Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Paying a Fair Share Act. I commend Senator Whitehouse for introducing this important legislation. It is absurd that at a time when our country has a $15 trillion national debt and enormous unmet needs, the wealthiest people in this country have an effective tax rate that is lower than many middle-class workers. It makes no sense that the richest 400 people in our country who earned an average of more than $270 million each in 2008 pay an effective tax rate of just 18 percent, which is less than many small businessmen, nurses, teachers, police officers, et cetera. That is wrong from a moral perspective. It is also very bad economic policy. The issue we are debating speaks to a much larger crisis that is taking place in America; that is, that in many important ways the United States is departing from its democratic tradition, which has always included a strong and growing middle class, and is moving rapidly into an oligarchic form of government in which almost all wealth and power resides in the hands of the very richest people in our society--the top 1 percent. That is not what America is supposed to be about. Let me mention a recent study that shows not only why we should pass this Buffett rule but why we should go, in fact, much further. An economist at the University of California, Professor Emmanuel Saez, studying tax returns, found that in 2010, 93 percent of all new income generated during that year went to the top 1 percent. Let me repeat that. Between 2009 and 2010--the last year we have statistics on this issue--93 percent of all new income went to the top 1 percent, while the rest of the people--the bottom 99 percent--were able to receive 7 percent. Even more incredible is the fact that 37 percent of that new income went to the top one-hundredth of 1 percent. In other words, of the $309 billion in new income gained in 2010, $288 billion went to the top 1 percent. Only $21 billion in new income went to the bottom 99 percent. Today the top 1 percent earns over 20 percent of all income in this country, which is more than the bottom 50 percent. In terms of the distribution of wealth, accumulated income, as hard as it may be for us to believe, as a country that believes in mobility, a country that believes in equality, today we have a situation where the 400 wealthiest people in America now own more wealth than the bottom half of America--150 million people. Four hundred people here own more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans, and that gap between the very rich and everybody else is now wider than it has been in this country since the late 1920s. We have, by far, the most unequal distribution of income and wealth of any major country on Earth. That is where we are as a nation, and it is not a good place to be. The richest people and the largest corporations are doing phenomenally well, while the middle class is collapsing and poverty increases. This is not what democracy looks like; this is what oligarchy and plutocracy look like. To compound this extremely unfair situation, when millionaires and billionaires are paying nearly the lowest effective tax rate for the rich in decades, our deficit problems only grow worse. In other words, not only are the real and effective tax rates for the rich lower than for many middle-class workers, their low effective tax rates are having a very negative impact on our deficit. In fact, as a result of the tax breaks given to the wealthy and large corporations, revenue as a percentage of GDP is at 14.8 percent, the lowest in more than 50 years. Let us pass the Buffett rule today, but let us do much more in the future. Instead of cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education, and other programs of vital importance to middle-class and working families in this country, as many of my Republican colleagues would like to do, let us develop both personal and corporate tax policies that are fair and will protect the best interests of our country. Nobody should be talking about maintaining huge tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires and in the same breath talk about cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid--the needs of our children and the needs of the most vulnerable people in our country. That is wrong and that is not what America is about. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, the skyrocketing price of gasoline is clearly causing tremendous hardship to American families all across this country, to small businesses to truckers to airlines and, in fact, to the entire economy. We are trying to claw our way out of this horrendous recession and the high price of oil and gas is not helping us. I come from a rural State, and it is a State where people often drive 30, 40, 50 miles to work and back home again. Many of these workers make $10, $12, $14 an hour and when the price of gas goes up to $4 a gallon, this is money that is coming right out of their paychecks and it is money they can ill afford to pay. Many of them have seen stagnation in wages, and these high gas prices are doing their families severe harm. Further, I think the American people understand that our good friends at the oil companies continue to do phenomenally well in terms of the profits they are making. In the last decade, the major oil companies in this country have earned $1 trillion in profits while gas prices have soared. The Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act we are debating today is a step in the right direction. This legislation would repeal more than $20 billion in tax breaks to the big five oil companies, and use roughly half of this money to extend renewable energy tax credits and use the other half for deficit reduction. Over the past decades, our friends at ExxonMobil, among others, have seen more profits in ExxonMobil in a given year than any other corporation in the history of the world. Meanwhile, many of the largest oil companies over the years have paid little or no Federal income taxes. Let me give you an example. In 2009, ExxonMobil--again, which has made more profit on a given year than any corporation in history. In 2009, ExxonMobil made $19 billion in profits while receiving a $156 million refund check from the IRS. How is that? A pretty good deal? It made $19 billion in profits, did not pay any Federal income taxes, and yet received a $156 million refund check from the IRS. Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009. Not a bad deal. In 2009, Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America, with $68 billion in sales, received a $157 million tax refund from the IRS. ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 to 2009 but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction. At a time when the American people are getting ripped off at the gas pump, the last thing we need to be doing is giving big oil companies massive tax breaks which only add to our deficit and national debt crisis. In my view, we have to do more than simply end these outrageous tax breaks that Big Oil has enjoyed. In my view, we must also end excessive oil speculation on the oil futures market. There has been a major debate over the last several years as to whether spikes in oil prices were caused entirely by the fundamentals of supply and demand or whether excessive speculation in the oil futures market is playing a major role. That debate is over. That debate should be put to rest. Let's simply look at the facts. When we were in elementary school and in high school we learned what supply and demand is all about. When supply is high and demand is low, prices go down. When demand is high and supply is low, prices go up. The reality is, today the supply of oil and gasoline is higher right now than it was 3 years ago when the national average price for a gallon of gas was just $1.96 a gallon--more supply than 3 years ago when gas was $1.96 a gallon. In terms of demand, the demand for oil in the United States today is at its lowest level since 1997. Internationally, during the last quarter of 2011, world oil supply exceeded demand by nearly 2 to 1, while at the same time crude oil prices increased by over 12 percent. Let me recapitulate: Supply is high, demand is low. Yet oil prices are going through the roof. What is happening? There is a growing consensus within the business community, among economists, among people who study this issue, that the reason oil prices are soaring is excessive speculation on the oil futures market. That is the cause. ExxonMobil, Goldman Sachs, the IMF, the St. Louis Federal Reserve, the Saudi Arabian Government, the American Trucking Association, Delta Airlines, the Petroleum Marketers Association of America, the Consumer Federation of America--all of these groups are involved in one way or another in studying oil prices. That is what they do because many of them are affected by high oil prices. Others of them are consumer groups studying the impact of high oil prices. All of them have agreed that excessive oil speculation significantly increases oil and gas prices. That is the conclusion more and more observers are making. Interestingly enough, Goldman Sachs, perhaps the largest Wall Street speculator on the oil futures market, recently came out with a report indicating that excessive oil speculation is costing Americans 56 cents a gallon at the pump. This is the conclusion of Goldman Sachs, perhaps the largest speculator on the oil futures market. I personally believe and many others believe that number is low, but it is important to understand we now have a major speculator telling us what excessive speculation is doing, in terms of gas prices. Last year the CEO of ExxonMobil--not one of my best friends, not a company I particularly trust--ExxonMobil's President last year testified at a Senate hearing that excessive speculation on the oil futures market contributed as much as 40 percent to the cost of a barrel of oil. In fact, Bloomberg News reported on March 26, 2012, that: According to Commodity Futures Trading Commission data, bets on rising gasoline prices advanced for 11 weeks through March 6 to the highest level in records dating back to 2006. Gary Gensler, the chairman of the CFTC, has stated publicly that oil speculators now control over 80 percent of the energy futures market, a figure that has more than doubled over the last decade. In other words, the vast majority of oil on the oil futures market is not controlled by people who actually use the product. It is not controlled by airlines or trucking companies or fuel dealers--people who actually use the product. But over 80 percent of the oil futures market is controlled by speculators whose only function in life is to make as much profit as they can by buying and selling oil futures. Let me list a few of the oil speculators and how much oil they were trading on June 30, 2008, when the price of oil was over $140 a barrel and gas prices were over $4 a gallon. On that day, Goldman Sachs bought and sold over 863 million barrels of oil. Morgan Stanley bought and sold over 632 million barrels of oil. Bank of America bought and sold over 100 million barrels of oil. The only reason these companies were on the oil futures market was to make as much profit as possible. They do not use the end product. We have to make sure the price of oil and gas is based on the fundamentals of supply and demand and not Wall Street greed. To correct this problem I have introduced S. 2222 with Senators Blumenthal, Feinstein, Tester, McCaskill, Klobuchar, Levin, Franken, Sherrod Brown, Cardin, Mikulski, Casey, Bill Nelson, Begich, and Pryor. This legislation--which I have also filed as an amendment to this bill--requires the CFTC to use all of its authority, including its emergency powers, to eliminate excessive oil speculation. I should point out this emergency directive in our bill is identical--I want my Republican colleagues to hear this--is identical to bipartisan legislation that overwhelmingly passed the House of Representatives in 2008 by a vote of 402 to 19, with significant large- scale Republican support. The Dodd-Frank financial reform bill stipulated very clearly that the CFTC needed to eliminate, prevent, or diminish excessive oil speculation by January 17, 2011, 14 months ago. They have not done it. The CFTC has not obeyed the law, and it is time for Congress to tell them their breaking the law is not acceptable and what they have to do is, in fact, to defend the consumers of this country. In my view, what this legislation would accomplish is immediately curbing the role of excessive speculation in any contract market within the jurisdiction and control of the Commodities Future Trading Commission on or through which energy futures are trading--that is what this amendment does. It also eliminates excessive speculation, price distortion, sudden or unreasonable fluctuations or unwarranted changes in prices or other unlawful activity that is causing major market disturbances that prevent the market from accurately reflecting the forces of supply and demand for energy commodities. The bottom line is Congress has to tell the CFTC to obey the law. They have to use their emergency powers to end excessive oil speculation. When we do that, I believe we will see oil prices go down. I ask for bipartisan support of my legislation and thank all the cosponsors who are already on the bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, in 1977, Jimmy Carter became our Nation's President, Elvis Presley died, and ``Rocky'' won the Oscar as best picture. It was also the year my colleague, Barbara Mikulski, came to Congress. She has served since then, for 10 years in the House and since 1987 in the Senate, with exemplary dedication to our Nation and its working families. Those of us who have had the pleasure to serve with her in the Senate and all the citizens of Maryland who have elected her to represent them celebrate this moment, for Senator Mikulski has become the longest serving female Member of Congress in our Nation's history. Barbara Mikulski is the first female Democrat to have served in both the House and the Senate, as well as being the first Democratic woman to be elected to the Senate without succeeding a spouse or father. She is, among all of us, truly a path breaker. When she entered the Senate, there was only one other female Member of this body. Today, there are 17. Barbara Mikulski has served as an inspiration, a leader, and a mentor to generations of women seeking to secure their rightful place as members of our Nation's highest legislative bodies. Throughout her time in both the House and the Senate, she has worked tirelessly on behalf of the elderly, veterans, the poor, hard-pressed families, and our Nation's children. Daughter of a grocer, her roots are in Baltimore. She may have come a long way to play her important role here in Washington, but what makes her such a vital voice in Congress is that she has never lost touch with the values and needs of the blue-collar neighborhood of Highlandtown where she grew up. Barbara Mikulski entered politics as an activist and a populist, and she has remained true to that initial motivation. Barbara Mikulski genuinely cares about the people of our Nation about all the people, not just the wealthy or the famous or the influential. She understands the difficulties faced by working families as their incomes have been stagnant, as unions have declined, as disparities in wealth and income have widened dramatically. She is passionately committed to the importance of education for our young people, just as she respects and fights for our nation's elderly and their security as they negotiate the later years of life. We serve together on the HELP Committee, on which she has long been a leader. No one, no one, better exemplifies the values of caring for those who are all too easy to forget working families, the elderly, the poor, the children than Barbara Mikulski. Having worked with them both, I know how completely she has taken on the mantle of her friend Ted Kennedy and kept our committee focused on those whose needs are greatest. As we celebrate the inspiration Barbara Mikulski has been for the women of the Senate, Maryland, and the country, let's not forget that she has also been an inspiration to all of us. She has shown us how to fight for the powerless and how to cast votes based on ethical values and a deep commitment to our fellow men and women, not based on political expediency. For that leadership, both as a great female legislator and as an accomplished legislator with a lifelong commitment to improving the lives of all Americans, we honor her.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, later this afternoon--actually, in a fairly short while--we are going to be voting on whether to proceed with the Postal Service reform bill, and I hope we vote yes. I hope we have a strong bipartisan vote to go forward. I will tell you why. About 9 or 10 months ago, the Postmaster General came up with a proposal for the Postal Service. In my view, that proposal from the Postmaster General is an unmitigated disaster for our country and especially for rural America. This is what his original proposal outlined: What he proposed was the shutting down of more than 3,600 mostly rural post offices. If one lives in a rural State such as mine, one knows how important rural post offices are, and their function is beyond being just a post office. In many small communities throughout this country, post offices are the center of the town. It is where people come together. It is what develops a sense of community. In some cases, it is what that small rural town is all about. If we shut down that rural post office, in some instances we are literally shutting down that town. We should also understand, in the midst of the serious financial problems facing the Postal Service, shutting down 3,600 mostly rural post offices would save the Postal Service one-quarter of 1 percent of their budget. So the original plan--which has since been modified--was to shut down 3,600 rural post offices, and I would suggest whether one is a conservative Republican or a progressive Independent, that is not good for their State, not good for America. In addition, the Postmaster General's original proposal talked about shutting down some 220 mail processing facilities all over this country. That is approximately one-half of the mail processing plants. If he did that, that would end overnight delivery standards for first- class mail. At a time when the Postal Service is facing extreme competition from e-mail and the Internet, in my view, the last thing we would want to do is to slow down mail service. I think I speak for many Members of the Senate who say, if we move in that direction, making mail delivery slower, we are beginning the death spiral for the Postal Service. Many businesses, many consumers will be saying: Sorry, I am going to look elsewhere to get my packages, get my mail delivered. Furthermore, the original proposal from the Postmaster General was to shut down Saturday mail delivery and, in the process, reduce the workforce of the Postal Service--in the midst of the worst recession since the Great Depression--by over 200,000 jobs. Senators Lieberman and Carper, Senators Collins and Scott Brown, the ranking members of the committees, came together and put together a bill which was significantly better than what the Postmaster General had proposed, no question about it. Some of us felt the Lieberman-Carper-Collins-Brown bill did not go far enough, and we have been working with the chairmen of the committees to try to improve that bill, and I think we have made some success. I think if we look at the managers' amendment, we will see stronger guarantees to make sure we are not shutting down rural post offices all over America; that if we shut down processing plants, it will be a significantly smaller number than was originally proposed, and that also we would maintain strong mail delivery standards--if not as strong as I would like, at least stronger than what the Postmaster General originally proposed. Here is my fear: The Postmaster General is raring to go. If he perceives and the board of postal commissioners perceive the Congress cannot act, they are going to go forward and bring forth a proposal which will not be as strong in protecting post offices and workers and the American people as we can do. So what we managed to do back in December was get a 5-month moratorium to prevent the shutting down of rural post offices and processing plants. That expires on May 15. I think it is terribly important we begin the process, we vote to proceed within the next hour, we bring that bill to the floor, there is an open process by which people, including myself, will bring forth amendments to make the bill even stronger than it is right now. I would point out to my colleagues, in terms of the financial problems facing the Postal Service, clearly, they have to deal with the serious problem, the very real problem that first-class mail has gone down very significantly, being replaced by e-mail. There is no question that is a real, legitimate problem. But what is not a legitimate problem is that the Postal Service uniquely in America--not in local governments, State governments, Federal agencies or the private sector--the Postal Service alone is being asked to put $5.5 billion every single year into their future retiree health benefits program. According to the inspector general of the U.S. Postal Service, given the fact there is some $44 billion in that fund already, with interest rates accruing, we do not need to put more money into that fund. There is widespread agreement the Postal Service has overpaid into the Federal Employees Retirement System some $10 billion or $11 billion; into the Civil Service Retirement System, at least a couple billion dollars and perhaps a lot more. The bottom line is this: If we are serious about protecting rural America, if we are serious about protecting 3,600 rural post offices, if we believe the post office must continue being an important part of what America is about--so important to our economy and to small businesses--and we do not want to delay mail service, slow down mail service, we do not want to shut down half of the mail processing plants in this country, I think it is important we begin that debate and vote for cloture. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Boxer.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I wish to congratulate Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Inhofe for all of their hard work on this very important bill. This legislation is a major step forward toward addressing the significant infrastructure needs of our country and creating desperately needed jobs. I appreciate the inclusion of an amendment I offered which increases the Federal cost share for emergency relief permanent repairs in extreme disasters. My intent is that the provision will apply to all open disasters as of the date of enactment of this bill. Is this the chairman's understanding as well?

Mr. SANDERS. I thank the chairman for her hard work and her success. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, over 2 years ago, the Supreme Court rendered what I consider to be one of the worst decisions in the history of the United States Supreme Court, and that is regarding the case of Citizens United. In that case, the Supreme Court, by a 5-to-4 decision, determined that corporations are people, and they have first amendment rights to spend as much money as they want on elections. I think when that decision first came about a lot of people in this country didn't pay attention to it. They looked at it as an abstract legal decision, not terribly important. Well, today the American people understand the disastrous impact that decision has had because what they are seeing right now on their television screens all across this country is a handful of billionaires and large corporations spending huge amounts of money on the political process, and the American people are asking themselves: Is this really what people fought and died for when they put their lives on the line to defend American democracy? Is American democracy evolving into a situation where a small number of billionaires can put hundreds of millions of dollars into the political process in this State and that State, in Presidential elections, and then elect the people who will govern this country? I believe very strongly the American people do not think that is appropriate, and I am very happy to say that yesterday, on Town Meeting Day in the State of Vermont--I think my small State has begun the process to overturn this disastrous Citizens United decision. We had 55 towns at town meetings demand the Congress move forward to overturn Citizens United and restore American democracy to the concept of one person, one vote. What we do on Town Meeting Day in Vermont, all over our State, is people come together and argue about the school budget. They argue about the town budget. They debate the issues, and then they vote. What people in Vermont are saying is they do not want to see our democracy devolve into a situation where corporations are determining who will govern our Nation. So I am very proud that in the State of Vermont just yesterday 55 separate towns voted to urge the Congress to move forward on a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. I hope we will heed what the towns in Vermont are saying. I hope other towns and cities in States all over the country will move forward in that direction. I hope the day will come--sooner rather than later--where the Congress will entertain a constitutional amendment and bring it back to the States. Madam President, at this difficult moment in American democracy, it is imperative that we stand and reclaim our democracy and say to the millionaires and billionaires and the large corporations: Sorry, this country belongs to all of us. This democracy belongs to all of us and not just to you. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the names of the 55 towns that passed resolutions yesterday to overturn Citizens United.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, in Vermont and across this country, there is growing frustration that Members of Congress--mostly men, I should add--are trying to roll back the clock on women's reproductive rights-- in this case, the right of women to receive contraceptive services through their insurance plan. This attack is grossly unfair, and I hope men will stand with women in the fight to protect this very basic right. Let me add my strong belief that if the Senate had 83 women and 17 men rather than 83 men and 17 women, a bill such as this would never even make it to the floor. Two years ago Congress passed a health care reform bill that will expand health care access for over 30 million Americans who are uninsured as well as millions of Americans who are covered through their employers. This bill is by no means perfect--I would go further-- but it is a step forward in allowing us to catch up with the rest of the industrialized world that guarantees health care to all of their people as a right. Unfortunately, the amendment we are discussing today--Senator Blunt's amendment--would undermine much of the progress being made for women's health care through a new version of a so-called conscience exemption. Not just content to attack women's rights, Mr. Blunt's amendment would go even further and seeks to deny patients access to any essential health care service their employer or insurance company objects to based simply on the employer's ``religious beliefs'' and ``moral convictions.'' This amendment would especially have an adverse impact on women's health. Starting in August, women enrolled in new plans will have access to a range of preventive services at no cost. But allowing the kind of extreme, so-called conscience clause included in the Blunt amendment would allow an employer to refuse coverage of contraceptives, annual well-woman visits, or even treatments for both genders, such as mental health services or HIV/AIDS treatment, based not on a doctor's recommendation but on the religious belief or moral conviction of a person's employer. This is an absolutely unprecedented refusal right. The Blunt amendment must be defeated. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes on the Blunt amendment.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, we are debating the Transportation bill, so let me say a few words about transportation. I think everybody in this country--or at least anybody who gets into an automobile and drives around--understands that we have a major infrastructural crisis in this country and that it is becoming more dire each passing year. The American Society of Civil Engineers has reported that we should be investing $2.2 trillion over the next 5 years simply to get our roads, bridges, transit, and aviation to a passable condition. This is more than eight times the annual rate of spending proposed in the bill under consideration. The first point I think we should acknowledge is that the legislation before us, which I support and which is significantly a step forward, is a very modest proposal going nowhere near as far as we should be going. Clearly, I see when I go home to Vermont, and I am sure you see when you go home to Pennsylvania, the very apparent infrastructural needs we as a nation face. In my State of Vermont, just under one-third of Vermont's bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. About one-third of Vermont's bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Thirty-six percent of our Federal aid roads are in need of major repairs. In fact, a recent national report ranked Vermont's rural roads as the worst in the Nation, and that was before the very terrible storm we experienced, Tropical Storm Irene, which caused hundreds of millions of additional dollars of damage to our roads. I think the point here is not a complicated point. I was a mayor for 8 years, and I had to deal with the roads and the water system in the city of Burlington, and I think I speak for every mayor in the world when I tell you that infrastructure does not get better all by itself. I think we can all agree that if you do nothing, if you do not invest in repairs, it is just not going to get better. In fact, it will get worse. It is really dumb that we as a nation end up spending a lot more money than we should in repairing our roads and bridges and water systems because we don't adequately fund maintenance. If you keep up good repair, it will end up costing you less money. If you ignore them and they deteriorate and you need to massively rebuild them, it ends up being a much more expensive proposition. So as a nation what we should be doing is properly maintaining our infrastructure, investing a certain sum every single year. And I should tell you that compared to the rest of the world, we do not do a particularly good job of that. Right now, the United States invests just 2.4 percent of our GDP on infrastructure. Europe invests twice that amount, and China invests almost four times our rate. Roughly 9 percent of their GDP goes to infrastructure. So in terms of our own needs, we are falling behind. Internationally, other countries are doing a lot better than we are. Equally important is that we are in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. If you look at those people who have given up looking for work, those people who are working part time or want to work full time, real unemployment in this country is not just the official 8.2 percent, it is closer to 15 percent. And what economists tell us is that if we are serious about creating jobs, investing in infrastructure is probably the best way to do that. It is the easiest way to create meaningful, decent-paying jobs. For every $1 billion of Federal funds spent, we can create or maintain nearly 35,000 jobs. Given the economic crisis we face, that is exactly what we should be doing. In addition to preserving more than 1.8 million jobs, the legislation we are dealing with today, which is being presented by Senators Boxer and Inhofe, will create up to 1 million new jobs by expanding the TIFIA Program--a measure championed by Chairperson Boxer. This is an extremely important issue. It is important for our productivity because when you have a crumbling infrastructure, productivity suffers. It is important in terms of international competition. It is important in terms of job creation. It is important in order to provide a basic need for millions of Americans. People do not want to drive on roads which are falling apart, that have huge potholes. People want to make sure when they go over a bridge, that bridge will not collapse. People want to make sure we have a strong rail system, not a rail system which, in fact, is far behind those of Europe, Japan, and China. This bill, while modest in terms of our needs, is a step forward. It is a bipartisan bill. I hope we can get to it and pass it as quickly as possible because the infrastructure needs of this country are great, and they must be addressed. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I am here for Senator Boxer, in terms of the Transportation bill, but before I get into transportation, I wanted to say a word on another issue that does not get the attention it deserves, and that is why, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Primary Health Care, I will be holding a hearing on the dental crisis in America. As I think many Americans know--although they do not hear a whole lot about it--we as a Nation are in the midst of a very severe dental crisis. More than 47 million Americans live in places where it is difficult to get dental care. About 17 million low-income children received no dental care in 2009. One quarter of adults in the United States ages 65 or older have lost all of their teeth. Low-income adults are almost twice as likely as higher income adults to have gone without a dental checkup in the previous year. I should tell you that bad dental health impacts overall health care. When you talk about dental care, you are talking about health care in general. If people have bad teeth or no teeth, they are unable to digest their food, which causes digestive problems. People who have poor teeth can get infections leading to very serious health problems. And, in fact, there are instances where people have actually died because of poor teeth and infections. Furthermore, the risk for diabetes, heart disease, and poor birth outcomes are also significant if people are not having their teeth well maintained. Since 2006, there were over 830,000 visits to emergency rooms across the country because we have a lot of low-income people who are in severe pain and they can't find a dentist. So they go into an emergency room, and I suspect maybe they get their tooth extracted or get some pain killer. But that is certainly not an adequate substitute for providing the dental care that all Americans need. Almost 60 percent of children ages 5 to 17 have cavities, making tooth decay 5 times more common than asthma among children of this age. In fact, as I understand it, the single most prevalent reason for children being absent from school is, in fact, dental problems. In the midst of the severe need for more dentists, what is happening is our dentists in our dental communities are becoming older and many of them are retiring. In fact, we need a lot more new dentists to replace those who are retiring. The sad truth is that more dentists retire each year than there are dental school graduates to replace them. One of the other problems we are facing is that only 20 percent of the Nation's practicing dentists provide care to people with Medicaid. So that is a serious problem. We need more dentists but, equally important, we need to make sure that dentists are providing service to the people who need it the most. And one of the sad realities of contemporary dental life is that only 20 percent of the Nation's practicing dentists provide care to people who are on Medicaid, and only an extremely small percentage devote a substantial part of their practice to caring for those who are underserved. The current access problem is exacerbated by the fact that private practices are often located in middle-class and wealthy suburbs. What we need is to bring dentists into those areas where people need dental care the most. That is certainly something we need to do. Further, we need to expand Medicaid and other dental insurance coverage. One-third of Americans do not have dental coverage. Traditional Medicare for seniors does not cover dental services. States can choose whether their Medicaid Programs provide coverage for dental care for adults, and the truth is many of them do not. Let me give some good news, though, in terms of where we are making some progress. Recently--and I have been active in this effort--there has been an expansion of federally qualified community health centers. Community health centers provide health and dental care to anybody in the area regardless of their ability to pay. We now have a situation where community health centers are providing dental services to over 3\1/2\ million people across the country. I am happy to say in the State of Vermont, in recent years, we have seen a very significant increase not only in community health centers in general but in community health centers that are providing state-of- the-art dental care. We have beautiful new facilities located in Richford, in the northern part of our State; in Plainfield, VT, in the central part of our State; and in Rutland. Burlington is just developing a beautiful new dental facility. Furthermore, one of the areas where I think we are seeing some progress not only in Vermont but around the country--and which I think has huge potential--is putting dental offices right in schools. I know in Burlington, VT, we helped bring that about some years ago, and we have kids from all over the city of Burlington getting their dental care at one particular school. It is working phenomenally well, and we have similar programs in Bennington and Richford. I did want to mention that I think the time is now for the Congress to begin addressing this issue. One of the things I have done recently on my Web site--which is sanders.senate.gov--I have asked people in Vermont and all over the country to tell us their stories in terms of what happens if they do not or if members of their family don't have access to dental care. We have received more than 1,200 stories from Vermont and all over this country. Those stories are heartbreaking because they tell the tales of people who are suffering every day because they simply don't have the money to go to a dentist to take care of their dental needs. These are parents who are worried about their kids and pointing out how hard it is to find affordable dental care in their communities. So if people want to write my office, they can go to my Web site, sanders.senate.gov, and we would love to hear from them. Because I think there are a lot of stories out there that are not being told. What I wish to do now is to read from a publication that we have just produced called ``Dental Crisis in America: The Need to Expand Access.'' This will be distributed and released tomorrow at our hearing, but I did want to read a few stories which I think speak to the experience that a whole lot of people from one end of this country to the other are having regarding lack of access to dental care. This is from a woman named Heather Getty, who lives in East Fairfield, VT, in the northern part of our State. This is what she says: My husband and I and our four kids are the working poor. We have to think about rent and electricity before we think about dental care. My wisdom teeth have been a problem for over a decade now. I take ibuprofen and just keep on going. My husband has not seen a dentist since he was a teenager. He's afraid of the costs if they find something. So it's been 20 years. Because of Vermont's Dr. Dynasaur program, at least my children have been lucky enough to have regular cleanings, but I have to comb through the Yellow Pages to find an office who will accept their coverage. One time I missed an appointment because my car broke down, and when I called to reschedule, they told me that we had been blacklisted and that no one from my family could be seen by that office again. We've learned over the years how important dental care is. If you get preventive care early, you are less likely to have problems later on. That is from Heather Getty in East Fairfield, VT. Let me read a statement from Shawn Jones in Brattleboro, VT. Last year, I had a toothache that was so painful, I had trouble eating and sleeping. My girlfriend is also covered by Medicaid so I called her dentist, but they wouldn't see me. So I called 12 more dentists in the area, but they all said the same thing: They weren't taking new Medicaid patients. A few said to call back in three months, which seems like a long time to live with a bad toothache. Finally, someone from Office of Vermont Health Access helped me get an emergency voucher to get my tooth pulled. I'm just grateful that my girlfriend had a car to get me there. That is just a couple of the statements that came from Vermont, and in fact from all over the country. But let me read a statement from Dr. David Nash, who is the William R. Willard Professor of Dental Education, Professor of Pediatric Dentistry, College of Dentistry, University of Kentucky in Lexington. Dr. Nash writes: Society has granted the profession of dentistry the exclusive right and privilege of caring for the oral health of the nation's children. Unfortunately, the dental delivery system in place today does not provide adequate access to care for our children. In many instances it is because few dentists will accept Medicaid payments. In other countries of the world, children's oral health is cared for by dental therapists, primarily in school-based programs. This results in an overwhelming majority of children being able to receive care. Dental therapists as utilized internationally do not create a two-tiered system of care. They have extensive training in caring for children, significantly more than the typical graduate of our nation's dental schools. International research supports the high quality of care dental therapists provide. The time has arrived for the United States to develop a new workforce model to care for our children's oral health. What Dr. Nash is talking about is another issue we will be discussing tomorrow in the hearing; that is, it is clear from international studies and, in fact, from some States in the United States that there are well-trained people who can take care of certain types of dental problems who are not dentists. I think that is an area we need to explore--how can we expand the dental profession to include people who do not graduate dental school but who have the qualifications to take care of a variety of dental problems? Let me read another story that comes from Vermont regarding what happens if you don't have dental care. It is from Kiah Morris from Bennington, VT. When I was pregnant, I had a tooth infection that had gotten into my lymph nodes and I needed a root canal, but adult Medicaid has a $495 cap, which wasn't enough. Dental care shouldn't be a luxury. What she is saying is that in Vermont and in many other States where you do have Medicaid helping out for dental care for low-income people, there is often a cap, and that cap is much too low to provide the services many folks need. So the bottom line is that we have a crisis in terms of access to dental care in this country. We lag behind many other countries around the world in that regard. We have many people who have no dental insurance at all. Some who do have dental insurance, such as my family, have very limited coverage--I think it is about $1,000 a year. Meanwhile, the cost of dental care is sky-high, and we are also going to explore why that is so. I am not sure I understand or many people understand why dental care is as expensive as it is. What I do know is that there is a city in northern Mexico whose function in life is to provide dental care for Americans who go down below the border because they can't afford dental care in this country. There is a serious problem. People don't have dental insurance. Low- income people don't have access to dental care. We have many dentists out there who are not accepting Medicaid patients or, if they are accepting Medicaid patients, they are accepting very few of them. The population of our dentists in general is getting older, and we are losing more of them to retirement than we are seeing graduates of dental school. Even the dentists who are graduating are often not migrating to the areas where we need them the most. Many dentists are involved in making our teeth white and shiny and our smiles very beautiful, but meanwhile in those communities there are people who are seeing the teeth in their mouth rot away, there are kids who have dental problems, and they are not getting the treatment they need. I hope that tomorrow at the hearing we are going to bring forth some great panelists. We will be talking about the issue. I intend, as soon as we can, to introduce comprehensive legislation to make sure every person in this country has access to affordable and decent-quality dental care. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota. The point that he makes is indisputable; that is, if we are serious about creating decent-paying, meaningful jobs in this country, why in God's name are we not extending 1603 for solar and wind and the renewable energy tax credit? This will enable us to create good-paying jobs, make sure sustainable energy is an important part of our economy, and allow this country to play a leadership role in reversing greenhouse gas emissions and combating global warming. I think there are some people who say: Well, maybe global warming might be real, but we don't have to worry about it today. Its impact will not be seen for decades or centuries to come. I would suggest that is not quite correct. We are seeing the impact of global warming climate change right now. Let me give an example. According to studies, in my own State of Vermont in northern New England, if we fail to reverse global warming we will see continued temperature increases. Vermont's climate, by 2080, is projected to be similar to Georgia's climate today. Mr. President, 2080, in the great scheme of things, is not all that far away. To think that Vermont, northern New England, will have a climate similar to Georgia's today is rather extraordinary if that takes place by the year 2080. Clearly, if that trend takes place, it would be devastating in many respects for Vermont, including our winter tourism and our sugar maple producers, among other aspects of our economy. Lake Champlain, our beautiful lake which borders New York State and Vermont, which used to freeze for 9 out of every 10 years in the early 20th century, froze over just three times in the 1990s and has not fully frozen over since 2007. So in my small State, the State of Vermont, northern New England, we are seeing the impact of climate change today. The idea that by the year 2080 Vermont's climate will be similar to the State of Georgia's climate today is just unthinkable and extraordinary and tells us the impact that global warming is having. According to NASA, 2010 tied 2005 for the warmest year since records began in 1880. Nine of the ten warmest years on record have occurred since the year 2000. The last decade was the warmest on record. We have seen temperature records being recorded all over the planet in the year 2010. During that year, Pakistan set a record for recording the highest temperature ever in Asia, hitting 129 degrees Fahrenheit. Iraq set its own record for high temperatures at over 125 degrees. Sudan reached a record 121 degrees. Los Angeles, right here in our country, had a record 113-degree day. Houston, TX, set a record for its highest monthly average temperature. In the United States, according to a New York Times article, two record-high temperatures are now set for every one record low. The National Climatic Data Center shows that 26,500 record-high temperatures were recorded in weather stations across the United States in the summer of 2011. Texas set the record for the warmest summer of any State since instrument records began. Oklahoma set a record for its warmest summer, exceeding the record set during the Dust Bowl era in the 1930s. But we are not just looking at hot temperatures and hot days. What are the impacts of those kinds of weather changes? What does it mean to people's lives? Scientists used to say they could not tie a particular event to climate change. That is no longer true. Our understanding of climate and extreme weather has advanced. NASA's James Hansen and his colleagues can say that some of the extreme heat waves we have seen, such as those in Russia and Texas and Oklahoma, over the past several years were caused by global warming because their likelihood would be negligible if not for global warming. Let me give some other examples of what global warming is doing in terms of heat waves and its horrendous impact on the lives of people. Some of us remember Europe in 2003. During that period in Europe, 2003, a heat wave caused temperatures to reach or exceed 100 degrees Fahrenheit in the United Kingdom and France and led to high temperatures throughout Europe for weeks which killed 70,000 people, according to the World Health Organization. Many older people, people with respiratory problems, people who were fragile in health died during that period. In the heat wave in Europe in 2003, 70,000 people died. In Russia in 2010, a week-long heat wave sent temperatures soaring above 100 degrees Fahrenheit in areas where the average temperature that time of year is 67 degrees. Mr. President, 56,000 people died during that period as a result of that heat wave, and wildfires created a smoke plume nearly 2,000 miles wide, which was visible from space. So this is not some kind of abstract issue: Oh, my goodness; isn't it too bad it is really hot today. What we are talking about are prolonged heat waves that kill substantial numbers of people. In India in 2010, they recorded temperatures of over 100 degrees that killed hundreds of people; Chile in 2011, a heat wave, drought, and wildfire destroyed 57,000 acres of forest and land and forced 500 people to evacuate; Australia in 2012, the start of 2012 was the hottest start of any year for Australia in the century, according to ABC News, with temperatures exceeding 104 degrees and electricity cut off in some areas to prevent the igniting of fires. Prolonged and more severe drought is likely to increase as global warming continues, according to the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado. This means increased risk of crop failure, wildfires, and water scarcity. A recent study published in Scientific American found that climate change has cut production of cereal crops-- wheat, rice, corn, soybeans--causing these crops to be nearly 19 percent more expensive than if global warming was not occurring. I could go on and on about this issue. But the main point I want to make is the following, and let me summarize it here. According to virtually the entire scientific community in the United States of America and around the world, according to virtually every agency of the United States Government, global warming is real, and it is significantly caused by human activity. People are mistaken if they believe the impact of global warming will just be in decades to come. We are seeing very negative impacts today. The scientific community tells us if we do not begin to reverse greenhouse gas emissions, those problems in America and around the world will only get worse. If there is a silver lining in all of that, it is that right now we know how to cut greenhouse gas emissions. We know how to move to energy efficiency, mass transportation, and automobiles that get 50, 60, 100 miles per gallon. We know how to weatherize our homes so we can cut significantly the use of fuel. What we also know is that in the middle of this recession, if we move in that direction--energy efficiency and sustainable energy--we can create over a period of years millions of good-paying jobs. Let me conclude by saying: we now have the opportunity to be in a win-win-win situation. We can save consumers money, we can significantly reduce greenhouse gases and protect our planet, and we can create substantial numbers of jobs that we desperately need in the midst of this terrible recession. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANDERS. I thank the Senator for the good work he is doing. What I would like to do is just pick up on a point Senator Whitehouse just raised; that is, the record of history shows us that we cannot take the climate for granted. Our relatively limited experience of advancement over the last 10,000 years, during the time of stable climate on a planet that is billions of years old, has distorted our view of the Earth's complex climate system. A recent National Academy of Sciences report stated: . . . it seems clear that the Earth's future will be unlike the climate that ecosystems and human societies have been accustomed to during the last 10,000 years. . . . That is the point Senator Whitehouse just made, and that is according to the National Academy of Sciences. The reason is that human activities--primarily the burning of fossil fuels--are increasing greenhouse gas emissions and causing global warming. According to the U.S. Global Change Research Program, ``global warming is unequivocal and primarily human induced.'' We have altered the climate that has sustained humanity for the last 10,000 years. We are now at 392 parts per million of carbon dioxide, up from 280 parts per million in the 18th century. What an extraordinary increase in carbon dioxide in that short period of time. And greenhouse gas levels are rising steadily. In fact, carbon dioxide levels are increasing faster than at any time on record, according to our EPA. Maybe that 392 parts per million seems like an abstract number, so let me put it into context. According to UCLA researchers, the last time carbon dioxide levels were consistently this high--the last time-- was 15 million years ago--15 million years ago. The Earth, at that time, was warmer by 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit than it is today. At that level of warmth, there is no permanent sea ice in the Arctic and little, if any, ice on Antarctica and Greenland. That explains, in part, why sea levels at that time were 75 to 120 feet higher than today. If sea levels today even approached half that level, we would inundate--inundate--major coastal cities around the world and create hundreds of millions of displaced refugees. And that is what we are talking about. So let me repeat: The last time carbon dioxide levels were consistently this high was 15 million years ago, at which time the Earth was warmer by 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit than it is today. There is no doubt, if we do nothing to reverse global warming, we are doing more than just threatening harm to the environment. We are jeopardizing the future of our planet and much of humanity. All too often we talk about global warming as if the impact will be somewhere down the line--maybe in 100 years, maybe in 200 years, and isn't it too bad those polar bears are trying to get by on that little block of ice. The reality is that global warming is impacting our planet today, and the impact is devastating. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Minnesota is here. He has been very active on this issue, and I know he has some important points to be made, so I yield the floor for Senator Franken of Minnesota.

Mr. SANDERS. If I could just point out, picking up on Senator Udall's point, in recent years we have seen, as everybody in America knows--not only are we paying outrageously high prices at the pump, but we are seeing oil companies making huge profits. My recollection is that in the last 10 years the oil companies have made about $1 trillion in profits. ExxonMobil has made more money than any corporation in history. Yet, over the last 10 years, there have been examples, there have been cases in a given year where a major oil company--ExxonMobil being one--made huge profits, billions in profits, and ended up paying zero in Federal income taxes and, in fact, got a rebate. So you have this absurd situation where hugely profitable oil companies are paying nothing in taxes, and some of us think that does not make any sense at all. We think they should pay their fair share and that to a significant degree that money should go into sustainable energy so that we can break our addiction to oil.

Mr. SANDERS. Well, the Senator is absolutely right. Everybody understands that if you are in business, if you are in wind or in solar, you have to be planning for the future. And if you do not believe or you are uncertain about whether these tax credits are going to be available, what is going to happen is you are not going to go forward. We know there are examples right now of major projects that have already been canceled. Furthermore, we are not talking--given the context of U.S. Government expenditures--about a huge amount of money, but it is money that I think is very well spent, protects our environment, and creates jobs. I see the Senator from Rhode Island has joined us. Senator Whitehouse has surely been one of the strongest advocates for our environment and the need to address global warming.

Mr. SANDERS. If I can, let me just jump in to ask unanimous consent that Senators Whitehouse, Udall, and I be permitted to engage in a colloquy.

Mr. SANDERS. If I could ask Senator Whitehouse and Senator Udall a simple question--and Senator Whitehouse raised this issue--all over the world, there really is no debate within the scientific community about the reality of global warming, the basic causes of global warming, the severity of global warming. Yet suddenly here in this Congress it becomes a major political issue. We fund the National Institutes of Health. We fund scientific organizations. They do research on cancer. They do research on heart disease. They do all kinds of research. I don't see great political debate about what this says. And suddenly, when you have almost unanimity within the scientific community, this becomes this great dividing political issue. How did it happen that where there is so much unanimity among the scientific community in this country and around the world, this has become such a hot-potato political issue?

Mr. SANDERS. I say to my friend, he is absolutely right. The issue we are talking about now is not only trying to reverse global warming and save the planet, what we are talking about is creating, over a period of years, millions of good-paying jobs. We may not know it from some media reports, but the fact is the solar industry in this country is exploding. All over this country, we are seeing more and more installations of solar panels, we are seeing the production of solar. One of the issues I think Senator Udall is referring to is whether the United States of America will be a leader in sustainable energy or are we going to give that whole enormous economic area over to China. I know the Senator and I are in agreement that we believe American workers can manufacture those panels. We think American workers can install those panels. We also understand it is not just solar, it is wind; that these industries need some of the help that the fossil fuel industry has been receiving for years. I think we will also be talking about the whole issue of energy efficiency and weatherization, which in my State is enormously important. We are creating jobs, saving consumers money, as we retrofit their homes and cut back on their use of fuel. So, yes, I say to the Senator, we are talking about a major jobs issue.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I fear one of the major issues that not only faces our country but faces our planet is not getting the kind of serious debate and discussion it needs in the Senate; that is, the planetary crisis of global warming, what its impact is having now in our country and in other countries throughout the world and how, in fact, we can address this enormous crisis. I understand politically some of my colleagues do not believe global warming is real and they do not think there is much our country should or can do to address this crisis. I understand that. But with all due respect, I strongly disagree with that position and believe, in terms of the future of our planet, the lives of our kids and our grandchildren, that is a very wrongheaded position and could lead to enormous problems for our country and for the rest of the world. But the truth is, the real debate about global warming is not whether other Members of the Senate disagree with me or Senator Udall, the issue is what the scientific community, the people who have studied this issue for years, in fact, believes. As I think the Presiding Officer understands, the overwhelming consensus in our country and around the world from the scientific community is, A, global warming is real, and, B, to a very significant degree global warming is manmade. That is not just my position, not just what I say or what other Members of the Senate say. Far more important, it is what leading scientists all over the world are saying. The National Academy of Sciences in this country, joined by academies of science in the United Kingdom, Italy, Mexico, Canada, France, Japan, Russia, Germany, China, India, Brazil, and South Africa, has said--this is their statement, the National Academy of Sciences-- ``. . . climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated'' and the ``need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable.'' It is fine for radio talk show hosts to have their view. Frankly, I think it is more significant that the scientific community from all over the world is in agreement. Let me repeat what they say: `` . . . climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated'' and the ``need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable.'' Mr. President, 18 scientific societies, including the American Geophysical Union and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said: Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. That is not I; that is 18 scientific societies, including the American Geophysical Union and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. They continue: These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science. But it is not only the scientific community. It is agencies of the U.S. Government that have to deal or worry about the impact of global warming. The Department of Defense says: Climate change is an accelerant of instability. What they worry about is, as the planet warms, as floods occur, as drought occurs, we are going to see migrations of people, we are going to see countries fighting over limited natural resources, whether it is farmland or whether it is water. From the Department of Defense perspective, they say, and I repeat: Climate change is an accelerant of instability. That is the U.S. Department of Defense--not Bernie Sanders. The CIA--our intelligence agency--says: `` . . . climate change could have significant geopolitical impacts around the world, contributing to poverty, environmental degradation, and the further weakening of fragile governments,'' as well as ``food and water scarcity.'' That is not a Senator on the floor. That is the Central Intelligence Agency, the business of which is to gather and assess threats to our country. Interestingly enough, there are segments of the business community that are also speaking out on climate change and global warming for their own reasons. The insurance industry, in a report from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, found there is ``broad consensus among insurers that climate change will have an effect on extreme weather events.'' What we are seeing is that scientists all over the world, academic institutions all over the world, governmental agencies right here in the United States of America--including the Department of Defense and the CIA--and the insurance industry saying global warming is real, it is a real threat to our planet, and it is imperative we address it. I have more to say on this issue, and some of us will be on the floor for an hour, but I want to give the floor over to Senator Tom Udall from New Mexico, who has certainly been a leading advocate in the fight for policies that will reverse global warming and move us in another direction.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I and other Senators, including Tom Udall and the Presiding Officer and Senator Whitehouse, be permitted to speak for the next 60 minutes.

Mr. SANDERS

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