Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. I urge very strongly a ``no'' vote against the Inhofe resolution.

Mr. SANDERS

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I will be speaking about two amendments that I intend to offer as part of the farm bill. I think both amendments are extremely important, and both amendments have the support of the vast majority of the people of our country. They may not have the support of powerful special interests, but I think that from Maine to California, people will be supporting these amendments. The first one is amendment No. 2310, which is cosponsored by Senator Barbara Boxer of California. All across our country, people are becoming more and more conscious about the foods they are eating and the foods they are serving to their kids, and this is certainly true for genetically engineered foods. This is a major concern in my State of Vermont, I know it is a major concern in Senator Boxer's State of California, and it is a major concern all over our country. This year in my State of Vermont, our legislature tried to pass a bill that would have required foods that contain genetically engineered ingredients to have that information on their labels. That information would simply give consumers in the State of Vermont the knowledge about the ingredients that are in the food they are ingesting--not, I believe, a terribly radical idea. I personally believe, and I think most Americans believe, that when a mother goes to the store and purchases food for her child, she has the right to know what she is feeding her child, what is in the food she is giving to her kids and her family. This concern about genetically engineered labeling brought out a huge turnout to the Vermont State legislature of people who were supportive of this concept. In fact, it was one of the most hotly debated and discussed issues in our legislature this year. Over 100 Vermonters testified at a committee meeting--the Committee on Agriculture meeting of the State of Vermont-- in favor of this legislation. We are a small State. Hundreds more crowded in the statehouse to show their support. What people in Vermont, and I believe all over this country, are saying, simply and straightforwardly, is: We want to know what is in the food we are eating and whether that food is genetically engineered. Clearly, this is not just a Vermont issue. Almost 1 million people in the State of California signed a petition to get labeling of genetically engineered food on the November ballot. In California, a big State, 1 million people is a lot of people. In other words, what we are seeing from Vermont and California and all over this country is people want to know what is in the food they are eating and they want to know whether that food is genetically engineered. I thank Senator Boxer of California for representing the people of her State in cosponsoring this legislation. This is not just a Vermont issue. It is not just a California issue. According to an MSNBC poll in February of 2011, 95 percent of Americans agree that labeling of food with genetically engineered ingredients should be allowed. Those polling numbers have been consistently over 90 percent dating back to 2001. What we are seeing in polling, year after year, is people want to know what is in the food they are eating. Not everybody agrees. Monsanto, one of the world's largest producers of genetically engineered food, does not like this idea. Monsanto is also the world's largest producer of the herbicide Roundup, as well as so-called Roundup Ready seeds that have been genetically engineered to resist the pesticide. It is no mystery why Monsanto would fight people's right to know. Business is booming for this huge chemical company. It raked in over $11 billion in revenues and cleared $1.6 billion in profits in 2011. This year is going pretty well for Monsanto. Once it seemed possible that Vermont could pass the bill. That is because the people of the State of Vermont want to see that legislation passed. But our friends at Monsanto threatened to sue the State if that bill was passed. Sadly--and this is what goes on in politics, not just on this issue but on so many issues--despite passing out of the House Committee on Agriculture by a vote of 9 to 1, the bill did not make it any further because of the fear of a lawsuit from this huge, multinational corporation. Today, we have an opportunity, with the Sanders-Boxer amendment, amendment No. 2310, to affirm States rights to label food that contains genetically engineered ingredients. This amendment recognizes that the 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution clearly reserves powers in our system of federalism to the States and to the people. In other words, that is what federalism is about. This amendment acknowledges that States have the right to require the labeling of foods produced through genetic engineering or derived from organisms that have been genetically engineered. Simply put, this amendment gives people the right to know. It says that a State, if its legislature so chooses, may require that any food or beverage containing a genetically engineered ingredient offered for sale in that State have a label that makes that information public and clear. It also requires that the Commissioner of the FDA, with the Secretary of Agriculture, shall report to Congress within 2 years on the percentage of food and beverages in the United States that contain genetically engineered ingredients. There are strong precedents for labeling. The FDA, as everybody knows, already requires the labeling of over 3,000 ingredients, additives, and processes. If we want to know if our food contains gluten, aspartame, high-fructose corn syrup, trans fats or MSG, we simply read the ingredients label. Similarly, the FDA requires labeling for major food allergens such as peanuts, wheat, shellfish, and others. But Americans, for some reason, are not afforded that same information when it comes to genetically engineered foods. Here is a very important point to make. What I am asking now, for the people of America, is something that exists right now all over the world. Genetically engineered foods are already required to be labeled in 49 countries around the world, including Russia, the United Kingdom, Australia, South Korea, Japan, Brazil, China, New Zealand, and others, and the entire European Union allows its countries to require such labels, which is essentially what this amendment is about. It is not telling, but it is allowing States the right to go forward, if that is what the people of those States want. If this is good for 49 or more countries around the world, why is it not acceptable in the United States of America? The answer is pretty simple. We have a large, powerful, multinational corporation that is more concerned about their own profits than they are about allowing the American people to know what is in the food they are eating. Let me clarify just a few pieces of information regarding genetically engineered foods. Monsanto claims there is nothing to be concerned about with genetically engineered foods. In the 1990s, there was a consensus among scientists and doctors at the FDA that GE foods could have new and different risks, such as hidden allergens, increased plant toxin levels, and the potential to hasten the spread of antibiotic- resistant disease, but those concerns were quickly pushed aside in the name of biotechnology progress. Their concerns were not, however, unfounded. In May 2012, a landmark independent study by Canadian doctors published in the peer-reviewed journal Reproductive Toxicology found that toxins from soil bacterium which had been engineered into Bt corn to kill pests was present in the bloodstream of 93 percent of pregnant women as well as in 80 percent of their fetal cord blood. In the wake of this study, action is being taken. In 3 days, on June 17, the American Medical Association will consider resolutions that ask for studies on the impacts of GE foods and labeling. Resolutions calling for labeling of GE foods have already been passed by the American Public Health Association and the American Nurses Association. There is a great need for this information because there have never been mandatory human clinical trials of genetically engineered crops-- no tests for the possibility of it causing cancer or for harm to fetuses, no long-term testing for human health risks, no requirement for long-term testing on animals, and only limited allergy testing. What this means is that for all intents and purposes, the long-term health study on GE food is being done on the American people. We are the clinical test. Let me clarify just a few things about labeling genetically engineered food. GE food labels will not increase costs to shoppers. Everybody knows companies change their labels all the time. They market their products differently and adding a label does not change this. In fact, many products already voluntarily label their food as ``GMO free.'' Further, genetically engineered crops are not better for the environment. For example, the use of Monsanto Roundup Ready soybeans engineered to withstand the exposure to the herbicide Roundup has caused the spread of Roundup-resistant weeds which now infest 10 million acres in 22 States, with predictions of 40 million acres or more by mid-decade. Resistant weeds increase the use of herbicides and the use of older and more toxic herbicides. Further, there are no international agreements that prohibit the mandatory identification of foods produced through genetic engineering. But as I mentioned, 49 other countries already require it. The Sanders-Boxer consumers right to know about genetically engineered food amendment, amendment No. 2310, is about allowing States to honor the wishes of their residents and allowing consumers to know what they are eating. If this is not a conservative amendment, I do not know what is. Americans deserve the right to know what they and their children are eating and that is what this amendment is all about. Monsanto and other major corporations should not be the ones to decide this issue. The Congress and the American people should make that decision. Without commonsense labeling requirements, the 295 million American citizens who favor labeling, the overwhelming majority of Americans who in poll after poll said yes, want to know whether the food they are eating contains genetically engineered products. They are not being listened to. On behalf of the American people who want to know what is in their food, I urge support for this important amendment. I have another amendment, but I will come back at another time to talk about the amendment, which will demand that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission do what the law requires of them; that is, end excessive speculation in the oil futures market, but I will hold off on that until a later time. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, today I wish to celebrate Antonio Pomerleau of Burlington, VT, for his remarkable generosity and for his lifetime of service to the people of Vermont. My wife Jane and I have known Tony for over 30 years, since we all worked together when I was Mayor of Burlington, and he is clearly one of the remarkable people in our State. Last year, Vermont was badly hit by Tropical Storm Irene, the most damaging storm in a half century. Torrential rains, in combination with Vermont's steep hills and narrow valleys, brought flooding on a vast scale to town after town, wiping out roads and bridges, downtowns and mobile home parks, homes, schools and businesses. Many brave and generous people, from communities across the State, helped those whose lives were uprooted to deal with their losses. The Vermont National Guard, along with the Guards of other States and private contractors, rapidly repaired and rebuilt washed-out roads and bridges. State officials and Federal officials were quick to provide relief and aid. There are Federal funds available to help rebuild highways, to assist farmers as they cope with damage to their fields, to help many homeowners. But, as the Governor's ``Irene Recovery Report'' indicates, mobile home owners are in a category by themselves. Irene particularly devastated mobile home parks, many of which were built close to rivers that endured major flooding. Sixteen mobile home parks in many regions of Vermont were seriously affected by Irene. Hundreds of mobile homes were badly damaged or completely destroyed. As the ``Irene Recovery Report'' made clear, while mobile homes provide an important affordable ownership option to Vermonters, their construction, location and low resistance to water damage can create additional obstacles to recovery following a disaster. Few of the Vermonters affected had significant discretionary resources with which to secure replacement housing. Owners and residents of mobile homes faced enormous challenges. Into the breach stepped Antonio Pomerleau. Tony, who grew up on a small dairy farm in the Northeast Kingdom of Vermont, has never forgotten the working families of Vermont. It should be no surprise, though it is nevertheless remarkable, that in the aftermath of the flooding last year Tony would generously look out for those who live in affordable housing and cannot afford to rebuild when catastrophe strikes. Today, I want celebrate Tony for his act of enormous generosity in creating the Pomerleau Cornerstone Fund and giving it $1 million. This fund has one purpose: to provide direct funding to residents of mobile homes whose residences were destroyed by Tropical Storm Irene. The Pomerleau Cornerstone Fund will help displaced mobile residents either with full replacement of their homes, or with downpayment assistance for another home. It will provide grants up to $25,000 so that at least 40 families can move into safe and affordable housing. Throughout his entire adult life, Tony has been a model of what a good corporate citizen should be. He has been an excellent employer, and he has devoted a good part of his life and considerable skills toward public service--without remuneration. For many years he served as Police Commissioner of Burlington and did an outstanding job in that role. He has also been extremely generous in donating funds to a wide variety of very worthy causes. Since I was Mayor of Burlington, and this is going back 31 years, Tony Pomerleau has paid for a holiday party each year for Burlington's low income children and their parents. He also sponsors an annual party for the Vermont National Guard. He was the major contributor of funds to the Pomerleau Alumni Center at St. Michael's College--two of his sons and a granddaughter attended college there. He has provided scholarships to Rice High School and funded renovations to Christ the King School. Tony donated the North Avenue building that became our city's police headquarters, and continues to contribute financial support for policemen and policewomen. And this really is just a very small part of Tony's philanthropic work. But facts tell only part of the story of Tony Pomerleau. His generosity is matched by his energy, and even though his 94th birthday is in his rearview mirror, he has the energy of a man half his age. His mind has always been sharp, and time has not dulled it. His deep love for his wife Rita and their children is the rock on which he has built his life. His understanding of Vermont--where it has been, where it is, where it can be going--is, in my view, remarkable. Tony Pomerleau stands as one of Vermont's outstanding citizens. Today, I celebrate his generosity--it is the habit of lifetime, and a habit we can all learn from.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, this amendment is supported by Public Citizen, U.S. PIRG, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, and the National Women's Health Network. In the United States, we pay by far the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs--much higher than Canada, much higher than Europe. There are a number of reasons for that. One of the reasons is the widespread fraud, systemic fraud being perpetrated on the American people by virtually every major drug company in this country. In the last few years, companies such as Abbott, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, and many others combined have paid billions of dollars in fines because they are ripping off Medicare, they are ripping off Medicaid, and they are ripping off the American consumer. It is high time we said that fraud cannot be perpetrated as a business model by some of the major corporations in this country. I ask for a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Our people are paying the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. One of the reasons is widespread fraudulent activity on the part of virtually every major drug company in our country. It is no longer acceptable to turn a blind eye to that crisis. The time to act is now. This amendment would go a long way forward to ending that outrageous fraud. I ask the support of my colleagues for this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his hard work on this legislation and for the opportunity to talk about what I consider to be a very important amendment. I ask unanimous consent to call up my amendment No. 2109.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, this amendment, to my mind, is an extremely important amendment and it has the support of some of the major consumer organizations in our country, including Public Citizen, U.S. PIRG, the Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, and the National Women's Health Network. These are some of the large consumer organizations in America representing tens of millions of our people. When we talk about prescription drugs, it is important to understand that in our country we pay by far the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. That is simply the reality. That causes enormous problems because millions of our people go to the doctor, the doctor writes a prescription, and then the person can't afford to fill that prescription. That is pretty crazy, because doctors are doing the diagnosis, telling the patients what they need; patients can't afford to pay for the drugs because they are the highest prices in the world in this country. This is an issue we have to deal with. There are a number of reasons why prices in this country are higher than in Canada, Europe, and Scandinavia. Certainly one of them is that we are the only major country on Earth that doesn't have a national health care program so that the government can negotiate prices with the drug companies. So what happens in this country is the drug companies simply charge us what the market will bear--any price they can come up with by which they can make money. The end result is that in 2009, prices in this country were 85 percent higher than Canada, 150 percent higher than France, Italy, Sweden, Switzerland, and so forth and so on. But the reason drug prices are high in this country is not just that we don't have a national health care program, it is because of the enormous amount of fraud that takes place within the pharmaceutical industry. In fact, every single year the major drug companies are ripping off the American people to the tune of billions of dollars a year because of fraudulent practices. While I do not have enough time here today to recite every example of fraud that has been caught and prosecuted in the last 10 years. But here is the bottom line--and I am going to list some of the cases of fraud. Virtually every major pharmaceutical company in this country has either been convicted of fraud--i.e., ripping off the Federal Government, State government, or individuals--or else has reached a settlement. We have got to get a handle on this crisis. I am going to bore some people because it is a long list. Sadly, it is a long list. But it is a list that has to get out, and it is an issue we have got to deal with. Abbott Labs is one of the top 10 pharmaceutical companies in the world. It had $38.8 billion in revenues and $4.7 billion in profits in 2011. Last month, Abbott reached an agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice to pay $1.6 billion for illegally marketing the antiseizure drug Depakote. According to the New York Times: As part of the agreement, Abbott said that it would pay $800 million to resolve civil cases brought by federal and state authorities, $700 million in criminal penalties and $100 million to states in connection with consumer protection matters. That was just last month, they are going to pay $1.6 billion. In 2010, 2 years ago, Abbott and two smaller companies collectively agreed to pay $429 million to settle charges that they deliberately misreported drug pricing in order to hike reimbursements from Medicare and Medicaid. That is Abbott in recent years. Pfizer is the largest pharmaceutical company in the world, $67.9 billion in revenues and $10 billion in profits in 2011. Pfizer in 2012, this year, allegedly avoided paying hundreds of millions in rebates due to State Medicaid Programs for Prontonix. Pfizer holds four different exclusives for Prontonix. Talks are under way with the U.S. Department of Justice to settle the charges for up to $2 billion for ripping off Medicaid. In 2009, Pfizer agreed to plead guilty to a felony of ``misbranding Bextra with the intent to defraud or mislead'' and to pay $1 billion to resolve allegations under the civil False Claims Act. In 2004, a division of Pfizer pled guilty to two felonies and agreed to pay $430 million to settle charges that it fraudulently promoted the drug Neurontin for a string of unapproved uses. Johnson & Johnson is the second largest pharmaceutical company in the world, which had $65 billion in revenues and almost $10 billion in profits in 2011. In 2012, this year, Johnson & Johnson illegally marketed Risperdal, an antipsychotic medication, to nursing home patients, and paid over $2 billion in fines, which constituted a mere 6.3 percent of sales revenue from the drugs. In 2010, two subsidiaries of Johnson & Johnson illegally marketed the epilepsy drug Topamax for off-label psychiatric uses. Now we go to Merck. Merck is the third largest pharmaceutical company in the world. In 2011, last year, Merck pleaded guilty to a criminal misdemeanor charge for violation of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and paid a $950 million settlement for illegally promoting Vioxx for rheumatoid arthritis before that use was approved. In 2011, Merck will pay the State of Massachusetts $24 million to settle claims that former subsidiary Warrick Pharmaceuticals reported inflated and false prices for asthma medications, causing the State's Medicaid Program to overpay. In 2008, Merck reached a $670 million settlement for fraud on patients and Medicare/Medicaid, involving a conspiracy with hospitals to give the elderly cheaper drugs but charging them for the more expensive product. Now we go to GlaxoSmithKline. GlaxoSmithKline is, again, one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world. It made profits of almost $44 billion in 2011. GlaxoSmithKline in 2011 announced that it had reached an ``agreement in principle'' with the U.S. government to pay $3 billion to conclude the company's most significant ongoing Federal Government investigations, specifically illegal sales and marketing practices in Colorado and Massachusetts; overcharging the Medicaid rebate program; and illegal development and marketing of Avandia, a diabetes drug. In 2006, GlaxoSmithKline agreed to pay $14 million to settle allegations that it engaged in patient fraud. In 2005, GlaxoSmithKline paid $150 million to settle claims it overcharged the government for two antinausea drugs. In 2003, GlaxoSmithKline signed a corporate integrity agreement and paid $88 million in a civil fine for overcharging Medicaid. And on and on and on it goes. When we talk about the high cost of health care, when we talk about the fact that the United States has the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, it is important for us to address the crisis in terms of fraud within the pharmaceutical industry and the fact that virtually every major drug company has been found guilty of fraud or reached a settlement in terms of fraud charges. In 2010, the pharmaceutical industry achieved a dubious distinction. It surpassed the notoriously corrupt defense contracting industry in defrauding the government. The pharmaceutical industry accounted for nearly half--$1.8 billion of a total of $4.1 billion--of the penalties collected in 2011 by the Department of Justice/Health and Human Services Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Program. In 2012--and this is quite amazing--the pharmaceutical industry is expected to pay out up to four times the amount of last year's penalty, between $8 billion to $9 billion in penalties due to pending fraud settlements with the Department of Justice. And those are the penalties for fraud that has been discovered. Who knows what type of fraud is taking place on behalf of the drug companies that has not been discovered. Let me recapitulate. Virtually every major drug company has either been found guilty of, or settled charges of, significant fraud over the last 10 years. The question arises--and this is an important question--is fraud within the pharmaceutical industry the exception or, is it, simply put, their business model? Is fraud the business model of the pharmaceutical industry, which thinks that in most cases they can get away with the fraud, make huge profits and, in some cases when they get caught, they will in fact pay a penalty but the penalty will in no way match the kinds of huge profits they are making from their fraudulent activity? The question the Senate has got to address is, Do we look away from this issue, do we ignore this issue, or do we finally address the very important issue of fraud within the pharmaceutical industry, fraud being practiced by virtually every drug company in our country? It is obvious to anyone paying attention to the prevalence of pharmaceutical industry fraud that our punishments are not enough to address this problem, because apparently the drug companies are not too intimidated by the laws on the books. They think it makes business sense for them to continue going forward on their fraudulent activities. The amendment I am offering would send a strong and clear message to the drug industry: Illegal behavior will not be rewarded with continued government-granted monopolies. There are some things--patients' safety, the devotion of scarce public resources to provide health care to needy patients--that are more important than drug company profits. This amendment is designed to effectively deter pharmaceutical fraud by making government-granted monopolies contingent on good corporate behavior. I think that is the least we can do. This amendment would penalize any instance of pharmaceutical fraud resulting in a civil or criminal judgment or a settlement with an acknowledgement of fault by revoking any applicable data or marketing exclusivity for the particular drug or product involved in the fraud. giving pharmaceutical companies another factor to consider, when weighing whether to violate the law in their sales or billing practices. If a company violated Federal or State law by inflating the price of a drug in Medicare or Medicaid billing or illegally marketing a medication, under my amendment that company would lose the remainder of any exclusivity period for that medication. Companies would be required to self-report qualifying violations to the FDA within 30 days. Let me conclude by saying this: Our people are paying the highest prices----

Mr. SANDERS. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SANDERS. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Whitehouse and Senator Merkley and everybody else for the very hard work they have done on this monumentally important issue. It is hard for me to think of an issue that is more important. A moment ago Senator Merkley used the word ``precensorship,'' which is an interesting concept. I want to give an example of this. Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article that appeared in the ``American Banker'' fairly recently. (See exhibit 1.)

Mr. SANDERS. Let me read what this article says. This is a member of the banking industry who contrasts what the old rules would have allowed, and that is under the old rules where there are limits as to how much people can contribute into a PAC, and that is $5,000 before the primary, $5,000 after, for a total of $10,000. This is what this gentleman, Mr. Packard, from the banking industry, says: If someone says I am going to give your opponent $5,000 or $10,000, you might say, ``Yea, okay.'' But if you say the bankers are going to put in $100,000 or $500,000 or $1 million into your opponent's campaign, that starts to draw some attention. What that gentleman is saying, and what this whole issue is about, is that if a Member of Congress is prepared to stand up to Wall Street, they better watch out. If they are going to vote for a bill that protects consumers, they better watch out because--as this banker said--there may be $500,000 or $1 million going to your opponent and going into television and radio ads. So when Members of the House and the Senate are thinking about how they want to address the recklessness and irresponsibility on Wall Street--if they are thinking, as I am thinking, about the need to break up these huge banks which have so much power and have done so much harm to our country; if they want to bring about reform of the Fed so we don't have representatives of the largest banks in America sitting on regional Feds--guess what. They are going to think twice about going forward because they are going to worry that when they go home on the weekend, there are going to be all kinds of ads from the banking industry. Maybe they are concerned as to why in America we spend almost twice as much per person on health care as any other Nation. Maybe they want to move, as I do, to a single-payer health care system. Well, the private insurance companies are not going to like that. They are going to pour huge amounts of money into advertising. Maybe they are concerned that in America we pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. Are they going to take on the pharmaceutical industry if they now have the ability to spend unlimited sums of money? I come to the Senate floor this afternoon to express my profound disgust with the current state of our campaign finance system and to call for more disclosure until we can finally overturn Citizens United. I know the Presiding Officer from New Mexico has a very good constitutional amendment to do just that. I have one. There are other good amendments. Long term, there is no question in my mind that we need to overturn Citizens United. In my view, it will go down in history as one of the worst decisions ever to come from the Supreme Court by a 5-to-4 decision. Five members on the Court came to the bizarre conclusion that corporations should be treated as if they were people and that they have a first amendment right to spend as much money as they want in elections, even though corporations cannot vote. On election day, the average American, after studying the issues, goes out and with pride votes for the candidate of his or her choice. There are many people in this country who make campaign contributions. Maybe they will contribute $25, maybe they will contribute $50. If they have a lot of money, maybe they will contribute $1,000 or $2,000. But what Citizens United is saying is that a small number of people who run large multinational corporations can spend as much as they want on campaigns. And if that is what American democracy is supposed to be about, you surely could have fooled me, and I think many of the Americans who have put their lives on the line to defend American democracy. American democracy is one person, one vote. We are all in this together. You may be rich or you may be poor, but under our Constitution you have one vote. This country has had to go through a very rocky process to ensure one person, one vote. In the beginning poor whites could not vote, women could not vote, African Americans could not vote. We struggled and struggled, and we said in America every citizen of this country is going to have their say on election day. That is what we learned when we were in elementary school. That is what democracy is about. And by a 5-to-4 Supreme Court vote, the Supreme Court said: Everybody has one vote, but if you are rich or if you are the head of a corporation, you can go into corporate treasuries and spend as much money as you want. For the average Joe, it is one vote. Corporate America can spend unlimited sums of money buying the airwaves, and we are seeing this today. This is no academic or intellectual debate. People all over America are seeing the results of Citizens United today on their television stations and on their radio stations. In the past few months the American people have seen what Citizens United means. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, super PACs alone have spent over $112 million on this election, and we are still more than 5 months away from election day. If 2 weeks before the election there is a billionaire out there or the head of some corporation, who is to say that person cannot take hundreds of millions of dollars out of a large corporation and spend it on an election? It is totally legal but not what America is supposed to be about. Mr. President, I know you are aware of it, once again, because of your excellent constitutional amendment. What we are seeing throughout grassroots America is that people are beginning to stand and they are saying: No, we don't want Citizens United. We want to overturn it. We want real democracy in this country. I am very proud that in the State of Vermont, and in four other States, State legislatures have gone on record saying: Overturn Citizens United. There are 209 cities that have passed resolutions to that effect, including some 50 or 60 in the State of Vermont, and people are organizing all over America on this issue. I thank Senator Whitehouse and others for the work they are doing on this DISCLOSE bill. This is the very least we can do, and I am eagerly waiting to hear the arguments from those people who oppose it. If I put an ad on as a candidate or if Senator Whitehouse puts an ad on as a candidate, we have to say: I approve this ad. If you are saying something nasty or dishonest, the viewers have a right to know you are behind that ad, you are not hiding. Right now the ads that are going out over this country--who is paying for them? We don't know who is paying for them. We don't see that pretty face on TV saying: I am the CEO of this corporation, and I approve this ad. We don't get the immediate disclosure we should as to who is paying for that ad. That is all this DISCLOSE legislation does. Long term, no question, we need a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. It would be awfully nice if maybe our friends on the Supreme Court realized the error of their ways and acted accordingly. But at the very least here in the Congress, we need to pass a DISCLOSE piece of legislation and minimize the severe damage that Citizens United is doing to our democracy. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise to express deep disappointment in the vote that just took place a few hours ago where our Republican colleagues voted to filibuster our efforts to make sure student loans in this country do not double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent in July. I think everybody understands that young people in our country today, in the midst of this terrible recession, are facing extraordinary challenges. They are paying three to four times as much as their parents paid for a college education regardless of whether they attend a private or public college. When they receive their diplomas, they have no guarantee, given the state of the economy today, that they are going to be able to get a job and earn the income to pay off those debts. Given the challenges college students are facing today, the least we can do is to keep student loan interest rates at a low rate for another year. The interest rate on subsidized Stafford loans has been steadily reduced since Congress passed the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007. But if Congress does nothing, interest rates on subsidized Stafford loans are set to double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent on July 1, 2012. When we talk about Stafford loans, we are talking about loans for students from low- and moderate-income backgrounds. Subsidized Stafford loans are need based and targeted to students who otherwise might not be able to attend college. Nearly one-third of undergraduates have benefited from these low-interest Federal loans. If the interest rate doubles this year, the rate hike will impact up to 9 million students, and we must not allow that to happen. Among the students who will be impacted are 19,000 young people from the State of Vermont. In my State nearly 70 percent of college graduates are carrying student loan debt--70 percent. On average that debt is $30,000, which puts Vermont at the sixth highest student loan debt load in the country. Everybody understands that in order to get ahead in the economy today, it is very important that one has a college degree. The cost of college education is soaring. In the State of Vermont--and I have talked to many of these young people in my State and throughout this country--students are leaving college deeply in debt. Nineteen thousand students in the State of Vermont are on Stafford loans. If interest rates double from 3.4 to 6.8 percent, it will make their current situations, which are very difficult, much worse. So I hope our Republican colleagues will end their filibuster. I hope we can get back to work as soon as possible in passing a bill which will maintain Stafford loan rates at 3.4 percent. With that, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, for a very long time, in a bipartisan way, a number of people have come together to save the U.S. Postal Service. Senator Lieberman and Senator Carper and Senator Collins and Senator Brown have worked very hard, as have many others, because if the Postal Service goes under or is dismembered, we are talking about 8 million jobs in this country--small businesspeople who are dependent on a strong Postal Service. The Postmaster General originally was talking about shutting down 3,700 rural post offices in every State in this country. I hope Members understand that a post office in a rural town is more than just a post office. If that post office disappears, in many cases that town disappears. The Postmaster General was talking about specifically slowing mail delivery standards, shutting down half the processing plants in this country--over a short period of time, eliminating 200,000 jobs in this country. I hope we can proceed, have a serious debate on these issues, hear all the amendments, but at the end of the day, I hope we will go forward and save the U.S. Postal Service.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. If I might, because I think this is an important letter, I wish to report a significant part of it. I hope people appreciate what the Inspector General of the U.S. Postal Service is saying. This is a guy who knows something about the Postal Service. This is a letter to me. Dear Senator Sanders: For several days last week I met with you and your staff to discuss solutions to the current financial crisis within the Postal Service. At the conclusion of those discussions you requested our office focus on one of the solutions that we presented, which examined an option to address the current benefit fund financing. This proposal would eliminate the requirement for the Postal Service to make annual $5.5 billion payments into its retiree health benefit fund, and allow the $44 billion currently in the fund-- Let me talk about that. There is right now, as a result of these funding payments, $44 billion currently in the fund--``to grow with interest.'' What he is saying here, what happens if you have $44 billion and it accrues, as it does, interest between 3 and 4 percent a year. Then he continues. If you did that: No payments would be made from the fund until it is deemed to be fully funded, and the Postal Service would continue to directly pay for the health care premiums for retirees. An additional element of the proposal would allow current overpayments of $13.1 billion in the Postal Service pension funds to be funded to the Postal Service. This is also a point that has not been discussed at all. In fact, we do address it in the current legislation. That is, not only is the Postal Service being asked to come up with an onerous $5.5 billion a year to prefund future retiree health benefits, it is generally acknowledged--I think by everybody who has studied the issue--that the Postal Service has made overpayments of $13.1 billion into the Federal Employees Retirement System and the Civil Service Retirement System, adding those two together. This is what he said, the Inspector General of the U.S. Postal Service: Our analysis of this proposal shows that if it were adopted,the amounts in retiree healthcare fund would grow from $44 billion to the $90 billion estimated current liability in 21 years. This $90 billion protected liability is not a static or precise figure-- It varies a little bit is what he is saying--but essentially he says that if you don't add another nickel into the $44 billion, it will grow to $90 billion in 21 years and essentially take care of the payments it has to take care of. The point I want to make clear is that in terms of future retiree health benefits, we already have $44 billion in the account. In my view and in the view of people who know more about this issue than I do, it is not necessary to put more money into that account. That is an issue that this legislation attempts to address. Let me conclude by saying the issue we are dealing with is of enormous consequence to our country. It is imperative, in my view, that we not shut down 3,700 rural post offices. I commend the Postmaster General. We have been working with him and he has moved away from that position. In my view, we have to do everything we can to make sure that we maintain very high standards for mail delivery in this country. So when a business puts a package in the mail, they know it will be delivered in a reasonable time. That is one of the strengths of the Postal Service. In my view, we do not want to shut down, as in the Postmaster General's original proposal, half the processing plants in this country which would slow down mail delivery service. In my view, we do not want to end Saturday mail. I think it is an important part of maintaining mail delivery standards. But the main point I want to make today is, yes, the Postal Service faces financial problems. But not to understand the significant role-- the causation of those problems that are a result of the $5.5 billion in prehealth funding for retirees--is to miss a very significant part of this debate. I think it is fair to say in this bill we are beginning to address that issue and also address the issue of the overpayment from the Postal Service to the Federal Employees Retirement System. Let me conclude by thanking Senators Lieberman, Collins, Carper, and Brown for the work they have done. I hope we can have an intelligent and constructive and kind of nonpartisan discussion as we go forward, with good amendments that are relevant, from both sides of the aisle. The bottom line is that saving the Postal Service is enormously important for our economy and certainly for the tens of thousands of workers who are out there every day doing a great job for us. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me begin by once again thanking Senator Lieberman and Senator Carper and Senators Collins and Brown for their long and hard work on this issue, which is of enormous consequence to the American people. Sometimes what people inside the beltway perceive as opposed to what people outside the beltway perceive are two different worlds. I can tell you that back in Vermont--and I suspect in rural areas and States all over this country--people want to save the post office. They know how important it is for small businesses, for our economy, and for their own needs. So the issue we are dealing with is a very significant issue, and I hope that as a Senate we can show America that we can come together regardless of political ideology. This is not a progressive issue, a conservative issue, Republican, Democratic or Independent. This is an issue that impacts tens of millions of Americans, and I hope we can move together as we should. I wish to say a few words on the Postal Service and finances today. Everybody knows the Postal Service is, in fact, facing significant financial difficulties. Revenue at the Postal Service has gone down from about $75 billion in 2008 to $66 billion last year. In the midst of the digital revolution, first-class mail has gone down significantly--no debate about that--and it has been replaced and will continue to be replaced by e-mail usage and the Internet. There is no question but that this is a real issue that has to be addressed. But let me be very clear that in terms of the revenue problems facing the Postal Service, the major problems we have are not just the decline in first-class mail. It is an issue that happens not to be the major issue. The major issue, in fact, is that the Postal Service has seen a significant loss in mail volume and revenue due to the most severe recession our country has faced since the 1930s. As the Postal Service indicated on May 30, 2010, ``The effects of the recession account for two-thirds of the mail volume decline.'' The first point we want to understand is, yes, decline of first-class mail is a real issue. But second of all, similar to businesses all over this country, revenue is being impacted by the recession. How we can get our country out of the recession, create more jobs, put more money into the hands of working people is, of course, a major issue we must address. In that regard, I do wish to say that in the middle of this terrible recession, when real unemployment--real unemployment; it is not 8.2 percent but, in fact, is closer to 15 percent, counting those people who have given up looking for work, those people working part time--it would seem to me this body wants to do everything we can not to see 200,000 jobs slashed at the U.S. Postal Service, many of them decent- paying jobs, many of them union jobs. We may not be able to save every one of those jobs; we want the Postal Service to be efficient. But on the other hand, I would hope we see as a significant priority that in the midst of a recession, we do not want to downsize a major American institution by 200,000 jobs--many of them, by the way, jobs belonging to veterans. A couple months ago there was a whole lot of debate about how do we create jobs for veterans. I can tell you one thing we don't do is downsize the Postal Service by 200,000 workers, many of them being veterans. We talked about the decline in first-class mail being important. We talked about the recession being important. But I wish to raise another issue that I think many people are not familiar with and that has nothing to do with first-class mail, nothing to do with the recession or, in fact, e-mail or the Internet; that is, to a very significant degree, the major reason the Postal Service has been running a deficit since 2007 is due to accounting issues. For example, everybody has to understand this issue if we are going to have an open and honest debate about the future of the Postal Service: Due to a law passed in 2006, the U.S. Postal Service--uniquely in America, uniquely within government, Federal, State, local, uniquely in terms of the private sector--has been forced to prefund 75 years' worth of future retiree health benefits in just 10 years-- seventy-five years' worth of future retiree health benefits in just 10 years. There is no other agency of government that comes close to that onerous requirement, nor are there any companies in the private sector that have been asked to do that. This mandate costs the U.S. Postal Service between $5.4 billion and $5.8 billion per year. So what I beg of my colleagues is when they look at the financial problems facing the Postal Service--which are real--do not forget that, because of this 2006 legislation, the Postal Service needs to come up with approximately $5.5 billion every single year to prefund retiree health care. This is an important point, and I hope my fellow colleagues in the Senate are listening. One hundred percent of the Postal Service's $20 billion debt from 2007 to 2010 is the result of this prefunding mandate. Let me repeat it. One hundred percent of the Postal Service's $20 billion debt from 2007 to 2010 is the result of this $5.5 billion per year prefunding mandate. Without this mandate, the Postal Service would have made a $700 million profit from 2007 to 2010. Let me repeat that, because these are facts that have not often been introduced into this debate. We have folks coming up here who are saying the Postal Service is collapsing financially and so forth and so on. But it is important to understand the facts, and the facts are that despite the worst recession--which we are currently in--since the 1930s, despite the competition from e-mail and the Internet, the Postal Service would have made a $700 million profit from 2007 to 2010 if it was not forced to prefund future retiree health benefits. In addition--and I hope people listen to this as well--during the first quarter of 2012, a few months ago, the U.S. Postal Service would have generated a $200 million profit had it not been required to prefund its future retiree health benefits. I think as we debate these issues about the future of the post office, it is absolutely imperative that we understand the role of the $5.5 billion every single year that the Postal Service has to come up with to prefund retiree health benefits. A few months ago I asked the Inspector General of the Postal Service, whose name is David Williams, David C. Williams--he is the Inspector General of the Postal Service--I asked him to talk a little bit about what this prefunding of health benefits meant. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of his letter, which is dated February 6, 2012.

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

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. I apologize to the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. SANDERS. I do apologize to my friend from Tennessee. Postal Service Reform I want to just continue and talk about what the managers' amendment does. I went over a number of criteria by which it strengthens our ability to protect rural post offices, and that is something I think many of us from rural America want to see happen. We understand how important rural post offices are to the heart and soul of small communities. The Lieberman-Collins bill took us a good way forward. This amendment goes further. I should say that while I think the managers' amendment is a step forward in almost every instance, I believe that through the amendment process we can strengthen the bill even further. I intend to be working with many of my colleagues to do just that. So we talked a little bit about strengthening the ability of rural post offices to continue to exist. Second issue: The managers' amendment protects regional overnight delivery standards. The managers' amendment requires that the Postal Service retain a modified overnight delivery standard for 3 years, ensuring that communities across the country continue to receive overnight delivery of first-class mail--a very significant step forward for small businesses and for people throughout our country. A maximum delivery standard of 3 days would also be maintained for first-class mail sent anywhere in the continental United States. Originally, the Postmaster General had suggested maybe we could lengthen the time from 3 days to 5 days. We keep it at 3 days. The retention of--and this is important for every Member of the Senate concerned about the employment situation--the retention of a modified overnight delivery standard would result in at least 100 mail processing facilities remaining open that are now scheduled to be closed. No. 3, the managers' amendment makes it harder to eliminate 6-day delivery. The substitute amendment would prohibit the Postal Service from implementing any plan to eliminate Saturday delivery for at least 2 years. After 2 years, Saturday delivery could only be eliminated if the Postal Service has first attempted to increase revenue and cut costs through other means and the GAO and the Postal Regulatory Commission conclude that eliminating Saturday delivery is necessary for the long-term solvency of the Postal Service. Fourth, and very important--something I and many other Members feel strongly about--the Postal Service needs a new business model. Let me-- and I know the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Minnesota, has been very interested in all these postal issues. Right now, if one walks into a post office and they say to a postal clerk: Hi. I would like to give you $2 to notarize this letter, the postal clerk would say: It is against the law for me to do that. I can't take your $2.

Mr. SANDERS. Postal Clerk, can you make 10 copies of this letter? Nope; it is against the law for me to do that. Rural Postal Clerk, I would like a fishing license or a hunting license. Can you help me with that? I cannot do that. It is against the law. I want to mail this box of wine and beer. I cannot do that. It is against the law. So what we want to do is take away many of the restrictions that have been imposed on the Postal Service by Congress and give them the flexibility to be more entrepreneurial to bring in more revenue. In addition to that, this managers' amendment creates a blue ribbon entrepreneurial commission. What that is about is that today we have, as the majority leader indicated, some 32,000 post offices in America. Today letter carriers are delivering mail to about 150 million doors in America. That is a huge infrastructure. If we have some pretty smart entrepreneurial types telling us what we can do in addition to what we are doing now--what the letter carriers can do, what the post offices could do, what the Postal Service can do in terms of new products and services--can we bring in more revenue? I think we can. That is what the commission is going to be looking at. Let me say a few words about the financial condition of the Postal Service. No one debates first-class mail is down. A lot of people now use e-mail and the Internet rather than first-class mail. There is no debate about that. But what many people, including many Members of Congress, do not fully understand is the major crisis. The major financial crisis facing the Postal Service is the fact that they have an onerous burden of having to provide $5.5 billion every single year in future retiree health benefits--$5.5 billion every year--which was imposed upon them in 2006. According to the inspector general of the Postal Service, the $44 billion in that account right now is all that it needs because when that $44 billion accrues interest over a 20-year or so period, it will have enough money to pay out all of the future retiree health benefits that it has to do. Furthermore, there is, in general, no disagreement that the Postal Service has overpaid into the Federal Employees Retirement System by about $11 billion and to the Civil Service Retirement Service about $2 billion. In other words, the Postal Service is owed about $13 billion. So to conclude, let me say this: The Postal Service performs an enormously important function for millions of individuals and for our economy as a whole. As the majority leader indicated, there are some 8 million jobs in a variety of industries dependent upon a strong Postal Service. I believe if the Senate is prepared to be bold, to do the right thing, we can save jobs. We do not need to lay off or to downsize the Postal Service by over 200,000 workers. We do not need to shut down over 3,000 rural post offices. We do not need to shut down half of the processing plants in America and slow down mail delivery service leading to an eventual death cycle for the Postal Service. So the task before us is a huge one. To tell you the truth--and I speak as an Independent, the longest serving Independent in congressional history--this is not a Democratic issue; this is not a Republican issue. Republicans and Democrats have rural post offices. All know how important they are. All want to save jobs in the middle of a recession. All want the Postal Service to be strong. So I would hope we can work together. We had a good vote a few hours ago--74 votes. I would hope we could work together to save the Postal Service, make it strong, and make sure it is there for our kids and our grandchildren. At this point, if the Senator from Tennessee would like some time, I am happy to yield to him 3 minutes.

Mr. SANDERS. Yes.

Mr. SANDERS. Thank you, Mr. President. The Senator from Tennessee has requested 2 or 3 minutes to make a point, and I am happy to yield some of my time, after which I would get the floor back.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. I will be another 5 or 10 minutes. I will yield to the majority leader.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, the issue we are debating right now is an issue of enormous consequence for the American people, for our economy, for rural America, and for the hundreds of thousands of workers in the U.S. Postal Service. I thank Senators Lieberman, Carper, Collins, and Brown for the important work they have done in moving this legislation forward. Let me begin by saying the debate we are having is not whether the Postal Service in the digital age should change. Everybody agrees the Postal Service should change. The question is what kind of change do we want, what kind of change is good for the American economy, and what kind of change is good for our country. Last year--I think about 9 or 10 months ago--the Postmaster General gave us his view of change. There was concern about some of the financial problems facing the Post Office. He came up with a proposal that would do the following: What he said is we should close more than 3,600 mostly rural post offices. In my State, I think the number of rural post offices is about 15. All over this country post offices, in so many ways, serve a function beyond delivering mail or selling stamps. In many ways, post offices become the center of a small town. The Postmaster General's proposal was to shut down more than 3,600 mostly rural post offices. Furthermore, he wanted to shut down about half of the mail processing facilities in America--somewhere around 250 of them--and when we do that, by definition we slow overnight delivery standards for first class mail. So at a moment when the Postal Service is being challenged by e-mail in the digital age--instantaneous communication--he was proposing to slow down mail delivery. He also proposed to end Saturday mail service and reduce the postal workforce in the midst of a horrendous recession by some 220,000 workers, going from 550,000 down to about 330,000. I find it a bit ironic that a couple of months ago we had a great debate here--and I think bipartisan support--to make sure veterans get the jobs they need. Many of the people who work in the Postal Service are, in fact, veterans. They are doing a good job. When we downsize the Postal Service, as the Postmaster General proposed, by 220,000 workers, we are downsizing many of our veterans. Many of my colleagues in the Senate and the House and I are strongly opposed to what the Postmaster General brought forth and we have been working with him and his staff to improve this plan. Frankly, I think we are making some progress. Obviously, the key danger of what the Postmaster General has proposed is that if we slow down mail delivery standards, what ends up happening is that individuals and businesses will be rethinking whether they want to use the Postal Service and whether they want to go elsewhere. So what we could very well begin is what we call a death spiral: slow down mail delivery service, businesses stop using the Postal Service, less revenue comes in, more cuts are made, more delays, more slowdowns. We think that is a bad idea. Again, I believe, and I think everybody in this Senate believes, we need a new business model for the Postal Service in the digital age. Some of us believe we can bring forth a new business model which does not necessitate hundreds of thousands of job losses and cuts, cuts, and cuts. Among other things, I wish to point out that a recently disclosed study by Opinion Research Corporation, commissioned by the Postal Service itself, found the Postal Service would lose nearly $2 billion by eliminating overnight delivery standards. Let me repeat: A study commissioned by the Postal Service found that ending overnight delivery standards and shutting down half of the mail processing plants in America would cost the Postal Service nearly $2 billion. The answer is a lot to do with what I said: If we slow down service, fewer and fewer people are going to be using the Postal Service. For the last several months I have been working with several dozen of my colleagues in the Senate to oppose those cuts. I thank Senator Lieberman and Senator Carper for their support, as well as Senator Collins and Senator Brown. We have been working with them, and what we basically did is come up with a good bill that is much better than the Postmaster General had originally proposed, and we think we can do better. In fact, we have been working, and I think it is fair to say we have made some significant improvements which have been incorporated in the substitute amendment that is before us. Let me begin by touching on some of the improvements that I think we have brought about. The managers' amendment brings more protection for rural post offices. I come from a rural State. I know how important rural post offices are, and the managers' amendment provides more protection for these rural post offices. No. 1: The substitute amendment would prevent the Postal Service from closing any post offices until it has established a set of service standards that would guarantee all postal customers regular and effective access to retail postal services nationwide on a reasonable basis. The Postal Service is required to establish the standards within 6 months. The service standards would be required to take into account certain factors. In other words, what we are talking about here is that before a rural post office can be shut down, certain standards are going to have to be addressed. They are: A, a consideration of the reasonable maximum time a postal customer should expect to travel to access a postal retail location. In other words, if we shut down a post office and somebody has to go 20 miles and spend money on gasoline, and an enormous amount of time, it doesn't make sense to shut down that rural post office; B, furthermore, we want to look at the age and disability status of individuals in the area. If there are elderly people, if there are a large number of disabled people and we shut down that postal service, those folks are going to be, for all intents and purposes, isolated. Don't shut down that postal service; C, there would be a requirement that the Postal Service serve remote areas and communities which have transportation challenges. If I live in a community and I don't have a car, how do I get to a post office that is 5 miles away? D, the effects of inclement weather or other natural conditions that might impede access to postal services. In other words, if people live in a climate where they have a whole lot of snow, how are they going to get to another post office? I see the majority leader standing. Does the leader wish to address the Senate?