Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, the amendment I want to speak on is No. 3353. This amendment is extremely simple and it is extremely straightforward. At a time when millions of senior citizens, veterans, and persons with disabilities have slipped out of the middle class and into poverty; at a time when the cost of prescription drugs, medical care, and heating oil have gone through the roof in many parts of our country; at a time when millions of seniors have seen the values of their pensions, their homes, and their life savings plummet; at a time--and here is the important point--for the first time in 36 years, seniors will not be receiving a COLA in their Social Security benefits. The amendment I am offering today with Senators Dodd, Leahy, Schumer, Kerry, Whitehouse, Mikulski, Gillibrand, Lautenberg, and Begich will provide over 55 million senior citizens, veterans, and persons with disabilities $250 in much needed emergency relief. This $250 emergency payment is equivalent to a 2-percent increase in benefits for the average Social Security retiree, and it is, as you will recall, the same amount seniors received last year as part of the Recovery Act. In other words, what we are doing now is exactly the same as we did last year with the Recovery Act. I do not know about New Mexico, but I do know that in Vermont, a lot of senior citizens and disabled veterans are wondering this year why they are not receiving a COLA. They have written to my office and they are saying to me: Hey, I don't know what you are talking about because my costs have increased over the last year. That is because, in fact, while inflation may not have gone up in general, those areas elderly people and people who have health problems utilize--prescription drugs, health care, other health-related issues--those costs have gone up very substantially. I think there is an awareness all over this country that we cannot, in the midst of this recession, turn our backs on disabled veterans and seniors. This amendment has widespread support from organizations representing tens of millions of Americans. Among the organizations that are supporting this amendment are the AARP, the largest senior group in America; the American Legion, the largest veterans group in America; the Veterans of Foreign Wars; the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare; the Disabled American Veterans; AMVETS and OWL and many other organizations. Money directed to this population will go almost immediately into the economy. So when we talk about stimulus, I don't know of a better way to get money out into the economy than passing this amendment. I am also very happy and delighted that President Obama is very strongly supportive of a $250 emergency payment to seniors. As you know, the President has spoken out on this issue, he has also included it in his budget, and he has also recommended that it be included in the underlying legislation we are debating today. Here is what President Obama has said about this issue: Even as we seek to bring about recovery, we must act on behalf of those hardest hit by this recession. That is why I am announcing my support for an additional $250 in emergency recovery assistance for seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities to help them make it through these difficult times. These payments will provide aid to more than 50 million people in the coming year, relief that will not only make a difference for them, but for our economy as a whole, complementing the tax cuts we've provided working families and small businesses through the Recovery Act. This additional assistance will be especially important in the coming months as countless seniors and others have seen their retirement accounts and home values decline as a result of this economic crisis. That is the end of the quote by President Obama. I very much appreciate the President speaking out and fighting for senior citizens and the disabled with regard to this issue. I can tell you that just on Monday I had a meeting with senior citizens and senior citizens organizations in the State of Vermont. It was a very distressing meeting. When we talked, for example, about nutrition programs, the Meals on Wheels program or the congregate meals programs by which seniors come to senior citizens centers to get a decent lunch, what people are telling me is that for the first time in many years, when seniors are asked to put money into an envelope--and very carefully, the senior centers don't want to know what people contribute. They ask for, say, $2 or $3, but people can contribute whatever they want. What they are noticing now is that more and more seniors are putting nothing into the envelope or maybe just $1. They are seeing the same process when people get out in their cars and they deliver Meals on Wheels to very fragile and frail people, often in rural areas, and people don't even have the money, now, to even pay $2 for a lunch. All over this country, seniors are hurting. I think they are upset and distressed that they are not getting a COLA this year. Essentially, what this payment is about is a substitute for a COLA. It is a 1-year payment, and it is the equivalent of about a 2-percent COLA. Let me mention the response of some of the veterans organizations. This amendment, importantly, will be helping our disabled veterans. Here is what the VFW said in support of this amendment: This year, veterans and seniors will not receive a COLA. This could not come at a worse time. Your legislation would provide a one-time check of $250 to 1.4 million veterans, 48.9 million Social Security recipients, and 5.1 million SSI recipients. We believe that this will provide some relief to those veterans and seniors living on fixed incomes who rely on a COLA to keep up with daily living expenses. The VFW commends you for concentrating on changes that can positively impact the lives of others and looks forward to working with you and your staff to ensure passage of this legislation. I thank the Veterans of Foreign Wars for the great work they do and for supporting this amendment. We appreciate their support. Let me quote a letter I recently received from another organization that has been very strong for many years in fighting for senior citizen rights; that is, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. This is what the national committee says: The National Committee strongly urges you to pass legislation to provide a $250 payment to our Nation's seniors who did not receive a COLA this year. It is vitally important that we provide help for seniors of modest means who have been adversely affected by the economic recession and rapidly rising health care costs. Seniors have been especially hard hit by the 20 percent to 30 percent decline in the value of employer pensions, IRAs and 401(k)s, as well as the steep drop in housing values. And, unlike younger Americans, the elderly are much less likely to recover their savings losses due to their shorter economic horizon. That is from the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. We very much appreciate their support for this amendment. Here is a quote from the AARP, which represents over 40 million Americans, and we very much appreciate their support. This is what the AARP says: For over three decades, millions of Americans have counted on annual increases to help make ends meet. In this economy, having this protection is even more critical for the financial security of all older Americans. AARP applauds the President for urging Congress to extend for 2010 the $250 economic relief provided to older Americans last year. The 65-plus population is facing extreme financial hardship. Older Americans are paying more out of pocket for medical care, have experienced a real decline in their retirement accounts and in housing values, face longer periods of unemployment for those who need work, and low returns on interest bearing accounts. Without relief, millions of older Americans will be unable to afford skyrocketing health care and prescription drug costs as well as other basic necessities. AARP will continue to work with Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle to provide $250 in economic relief to millions of seniors who count on Social Security to pay their bills. Here is the point, the point the VFW has made, the national committee has made, the AARP has made. Some people may say $250 is not a lot of money, but the truth is, if you are a senior in the State of Vermont or in any other State in this country and your health care costs are going up and your prescription drug costs are going up and your heating bills are going up and you are not getting any COLA this year, you are in trouble. You are in real trouble. I do not want to give any illusion that this $250 is going to turn people's lives around. It is not. But it is going to make a real difference in giving people a little bit of support, making their lives just a little bit easier. This is extremely important legislation, and it is important legislation that I hope can have widespread bipartisan support. Once again, I thank all the organizations that are supporting this amendment; that is, the AARP, the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, the Disabled American Veterans, AMVETS, and OWL as well. The bottom line is, we are in the midst of a very serious recession. We are doing our best to try to figure out ways to create the millions of good-paying jobs working people need. We are going to pass COBRA to make sure when people lose their jobs they do not lose their health insurance. We are going to extend unemployment benefits. But in the middle of all of that, let's not forget our parents and our grandparents. Let's not forget senior citizens and disabled veterans. Let's pass this amendment. I yield the floor and 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

Mr. SANDERS. I thank Senator Leahy for yielding. There is not a lot more I can add to what he has already said. As you well know, Vermont is a small State. We have 620,000 people-- one of the smallest States in the country. But a lot of our young people grow up on the slopes of Vermont. They are involved in skiing and snowboarding from a very young age. My grandson is out there. He is 5. He is doing pretty well as a snowboarder. That is true all over the State. I think people who have watched the extraordinary Olympics in Vancouver noted that a lot of the participants, a lot of the outstanding athletes came from the State of Vermont. The world watched as Hannah Kearney of Norwich won the first gold medal for the United States. She was closely followed in the women's snowboarding halfpipe when Vermont took both second and third place on the podium. That is quite a feat for a small State. Kelly Clark of West Dover brought home the bronze, and Hannah Teter of Belmont, the silver medal. This is an incredible feat when you consider that there were a total of just eight women on the U.S. snowboarding team; three of them were from the Green Mountain State and two of them were in the top three. That is pretty good under anybody's definition of success. In true Vermont fashion, our Olympians bring more than talent, excellence, and commitment to their sports. They showed exemplary dedication to their communities. In other words, these men and women are more than just athletes; they are people who are concerned about the world in which they are living and the communities in which they live. When Hannah Teter took gold in the Torino games in 2006, she combined her prize money with proceeds from maple syrup sales to start a charity called ``Hannah's Gold'' which brings aid to a village in Kenya. That is what Hannah Teter did. Liz Stephen, a cross-country skier from East Montpelier, supports ``Fast and Female,'' a charity geared toward getting young girls involved in sports. Lindsey Jacobellis, a snowboarder from Stratton, VT, used her love of animals as motivation to get involved with the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. From charity efforts to hometown, family-owned restaurants, the impact of these outstanding individuals is felt by many. The 11 athletes who are recognized today as Vermont Olympians are the following: in cross-country skiing, Caitlin Compton, Andy Newell; in Alpine skiing, Chelsea Marshall, Nolan Kasper, and Jimmy Cochran; in ski jumping, Nick Alexander; in freestyle skiing, gold medalist Hannah Kearney; and in snowboarding, silver medalist Hannah Teter, bronze medalist Kelly Clark, and Lindsey Jacobellis. It is with great pleasure that I congratulate these athletes on a spectacular job. The State of Vermont is very proud of you all.

Mr. SANDERS

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

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, tomorrow I intend to call up an amendment within the discussion of the jobs bill which I think will have significant impact on the lives of many millions of our fellow Americans. As you know, this year for the first time in many decades, our senior citizens are not going to be seeing a cost-of-living increase. In this very severe recession, that is unfortunate. Seniors in Vermont and around the country have told me that because of rising health care costs, because of rising energy and heating costs, because of rising prescription drug costs--all issues which seniors and disabled veterans are particularly prone to--it is unfair they not get a COLA this year. I am very happy to inform my colleagues that President Obama, in his budget, has made it very clear he understands the need for a $250 emergency payment to go out to over 55 million seniors, veterans, and the disabled. I very much appreciate his support for this concept. And he is absolutely right, that in these very difficult times we cannot forget about some of the most vulnerable people in our society. There are a lot of lower income seniors out there who are struggling, as well as disabled veterans and disabled people in general. This amendment, which essentially does this year what we did last year in the stimulus package, would provide a one-time $250 payment. This amendment has very widespread support all over this country, and let me mention to you some of the organizations that are supporting it. The largest senior group in America is the AARP, and they are very vigorously supporting this concept, the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars are supporting this $250 payment, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare is supporting it, the Disabled Veterans of America--the DVA--is supporting it, the Older Women's League is supporting it, and many other organizations representing seniors, disabled people, and our veterans are supporting it. This recession has forced more and more seniors out of the middle class and into poverty. In fact, according to a National Academy of Sciences formula, the poverty rate among Americans 65 and older is close to 19 percent--almost double the official poverty rate of 9.7 percent. One of the problems I have had in dealing with Social Security COLAs for many years, including when I was in the House, is I have long believed it is an error, a statistical problem, when we lump everybody together and formulate what a COLA is. If you lump everybody together, I think you can probably make the argument that there is no inflation and in fact in some instances there is deflation. We see that every day. Young people who go out and buy a laptop computer will probably pay less for that laptop today than they did a year ago. Prices may be going down. For wide-screen TVs, prices may be going down. For many items people buy, prices may be going down. But seniors have a different set of needs than ordinary Americans and 16- year-old kids have. Seniors are much more dependent on prescription drugs. The cost of prescription drugs is going up. Seniors are much more dependent on health care. The cost of health care is going up. Seniors are dependent--at least in the Northeast where I live, in Vermont--on keeping their homes warm, and the cost of fuel has gone up. So I think if you take a hard look at the needs of seniors, the needs of people with disabilities, the needs of disabled veterans, you will find they have seen increased costs over the year. And if we say to those folks: There is no COLA for Social Security, and we are not doing anything for you, they are going to find themselves in substantially worse shape than they were last year. I did want to say that this amendment, as of now, is supported by Senators Dodd, Gillibrand, Leahy, and Whitehouse, and we look forward to more support. This concept is in the President's budget, and the President has been very clear about the need to go forward with a $250 payment. This amendment we will be offering tomorrow is supported by the AARP, the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the National Committee to Protect Social Security and Medicare, the Disabled Veterans of America, Older Women's League, and many other organizations. We will be offering an amendment which simply says we are not going to leave America's seniors out in the cold. We are not going to leave America's disabled veterans out in the cold. And while there is no COLA this year, we are at least going to do what we did last year and provide them with a $250 emergency payment. Not a whole lot of money in the great scheme of things, but, trust me, having just met with seniors on Monday, a lot of seniors in this country today are finding it very difficult to feed themselves and to take care of their basic needs. While this is not going to solve all of their problems by any means, it is going to help. So I would hope that tomorrow my colleagues will be supporting this amendment when we bring it forth. Madam President, with that, I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I wish to acknowledge the lifetime work and recent achievements of Katherine Paterson of Barre, VT. Recently, Ms. Paterson was named National Ambassador for Young People's Literature by the Librarian of Congress James H. Billington. Katherine Paterson's accomplishments as an author surely merit her appointment. She has twice been awarded the prestigious Newbery Medal, once for ``Bridge to Terabithia'' and a second time for ``Jacob Have I Loved.'' In addition, she won the National Book Award, also twice, for ``The Great Gilly Hopkins'' and ``The Master Puppeteer.'' Nor are these the only major recognitions of her importance as one of the major writers of our time. She has won 19 additional literary awards for other works, including the Hans Christian Andersen Medal, the Astrid Lindgren Memorial Award and the Governor's Award for Excellence in the Arts, which was awarded to her by her home State of Vermont. Katherine Paterson was named a Living Legend by the Library of Congress in 2000. Her most recent book is ``The Day of the Pelican,'' a moving, dramatic story of a refugee family's flight from war-torn Kosovo to America. It is the 2010 selection for Vermont Reads, a statewide reading program. Katherine Paterson has long been dedicated to promoting literacy among young people, which makes her appointment as National Ambassador for Young People's Literature particularly appropriate. She has chosen ``Read for Your Life'' as the theme for her platform for the upcoming 2 years as National Ambassador. Throughout her tenure, she will be a most articulate advocate for the importance of literature in young people's lives. We in Vermont are proud of Katherine Paterson's accomplishments as a writer. We are proud of her dedication to literacy among young readers. And, at this moment, we are proud that our national library, the Library of Congress, has conferred upon her this new honor, and the enlarged task of being the Nation's leading advocate for young people's literature.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. I thank the Senator for yielding. We have talked about the fact that unemployment today and economic suffering is probably greater than at any time since the Great Depression of the 1930s. But I wonder if the Senator from Illinois is aware that the problem is not just high unemployment but long-term unemployment; that, in fact, I believe we have never seen in modern history a length of time in which people are unemployed as is currently the case. Would the Senator concur that what we are looking at now is a modern tragedy in terms of the length of time people are experiencing unemployment?

Mr. SANDERS. I would say that the Senator and I have had strong agreements. I would ask the Senator from Illinois, in the hearing of the Senator from Kentucky: Look, the Senator from Kentucky has raised important issues. I would hope that he would allow us, not for our sake, but for the sake of tens and tens of thousands of people, to get those checks out. Let's come back and continue that debate. You have raised the right issues. These unemployment checks are going to go out, unless I am mistaken. So all we are doing is disrupting the process. We understand where you are coming from. You have raised a fair point. It is a very important issue. But I would, through my friend from Illinois, ask my friend from Kentucky, who is a friend--I like Jim Bunning: Let us continue this debate. But it does not have to be tonight. It does not have to be in a way that causes confusion and uncertainty and a lot of pain for a lot of people. So I would--

Mr. SANDERS. I say to my good friend, the Senator from Tennessee, he is a good friend as is the Senator from Kentucky. I like the Senator from Kentucky. I know he is honest. He is sincere. He is not hiding. He is here. I respect that. We disagree very strongly on his position. The Senator from Tennessee said a moment ago his point of view, this is not the way the Senate functions, that is not what the Senate is about, in so many words. If you go and ask millions of people and say if the amendment of Senator Bunning came to the floor of the Senate--no one can predict what the vote would be, but my guess is he would probably lose. That is my guess. But he has decided, one person, to say to hundreds and hundreds of thousands of workers, I, one Senator, am exercising my right, no question about that, and I am going to object. I, one person who does not have the votes to pass my amendment, am saying to people--you have heard the Senator from Illinois describing these stories of the pain, turmoil that families are going through. No one disputes what he is saying. It is going on in Tennessee, it is going on in Vermont, Kentucky, Missouri. We all understand that. I don't think there is a disagreement. People are hurting terribly. I don't think there is a disagreement. When people Monday morning wake and find they are not getting the safety net of that life- supporting check, do you know what people are going to be feeling? Do you know what panic? They don't know how the bureaucracy works. Suddenly, they wake and somebody says: I am not getting my check. Am I ever going to get a check? Well, they are going to get a check, but it is delayed. There was an article in the paper just the other day, one of the ramifications of this recession, and we all know it is true, is what it is doing to the emotional health of people. Think about people who want to work, who have worked their whole lives and cannot find a job. Do you know what it is doing to them? To their emotional well-being? Do you think they like unemployment checks? The vast majority don't want it--a thousand times more they would like a job. Suddenly, for no understandable--they don't understand what is going on. I don't understand what is going on half the time in the Senate. Suddenly, because one Senator says: I am sorry, I object, I object, and thousands and thousands of people are wondering whether they are going to survive. They are going to get their checks. We will eventually pass this. This is a good debate. We have a $14 trillion national debt. How did we get here? How do we resolve that debt? Who in this room thinks that a $14 trillion debt is sustainable? Nobody does. We have to deal with that issue. Who caused it? We have disagreements. How do you solve it? We have disagreements. Let's argue out those disagreements but not on the backs of people today who are hurting and hurting terribly. One of the points I would like to ask the Senator about is we are not just looking at record-breaking unemployment in our lifetimes. This unemployment rate takes place after years and years of decline. There was an interesting piece--I don't have the date, it was a couple months ago--in USA Today; astounding facts. What they said--this is from USA Today, I think going through the census data. Between 2000 and 2008, men between 25 and 34 saw an 11.7-percent drop in their median income; people, then, from 45 to 54, 11.2 percent drop. In other words, all over this country we see people who are furious. They are angry. They are confused. Do you know why? They went through a decade where they worked hard and at the end of that decade they were poorer than when they began the decade and then came the Wall Street collapse and then came massive unemployment. What we are trying to do--no one thinks the extension of unemployment is the solution. We have to rebuild the economy. We have to create jobs. But I hope nobody in this room thinks it is acceptable or moral that we allow desperate people to go over the cliff--not to have money to buy food? Hunger in the United States of America today is a serious problem. It is not a joke. This is America. Desperate people, for their kids, for their parents, need that unemployment check. We are going to pass this. I gather we will pass it next week. But all we are doing is disrupting the lives of hundreds of thousands of people for no good reason. Senator Bunning has raised important issues. I disagree with him, but those issues are important. Let's debate them. But you do not have to do it on the backs of the middle class and the working class who have been decimated for years and are now in worse shape than they have been and now we are suddenly pulling out the rug. I ask my friend from Illinois, my assumption is, we are at some point soon going to pass these unemployment extensions. My understanding is, I don't know how it is going to be, but I suspect many Republicans are probably going to vote with many on this side; is that a correct assumption? And are we simply bringing more pain and confusion to hundreds of thousands of people who suddenly, Sunday, Monday, are going to find out they don't get a check?

Mr. SANDERS. For the record, the sum was $350 billion over 10 years, not $1 trillion. The trillion would have been the complete repeal of the estate tax. But nonetheless, $350 billion benefiting the top three- tenths of 1 percent is a sizable chunk of cash. I am somewhat amazed that nobody at that point was terribly worried about how that was going to be paid for. I thank the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. SANDERS. On my suspicion--I won't swear to it--I don't recall that any Republican did not. I may be wrong on this, but my recollection is that all Republicans voted to repeal the estate tax, voted for that legislation. Some Democrats did as well. But I find it remarkable, picking up on the point the Senator from Oregon made a moment ago, here we were talking about $1 trillion over a 10-year period to benefit the top three-tenths of 1 percent. I don't recall hearing anybody saying: Hey, we have a huge national debt. We can't afford another trillion dollars. But somehow, when it comes to desperate people who are hanging on by their fingernails, trying to keep their families afloat in the most serious economic moment since the Great Depression of the 1930s, somehow, right now that has to be paid for. We have to pay for $10 billion, but somehow you don't have to pay for $1 trillion over a 10-year period. I don't quite understand that. Maybe my friend from Illinois can elucidate.

Mr. SANDERS. I want to ask another question. My recollection is that a number of months ago there was a vote here on the floor of the Senate regarding the repeal of the estate tax. My understanding is that vote to repeal a significant part of the estate tax would have benefited, as I recall, the top three-tenths of 1 percent of the population; 99.7 percent of the people would not have benefited. I could be wrong, but my understanding is that if that legislation, that bill, that amendment had passed, it would have cost our government about $1 trillion in a 10-year period, $1 trillion in benefits to the top three-tenths of 1 percent. Can my friend from Illinois remind me as to how many Republicans voted against giving $1 trillion in tax breaks to the top three-tenths of 1 percent that was not paid for?

Mr. SANDERS

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I think all across this country people are wondering about what is going on in Congress and, specifically, what is going on in the Senate. People are using the expression that government is broken and that we seem to be a dysfunctional institution. The reason for the alarm is pretty obvious. The United States today faces the most serious set of crises we have seen since the Great Depression. Today, some 17 percent of our people are either unemployed or underemployed. This is on top of coming out of a decade where the median family income actually declined. So people by the millions are today working longer hours for lower wages. They are wondering what kind of life is going to be available for their kids. They are having a hard time affording childcare. They are having a hard time affording higher education. We have 46 million people who are uninsured. We have 45,000 people who die every single year because they can't get to a doctor. If we don't get a handle on health care, their costs are going to be doubling in the next 8 years. We recently saw Blue Cross in California asking for a 39-percent rate increase for their premiums. It is not unusual. It is going on all over the country. People are saying, What is going on? Is the middle class going to continue to collapse? Is poverty going to continue to increase? Are you guys going to get your act together and begin to do something that benefits working families in this country? It goes without saying that the American people want--I want, you want, we all want--bipartisan efforts to solve these problems, but, most importantly, we want to solve these issues. We have to deal with the economy. We have to deal with our friends on Wall Street whose recklessness and illegal behavior has driven this country into this terrible recession. We have to deal with it. We have to deal with health care. We don't have a choice. We have to deal with the $12 trillion national debt. We have to do it. Unfortunately, I think what the American people are beginning to catch onto is that to have bipartisanship, you need a ``bi,'' you need two sides coming together. What we have here in the Senate is not two sides coming together but one side, our Republican friends who are saying: No, no, no. If it is good for Obama, it is bad for us. No, no, no. We have had a record-breaking number of filibusters, a record- breaking number of other obstructionist tactics. The end result is the American people are becoming very frustrated. I do a national radio show every week and every week on that program somebody is calling me up and saying, I don't understand it. When the Republicans were in control of the Senate, they were able to bring forth sweeping proposals. They didn't have 60 votes. What is going on? You guys on your side, those who are Independents and in the Democratic caucus, you have 59 votes, why aren't you doing it? It is a good question. I think more and more people are talking about using the reconciliation process, which is simply a parliamentary procedure which enables us to pass legislation with the end result of saving taxpayers' money and lowering the deficit. The beauty of that approach is you can go forward with 51 votes, not the 60 votes we are having a very difficult time obtaining, because we are not getting much support from the other side. Some people say, Well, this reconciliation approach is unfair. This is a radical idea. Why are you bringing it forth? The answer is that this has been done time after time after time, mostly, in fact, by Republicans. So it seems to me if this is a concept the Republicans have used year after year after year for very major pieces of legislation, it is appropriate for the Democratic caucus to do that as well. Let me give a few examples. Many Americans will remember the Contract With America. That was Newt Gingrich's very big idea. I thought it was a very bad idea, but nonetheless it was a very comprehensive approach. The Contract With America in 1995 was passed in the Senate through reconciliation. This was a broad, comprehensive bill, and this is what President Clinton said. This is what the Washington Post reported President Clinton saying when he vetoed that legislation, and I am glad he did. This is what Clinton said: Today I am vetoing the biggest Medicare and Medicaid cuts in history, deep cuts in education, a rollback in environmental protection, and a tax increase on working families. This was Clinton's veto message of the Republican Contract With America that was passed through reconciliation. That is not the only effort the Republicans mounted through reconciliation. In 1996, Republicans passed legislation to enact welfare reform through reconciliation. In 1997, Congress used reconciliation to establish new health coverage programs or to substantially expand existing ones, including SCHIP passed through reconciliation. In 2005, Republicans pushed through reconciliation legislation that reduced spending on Medicaid and raised premiums on upper income Medicare beneficiaries. In 2003, Republicans used reconciliation to push through President Bush's 2003 tax cuts. In 2001, Republicans used reconciliation to pass President Bush's $1.35 trillion tax cut, much of it going to the wealthiest people in this country. What is my point? My point is that it would be the utmost hypocrisy for Republicans to tell us we should not use reconciliation when they have used it time and time and time again. Let me conclude by saying this country faces enormous problems. What has occurred over the last year, year and a half, is an unprecedented level of obstructionism and delaying tactics on the part of our Republican colleagues. The American people are hurting. They want to see this government begin the process of creating millions of decent- paying jobs. They want to see a transformation of our energy system so we can move from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy and jobs doing that. The American people want to see us rebuild our infrastructure which is presently crumbling and we can create jobs doing that. In the short term, the American people want us to do something about the high cost of a college education by expanding Pell grants and by also addressing the very serious problems with childcare and the needs for school construction. We can do that as well. My point is the American people are angry. They are frustrated. They want action. If the Republicans choose, as is their right, to try to obstruct and try to use the rules to delay action, I think we should do what they have done time after time after time and that is use the reconciliation process. That is what I think we should do, and I hope we will. Thank you very much, Madam President. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, we need a new direction on Wall Street. We need a new Fed Chairman. Thank you very much.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, this is, in fact, an enormously important issue. The reality is that all over our country, hard-working, decent people have lost their jobs. They have lost homes, their savings. They have lost their ability to go to college. We are experiencing the highest level of unemployment since the Great Depression. All of this did not happen by accident. It happened because of the greed, the recklessness, and the illegal behavior of Wall Street, of CEOs there who converted our financial institutions into the largest gambling casino in the history of the world. One of the major functions of the Fed is to protect the safety and soundness of our financial institutions. There can be no debate, Mr. Bernanke, as Chairman of the Fed, failed at that important job, and this country and the world almost saw a major financial collapse, and we have seen in this country a horrendous recession. I think average American citizens have a hard time understanding how we reward failure, how we say to somebody who was asleep at the switch in terms of regulating our financial institutions: Congratulations. You failed. There is a major recession. You are getting reappointed. I do not think people understand why and how that should happen. Second of all, when we talk about the bailout, it is not just the $700 billion that went to TARP. There were trillions of dollars in zero-interest loans, or almost zero-interest loans, that went to major financial institutions. It is incomprehensible to me the Chairman of the Fed can lend out trillions of dollars, and when I asked him: Who got the money? He said: Sorry, the American people don't have a right to know that--in so many words. I am not telling you. How can you have confidence in the leadership of the Fed when there is virtually no transparency--trillions of dollars being lent out, and we do not know who received it? That is not acceptable to me. We need a Fed Chairman who believes in transparency, who is going to tell the American people who has received those loans. We are also today, importantly, not just talking about the past. We are talking about the future. We are talking about how we pull this country out of a recession in which 17 percent of our people are unemployed or underemployed. The fact is, the Fed today has the capability, the power to take significant action to protect the middle class and working families of this country. I say to the Presiding Officer, I do not know about Illinois, but I will tell you, in Vermont I get calls every week. People are saying: Why did you help bail out these large banks, and now they are charging me 25, 30 percent interest rates on my credit card? Mr. Bernanke and the Fed have the power today to lower interest rates on credit cards. I want a Fed Chairman who is going to do that. Last night we heard from President Obama, who appropriately pointed out very serious problems that small businesses all over this country are having in terms of getting the low-interest loans they need in order to create the kind of jobs our economy desperately requires. The Chairman of the Fed today has the power to provide low-interest loans to small- and medium-sized businesses. It is not just large financial institutions that can receive zero- interest or low-interest loans. I know it is a great shock to the Fed, but small- and medium-sized businesses--in a productive economy that creates real jobs--can also receive those loans. I want a Fed Chairman who will provide those loans. It is hard to believe the largest financial institutions in this country that we bailed out because they were too big to fail--do you know what. Three out of four of them are even bigger today. It is time to break up those financial institutions that are too big to fail. If they are too big to fail, they are too big to exist.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. In a little while we are going to be casting votes on an issue of enormous consequence, and that is whether we reappoint Ben Bernanke as Chairman of the Fed. I am here to argue that would be a very bad decision; that we should reject this nomination; that we need in this country a new Wall Street which understands its function is not simply to make as much money as it can for extraordinarily wealthy people on the Street, but to begin to interject the function of Wall Street into our productive economy, make credit available to small and medium-sized businesses so we can break out of this horrendous recession, which is causing so much pain from one end of this country to the other. In order to create a new Wall Street, we need a new Fed, and we need a new Fed Chairman who is going to provide new leadership. The same old, same old is not going to work. Everybody in America agrees and understands that a little over 1 year ago, our Nation--in fact the world's financial system--came to the edge of a major collapse. Everybody also understands that the function of the Fed is to protect the safety and soundness of our financial institutions. That is its main function. Can anybody deny with a straight face that the Fed and its Chairman, Mr. Bernanke, failed at its task? They failed. This is not a personal attack against Mr. Bernanke. But while Wall Street became converted into the largest gambling casino in the history of the world, where was Mr. Bernanke and the Fed, whose job it is to protect the safety and soundness of our financial institutions? They were not there. It seems to me to be a very bad idea to reward somebody with reappointment who failed at an enormously important task which has driven this country into a severe recession so that 17 percent of our workforce today is either unemployed or underemployed. Millions of our fellow Americans have lost their homes; they have lost their savings; they have lost their ability to send their kids to college; they have lost their hopes for the future. Mr. Bernanke failed at his job. He should not be rewarded with reappointment. Further, many of us, after 8 years of the Bush administration, said it is time for a change. It is time to change the priority of this Nation, time to move us in a new direction. The evidence is overwhelming that from an economic perspective as well as many other perspectives, the Bush administration failed. Let me quote from the Washington Post earlier this month. This is what they said about the Bush economy: The past decade was the worst for the U.S. economy in modern times. It was, according to a wide range of data, a lost decade. Let me repeat. A lost decade for American workers. There has been zero net job creation since December, 1999. Middle income households made less in 2008, when adjusted for inflation, than they did in 1999. A lost decade. Standard of living for American workers down, creation of wealth down for American workers. Ben Bernanke was appointed by George W. Bush to be Chairman of the Fed. He was a member of the Bush administration. In fact, he was the chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers. Why do you want to reappoint someone who not only failed at his job as Chairman of the Fed, in terms of protecting the safety and soundness of our financial institutions, but was an architect of the Bush economy, which was a disaster for American workers? We need a new direction at the Fed. It is not only looking back at the failures of Mr. Bernanke, it is looking forward and saying, how can the Fed respond to begin to protect the middle class and working families of our country? Here is something that has not been discussed enough. The Fed today has enormous powers. Many will remember that as part of the bailout, Mr. Bernanke and the Bush administration not only pushed for a $700 billion bailout for Wall Street, but on top of that Mr. Bernanke provided trillions of dollars-- let me underline that--trillions of dollars in zero-interest loans to large financial institutions. As a member of the Budget Committee, I had the opportunity to ask Mr. Bernanke which financial institutions received these trillions of dollars. I do not think that is an unreasonable question on behalf of the American people. Mr. Bernanke said, in so many words: Sorry, Senator, not going to tell you. The American people do not have to know who received trillions of dollars of their money. That to me is totally unacceptable. We need transparency at the Fed. Mr. Bernanke has not provided that transparency. I have introduced legislation to bring that transparency to the Fed. Someone whose views are very different from mine on many issues, Ron Paul in the House, brought forth similar legislation. We need transparency. We need a Chairman of the Fed who will give us that transparency. That is something Mr. Bernanke can do tomorrow. In my State of Vermont, and I am sure in your state of New York, Madam President, people are calling you every single day and they are saying: We are sick and tired of paying 25 or 30 percent interest rates on our credit cards from the same banks and bunch of crooks that we bailed out who got us into this recession in the first place. Imagine that. You have people who act on Wall Street in a reckless, irresponsible, illegal way. Taxpayers bail them out, and they say: Thank you, taxpayers. By the way, we are going to raise your interest rates on your credit cards. Have a nice day. All over America, people cannot believe that. They are outraged this is happening. Well, you know what. Mr. Bernanke and the Fed have the authority today to lower interest rates on credit cards. They could do that today, and that is what they should do, because one of their responsibilities is to protect consumers against outrageous and fraudulent activities. In my view, charging people 25 or 30 percent is outrageous and fraudulent and usurious. All over this country--the President mentioned it last night, appropriately so--small and medium-sized businesses that are making a profit are crying out for low-interest loans in order to expand their businesses and to hire new workers. One of the great economic problems we are having as a Nation--the President touched on it last night--is the need for small productive businesses to get the low-interest loans they need. Well, Mr. Bernanke was there with zero-interest loans for large, failed, fraudulent, dishonestly run Wall Street firms, but he is not there for small businesses all over this country that desperately need low-interest loans. The Fed has the authority today--not tomorrow, today--to provide low-interest loans to small and medium-sized businesses so that we can begin to hire new workers and bring our economy out of this severe recession we are currently in. The reason, as I understand it, that the taxpayers of this country, against my vote, I should say, were asked to bail out the crooks on Wall Street was because they were too big to fail. You see, if a small business goes under, that is okay. Someone has worked their whole life building the business, the business fails, no problem. We do not help them. But if you are a big financial institution and you engage in reckless, illegal behavior, we bail you out because if you go down, you are going to take a large part of the economy with you, you are too big to fail. Many of my colleagues might be surprised to know that three out of the four largest financial institutions we bailed out because they were too big to fail are bigger today than they were before we bailed them out because they were too big to fail. That may make sense to somebody, not to this Senator. It seems to me that what common sense suggests is that we break up these large financial institutions so, A, the American people are never again put in the position of having to bail them out because they are too big to fail and, B, that we begin to understand what Teddy Roosevelt understood 100 years ago: concentration of ownership is dangerous for the economy. Today, we have four major banks providing two-thirds of the credit cards in the country--four major financial institutions, two-thirds of all credit cards. We have four financial institutions writing half of all the mortgages in America. That is wrong. Break up the large financial institutions. Ben Bernanke has the ability to begin to do that tomorrow. I have not heard one word from him to suggest he will do so. The American people are angry. The American people are frustrated. What they are angry and frustrated about is that in many instances, they are working longer hours for lower wages than they used to, if they are fortunate enough to have a job. The American people are frustrated and angry because this immediate financial crisis and severe recession was caused by the recklessness and irresponsibility of a handful of people on Wall Street. The American people are frustrated and angry because they are not seeing the kind of accountability and change in terms of the activities on Wall Street they expect and demand to happen. Quite the contrary. After having bailed out people who acted in an illegal and irresponsible way, what they are seeing is Wall Street pumping millions of dollars into campaign contributions and lobbying so that we can bring them back to where they were before the bailout. The American people want change in the way our financial institutions run. The American people want change at the Fed. I believe the American people want a new Chairman or Chairwoman at the Fed. Now is the time to say to the American people: We hear you. We are going to bring about change. We are going to deny the reappointment of Ben Bernanke as Chairman. We are going to ask President Obama to give us a new nominee who will stand up for the middle class and working class of this country rather than for the big-money interests on Wall Street. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment today to recognize an armchair explorer who never left the Northeast but brought the world to the United States. In 1809-1810 in the town of Bradford, VT, Mr. James Wilson fashioned the first terrestrial and celestial globes made in the United States. In doing so Mr. Wilson gave to all Americans an invaluable tool that would be used for centuries to come. A self-taught and passionate cartographer, James Wilson started the first geographic globe factory in Bradford. He achieved such great success that soon after he and his sons opened a second factory in Albany, NY. Wilson Globes set the standard by which all other globes were measured, achieving such perfection that in 1827 he argued to Congress there was no longer a need to import them from abroad. The accomplishments of James Wilson and his sons are treasured in the picturesque town of Bradford. So much so that the Bradford Historical Society commissioned the Williamstown Art Conservator to repair the historical society's Wilson globe--one of the few remaining in the world. Funds for this project were received from across the Nation. Understandably, the town takes great pride in this small piece of history that they can call their own. Although Mr. Wilson only ever saw a few hundred miles of this great country, he was responsible for bringing the world to most Americans. We applaud James Wilson for the legacy he left us. Furthermore, we applaud the Historical Society and town of Bradford for recognizing Mr. Wilson's remarkable gift and their dedication to preserving the past for our future.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, the State of Vermont will celebrate the year 2010 by marking the 250th anniversary of the historic town of Pownal, VT. In celebrating Pownal, we celebrate a town that has done much more than merely survive the centuries. This bucolic little hamlet represents the strength and progress of our great State through the years. Since its original charter in 1760, Pownal was built on a rich history that dates back to the divisive years of the revolution. During its earliest days many Pownal residents were stirred to join the Green Mountain Boys to fight for our independence. The fervor demonstrated by the original residents of this town set its course as the bedrock of loyalty and excellence in the State of Vermont. Today we cherish the historic Mooar-Wright House which is the oldest house in both Pownal and the Green Mountain State. We commend the town's early emphasis on education, with two former U.S. Presidents serving as teachers in north Pownal. Over the centuries this town was a pocket of industrial accomplishment in Vermont. Some of the State's largest cotton and woolen mills were housed in Pownal and later replaced by lime quarries. They helped carry Vermont through years of industrial development and growth. These auspicious achievements, however, also served as a reminder of our capacity for change because the industrial mills in Pownal were singled out for child labor. This documented injustice symbolized the past and put the town on the national map in 1916 when it was depicted on a United States postage stamp to commemorate the passage of the first child labor laws. The heart of the town became its national image in 1946 when the United Nations Bulletin featured a photo of the Pownal Center as ``a picture of peace.'' Throughout the years this town was both the root of tradition and the spark of progress: a balance that few places or populations can claim. Today, Pownal has developed into a town of more than three thousand. The buildings have grown and the industries have changed, but the ideals remain the same. On its 250th anniversary, Pownal continues to encapsulate the beauty and independence of our State. I thank the residents of Pownal for their contributions to our State's rich and unique history. Mr. President, it is indeed an honor to represent the State of Vermont and the Town of Pownal and to promote its many successes.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I was proud last night to have voted for the health care bill. The reason is, as Senator Tester indicated, this bill accomplishes a whole lot. Before I go on to talk about what I want to focus on this afternoon, I do want to say there are a number of provisions in the Senate bill I don't support and I hope we can improve in the conference committee by adopting the House language. One is the issue of the public option, with which the Presiding Officer has been so strongly involved. At the end of the day, it seems to me the American people have been very clear. If they are not happy with their private insurance, they want the option of a Medicare type public option. I think we should give them that. Furthermore, as we look at the soaring cost of health care, we understand that one important mechanism to control escalating health care costs is a public option which provides real competition to private insurance companies that are only concerned about making as much money as possible. I know the Presiding Officer has worked very hard in that effort. I hope we can, in that regard, take the House language which includes a public option. The other area where I disagree with the Senate and agree with the House is on the issue of taxing health benefits for middle-income workers. The House provision raises substantial funding by putting a surtax on the very wealthiest people in the country, people who received huge tax breaks during the Bush years. That makes a lot more sense to me than taxing the health benefits of middle-income workers. Having said that, I want to focus on one new provision that was placed in the health care reform bill by Majority Leader Reid. I thank him very much for his strong support for this concept. I also thank Dick Durbin, Chuck Schumer, Patty Murray, the Presiding Officer, and the entire Democratic leadership for their support. That provision simply provides $10 billion over a 5-year period to the Federally Qualified Health Center Program and the National Health Service Corps. In my view, these two programs are some of the best and most effective public health care programs in the United States. They enjoy widespread bipartisan support. President Bush was a supporter. John McCain, when he ran for President, was a supporter of community health centers. Many Republicans have spoken positively of community health centers, as have virtually all Democrats. The reality, however, is that both community health centers and the National Health Service Corps have been starved for funding for many years. We are finally, in this bill, doing right by them. I should mention, importantly, that while we have placed $10 billion in the Senate bill, in the House bill there is $14 billion. My strong hope, expectation, and belief--and I have talked to the White House about this and the Senate leadership and House leadership--is that when this bill is finally passed, we will adopt the House language which calls for $14 billion. Let me tell you why this money is so terribly important. In a few days, the Senate will be voting on final passage of a historic health reform bill that will insure an additional 31 million Americans who have no health insurance. That is a huge accomplishment. About half of the new people who will get health insurance will be enrolled in an expanded Medicaid Program. While this reduction in the number of uninsured is an essential step in achieving reform, we have to ask a very simple question: If 15 million more people go into Medicaid, where are they going to access the health care they need? It is no secret that today Medicare is a strained program. When some of my Republican friends make that point, I have to say they are right; it is a strained program. That is why expanding community health centers in the National Health Service Corps is so important. We talk about the number of people uninsured--a very important number--46 million. But we do not talk about the number of people who every day do not have access to a physician or a dentist on a regular basis, and that number is close to 60 million. These are people who, when they get sick, cannot find a doctor. Where do they go? Well, several things happen. They may end up going to the emergency room, which is the most expensive form of primary health care we have-- that is where they go--or even worse, they do not go to any doctor at all. What happens is, they get sicker and sicker. Then they go stumbling into a doctor's office, and the doctor says: Why didn't you come in here 6 months ago? And the person says: I don't have any health insurance. I couldn't afford it. Then they go to the hospital, and we spend tens and tens of thousands of dollars treating somebody who is now suffering in a way they should not be suffering, at greater expense to the system than should have been the case. Now, what sense does that make? Let me tell you the worst-case scenario. The worst-case scenario is, they walk into the doctor's office, and the doctor says: It is too late. I can't help you anymore. You should have been in here 6 months ago. I have talked to physicians who have told me about that. I suspect the Presiding Officer has as well. That is why this year we are going to see 45,000 of our fellow Americans die because they do not have health insurance, and they do not get to the doctor when they should. Now, one of the advantages of the community health care program is that it is an enormously cost-effective program. One study recently reported that $20 billion is wasted every year in this country in unnecessary and inappropriate use of hospital emergency rooms for nonemergency care. When you walk into an emergency room--I do not know about West Virginia--but in Vermont it is about $600. If you get that similar care for a nonemergency-type ailment, the cost is $100. So think about all of the money we save--we save--when we have community health centers expanding all over the country. One of the issues we have not focused on enough, in my view, in this whole health care debate is the very serious crisis in primary health care in general. The American College of Physicians, in a recent report, warned that the Nation's primary care workforce--which it called ``the backbone of our health care system''--is, in its own words, ``on the verge of collapse.'' That is the American College of Physicians. Over the past 8 years, for example, the number of family practice residents fell 22 percent, while the overall number of medical residents rose 10 percent. Currently--this is an extraordinarily frightening statistic--only 2 percent of medical students interested in internal medicine intend to pursue primary care as their specialty--2 percent. This growing crisis was recently underscored in a report by the Association of Academic Health Centers, which warned that the country is rapidly running ``out of time to address what is out of order in our health workforce.'' The good news is that 20 million of those people who live in medically underserved areas are fortunate to live where there are federally qualified community health centers. Let me explain a bit. What is a federally qualified health center-- which exists in all of our 50 States? It is a center which says: If you have no health insurance, you can walk in and do you know what. You will pay not only for primary health care but for dental care--which is a huge problem all over this country--for mental health counseling, and you will get the lowest cost prescription drugs available in America. And if you do not have any health insurance, you get it on a sliding- scale basis. If you have Medicaid, you are welcome into the center. If you have Medicare, you are welcome. If you have private health insurance, you are welcome into these centers. Currently, these centers serve 20 million Americans in all of our 50 States. Conceived in 1965 as a bold, new experiment in the delivery of preventive and primary health care services to our Nation's most vulnerable people and communities, community health centers are an enduring model of primary care for the country and are designed to empower communities to create locally tailored solutions that improve access to care and the health of those they serve. West Virginia centers will be different than Vermont centers, which will be different than California centers because they are designed and locally controlled to serve the needs of the local population. By mission and mandate, community health centers must see all those who seek their care regardless of health status, income level, or insurance status. If you are rich, if you are poor, you will gain access to these community centers. Nobody is tossed away. Today, these health centers are America's health care home to one out of every four low-income uninsured individuals, one out of every six rural Americans, as well as one out of every seven Medicaid beneficiaries, and one in four low-income people of color. We need to guarantee that as we expand coverage, we expand community health centers as well. They are the one primary care provider who will see those on Medicaid without restrictions. Furthermore, community health centers already employ so many of the features of what we seek in the medical home model. They provide integrated health care, which is what we are talking about. A study recently by George Washington University--we are talking about spending money. What is so exciting about this whole concept is you are going to create more health care opportunities for people, and you save money--save money--by keeping them out of the emergency room and out of the hospital. A study by George Washington University found that patients using health centers have annual overall medical care costs that are more than $1,000 lower than those who do not use a health center--$1,000. That translated to more than $24 billion in savings for the health care system last year alone. We are keeping people out of the emergency room, we are keeping people out of hospitals, and we are keeping them from getting sicker than they otherwise would be. That is why I am so pleased Majority Leader Reid has looked at this track record and concurred that we will guarantee--guarantee--funding of health centers over the next 5 years in order to provide health care to more people and to save money at the same time. Let me tell you in concrete terms what $14 billion--the amount of money that is in the House bill--will mean to the American people. What it will do is it will increase the number of people who have access to community health centers, from the current 20 million to 45 million over a 5-year period--20 million to 45 million. We are more than doubling the number of people who will be able to walk into a clinic for health care, dental care, low-cost prescription drugs, primary health care--in 5 years going from 20 million to 45 million people. This funding would create new or expanded health centers in an additional 10,000 communities--10,000 communities--from one end of our country to the other. In some cases, entirely new federally qualified health centers would be established. In other cases, new satellite centers would be created. In Vermont, for example, we have eight community health centers. We have 40 total sites. That is true all over this country. But can you imagine, Mr. President, that in the United States of America, within a 5-year period, 10,000 new community health centers in this country would be established? People would not have to go 50 or 100 miles to find access to health care. It would be there in their own community. It would be in urban areas, in rural areas. This is extraordinary. Now, these community health centers and the growth of these community health centers do not mean much unless we have the medical personnel to adequately staff them. As I mentioned a moment ago, everybody concludes we have a real crisis in terms of access to primary health care in this country and the number of physicians and dentists and nurses who serve in the primary care area. What this language does, that we have just added, is it would--if we adopt the House numbers--triple funding in a 5-year period for the National Health Service Corps, which provides loan repayments and scholarships to medical students. For the University of Vermont Medical School, if my memory is correct--this is fairly typical for America--the average medical school student graduates with $150,000 of debt. Well, if you graduate with $150,000 of debt, what are you going to do? You are not going to do primary health care. You are going to go into some fancy specialty and start making a whole lot of money to pay off that debt. But what the National Health Service Corps will be able to do is provide debt forgiveness and scholarships for an additional 20,000--an additional 20,000--primary care doctors, dentists, and nurses. That is a lot of new medical personnel that is going to get out into underserved areas all over America. That is a very exciting thought. In short, when we more than double, in 5 years, the number of people who have access to community health centers, and within that same period of time we add an additional 20,000 primary health care doctors, dentists, and nurses, we are talking about nothing less than a revolution in primary health care in America--something which we have needed for a long time. So let me conclude by saying: I want to again thank the majority leader, Senator Reid. I want to thank Senator Durbin, Senator Schumer, Senator Murray, and thank the Presiding Officer and the Democratic leadership for their support of this concept. As you know, this idea was developed back in the 1960s with Senator Ted Kennedy, who developed this concept in the first place. It has expanded, and now we are going to take it a giant step forward and, in the process, I think we are going to make a difference--a real difference--in improving the lives and the well-being and the access to health care of tens of millions of Americans. Mr. President, thank you very much. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, may I ask my friend from Oklahoma why he is objecting?

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I call up my amendment per the order.