it just cannot be done. It is beyond belief that anybody with a straight face believes that to be true. Clearly, this is what the pharmaceutical industry wants us to believe, but I hope that my friend from Missouri will not accept what the pharmaceutical industry tells us and understands that the next Secretary of HHS should certify that with proper procedures, we can reimport medicine. I yield to my friend.

Mr. SANDERS. I am very supportive, he is dead right. But I was wondering if my friend--when he said we are going to get to it next year, what does that mean? Does that mean you will be pushing the ability of Americans and pharmacists and distributors to be able to benefit from unfettered free trade and buy low-cost medicines and some of the same drugs sold in Canada and the UK? And will you also, as Mr. Trump made the point, allow Medicare to negotiate for lower prices? Is that something on which we can expect our Republican friends to support the President-elect?

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, two points. First of all, let me reiterate that is for inflation-adjusted dollars, not nominal dollars. The funding for the National Institutes of Health this year will still be roughly $7 billion less than what it received in 2004. That is point No. 1. Point No. 2--and I will yield briefly to my friend from Missouri--did I hear him say that he is supportive of reimportation and having the Federal Government--Medicare--negotiate prescription drug prices with the pharmaceutical industry? That is what I thought I heard him say. I yield to my friend.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, to commemorate Public Recognition Week, the Vermont Federal Executive Association--VTFEA--recognized the more than 4,000 Federal employees working across the State and the good work they do every day. I would like to offer special congratulations to the 2016 Excellence in Government award winners, who have been recognized by VTFEA for their exemplary government service: Vermont Federal Team of the Year Award, The Northwest Vermont Locality Pay Committee--Brandon Ackel, Transportation Security Administration; Robert Brugman, National Credit Union Administration; Brian Johansson, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; Kelly Larsen, Federal Aviation Administration, Alaska; Bruce McDonald, Transportation Security Administration; Sean McVey, U.S. Customs and Border Protection; Mark Nielsen, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Jeff Ostlund, Transportation Security Administration; Corey Price, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Texas; Lisa Rees, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; Diana Richardson, Federal Aviation Administration; Krista Scheele, Transportation Security Administration. In November 2012, VTFEA discussed what initiatives would benefit the most Federal employees, and it didn't take long to realize that securing locality pay for Vermont was the No. 1 priority. In early 2013, VTFEA created a Locality Pay Committee, consisting of employees from six Federal agencies. Working tirelessly, the team prepared a locality pay proposal for northwest Vermont and, in December 2013, presented it to the Federal Salary Council in Washington, DC. Unfortunately, the first proposal was denied, so the following year, they tried again. Again, the proposal was denied. Not to be discouraged, the team drafted a third proposal in November 2015, and committee members traveled to Washington at their own expense to support the package and their fellow Vermonters. At the hearing, the council approved the package, which is waiting for approval by the President's pay agent and the President. The Northwest Vermont Locality Pay Committee's tenacity, collaborative spirit, and positivity is why Vermont is being considered for locality pay. And it is because of their efforts that VTFEA chose them as Federal Team of the Year.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Yes, I object.

Mr. SANDERS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.

Mr. SANDERS. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, it goes without saying, to pick up on Senator Isakson's point, that there is nobody in this body who does not want to see cures as quickly as possible for the terrible diseases that are taking the lives of children in this country. That is not the debate. Nor I think is it the debate that we need research and development to get us a cure of cancer, to get us a cure of Alzheimer's disease, to get us a cure of diabetes, and so many other diseases that are shortening the lives of people in our country and around the world. We must work together to make that happen. In my view, if we understand that it is imperative that we try to come up with cures to these terrible diseases, there is no debate, I would hope, that the U.S. Government and institutions like the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration must play, as they have historically done, a major role in finding cures for these diseases, easing suffering and expanding life expectancy. I don't think there are too many people here who would disagree with that. But in order to do that, it is clear that we are going to require a well funded National Institutes of Health and a well-funded Food and Drug Administration. I must say, it is beyond my comprehension that year after year, my Republican colleagues appear to work overtime to provide tax breaks to billionaires yet refuse to adequately fund the NIH or the Food and Drug Administration. What set of priorities can anyone have that makes sense to anybody in this country that says: Yes, we are going to give tax breaks to billionaires and large corporations. But no, no, we are not going to adequately fund the major institutions in this country that are leading the effort to find cures of the terrible diseases that impact our children, our seniors, and everybody in this country. I would hope that my Republican colleagues listen to the American people and get their priorities right. Poll after poll says no more tax breaks for the rich. Let's invest in health care. Let's invest in cures for the children's diseases that Senator Isakson talked about--cancer, Alzheimer's, and all the rest. Second of all, just ironically and coincidentally, I just asked through my Web site for the American people to send me information on what is going on in their lives with regard to prescription drugs. Every so often, we do that. We sent out an email, and we do Facebook so they can tell me what is going on with regard to their life and prescription drugs. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of the comments we received--and we received about 1,000 comments from people all over this country--are from people who are outraged by the high costs of prescription drugs in this country--a cost that is going up every single day. People are walking into their pharmacies today and seeing the price of medicines that they have had for 20 years double, for no explanation other than the fact that the drug companies can do it and are doing it so they can make outrageous profits. In this country, we pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. Senator Isakson talked about the terrible diseases facing our kids. He is right, but do you know that every year there are thousands of people in this country who are dying because they cannot afford to pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, while last year the pharmaceutical industry made $50 billion in profit? The top five companies made $50 billion in profit. One out of five people in this country, Senator Isakson, when they go to the doctor's office and they get a prescription, you know what, they can't afford to fill that prescription. Talk to the doctors in Georgia. Talk to the doctors in Tennessee. This is what they will tell you: We write the prescriptions, but working class people can't afford to fill them. We have received letters from oncologists all over this country who tell us their cancer patients cannot afford the outrageously high costs of the medicines people need to stay alive. Maybe, just maybe, it might be time for the Senate to stand up to the pharmaceutical industry and all of their lobbyists here and all of their campaign contributions and say: We are going to stand with the American people who are sick and tired of being ripped off by the drug companies. Let me read just a few--I am not going to read 1,000 letters, just a few--to give an indication of what is going on in America. Mark from Plainville, CT, wrote to us and said that his drug for Crohn's disease went up from $75 a month to $700 a month. Is anyone here concerned about that? He is worried that he may die. This is what he writes to me: I am no longer treating my Crohn's disease. I am in a lot of pain and will eventually develop colorectal cancer and die. I am 39 with a wife and two daughters. We simply cannot afford this medication any longer. I have had to leave my job and I am now trying to freelance from home with no success for 4 months. Our home is about to be foreclosed. Is that of interest to my Republican friends or is that not important? Amanda from Bartlesville, OK, shared this story of her husband's gout medication: He pays more than $300 a month for a medicine that was $4 in 2010. Maybe someone can explain to me how a medicine that was $4 in 2010 is $300 a month now. He is now disabled because he cannot afford the medicine he needs. Heather in Taos, NM, cannot afford her EpiPen. We have heard a whole lot about the high price of EpiPens. She said: I basically haven't had one in years that is not expired. Just hope I don't get stung or I will die. John in Anchor Point, AK, cannot afford his insulin, which jumped from $1,400 to $1,600. He said: I skip buying groceries when picking up meds. Went home and scraped by. Sold possessions to make ends meet so we can buy food. Jerry from Lincoln, NE, cannot afford Gabapentin for shingles. It was $35, and it is now $75. Trish from New Jersey stopped taking her breast cancer medication because it went from $25 to $225 for a 3-month supply. Is anyone concerned about that? Of course we want new drugs to cure diseases, but those new drugs won't do anybody any good if people can't afford them. We have seen scandal after scandal in the last few months and years. Gilead sold Sovaldi, a drug for hepatitis C, for $1,000 a pill. Mylan raised EpiPen prices by 500 percent over the last several years, to more than $600. Martin Shkreli raised the price of Daraprim, a lifesaving AIDS medication, by 5,000 percent. Are we concerned about that? I hope some of us are. Above and beyond the fact that the pharmaceutical industry is ripping off the American people, the FDA itself tells us that this voucher approach doesn't work. The Government Accountability Office released a report in March that found that there is no evidence this program works to incentivize drug development. Not only does the program not work, it actually slows down the review time of drugs that are clinically important. When one of these vouchers is used, that means FDA staff must take time away from reviewing priority medication in order to review drugs that have bought a pass to the front of the line. By moving one drug faster, more important drugs may move slower. What we do know is that these vouchers sell for hundreds of millions of dollars. One recent example from last year is that a drug company, United Therapeutic, sold a priority review voucher to another major drug company, AbbVie, for $350 million. While nearly one in five Americans cannot afford to fill their prescriptions, the top five drug companies made a combined $50 billion in profits last year. There are many reasons why we pay such outrageous prices, but one reason is we continue passing laws written by the pharmaceutical industry and their lobbyists year after year after year. I believe the American people should know that the pharmaceutical industry has spent more than $3 billion on lobbying since 1998. How is that? Democracy at work. Drug companies charge us the highest prices in the world, and the pharmaceutical industry spent $3 billion on lobbying. They are all over this place, high-priced lobbyists trying to get us to pass pharma legislation. Just last year the pharmaceutical industry spent $250 million on lobbying and campaign contributions and employed some 1,400 lobbyists. Maybe the working families of this country need some protection against these lobbyists. I certainly want to do everything I can to see that this country comes forward with cures for children's diseases and diseases that impact so many Americans of all ages, but we are going to have to have the courage to start taking on the pharmaceutical industry and representing the American people. So I am offering an amendment, along with Senator Warren, which I hope will pass, which will extend this program, which is going to expire at the end of September, to the end of the year. That will give us an additional 3 months to work together to come up with some serious legislation that addresses not only children's issues but the health care and needs of millions of Americans in general. I look forward to working with my friends on the other side to come up with a good solution to protect the American people from the outrageously high cost of prescription drugs in this country. Reserving the right to object, would the Senator modify his request to include the Sanders amendment which is at the desk?

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me say to Chairman Alexander, I certainly look forward to working with him over the next several months to come up with a package that makes certain we do everything we can to cure childhood illnesses, which otherwise would be fatal, but that we also understand it is not just 7,800 beautiful kids in that hospital, but there are millions of people in this country who are suffering today because they cannot even afford the medicine that is on the market at the same time as five drug companies--it is not a question of disliking drug companies. It is a question of fact. Five drug companies made $50 billion in profits last year, charging our people, by far, the highest prices in the world for medicine. One out of five Americans who are sick cannot afford the medicine they need. An example, one small example, this is the chart of drug prices in the United States versus Canada, with EpiPen, which is on the front pages today. In the United States, it is $620; in Canada, it is $290. Why are we paying twice as much for the same product as a country 50 miles away from where I live? Crestor, for high cholesterol, is $730 in the United States, $160 in Canada. Premarin, for estrogen therapy, is $421 in the United States, $84 in Canada. Look, I have been around the country in the last year, and there are few Americans--very few--who do not understand that the greed of the pharmaceutical industry is causing terrible health problems for millions of people. I read some examples. There are people who are dying because they can't afford the medicine they need. People are cutting their pills in half, which should not be done. So I do look forward to working with Senator Alexander in the next couple of months to see how we can, in fact, come up with legislation that begins to address one of the great health care crises facing this country, and that is the high cost of prescription drugs and the need to make medicine available to all of our people at an affordable price.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, 51 years ago today--July 14, 1965-- President Johnson signed the Older Americans Act into law, solidifying our commitment to America's seniors and creating critical programs to ensure that all Americans can age with dignity and security. I am very pleased that President Obama signed the reauthorization of the Older Americans Act on April 19, 2016. My view is that a nation is judged not by how many billionaires and millionaires it has, but instead by how it treats the most vulnerable people among us. I would like to thank Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray for their efforts in getting this reauthorization passed into law. I would also like to acknowledge the many organizations representing tens of millions of Americans who worked with me and my staff to get this bill to President Obama, including the National Council on Aging, Meals on Wheels America, the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging, and others. Every day in my State of Vermont and around this country, millions of seniors are struggling with the difficult choice they must make with their limited budgets--whether to buy food, medicine, or keep a roof over their heads. These are not the choices seniors in this country should be forced to make. More than half of older households have no retirement savings and are just one bad fall or illness away from economic catastrophe. The Older Americans Act provides important long-term services and supports that help keep older Vermonters and seniors across this country healthy and out of poverty. The Older Americans Act provides a broad range of services including home-delivered and congregate meals, transportation services, family caregiver support, preventive health services, and many supportive services. The law also funds job training, legal assistance, and elder abuse prevention and protection services. I, along with my staff, worked on the reauthorization of the Older Americans Act for the past several years. During that time, we held hearings on senior hunger and convened listening sessions with advocacy groups to learn more about the best way to extend these programs. What I heard over and over again was simple: The law is working well, but it needs more funding to keep up with rising costs and a growing senior population. We must protect and expand funding for these important programs. The simple fact is the amount of funding dedicated for these important programs is a disgrace. As a point of comparison, while funding for other programs has risen by 11 percent since 2009, Older Americans Act funding has dropped 7 percent over that same time. Funding for these crucial programs has not even kept up with inflation. That is why, for the past several years, I have led an appropriations request letter asking for a 12 percent increase in funding for the Older Americans Act. A 12 percent increase would make a meaningful difference for states struggling to provide services to their growing senior populations. Some of the most important and well-known services funded by the Older Americans Act are the meals programs, often provided by Meals on Wheels. A Government Accountability Office, GAO, report I requested last year found that fewer than 10 percent of low-income seniors who needed a meal delivered to their homes in 2013 received one. The study also found that one in three low-income seniors are ``food insecure,'' yet fewer than 5 percent receive a meal at home or at a senior center. That is unacceptable. Investing in senior nutrition programs is not only the moral thing to do, it is the financially smart thing to do. Proper nutrition can keep people out of long-term care and emergency rooms. Meal delivery is also a good opportunity for visiting with an isolated senior who might otherwise go days without seeing another person. Another critical OAA program is the Senior Community Service Employment Program, SCSEP, which provides job training and employment services for older adults. Seniors are matched with part-time jobs at organizations in the community and many times these positions turn into permanent employment, increasing seniors' financial security. Senior centers are another important way the Older Americans Act supports the needs of seniors in our communities. The reauthorization includes some policy changes to modernize senior centers to help ensure people are taking part in activities like group meals, afternoon activities, and exercise classes. Another crucial service I strongly hope receives full funding is the Senior Medicare Patrol Program, SMP, which helps protect seniors and their families from health care fraud, errors, and abuse. We have bipartisan agreement that this is an important, cost-saving program, and if Congress does not appropriate sufficient funding for SMP, then those funds should be distributed from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Program so the program does not experience a cut. I am pleased that this title II of this bill continues funding for several important resource and information centers, including the Pension Counseling Program and the National Education and Resource Center on Women and Retirement Planning. These programs serve older adults across the nation by providing much-needed information on pensions, retirement issues, and avoiding poverty and financial fraud. The number of Americans age 60 and over will grow from about 65 million today to 92 million by 2030. Our most vulnerable populations need to see that we care and are here to serve and support them. Funding must keep up with the increases we see in the cost of living for seniors, including housing, food, transportation, and prescription drugs. The Older Americans Act reauthorization had the unanimous consent of all Senate and House Members and committed to a 7 percent increase in funding over the next 3 years. I am hopeful my colleagues on the Senate Appropriations Committee will use their authority to continue to meet or exceed this funding goal for these critically important programs. I will continue to advocate strongly for these funding increases. The truth is that the priorities we hold--treating seniors with respect, making sure seniors have the support they need--have the overwhelming support of the American people. These principles are among the foundations of a just and fair society where people look forward to growing old. I thank my Senate and House colleagues for their support of this important reauthorization bill and President Obama for signing it into law. I am pleased to recognize the anniversary of the passage of the Older Americans Act today.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise to speak in very strong opposition to the Roberts-Stabenow bill concerning the labeling of genetically modified organisms, GMOs, and to discuss an amendment of mine that I hope will get to the floor as soon as possible. The simple truth is, people have the right to know what is in the food they eat, and when parents go to the store and purchase food, they have the right to know what is in the food their kids are going to be eating. That is why 64 countries all over the world, including the European Union, Japan, Australia, Brazil, Russia, and China, require labeling of foods containing genetically modified organisms, GMOs. That is why my own State of Vermont, Maine, Connecticut, and Alaska have adopted laws to label foods containing GMOs. That is why the major environmental groups in this country, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, the League of Conservation Voters, the Environmental Working Group, Center for Food Safety, Food & Water Watch, and others have all come out in opposition to the Roberts- Stabenow bill. It is no secret my own State of Vermont has led the way in requiring companies to label their products. Last Friday, Vermont became the first State in the Nation to require GMO labeling, and several other States have undertaken similar efforts. Passage of Vermont's law was a triumph for consumers, for ordinary Americans, over the powerful interests of companies like Monsanto and other multinational food industry corporations. Unfortunately, the victory in Vermont appears to be a hollow victory. The major agribusiness and biotech companies disagree with the right of consumers to know what is in their food, and not only do they disagree, they have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in lobbying and in campaign contributions to overturn the GMO right-to-know legislation that States have already passed and that other States are on the verge of passing. They have also spent many millions more to pass Federal legislation like what we are considering today, which would deny States the right to go forward in this area. Let's be clear. This is just another shameful example of how big- money interests are using their influence to enact policies that are contrary to what the vast majority of the American people want and what they support. These companies are spending millions and tens of millions and hundreds of millions of dollars to make certain that their interests prevail against what ordinary Americans feel very strongly about. The Grocery Manufacturers Association, which sued and lost in trying to stop Vermont's law, has 34 lobbyists working on this issue alone. They spent $8.5 million lobbying in 2015. In 2016, the Grocery Manufacturers Association has already spent $1.5 million in total lobbying. Monsanto has spent $2 million in 2016 lobbying Congress. The Environmental Working Group has calculated that food and biotech companies and trade associations have spent nearly $200 million to oppose State GMO labeling initiatives like Vermont's legislation. When combined with Washington lobbying expenditures that note GMO labeling as a purpose, the total amount spent by labeling opponents is close to $400 million--$400 million in order to prevent the people of our country knowing what is in the food they eat. This particular piece of corporate-backed legislation we are considering right now will create a confusing, misleading, and unenforceable national standard for labeling GMOs. This bill will preempt my State's law--the law in the State of Vermont--roll back the progress we have made, and is a huge setback to consumers' right to know what is in their food. I would say to my Republican colleagues who so often tell us about the need to get the Federal Government out of the lives of the people, who talk about States' rights, what this legislation does is preempt a law passed in the State of Vermont, which thousands of our people were involved in passing, which the State legislature held numerous hearings on, where the State law was sued and yet was sustained by a court. We have gone through all of that in the State of Vermont. We have Maine passing similar legislation, Connecticut passing legislation, Alaska passing legislation. Yet many of my friends who are great States' righters, who know how important the role of States is, are prepared to overturn all of the work done in these four States. What is specifically bad above and beyond the preemption aspects of this legislation? Instead of a uniform labeling standard like Vermont's law, the language in this bill allows text symbols or an electronic QR code to be used. This is intentionally confusing to consumers, and the information may be entirely inaccessible if the consumer does not have access to the Internet. The QR code is not required to have text next to it to make it clear that the code provides additional information about GMOs. It can merely say ``Scan here for more food information.'' That makes no sense. People may not even know to scan it to learn more about GMOs specifically. You can imagine how ridiculous this will be in the real world. A mom goes to a store with two kids who are running around, and she is supposed to take out her cell phone and scan a label in a store that may or may not have a good Internet connection. This is not an effort to provide information; this is an effort to deny information to consumers. Reading information right on the label takes a matter of seconds. Why would we require families and shoppers to take considerable time when under Vermont's law they only need a moment to look at a label? Right now we have labels that tell us the amount of calories and give us other information on what is in a product. We look at it and we make a judgment as to whether this is a product we wish to purchase, and that is clearly what should be the case with products that contain GMOs. There is also an argument to be made that this bill is discriminatory in its impact. Putting the onus on the consumer, making it necessary for that consumer to have a smartphone and Internet access, prohibits those without that access. Not everybody in America owns a cell phone. Many low-income people and working people do not own a cell phone. Yesterday's New York Times noted in an editorial that ``the biggest problem with the Senate bill is that--instead of requiring a simple label, as the Vermont law does--it would allow food companies to put the information in electronic codes that consumers would have to scan with smartphones or at scanners installed by grocery stores.'' According to the New York Times, ``The only reason to do this would be to make the information less accessible to the public.'' Less accessible to the public. The New York Times has it exactly right. Further, this bill allows the U.S. Department of Agriculture to rule on what percentage of GMO material is present in a particular food before it gets labeled, in contrast to Vermont's and the European Union's standards, both of which require products with more than nine- tenths of 1 percent GMO to be labeled. The Roberts-Stabenow bill also contains a huge loophole in the labeling requirement, stating that there is no labeling requirement for GMO foods that could have occurred ``through conventional breeding or found in nature.'' Essentially, if the genetic engineering done by a company could have occurred in nature, there is no requirement to label it, which would prevent GMO corn, beet sugar, and soy oils from being labeled. The FDA has confirmed this loophole, stating that as the language is currently written, ``many of the foods from [genetically engineered] sources will not be subject'' to labeling requirements. Under this bill, consumers will be left in the dark for at least another 2 years, maybe longer. Once USDA has published its regulations, there is no mandatory timeline for companies to comply. In other words, we are pushing this issue further and further into the future. Perhaps the real giveaway as to why this is not a serious piece of legislation is that, most shockingly, this bill imposes no Federal penalties whatsoever for violating the so-called labeling requirement, making the law essentially meaningless. In other words, you have a confusing law that will not be utilized by most people, but then on top of all of that, if a company does not obey the law, there is no penalty whatsoever. So that will give a great incentive for companies to continue to do nothing. In other words, this bill is weak, it is full of loopholes, and it has no requirement to comply. In addition to the bill's many flaws, the bill most significantly is not necessary. In fact, many large companies, such as Campbell's, Frito-Lay, Kellogg's, and ConAgra, have begun to label their products nationally in anticipation of Vermont's law. For example, here is a label that appears on M&Ms. Everybody knows M&Ms. They are manufactured by Mars, one of the major candy companies in the world. Here it is, five words: ``partially produced with genetic engineering.'' That is it. It is right here on the label. This is what you will see if you pick up a package of M&Ms today. It is out there. It is on the label. People can make their determination as to whether they want to buy the product. Other major companies are already doing that. Campbell's is doing it, Frito-Lay is doing it, Kellogg's is doing it, and ConAgra is doing it. In other words, many of the major companies are already complying with the law. We do not need to go beyond that. Guess what. These companies that began to label these products did it and the sky didn't fall. I guess people are still buying M&Ms, other candies, and the other products manufactured by these companies. In addition to a consumer's right to know, it is important to note that when we talk about GMOs, it is not just the question of the manipulation of genetic material, it is about the chemicals necessary to make these crops productive. The Environmental Working Group has exposed that GMOs have not decreased pesticide and herbicide use as promised. In fact, the use of toxic chemicals to grow food has only increased. Herbicide use has increased exponentially and glyphosate use specifically has increased by 3,000 percent since the 1990s. In the State of Vermont, Monsanto, Dow, and Syngenta promised our farmers that GMO corn would allow them to reduce the amount of chemicals needed for their crop production. Instead, herbicide and chemical fertilizer use on Vermont dairy farms has almost doubled from 2002 to 2012 just to keep up with the need for more pesticides and herbicides to get enough corn to feed the dairy cows. This is troubling not only because it is extremely expensive for farmers to keep up with the seed and pesticide needs, it is also very dangerous because eight of the active ingredients in use have been linked to birth defects, developmental defects, and contaminated drinking water. In addition to these concerns, I also want to appeal to my colleagues who have come to the Senate floor to speak in support of States' rights. As I said earlier, make no mistake about it--this is significantly a States' rights issue, and this bill is an assault on States' rights. This bill would preempt Vermont's laws, Connecticut's laws, and Maine's laws. According to the Center for Food Safety, this bill would preempt more than 100 State and municipal food and seed laws. The center notes specifically that Virginia's seed law allows farmers to have the critical information they need to make informed choices about which seed is the most appropriate for them to purchase and plant. I will name just a few of the other State laws that would be preempted. It would override Alaska's labeling law, which requires that genetically engineered fish be labeled. The Roberts-Stabenow bill would also preempt a Florida statute that requires a permit for the release of exotic organisms and includes genetically modified organisms. The Roberts-Stabenow bill would preempt a Michigan statute that created an invasive species advisory council. It would preempt a Missouri statute that authorizes the State entomologist to determine whether something is not only a plant pest but also whether the pest is of such a harmful nature that its introduction to or dissemination within the State should be prevented. It would also preempt a South Carolina regulation that defines plant pests. In other words, I find it interesting that this legislation has the support of the vast majority of Republicans who day after day tell us how they want to get the Federal Government out of people's lives, but this legislation preempts dozens of State laws all over this country that were passed by State legislatures and signed by the Governors of those States. These are just a few of the laws; there are dozens more that would be nullified under the Roberts-Stabenow bill. The amendment I intend to offer, which I hope my colleagues will all support, would make Vermont's law the national standard. For those who have argued that companies would be unable to comply with a 50-State patchwork of GMO regulation, my amendment would alleviate that concern. Specifically, Vermont's law--unlike the bill before the Senate-- enjoyed a full hearing and amendment process. It was much discussed in the Vermont State Legislature. Vermont's law was years in the making, and legislators heard hours of testimony from dozens of stakeholders, including organic farmers and environmental organizations. The Roberts- Stabenow language has had none of this scrutiny and was brought to the floor by a procedural means without one hearing or one committee markup. Unlike the Roberts-Stabenow bill, Vermont's law requires clear, on- package labeling instead of allowing a confusing QR code. Under Vermont's law and this amendment, consumers can glance quickly at a product and be able to determine the GMO contents with no need of a smartphone or Internet connection. Once again, and very importantly, many major food companies are already complying with Vermont's law. Pick up a package of M&Ms, and there it is right now on the label, five words: ``partially produced with genetic engineering.'' Mars, which manufactures M&Ms, has done it, and it is not a problem. Other companies are already doing the same thing. What makes sense is to build on what Vermont has done, not come up with an unenforceable, confusing, weak piece of legislation paid for by the large food corporations in this country. This amendment making Vermont the national standard will also prevent the gaping loopholes in the Roberts-Stabenow language that will prevent labeling of the most common GMO foods. Unlike the Roberts-Stabenow language, this amendment defines ``food'' and ``genetic engineering'' in a way that would require labeling of foods derived from GMOs, such as starches, oils made from GMOs, sugar derived from GMO sugar beets, or high-fructose corn syrup. None of these types of products will require labeling under the Roberts-Stabenow language. Also, my amendment sets a specific percentage of GMOs in food to trigger the labeling requirement--nine-tenths of 1 percent, which is consistent with Vermont's law and European Union standards. Under the Roberts-Stabenow language, this determination will be left up to the USDA, which could require 10 percent before labeling or 51 percent. We just don't know at this point. My amendment also contains a legitimate enforcement provision consistent with Vermont's law. My amendment sets consistent penalties for improper labeling and provides for consumers to be able to sue to ensure enforcement. The issue of labeling of our food is not controversial. It is something the American people want. It is something that common sense dictates. The overwhelming majority of Americans favor GMO labeling, nearly 9 out of 10. People have a right to know what is in the food they eat. Instead, the needs of consumers, the needs of the American people have been completely disregarded in this legislation at the behest of major corporate interests and campaign donors. Congress must stand up to the demands of Monsanto and other multinational food industry corporations and reject the Roberts-Stabenow piece of legislation. My amendment would provide a meaningful alternative to the confusing and ineffective measure we are considering, and I ask that colleagues support my amendment. With that, I reserve----

Mr. SANDERS. So here is what we have. I thank my friend from Vermont for raising this issue. On the one hand, we have a State--the State of Vermont--which addressed this issue in a serious way, listening to all points of view, having the legislature go over this in a thorough manner. Then, here we have the Senate, after many, many millions of dollars in lobbying efforts and campaign contributions, overriding the work of the State of Vermont and not having one hearing--not one hearing with consumers, environmental groups, farm organizations--and rushing it through in the last week or two before we adjourn for summer break. I thank the Senator from Vermont for raising that enormously important issue. With that, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. SANDERS. My colleague from Vermont makes a very, very important point. In Vermont, this issue was seriously discussed. Over 50 hearings were held, with different points of view and objections being raised. I would ask my colleague, just to confirm with me: How many hearings on this important and controversial bill were held here in the Senate?

Mr. SANDERS. My colleague from Vermont is absolutely correct. In Vermont, there was a lot of discussion, and there were a number of hearings, but not here in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SANDERS

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise to raise a point of order against this legislation and make a point of order that the pending motion to concur violates section 425(a)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise in very strong opposition to the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act, the so- called PROMESA Act. This is a terrible piece of legislation, setting horrific precedent, and it must not be passed. The United States of America should not treat Puerto Rico as a colony. We cannot and must not take away the democratic rights of the 3.5 million Americans of Puerto Rico and give virtually all power on that island to a 7-member board that will be dominated, as it happens, by 4 Republicans. This legislation strips away the most important powers of the democratically elected officials of Puerto Rico, the Governor, the Legislature, and the municipal governments as well. We must not allow that to happen. This is not what the United States of America is supposed to be about, and this is not how we should treat a territory in the year 2016. The bottom line is that the United States must not become a colonial master, which is precisely what this legislation allows. Any decisions that are made regarding the future of Puerto Rico must be made by the people of that island and their elected officials. This legislation, I should add, is not just about taking away the democratic rights of the people of Puerto Rico. It is about punishing them economically. Since 2006, Puerto Rico has been in the midst of a major economic depression. In the last 10 years, Puerto Rico has lost 20 percent of its jobs. About 60 percent of Puerto Rico's adult population is either unemployed or has given up looking for work. Over the last 5 years alone, more than 150 public schools have been shut down and the childhood poverty rate in Puerto Rico is now 58 percent. There is a mass migration out of Puerto Rico to the mainland of professionals because there is simply no work on the island. In the midst of this human suffering and economic turmoil, it is morally repugnant that billionaire hedge fund managers on Wall Street are demanding that Puerto Rico fire teachers, close schools, cut pensions, and lower the minimum wage so that they can reap huge profits off the suffering and misery of the American citizens on that island. We have to understand that Puerto Rico's $70 billion in debt is unsustainable and unpayable. That is just a fact. You cannot get blood out of a stone. The reason--or one of the major reasons that it is unpayable--has a lot to do with the greed of Wall Street vulture funds. In recent years, vulture funds have purchased a significant amount of Puerto Rico's debt. In fact, it has been estimated that over one-third of Puerto Rico's debt is now owned by these vulture funds that are getting interest rates of up to 34 percent on tax-exempt bonds they purchased for as little as 29 cents on the dollar. Let me repeat that. Vulture funds are getting interest rates of up to 34 percent on tax- exempt bonds they purchased for as little as 29 cents on the dollar. Let us be clear. This issue is a significant part of what the entire debate regarding Puerto Rico is about. Billionaire hedge fund managers who purchased Puerto Rican bonds for pennies on the dollar now want a 100-percent return on their investment, while schools are being shut down in Puerto Rico, while pensions are being threatened with cuts, while children on the island go hungry. That is morally unacceptable. That should not be allowed by the Congress. It is bad enough for Republicans in the House to write legislation that takes away the democratic rights of U.S. citizens living in Puerto Rico, but adding insult to injury, this legislation does something even more insulting. At a time when health, education, and nutrition programs will likely be cut, this legislation, if you can believe it, requires the taxpayers of Puerto Rico to pay for the financial control board at the unbelievable sum of $370 million in order to fund the control board's bureaucracy. So think about it for a second. The control board will likely cut programs for the elderly, the children, the sick, and the poor, on an island where 58 percent of the children are already living in poverty because Puerto Rico does not have enough money to take care of its most vulnerable people. In the midst of all that, $370 million is going to be sucked away from Puerto Rico in order to pay for the administration of the financial control board. This, to me, is literally beyond belief. Puerto Rico must be given the time it needs to grow its economy, to create jobs, to reduce its poverty rate, and to expand its tax base so that it can pay back its debt in a way that is fair and just. In my view, we need austerity--not for the people of Puerto Rico but for the billionaire Wall Street hedge fund managers who have exacerbated the financial crisis on the island. We must tell them loudly and clearly that they cannot get everything they want while workers in Puerto Rico are fired, while schools are shut down, while health care is underfunded, and while children on that island live in poverty. I am very disappointed that this extremely important piece of legislation is being pushed through Congress without allowing any amendments here in the Senate. That is not the way we should be doing business. If allowed, I will offer an amendment in the form of legislation that I have introduced--legislation that would allow Puerto Rico's debt to be structured through the creation of a reconstruction finance corporation. Let's never forget that in 2008, when Wall Street's greed, recklessness, and illegal behavior nearly destroyed our economy, the Federal Reserve provided $16 trillion in virtually zero--zero--interest loans to every major financial institution in this country, as well as central banks and corporations throughout the world. If the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department could move quickly to stabilize our economy and global markets in 2008, we can surely help the 3.5 million American citizens in Puerto Rico who are hurting today. The Fed can and should provide low-interest loans to Puerto Rico and facilitate an orderly restructuring of Puerto Rico's debt. This legislation is both a political and economic disaster for the people of Puerto Rico. This legislation takes away their democratic rights and self-governance and will impose harsh austerity measures, which will make the poorest people in Puerto Rico even poorer. This is legislation that should not be passed by the Congress. I rise to offer a point of order against this legislation. Mr. President, I understand that the Republican representative will be coming down in a few moments, so I will reserve my time and reclaim the floor in a few minutes when the Republican representative is here. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. In other words, sir, the Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2015 is part of the legislation we are voting on; is that correct? Yes? No? Maybe?

Mr. SANDERS. No, I really won't yield. My request is that that language be withdrawn now with unanimous consent.

Mr. SANDERS. I believe I have the floor.

Mr. SANDERS. Reserving the right to object, I have a parliamentary inquiry. Is one of the acts in this overall bill entitled the Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2015?

Mr. SANDERS. Excuse me, I would like an answer to my question, please. Regular order. I asked the question.

Mr. SANDERS. Thank you very much. I ask that that language be withdrawn right now.

Mr. SANDERS. Yes. Is it possible that, as part of the legislation that the Senator from Kentucky has introduced, that there is a title in there called the Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2015? Is that title in the legislation we are voting on?