[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 75 (Wednesday, May 23, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3459-S3479]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION SAFETY AND INNOVATION ACT--MOTION TO 
                            PROCEED--Resumed

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 400, S. 
3187.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 400, S. 3187, a bill to 
     amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to revise and 
     extend the user-fee programs for prescription drugs and 
     medical devices, to establish user-fee programs for generic 
     drugs and biosimilars, and for other purposes.


                                Schedule

  Mr. REID. Madam President, we are now on the motion to proceed to the 
FDA user fees bill. Republicans control the first half hour, the 
majority the second half hour. We are working on an agreement to 
consider amendments to the FDA bill. We are close to being able to 
finalize that. We hope to get an agreement and avoid filing cloture on 
the bill.


          Measures Placed On The Calendar--S. 3220 and S. 3221

  Mr. REID. There are two bills at the desk due for a second reading.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will read the titles of 
the bills for the second time.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 3220) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 
     1938 to provide more effective remedies to victims of 
     discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex, 
     and for other purposes.
       A bill (S. 3221) to amend the National Labor Relations Act 
     to permit employers to pay higher wages to their employees.

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. The Chair read for the second time a couple of bills. I 
object to both of them.

[[Page S3460]]

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard. The bills will 
be placed on the calendar under rule XV.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, when 67-year-old Pamela Gunter started 
treatment for breast cancer, her doctor knew it would be a grueling 
fight. He also knew it was a fight she could win. Pamela's doctor put 
her on Taxol, a common chemotherapy drug. The results were excellent. 
Her tumor shrank. Her prognosis was good.
  Then one day last spring, no more Taxol. The doctor could not get it. 
It is one of the most popular and effective treatments for breast, 
lung, and ovarian cancer, and it suddenly disappeared from the markets 
in Nevada. Doctors couldn't get it; drug suppliers could not say why. 
So Pamela's doctor was forced to use a much more expensive and much 
less effective course of treatment. The cancer spread. By the time 
Taxol was available again, Pamela was dead. She left behind a loving 
husband, two grown sons, and a grandchild. But with the right treatment 
she would still be alive today. Her Las Vegas doctor said a shortage of 
this common generic medicine directly contributed to her death. Had 
this product been available, she would have been fine. She of course 
would have suffered; that is what patients on chemo do. But their 
suffering is worth it because they know it is lifesaving.
  Pamela is not the only American affected by a shortage of Taxol and 
other lifesaving drugs. Every day in hospitals across the country 
Americans already dealing with devastating illnesses must also face 
shortages of FDA-approved medications that could keep them alive. Today 
Taxol is still scarce. And chemotherapy drugs are not the only ones in 
short supply; supplies of nausea medication. The Capitol physician is, 
among other things, an oncologist, Dr. Monahan. I have talked to him 
about cancer a lot in the last year, he and other doctors. My wife 
would go every week to this place where everybody was hooked up to 
chemo. Most of them were women, but there were a few men. Just a few 
years ago that would have been a place where these women were retching 
by virtue of their vomiting. Sometimes--in fact a lot of the times--
they had to hospitalize these women to stop the vomiting from these 
medicines.

  Now we have nausea medication these patients are given to stop their 
suffering. At least, although they may be going through a lot of 
nausea, they are not throwing up most of the time. But supplies of 
nausea medications and other drugs that reduce the side effects of 
cancer treatment are limited. On Monday, one Las Vegas oncologist said 
he ordered 10 drugs from his supplier. He could get eight. He said that 
is typical; doctors never know which drugs will be accessible and which 
will not.
  Last year FDA reported shortages of 231 drugs, including a number of 
chemotherapy medicines. In the last 6 years, drug shortages have 
quadrupled, gone up 400 percent. Congress cannot solve every problem in 
this country, we know that, but this is one problem we can solve with 
cooperation from the drug manufacturers. It will come about much more 
clearly if we pass the bill that is before the Senate now.
  The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, the one I 
have talked about several times already today, will help establish 
effective lines of communication between drugmakers, the Food and Drug 
Administration, and doctors. When the FDA gets early warning from 
manufacturers that shortages are coming, it can act quickly to find 
alternative sources of medication and ease supply problems by, for 
example, taking from one place where they have a lot of a medicine and 
moving it someplace where they do not. Drugmakers averted 200 shortages 
last year by voluntarily notifying the FDA of trouble on the horizon. 
But many shortages, perhaps all 231 last year, could have been 
prevented if drugmakers had shared information with FDA.
  Our bill would make that necessary and force it to take place. That 
is why Congress must act quickly to pass the legislation that is now 
before the Senate, which will ensure the FDA has the resources to 
approve new drugs and medical devices quickly and efficiently.
  Passing this legislation would not bring Pamela back, it would not 
give her another day to spend with her husband, another week to say 
goodbye to her sons, or another year to get to know her grandchild. But 
this legislation will help prevent drug shortages like what took Pamela 
away from her family far too soon.
  As I indicated, we are very close to an agreement, a path forward on 
this bill, and that would be very good for this country. I hope we can 
arrive at that by 11 o'clock today.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is 
recognized.


                              Health Care

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, yesterday morning I came to the floor 
to call attention to a quiet and costly PR campaign that President 
Obama is mounting on the taxpayers' dime. While the President and his 
surrogates spend most of their time deflecting attention from his 
record, he has Washington bureaucrats working overtime to try to put on 
a good face.
  I mentioned yesterday the administration is spending yet another $20 
million in taxpayer money to promote a health care bill that most 
Americans would like to see repealed. Let me repeat that--$20 million 
to promote a health care bill that most Americans would like to see 
repealed.
  There is more. There is a pattern that I, and I am sure many other 
Americans, find pretty outrageous at a time of trillion-dollar deficits 
and a near $16 trillion debt. The administration also spent more than 
$25 million in stimulus funds on grants to public relations firms--PR 
firms--ostensibly to do public relations related to promoting the 
stimulus. It spent nearly $20 million on mailings to seniors to tout 
ObamaCare--a mailer, by the way, that the Government Accountability 
Office found overstated the law's benefits.
  Millions of taxpayer funds were spent on postcards that promote 
ObamaCare's small business tax credit--a credit the GAO said was 
ineffective and infrequently used. These are just a few of the ways the 
administration is quietly promoting its own fatal policies; how it is 
trying to change people's minds about the President's policies with 
their own money, and using our tax money to try to promote the 
President's policies. The campaign is one thing, but using our tax 
money to promote the President's policies is outrageous.
  There is a larger issue than the fact that the President is quietly 
marketing policies with taxpayer dollars that he is clearly afraid to 
talk about in public. That is bad enough, but the larger point is the 
fact that we have a nearly $16 trillion debt, the largest tax hike in 
history right around the corner, chronic unemployment, and sky-high gas 
prices, and the President thinks it is a good idea to spend $20 million 
to promote ObamaCare. We don't have the money to begin with, and he is 
spending it to market his policies.
  The President needs to face the facts. Americans do not want him 
spending their hard-earned money trying to spin policies they don't 
like. How about setting some priorities first? How about working with 
us to lower the deficit and the debt? How about working with us to fund 
things we actually need? We are more than ready to work with the 
President, as I said time and time again over the past few years, but 
he needs to set some priorities and lead.
  I yield the floor.


                       Reservation of Leader time

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
leadership time is reserved.


                           Order of Business

  Under the previous order, the following hour will be equally divided 
and controlled between the two leaders or their designees with the 
Republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the 
final half.


                             Second Opinion

  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I would like to follow up on the 
wonderful comments made by the minority leader. Specifically, I want to 
talk about the health care law and the ways that taxpayer dollars are 
now being wasted and spent in what appears to be a propaganda campaign 
by this administration to promote a health care law the American 
people--at least the majority of them when asked about it--

[[Page S3461]]

think should be found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and 
so many Americans want to see repealed and replaced.
  Over 2 years ago, President Obama and Democratic leaders in 
Congress--in this very body and across the Hall--jammed a health care 
law through Congress that was drafted completely behind closed doors. 
We all recall Nancy Pelosi famously saying at the time: First you have 
to pass it before you get to find out what is in it.
  I have come to the floor week after week after that with a doctor's 
second opinion about the health care law to make sure the American 
people know what is in it. Week after week there have been more things 
found out about the health care law that has made it even more 
unpopular today than it was at the time it was passed and signed into 
law by President Obama.
  Americans knew what they wanted. They did want health care reform. 
They wanted to be able to get the care they need from the doctor they 
want at a price they can afford. Yet when I go to townhall meetings and 
meetings in other communities across my home State of Wyoming and ask 
the question: Do you think under the President's health care law you 
will be paying more or less for your health care, the hands go up that 
they are going to be paying more. Then I ask them: Do you think the 
quality and availability of your care is going to go down under the 
health care law? Again, the hands go up.
  That is not what Americans want, not to pay more and get less. Yet 
that is what the American people are receiving under this health care 
law. So I will continue to deliver this second opinion on the Senate 
floor so we can continue to talk about what is going to be the impact 
on Americans' lives as a result of the health care law.
  Now, for over 2 years, the news about the law has not been good for 
those who support it, and the country has had opposition to the law 
continue to increase. Today 56 percent of Americans oppose the 
President's health care law.
  One may ask: Why is that? Well, there are a number of reasons. One is 
the health care law is adding to the national debt. We heard the 
Republican leader talk about the incredible national debt the American 
people are facing. The health care law has increased premiums that 
people have to pay for their own insurance directly as a result of the 
health care law being passed. The President promised: If you like what 
you have, you can keep it. But actually the health care law has made it 
harder for workers to keep their employer-sponsored health care 
coverage.
  People want to have choices. They want to have patient-centered care. 
Yet this health care law established an unprecedented board with 
unelected bureaucrats who will, by their decisions, have a direct 
impact on whether patients can get to see a doctor or whether they can 
receive care.
  When I look at the incentives that are part of this health care law, 
to me, the incentives actually appear to encourage employers to either 
fire workers or stop providing health care coverage. To me, this health 
care law is discouraging to students who otherwise might pursue a 
career in the medical field and potentially provide care for Americans.

  In my opinion, this is a law that has actually weakened, not 
strengthened, Medicare. It has done that by taking $500 billion away 
from our seniors on Medicare, not to help strengthen Medicare but to 
start a whole new government program for someone else.
  The Medicare Actuary came out with a report last Friday to say that 
when we actually get into a realistic assessment of the impact of this 
health care law on Medicare, it weakens it. It shows Medicare going 
broke sooner than initially thought. This report has a realistic look 
at the impact of the health care law on Medicare and shows that it will 
make it that much harder for our seniors on Medicare to get the 
treatment they need and to actually get to see a doctor to find someone 
to care for them. The implementation of this law, which takes $500 
billion away from Medicare, is not to strengthen or save Medicare but 
to start a whole new government program for someone else.
  So I could go on and on with legitimate complaints about the law. We 
made it clear for over 2 years that the law is bad for patients, bad 
for providers, nurses, and the doctors who take care of those patients, 
and it is terrible for taxpayers.
  This week we got a response to our long list of serious issues, 
responses from the administration and members of the administration. 
What they are doing is essentially doubling down on the President's 
failed law. Instead of addressing the serious concerns the American 
people have about the law and about their own health care, the White 
House has come to the conclusion they have actually done a bad job of 
educating the American people about the law. So now, just months before 
the Presidential election, the 2012 election, the administration has 
just signed a $20 million contract for a private PR firm to educate the 
American people about the law.
  Of course, this is taxpayer funded. So let me repeat: The Obama 
administration is not even going to acknowledge any of the real 
problems with the law. Instead it is going to spend 20 million taxpayer 
dollars on press releases and more government propaganda.
  It is important to remember this isn't the first time the White House 
has spent millions of taxpayer dollars on trying to spin this law. They 
realize it is unpopular, but are they addressing the fundamental flaws? 
No, they want to do more public relations.
  In fact, this administration spent $700,000 on an advertisement 
starring Andy Griffith, the television star, about how the law will 
impact Medicare. The Internal Revenue Service spent nearly $1 million 
in taxpayer funds to pay for 4 million postcards to promote tax credits 
in the law for small businesses. Of course, what we have seen, and what 
the President would say, and I would say, is fewer and fewer small 
businesses than anticipated found they were not able to qualify for the 
so-called benefits of the health care law.
  So what we have seen is the President's law continues to be 
unpopular, and now the administration chooses to spend taxpayer dollars 
to try a public relations campaign to make it more popular instead of 
dealing with the fundamental problems.
  So here we are millions of dollars later, and it is clear that the 
White House still has not learned what most Americans understand--good 
policy is good communication. When a law is good, it sells itself and 
Americans immediately reap the rewards and appreciate what has been 
done. But when a law such as this health care law is a bad one, there 
is no way another slick PR campaign, paid for with taxpayer dollars, 
can make it look any better.
  The American people deserve real solutions to their health care 
problems, not more Washington spin. Yesterday I called on the President 
to cancel this program immediately, to retain the taxpayer dollars and 
use it to pay off the debt, use it as part of lowering the deficit. 
Don't send it to a PR firm to try to spin this law.
  We need to repeal this law. We need to repeal this health care law 
and replace it with a better plan. Instead of wasting millions of 
taxpayer dollars on this PR campaign, we need to go back to the drawing 
board. Americans deserve to be able to get the care they need from the 
doctor they want and at a price they can afford. That is what I will 
continue to talk about on the Senate floor as I offer a doctor's second 
opinion about the significant failure of the law that passed the 
Senate, was crammed through the House, and was signed by President 
Obama 2 years ago.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kansas.


                              Job Creation

  Mr. MORAN. Madam President, yesterday a group of four Senators 
introduced legislation that I would like to highlight in this brief 
opportunity on the Senate floor. We introduced S. 3217. This 
legislation is called Startup 2.0 and was introduced by Senator Warner, 
Senator Coons, Senator Rubio, and me to begin the process of trying to 
create a better entrepreneurial environment in the United States, to 
create opportunities for entrepreneurials for innovation and to grow 
the economy and create jobs.
  I want to personally thank those three Senators--two Republicans, two 
Democrats--who decided that this common phrase we hear around 
Washington, DC--we can't do anything this

[[Page S3462]]

year because it is an election year--is nothing that we are willing to 
tolerate. We didn't get the marching orders and instructions to say we 
cannot work and accomplish good work for America because there is a 
November election.
  I want to highlight to my colleagues and ask them to join us in this 
effort to grow the number of Senators who find this kind of legislation 
valuable and appealing and to commit myself to work with Senator 
Warner, Senator Rubio, and Senator Coons to see that we are successful 
in 2012. I have talked about this legislation before. In fact, Senator 
Warner and I introduced the Startup Act months ago. We then joined with 
Senator Coons and Senator Rubio, who had introduced legislation called 
the AGREE Act. We took the best components of our two pieces of 
legislation and yesterday, as I said, introduced S. 3217, the Startup 
2.0 Act.

  This legislation has about five components. In broad terms, it is 
based upon the Kauffman Foundation Center for Entrepreneurship based in 
Kansas City, which is the most world-renowned organization that studies 
and promotes entrepreneurship. Their proposals were based upon their 
research and are included in many aspects of this legislation. Part of 
it is dealing with the regulatory environment that a startup company 
faces and to require that the benefits of that regulation exceed the 
costs. That kind of requirement has been in the law before but only for 
the departments, not for the independent agencies. So we know the 
independent agencies create lots of hurdles and handicaps in regard to 
the ability of particularly a young company, a beginning company, a 
startup company to succeed.
  In fact, in my view, our legislation is based upon something I was 
told once by an engineer who said that for an airplane to fly, there 
are two forces at work: one is thrust and the other is drag. The thrust 
has to be sufficient to overcome the drag or you could reduce the drag 
so the thrust is not so necessary. What I like about this legislation 
is that it is so focused on reducing the drag--getting things out of 
the way. It is not a thrust program, meaning more government programs, 
more government spending, more government. This legislation provides 
aspects that are designed to get government out of the way and to 
reduce the drag so that the airplane can launch and can fly and can 
succeed.
  One of those, of course, is the regulatory environment. Another is 
the tax environment. Startup companies face significant challenges in 
accessing enough capital to get off the ground. We were successful in 
passing the JOBS Act signed by the President a few weeks ago. This 
legislation picks up where that legislation left off.
  Incidentally, I read this morning that crowdfunding is already 
beginning to develop a piece--a development that occurs as a result of 
the passage of the JOBS Act. So once Washington, DC--let me say that 
differently. Once Washington, DC, gets out of the way so that the 
private sector can pursue opportunities, those opportunities are 
pursued. We see that already happening with the passage of the JOBS Act 
in regard to crowd source funding in which we are gathering capital 
investments from people across the country to help new businesses 
commence.
  This legislation, the Startup Act, makes permanent the 100-percent 
exemption on capital gains taxes for investments held at least 5 years 
in qualified small businesses so investors can provide financial 
stability at this critical point in their growth. The legislation also 
includes a limited, targeted research and development tax credit for 
startups less than 5 years old. So we alter R&D, we alter income taxes, 
and we alter capital gains in a way that is designed to create better 
opportunities for access to credit.
  We attempt in this legislation to accelerate the commercialization of 
research. Billions of dollars are being spent--taxpayer dollars--at 
universities and colleges across the Nation. We want to incent that 
research to be devoted toward what can be commercialized, that brings 
new products, new businesses to market. So we take existing resources 
and utilize those dollars to reward those universities that take their 
research dollars and use them in ways that are more likely to be 
commercialized--in other words, create products, pursue dreams, and 
ultimately create jobs.
  In addition, we create competition--at least knowledge of 
information, knowledge that allows somebody who is thinking about 
starting a business to decide which States are the most progrowth-
oriented and make decisions about their location--where they should 
locate--based upon information. That then would also encourage States 
to be very entrepreneurial and progrowth, pro-innovation in their State 
policies.
  Perhaps the most significant portion of this legislation creates two 
new visas. The first is an entrepreneur's visa to help foreign-born 
entrepreneurs currently legally in the United States to register their 
business and to employ Americans. In many instances, foreign-born 
entrepreneurs, here legally, have an idea and want to begin a company 
that will employ Americans but are told their visa does not allow them 
to remain in the United States.
  The second visa that is created in this legislation is related to 
STEM--and this is a topic of conversation I think is so important--to 
retain foreign students who are studying in the United States, who have 
a Ph.D. or a master's degree in science, technology, engineering or 
mathematics. It is silly, it is wrongheaded for us to educate these 
individuals and tell them we no longer want them in the United States 
once they receive their degree. So the Startup Act 2.0 makes two 
important modifications to that current system of visas.
  In addition, we include a provision from the legislation introduced 
by Senators Rubio and Coons, a provision that eliminates the per-
country numerical limit for employment-based immigrant visas, which is 
another handicap in our system that prevents those who have the 
greatest skills and talents and intellect from being eligible for a 
legal visa to remain in the United States.
  I heard a story from an entrepreneur in California who was ready to 
hire foreign-born immigrants who were U.S.-educated individuals with 
Ph.D.s in computer education--computer science, for example--and yet 
the H 1B visa program failed them. There were no slots available. So, 
yes, the company hired these 68 Ph.D.s--technicians, highly skilled and 
educated individuals--but they hired them in Canada, not in the United 
States. So not only is that a loss of 68 jobs, but many of those people 
who are now working in Canada will be the next set of entrepreneurs, 
and they will start their businesses, their startup companies, and grow 
their companies in Canada, not in the United States. So we lose in both 
employment today and in opportunity for American jobs in the future 
because we have a visa system that handicaps our ability to get the 
highly educated, trained, and technically skilled individuals in the 
United States.
  Today in the local paper I read some statistics that I think are 
important for us to remember and to know. Research by the Partnership 
for a New American Economy and Partnership for New York City shows a 
widening gap between the supply and demand of American graduates 
educated in the so-called STEM fields of science, technology, 
engineering, and mathematics. The number of job openings requiring such 
degrees is increasing three times the rate of the rest of the job 
market. However, college students majoring in non-STEM fields still 
outnumber math and science-minded counterparts five to one, according 
to the National Science Foundation. So five people are majoring in 
something other than science or mathematics for every one who majors in 
math or science in the United States.

  If this trend continues, American businesses will be looking for an 
estimated 800,000 workers with advanced STEM degrees in 2018--just 6 
years away--but will only find 550,000 American graduates with that 
type of training. Not only do we need to fill that gap with those who 
are available to us today, but we also need to encourage education in 
the United States and educate American students in the STEM field as 
well. Without easing these restrictions, we will continue to have 60 
percent of foreign graduate students in the United States enrolled in 
science and engineering today. So 60 percent of foreign students are 
majoring in science and mathematics--not true of American students--and 
we need to reverse that course.

[[Page S3463]]

  A study earlier this year showed that half of the Nation's top 
venture-backed companies have at least one immigrant founder. Three out 
of four claim at least one foreign-born executive.
  The point is that we want the economy to grow, we want to create 
jobs, and we want to do the commonsense things that get government out 
of the way to allow the private sector to be entrepreneurial, to be 
innovative, and to create great opportunities for Americans today and, 
equally important, for Americans tomorrow. We want our kids and 
grandkids to have the opportunity to live and work in a growing, 
exciting economy. That requires the Congress to take actions today to 
create that environment for the private sector to succeed in creating 
entrepreneurship in the United States.
  When we look at the last few years, we see that the net jobs filled 
in the United States have been filled by entrepreneurs, by new startup 
companies, not by existing companies. In fact, the trend is that big 
companies are often laying off workers while startup companies are the 
ones obviously hiring individuals.
  I ask my colleagues to take a look at the legislation that my 
colleagues, Senators Warner, Rubio, Coons, and I introduced. I look 
forward to working with the leadership of the Senate to see that it 
receives appropriate consideration. We ought to do all we can do. We 
ought not ever use the excuse that we can't do everything; therefore, 
we can do nothing. These are all commonsense ideas that, in my view, 
will be supported by at least 80 percent of my colleagues here in the 
Senate. We ought not use the idea that it is an election year so we 
can't accomplish anything. The country cannot afford to wait. It needs 
our action now.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator Nevada.


                           The Housing Crisis

  Mr. HELLER. Madam President, last September I had the honor of coming 
to the floor to give my maiden speech to my fellow Nevadans and to the 
American people. In that speech, I quoted a great Nevadan, Mark Twain, 
who wrote: ``You are a coward when you even seem to have backed down 
from a thing you openly set out to do.'' I have always said that I ran 
for office to make a difference, and since my first day here I have set 
out to provide solutions to fix our current housing problems.
  Nevada is the epicenter of our Nation's housing crash. Home prices 
continue to decline in Nevada. In February of 2006 the average home 
value was $309,000. Today that has dropped to $120,000. Let me give my 
colleagues another fact: 5 years is how long Nevada has led the country 
in foreclosures.
  The people of Nevada have suffered far too long because of the 
recklessness of Wall Street that caused this crash. Many Nevadans are 
struggling to pay for mortgages or have their homes in foreclosure as a 
result of the poor job market and the economic downturn. Because of the 
high rates of foreclosure devastating Nevadans, many are being forced 
to move, to find a new place to live.
  Washington must provide solutions that help those who have been hit 
the hardest by this tough economy. I have worked on several solutions 
that I believe will provide some relief for many of those who are 
struggling.
  In February I introduced the Keeping Families in their Home Act or 
the Home Act. This legislation would allow banks, Fannie Mae and 
Freddie Mac, to offer long-term leases for foreclosed homes. By doing 
so, it gives families the opportunity to stay in their homes while also 
easing the pressure that foreclosures put on home values.
  The next month I joined Senator Stabenow to introduce the bipartisan 
Mortgage Forgiveness Tax Relief Act, which would ensure that homeowners 
who owe more on their mortgages than their homes are now worth would 
not be hit with an additional income tax if a part of their mortgage 
loan is forgiven. The current mortgage relief act expires at the end of 
this year, and this bill extends this critical safety net for 
underwater homeowners through 2015.
  Today I am proud to announce the introduction of the SOLD Act. Home 
buyers, sellers, and real estate agents have long observed that banks 
have been slow to approve home short sales. Current delays in approving 
short sales are a major challenge to consumers and to realtors. These 
delays can cause canceled contracts and homeowners being forced into 
foreclosure. Those short sales are seen as a far better outcome than 
foreclosure, and finding a way to improve and make this process more 
efficient has been very difficult.
  My legislation, the SOLD Act, would require that mortgage servicers 
respond to a short sale request within 30 days and make a final 
decision within 60 days of receiving the purchase offer. By placing a 
shot clock on these decisions, it will reduce the amount of time it 
takes to sell property, improve the likelihood that the transaction 
will close, and reduce the number of foreclosures in Nevada and across 
this country.

  Stability in the housing market is critical for long-term economic 
growth. As Nevada continues to lead the Nation in unemployment, it is 
more important now than ever for Washington to provide solutions and 
address our Nation's biggest problems. Getting Americans back to work 
and helping families who find themselves in tough economic times should 
be a priority of every Member of Congress.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the SOLD Act and help 
those who have fallen on tough times.
  Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that execution of 
the previous order with respect to S. 3187 be delayed until 12:30 p.m. 
today; that at 12:30, the majority leader be recognized prior to 
execution of the order, and that all provisions under the previous 
order remain in effect at that time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                            Toxic Chemicals

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I come to the floor today because we 
dare not stand here while a menace threatens children across our 
country with too many untested chemicals present in everyday consumer 
products, products intended for children's use, such as baby bottles 
and nursery furniture. Many of them contain chemicals that have never 
been tested for human safety. These chemicals should be tested in 
industry laboratories, not in our children's bodies. It is time to 
update the law to protect them.
  This picture shows some of the moms, many who traveled long distances 
yesterday to come to the Capitol with signs demanding ``safer chemicals 
now.'' Many of the moms had little children with them.
  They are pleading with us. They are saying: Senators, understand what 
is taking place. Threats to our children should not be tolerated in 
America.
  These moms are right to be concerned that their families are not 
being protected from dangerous chemicals. It is our responsibility, the 
responsibility of those in the Senate and the House, to fix our broken 
chemical laws. But until these laws are fixed, toxic chemicals--the 
word ``toxic'' is a replacement word for poisonous--toxic chemicals 
will continue to gnaw away at our children's bodies, their health, and 
their well-being.
  Studies by CDC scientists found 212 industrial chemicals, including 6 
carcinogens, coursing through America's children's bodies.
  ``Toxic Chemicals Pose Significant Health Risks.''
  This chart tells a very bad, a very sad story: Five percent of 
pediatric

[[Page S3464]]

cancers, 10 percent of diabetes, 10 percent of Parkinson's disease, and 
30 percent of childhood asthma are significant health threats to 
children. And instead of protecting us from harmful chemicals, our 
current law falls short.
  A law called TSCA was designed to eliminate these threats to 
children's health. It passed in the 1970s. It is so severely flawed 
that the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office testified that it 
is a ``high-risk area of the law.'' Imagine that: TSCA, because of the 
fact that it is so severely flawed, is a high-risk area of the law.
  In nearly 35 years, TSCA has allowed EPA to require testing of only 
200 of more than 80,000 chemicals. Thousands of new chemicals are 
introduced every year in industrial and research facilities, but only 
200 over that time were tested. What does that say? When you think 
about the number of children we are trying to protect, 80,000 
chemicals, and EPA could require testing for only 200 of them, and only 
5 were banned. It is hard to believe the chemical industry fought for 
years to keep the status quo alive at the expense of our lives, our 
children's lives, our children's health.
  Recently the Chicago Tribune exposed how the industry used dirty 
tricks and junk science to drive their public misinformation campaign. 
They wanted to mislead the public about what is going on. Their series 
detailed how the industry repeatedly bullied and lied to State 
legislators to prevent commonsense reform. They bankrolled phony 
experts. A doctor in one instance prominently stood up there and 
defended a chemical material, a fire retardant. They are brought in 
there to invent stories that spout the company line, protecting not the 
health of children but protecting their profits. It is a terrible 
exchange--all at the expense of safety and health.
  It is clear that chemical manufacturers purposefully hid the dangers 
of toxic flame retardants. We have a chart here that shows the average 
couch, for instance, has over 2 pounds of flame-retardant chemicals in 
its foam cushions, chemicals that have been linked to developmental 
problems and other health risks. The Presiding Officer has cautioned us 
about this, as well, that there are discharges when these are 
compressed that release the toxic chemicals into the air. Scientists 
have warned us about these chemicals since the 1970s, and yet they show 
up in household furniture, including baby crib mattresses and high-
chair cushions.
  The Chicago Tribune report said that:

       A typical American baby is born with the highest recorded 
     concentrations of flame retardants among infants in the 
     world.

  But we are not here to attack chemicals. We are saying sort out those 
that are necessary and good for our sustainability, but there are 
hidden in there products that are dangerous, that are contaminants, 
that can bring terrible things to children, terrible health threats. 
Hundreds of useful everyday products contain chemicals, but it is our 
responsibility to make sure they are all safe, and today we don't know 
what is in the air, the atmosphere, and is poisonous.
  Here is an example. Everybody recognizes what this is, a baby bottle. 
We have all bought them or seen them used for our kids. But chemicals 
in some baby bottles have been linked to serious health threats. 
Imagine, as a child takes nourishment, they are taking in a substance 
that can be dangerous to their health and make them sick--or worse.
  When we use these products, the chemicals in them can end up in our 
bodies. In essence, the American public has become a living, breathing 
repository for chemical substances. No one should accept this standoff, 
and most do not. Those who are aware of what is taking place don't want 
to hear any excuses. They say: Get rid of these things. Let us know 
what is in there so we can protect our children and shield them from 
these threats to their health and their well-being.
  Everyone--from some chemical manufacturers to businesses that use 
chemicals in their products, to environmental, labor, and health 
groups--has called for reforming our chemical laws, and we will not 
wait. I ask my colleagues not to wait here. Join us in this quest to 
save our children's health to make sure they grow up as healthy as we 
can enable them to do. We will not wait any longer, and we cannot let 
lobbyists run out the clock.
  Lobbyists. Those are people, who for a fee, will represent almost 
anybody. But in this case, we are looking at not those who bring in 
good information or a good product, but those who are defending 
companies that are producing products that are dangerous for all the 
children who are exposed.
  My bill, the Safe Chemicals Act, lays out a vision for strong, 
effective, and pragmatic regulation of chemicals. The bill simply 
requires the chemical makers to prove that their products, their 
chemicals are safe before they end up in children's bodies by being put 
into a product that children use.
  Most of the thousands of chemicals we use every day are safe, but 
this bill will separate the safe chemicals from the ones that are not--
the ones that threaten our children and our families. It will ensure 
that chemicals are tested and that EPA can take unsafe uses of 
chemicals off the market.
  This bill is common sense. I am sure those who might be listening and 
those who might read the story from the Chicago Tribune and the 
research they did will find it very difficult to understand why it is 
we can't take the steps in here in the Congress to make their children 
safe. We do it in all kinds of ways to protect our kids. We want them 
to be able to grow and develop as children should--healthy, healthy 
kids.
  Some chemical industry lobbyists say the cost of testing all these 
chemicals would be too high. Talk to a parent whose children carry lots 
of toxins in their bodies already. Talk to the mothers who carry these 
toxins in their bodies and can transmit them very easily to their 
children, particularly in pregnancy. So, too high? Too high has to be 
judged not by the chemical company making a profit and wanting to make 
more.
  We cannot violate our responsibility to the mothers and fathers and 
the relatives and the families, where little kids live and enjoy life. 
What about that cost to the damage of their health? What about the cost 
to them? How high is that cost?
  I would like one of these chemical manufacturer executives to stand 
up to parents who are worried about the health and the well-being of 
their children and say they are not making enough money and they are 
going to have to pump more of these threatening materials into the 
atmosphere without submitting them for testing. What about the cost to 
the parents who have to pay for their care?
  The bottom line is this: If we don't act to protect Americans from 
thousands of toxic chemicals in everyday consumer products, who is 
going to do it? It is our responsibility.
  Throughout this process we have invited input from all sides of this 
issue, including the chemical industry. I have extended an open 
invitation to my Republican colleagues: Think about it. Look at it 
through the eyes of your children and of your families. Think about it. 
Or would you rather go to the bank with a larger deposit because you 
are doing something that is a threat to children of any age and any 
stage? So I asked colleagues from the Republican side to work with us. 
Work with me to fix this broken law.

  The one thing we will not do--and I know I speak for many others who 
are cosponsoring this legislation--we will not accept inaction. It is 
time to act. We want to mark up legislation to reform TSCA and move 
this legislation to the Senate floor, where decisions can be made. 
Opinions of individuals who may say, No, we would rather go ahead and 
enlarge our bank accounts, our cash reserves--let them say it in front 
of the public. That is when we will be conducting the kind of a test we 
should be doing here.
  We want to move the legislation to the Senate floor and have a vote 
on it. Hopefully good judgment and good sense will prevail and this 
will get through and get to the President's desk so he can sign it and 
start the process of protecting our kids. It is time to come together 
to finally fix this law and protect our families from toxic chemicals.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Durbin). The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I thank Senator Lautenberg for his 
leadership and dedication to protecting

[[Page S3465]]

our families. And I know why he is concerned. I know, because I think 
about these issues every single day.
  I washed my son's hair last night in his bath. I want to make sure 
the chemicals in that baby shampoo are safe. I put sunblock on him this 
morning. I want to know that I know what the level of that protection 
of that sunblock actually is.
  When my other son was sick last week, he had three different 
medications. I need to know what those medications will do for him, if 
they will have side effects, what the impact is.
  This is exactly the question every parent asks every single day in 
their normal daily lives: Are the products, are the chemicals, are the 
things surrounding my family safe? Will they cause harm? Will they 
cause disease? These are real questions that we have to have answered. 
So I thank Senator Lautenberg for his leadership on the Safe Chemicals 
Act.
  Yesterday hundreds of mothers gathered here in the Capitol, right in 
front of the Capitol building, with their kids and with advocates from 
all across the United States to tell Congress one simple thing: It is 
time to stop playing politics with the health of our families. They 
remind us that the effectiveness of our Nation's chemical regulations 
is an issue that matters to all of us, every single American and every 
single parent who has children.
  Our families are exposed to a variety of chemicals in every aspect of 
their daily lives, whether it is the soap we wash our hands with, 
whether it is the shampoo we wash our children's hair with, whether it 
is the detergents we put in our clothes washer when we are doing our 
laundry at night, whether it is detergents we use to wash our dishes. 
Every day we are bombarded with chemicals, and understanding how these 
chemicals impact our health and the health of our families is a growing 
concern not just for me but for constituents all across the 
country. But because of a very broken and ineffective system, our 
regulatory agencies are not able to provide us with enough information. 
The challenge our regulatory agencies face is a substantial one. Since 
the Toxic Control Substances Act was enacted in 1976, the EPA has faced 
the daunting challenge to investigate more than 84,000 chemicals in 
commerce, and their track record for success has been poor. Of the tens 
of thousands of chemicals in the marketplace, only 200 have been 
identified for further investigations and only 5 have been regulated.

  Weekly there are news reports highlighting a new study of chemical 
concern found in everyday products in our homes, in our schools, and in 
our places of work. These reports have caused growing concern amongst 
consumers because we have seen links. There are studies that linked 
these chemicals to the rising causes of cancer, autism, learning 
disabilities, diabetes, asthma, obesity, developmental disorders, and 
infertility. These are the gravest concerns any family is ever going to 
face--any one of these. So we want to know if these things we were 
exposed to are affecting outcomes. Is there a relationship?
  As a mother of young children, who are most vulnerable to chemical 
exposure, I am particularly concerned about what chemicals affect them, 
their well-being, and their development. I have one story of a young 
girl from Ithaca, Mira Brouwer, who died at the age of 4 because of the 
complications of her brain cancer treatment. Faced with the loss of her 
daughter, her mother Christina Brouwer founded Mira's Movement to make 
sure she could raise awareness about pediatric cancers and to serve as 
a resource for families facing their own battles with these diseases.
  After an exhaustive study and review that identified potential links 
between chemicals and our environment and cancers such as the one young 
Mira had, I believe it is time for Congress to take action. We have a 
number of amendments today that will, again, enhance the work we are 
doing.
  Of the two amendments I care a lot about, one is very simple. It 
makes sure that parents have as much information as possible when there 
are disclosures that accompany medicine so we know what are all the 
impacts there could be of that medication. I know most of my colleagues 
and certainly most consumers didn't realize the leaflets that come with 
our prescriptions are not regulated by anyone, and it is usually 
written by a contractor.
  In 1995 the FDA recommended standards to improve the information 
provided to patients, but by 2008 only 75 percent of the information 
patients were receiving met the standards for usefulness.
  I have to say I met with one mother named Kate, and her personal 
story about what happened to her son who was suffering from allergies 
and asthma. When he took a different medication, she saw him go into a 
depression. She didn't know there could be a relationship. That 
information was never provided to her. But the pain and loss she goes 
through every single day, remembering her son, has encouraged her to be 
an advocate for reform to make sure every parent has basic information 
that has some level of accountability so they know what the 
implications of all medicines can be.
  The AARP and Consumer Reports have spent years trying to ensure their 
patients that when they receive FDA approval, standardized and up-to-
date information about their medications will be provided. They support 
this amendment that will make that requirement.
  Consumers basically have a fundamental right to know the risks 
associated with their prescription medications, and my amendment would 
give them this knowledge.
  Last, and quite simply, we use sunscreen every day. In my family my 
kids have very fair skin. I want to know that the label on that 
sunscreen is accurate. I want to know if it has the protection it says 
it does, and this is an area that desperately needs regulation. I 
support the bill of Senator Reed of Rhode Island to finally give 
consumers the information they need with regard to sunscreen.
  Thank you, Mr. President, for this opportunity. All America's 
families basically have a right to know if these products are safe.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, it was 10 days ago the Chicago Tribune 
had a Sunday exclusive investigative report on fire-retardant 
chemicals, and the report went on for several days. I called the 
writers and commended them on the wonderful job they did on this 
report. It was as good as any investigation I have ever seen by a 
committee of Congress. It raised some serious issues I had never 
thought about.
  We probably have all heard from time to time there are certain 
chemicals which, when put on fabric, for example, will reduce the 
likelihood that it will flame and injure someone. I accepted that as 
truth, and I guess most people would. There was testimony given, even 
by medical doctors and so-called experts, that said that is a fact.
  Well, the Tribune series took a look at the so-called experts, and 
guess what they found. They were on the payroll of the chemical 
companies that made the fire-retardant chemicals, and the doctors were 
actually kind of manufacturing cases of burns to make the case that 
States should apply these new standards. Over the years this testimony 
by these people, who had a built-in conflict of interest, ended up 
being persuasive at many levels in many States. As a result, there were 
requirements to add fire-retardant chemicals to fabrics in clothing, 
pajamas, furniture, and the like.
  Then a closer look was taken. The Underwriters Laboratories took a 
look at these chemicals and said: You know what. They don't stop a fire 
from flaming up. The tests they are using are totally inadequate. These 
chemicals don't achieve what they are supposed to achieve. But there is 
another side to the story. The chemicals themselves can be dangerous. 
These are chemicals that haven't been tested in terms of their exposure 
to human beings. The Chicago Tribune article said the average couch had 
2 pounds of fire-retardant chemicals built into it. They put it 
particularly in those foam cushions. I will get back to that in a 
moment. Remember that, the foam cushions.

[[Page S3466]]

  Madam President, in your wonderful State last November my daughter 
gave birth to twins. November 15 was a source of great celebration. It 
still is. My wife and I were there with our son-in-law and daughter to 
welcome this little boy and little girl into the world. After a couple 
of days we brought them home from the hospital to the condo where my 
son-in-law and daughter live. We were so careful. I think about it now. 
We used hand sanitizers. We never had that when we were raising our 
kids, but we were careful to make sure we washed our hands. Every 
single thing these kids would come in contact with, the little onesies 
and the blankets that had to not only be cleaned but cleaned with the 
right detergent--we wanted to get the right detergent so it wouldn't 
cause any problems with these children.
  Of course, when we are giving them formula, we are sterilizing 
everything in sight to make sure it is perfectly clean. Then I recall 
at that moment when I had that tiny little baby, and I was going to 
give this baby a bottle--and see if I still remembered how to do it--
they said get a comfortable place. Why don't you sit down on the couch? 
It never crossed my mind as I sat down on the couch and pressed that 
cushion on the couch that I was releasing a spray of toxic dust from 
fire-retardant chemicals. That never crossed my mind at one moment.

  When we went to buy a little cradle with a cushion for each of the 
kids, we took the subway to Columbus Circle to Babies ``R'' Us. It 
never occurred to me to think about whether the cushion on that baby's 
cradle or crib had fire-retardant chemicals in it that might, in fact, 
be sprayed every time someone sat on it or the baby was put on it. It 
never crossed my mind.
  Well, I can say that as a result of the Chicago Tribune article, I 
think about it all the time now. I also think about this: How many 
American families can make that judgment when they buy a couch or a 
chair or children's furniture? They cannot. They cannot physically do 
it. I am a political scientist, but that doesn't count; I am not a real 
scientist. I can't judge what is safe and what isn't.
  Who can we trust? Can we trust the company making the product? We 
want to think so, but sometimes not. Can we trust the spokespeople for 
the chemical industry? Unfortunately, they come into this with a 
conflict of interest.
  So Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey created legislation that 
calls on the chemical industry to take care with the chemicals they put 
into everything we use every single day. It is also to make sure that 
Americans and families have peace of mind when they buy products to 
know the Environmental Protection Agency is at least reviewing the 
chemicals that are being put in those products that cite they are safe.
  If the Environmental Protection Agency doesn't do this, who will do 
it? Can we trust the chemical industry to do it? I don't think so. Can 
we trust the furniture industry? I am not sure. We know if the EPA does 
it, it can make a difference. There are 80,000 different chemicals out 
there now. Many of them are critically important for our safety and 
health. There are safe chemicals we can be exposed to every single day 
without concern, but there are others that are not. The flame-retardant 
chemicals are a good example of that.
  As the Presiding Officer said when she was speaking on the Senate 
floor, over the years they have reviewed 200 of these chemicals out of 
80,000, and at the end of the day, they banned 5. What about the rest 
of them? Have they taken a look? Where does the first level of 
responsibility start?
  Senator Lautenberg's bill says it starts with those who put the 
chemicals in the marketplace and that there be a certain level of 
safety established before they can be sold across the board. I think 
that is essential.
  We are on a bill that will not bring up the toxic chemical issue, but 
I hope that will come up in and of itself soon. We are on a bill 
dealing with the Food and Drug Administration, and I heard about the 
amendment, and I support it. I think it is a good one.
  Let me tell you something else we should know. The Food and Drug 
Administration is a small agency with big responsibility. Literally 
before any drug can be sold as a prescription drug in America, the Food 
and Drug Administration has to establish, No. 1, it is safe, and No. 2, 
it is effective. If it says it is going to do certain things, it has to 
accomplish those things. So there is lengthy testing in terms of these 
drugs before they will actually be licensed and allowed legally in 
America. The drugs that make it through all of these tests can generate 
millions, even billions, of dollars in profits for the pharmaceutical 
companies, but many don't make it through the testing process. But the 
FDA is there to establish that those drugs are safe and effective, and 
of course the consumers rely on them. When the doctor writes a 
prescription, we feel pretty certain this is going to be something the 
doctor knows is good for you and it has already been tested through the 
FDA.
  There is a whole other category of goods, though, that we buy every 
single day that are treated differently and they are called dietary 
supplements. They include things such as vitamins and minerals that you 
take in the morning. I take a multivitamin every day. I don't know for 
what reason, but I do.
  Dietary supplements also include things such as energy drinks. Heard 
about energy drinks lately? We can hardly escape them. The 5-hour 
Energy drink, the Monster drink. There are all of these different 
drinks we can buy that turn out not to be the same as soda or soda pop, 
but they are dietary supplements with small print on the back of the 
label. What is the difference? The difference is this: If you wanted to 
sell a bottle of cola, for example--and I won't give any proprietary 
names--there is a limitation by the FDA about how much caffeine can be 
put in each bottle of cola. If they decide they are not going to sell 
cola, which is classified as a beverage or food, and instead sell 
Monster Energy Drink and call it a dietary supplement, there is no 
regulation on the amount of caffeine that can be included.
  Yesterday I met a woman who came here with her parents and her 
daughter to be in the gallery as I talked about her late daughter. Her 
late daughter's name was Anais Fournier from Hagerstown, MD, 16 years 
old. This young girl, with no history and no warning, drank two 24-
ounce Monster Energy Drinks in a 24-hour period of time, and it killed 
her. There was almost 500 milligrams of caffeine in those two drinks. 
It was too much for her. She died of cardiac arrest. Those were billed 
not as beverages or sodas but as dietary supplement energy drinks.
  Here is what it comes down to. I have a simple amendment I am going 
to offer, and this amendment will come up, I hope, on the Food and Drug 
Administration. Here is what it says: Every dietary supplement 
manufacturer that wants to sell their product in America has to 
register with the FDA. They have to tell the FDA the name of the 
product, the ingredients of the product, and a copy of the label. That 
is it. There is no requirement for testing, just so we know what is out 
there.
  Let me add, dietary supplements are coming from all over the world 
into the United States. When we walk into that vitamin store or 
nutrition store and we think everything in there has been tested, no, 
virtually nothing has been tested. Do we still have a right to buy it? 
Yes, and I will fight to defend our right to buy it, but I also think 
we have a responsibility too. If people get sick and die because of a 
dietary supplement, we ought to do something about it, and the people 
across America expect us to. It starts with registration, simple 
registration, so the Food and Drug Administration knows what is out 
there.
  A few years ago there was a pitcher for the Baltimore Orioles who, in 
an effort to lose a few pounds before the season, took a dietary 
supplement that included a compound called ephedrine. Ephedra is a 
stimulant. He died as a result of that compound he took. We ended up 
basically banning ephedra from dietary supplements as a result. I think 
it is important for the Food and Drug Administration to have lists of 
the dietary supplements and their ingredients in what they are selling, 
and a copy of the label, so that some future ephedra, some future 
compound that we find can be dangerous could then be traced to the 
actual dietary supplement product in order to protect American 
consumers and families.

  The dietary supplement industry hates my amendment like the devil

[[Page S3467]]

hates holy water. The notion that they would have to register and 
disclose the name of their product and its ingredients? No way. They 
say: You can't do that. It is a violation of basic rights.
  I say: Baloney. If they want to sell in America, then sell what is 
safe or at least tell us what they are selling. If a seller lives in 
China, for goodness' sakes, and wants to sell in the United States, is 
it too much to ask that they register with the FDA and tell us what 
they are putting on the shelves across America? That is basic.
  So we will have a choice. I am fighting now to put this amendment on 
this bill. Let's have a choice. Let's have a vote: Should the dietary 
supplement industry have to register their products? It is pretty 
basic.
  This amendment is based on a recommendation from the 2009 GAO report 
which said the FDA has insufficient information to regulate dietary 
supplements and analyze adverse event reports. That is what happens 
when people get sick or die from dietary supplements. The amendment 
requires facilities which manufacture, package, or hold dietary 
supplements to register the products with the FDA, provide a 
description of each dietary supplement, a list of ingredients, and a 
copy of the label. Facilities notify the FDA within 30 days and provide 
the required registration information when a product is introduced or 
removed from the market. So they have 30 days to do it.
  Any product that is not registered is to be considered misbranded and 
illegal to sell. In other words, they have to do it. It is a real law.
  That is it. Just register. They have to tell us what they are selling 
to Americans. Give us the name, give us the ingredients, and give us a 
copy of the label.
  Well, get ready, because the industry is coming in to say this is an 
outrage. I think it is outrageous that they would not comply with this 
basic amendment. I say this to them: I am not opposed to people buying 
vitamins. I have gone to these nutrition stores, and about every other 
month they say: Stop the latest Durbin amendment. Well, I buy vitamins. 
I take vitamins. It is OK. I think it is fine. We shouldn't have to 
have a prescription for it. But Americans have a right to know what 
they are taking, and they have a right to know what, if anything, the 
government is doing to protect them.
  I hope my colleagues will support the amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. I thank the Presiding Officer for the time to speak on the 
Senate floor.
  I am supportive of the bill that has come out of the HELP Committee 
to reauthorize user fees for the Food and Drug Administration. We have 
tried these user fees in the past, and under this bill they would be 
reauthorized for prescription drugs and for medical devices. This seems 
to be a way to help get these items to the consumer faster, to get them 
through the approval process more quickly, and to allow the companies 
that develop new medical devices or new prescription drugs to recoup 
their investment in a quicker way, which also allows them to get to the 
generic market in a quicker way.
  I think it serves the purpose of health care well, and the community 
that pays the user fees appears to be in support of their continued 
use, and I am too. This bill provides for faster verification of 
generics. It also adds a product called biosimilars to the process 
where fees would be paid. For all of the same reasons, it seems that 
those fees would also make sense for health care and make sense for 
health care costs. Again, it allows for recouping the investment that 
is made to develop a new drug quicker. That allows it to go to the 
generic market quicker.
  I hope this bill can be approved, and I hope it will be approved even 
before we leave for the Memorial Day work period.
  I think Senator Harkin, Senator Enzi, and their committee, the HELP 
Committee, have worked hard. I don't serve on that committee. I am on 
the appropriating committee for the Food and Drug Administration--for 
agriculture, rural development, and FDA. I am glad to be on that 
committee, and I have the contacts I have with FDA because of that. 
But, certainly, I support this bill.
  There will be amendments, and we will look at those amendments as 
they are offered; although I think the committee has worked hard in a 
bipartisan way to bring a bill to the floor that is legislated the way 
we should legislate wherein the committees do their work and there is a 
bipartisan approach. That approach seeks input, continues current 
policies, and improves on those policies in a way I hope the Senate and 
then the House can be supportive of.
  I know one of the areas where we are likely to have amendments will 
be the debate we have had over and over on whether prescription drugs 
can be imported into the country. If that amendment is brought up, I 
would have the same position I have had in the past, which is it is 
fine as long as someone from our government is willing to say those 
prescription drugs are what they appear to be. They have been out of 
the chain of custody, out of the closed pharmaceutical chain supply 
system that we believe is always essential to be sure that the drug one 
is getting is the drug one is getting.
  Senator Durbin spoke about vitamins earlier. I don't know what is in 
that capsule and neither does he unless someone has verified what is 
purported to be in there is really in there. It is very easy for that 
not to be the case. There are all kinds of examples of that all over 
the world. We want to be sure that American consumers who are taking a 
health product take that product for a good cause.

  The Senator from Illinois even mentioned that he thought dietary 
supplements should be filed with the FDA. Certainly anyone who would 
think that should also think the same for prescription medicines, 
pharmaceutical medicines--that someone would need to verify that a 
prescription medicine is the medicine one believes it to be because a 
person is not taking it for some additional dietary reason; a person is 
taking it because their doctor has told them it is a medicine they need 
to take. It means there must be some medical reason they are taking it, 
and they must be certain, in my view, that a specific health care 
reason is being met.
  Also, I read this week that in a time of trillion-dollar deficits, 
the Department of Health and Human Services announced it was going to 
go forward with a provision in the affordable health care act that 
apparently allows the department to spend $20 million of taxpayer money 
to launch a PR campaign to convince Americans they should like the 
affordable health care act better than they apparently do.
  We are spending $20 million at a time when we have trillion-dollar 
deficits, at a time when, in fact, the health care law is even being 
challenged in Court. We will find out within the next month what the 
Court thinks about the potential constitutionality of the health care 
law.
  This is the same Department of Health and Human Services that, during 
the health care debate, told insurance companies they could not tell 
their customers--they could not communicate with their customers in any 
way that suggested any possible negative impact this law might create. 
I thought that was an incredible position for the government to take at 
the time, so maybe I shouldn't be surprised that now the government 
would spend $20 million on a PR contract to convince people they should 
like this health care plan better than they do.
  In fact, poll after poll shows the more people know about the health 
care proposal, the less they like it. Two years after its passage, 
opposition to the health care law, I believe, is stronger than it has 
ever been. The recent Rasmussen poll said 56 percent of voters favor a 
repeal of the affordable health care act, believing that it is perhaps 
neither all that affordable or all that good for health care.
  According to a USA Today Gallup poll, 72 percent of Americans think 
this bill will make things worse or would not help their family health 
care situation. They believe it would not make things better or it will 
even make things worse. It is clear, in my view, that this is a bad law 
that we can't afford--bad for families, bad for seniors, bad for job 
creators. I guess maybe that is why the government is going to spend 
$20 million to convince me and others that it is not nearly as bad as 
we think it is.
  This is not the first time the administration has used taxpayer money 
to

[[Page S3468]]

roll out publicity initiatives or to move forward in a way that will 
try to encourage the use of this law. Last year, the Department of 
Health and Human Services asked Congress to quadruple the budget for 
its public affairs office to $20 million. So the request was, let's 
have $20 million in public affairs to double the staff, quadruple the 
budget. Let's have another $20 million to hire a PR firm to convince 
the American people that the affordable health care act is going to be 
good for them. Let's sway seniors by using $3 million for an ad 
campaign featuring Andy Griffith, who is one of my favorite actors of 
all time, who took on the role to convince people the health care law 
is good for seniors.
  The nonpartisan factcheck.org concluded that the ads used--they said 
``weasel words'' to mislead seniors. I certainly would not imagine that 
Andy Griffith would use weasel words, but I do know they used taxpayer 
dollars--taxpayer-paid-for words--to talk about how this plan is going 
to be good for them.
  Then the administration recently decided to spend $8.35 billion--now 
we are talking about real money; we are not talking about $20 million 
or $3 million. We are talking about $8.35 billion to postpone the vast 
majority of the Medicare Advantage cuts until after the end of this 
year, which is, coincidentally, after Election Day as well. This 
supposedly comes out of money that would usually go for a demonstration 
project.
  As I understand demonstration projects, it is to take an idea and 
prove whether it will work. Well, apparently, this demonstration 
project is merely to not allow these provisions of the affordable 
health care act to go into effect until after the election. I think we 
can all see what that demonstrates. It demonstrates there must be 
something the administration believes the American people and seniors 
would not like if they found out before the election that $8.35 billion 
was scheduled to be taken out of Medicare and put into another health 
care program. In fact, the affordable health care act will spend $500 
billion that will come out of Medicare at a time when Medicare, we all 
know, is about to be in real trouble.
  If someone made this argument anywhere but Washington, DC, I think 
they would be laughed out of the room. We have one fund that is about 
to be in big trouble, so we are going to take money from it and start 
another program that we also don't quite know how we are going to fund.
  The Government Accounting Office has said this demonstration 
project--I think they have identified it as a sham demonstration 
project because it doesn't demonstrate anything.
  This is not a health care system proving that if you take care of 
seniors on a per capita basis, you do a better job keeping them well 
than if you wait until everybody gets sick for them to be able to see a 
doctor under Medicare. This just simply demonstrates that the 
administration would not like people to know what the impact of the law 
is going to be during this even-numbered year.
  Government spending is out of control. Federal debt is at a record 
high. It is unacceptable to me that the administration has decided to 
waste money on a PR campaign or to waste money to see that the impact 
of the law is not evident until after election day. Instead of spending 
time and taxpayer dollars to try to convince people that unpopular 
things should be liked, I would like to see the President work with the 
Congress to help us get the 23 million men and women who are either 
unemployed or underemployed back to work. If we are going to spend 
money, let's spend money for purposes like that.
  I yield back and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today we will be considering and are 
considering a vital piece of legislation that not only includes all 
four user fee agreements but also includes policy proposals to improve 
the Food and Drug Administration review and approval of medical 
products, particularly in the pharmaceutical supply chain.
  In 2008, when Senator Kennedy was still in the Senate, he and I 
introduced the Drug and Device Accountability Act. This legislation was 
largely in response to the extensive oversight I conducted on the Food 
and Drug Administration. During these investigations, I identified 
serious problems at the FDA that included severe weaknesses in the 
inspection process, delays in informing the public of emerging safety 
problems, and lack of enforcement authority.
  Based on these findings, the Kennedy-Grassley legislation included 
provisions to ensure the safety of drugs, including foreign-
manufactured drugs. It would have expanded FDA's authority to inspect 
foreign manufacturers and importers on a risk-based schedule. It would 
have required all manufacturers to register with the agency so they can 
properly identify the number of manufacturers and where they are 
located. This would have ensured that when a crisis occurs, we can 
quickly locate the questionable facility. And it would have increased 
civil and criminal penalties with respect to violations.
  Unfortunately, Senator Kennedy and I never had an opportunity to 
debate this legislation, let alone cast a vote on it. However, roughly 
a year ago Senators Harkin and Enzi forged a bipartisan working group 
to address these challenges. The group has worked tirelessly to produce 
a bipartisan bill that modernizes FDA's authority to ensure that drug 
products coming into the United States are safe for American patients.
  This bill incorporates many provisions in the Drug and Device 
Accountability Act Senator Kennedy and I introduced. It increases 
penalties for knowingly and intentionally counterfeiting drug products. 
It requires electronic submission of certain key information by a drug 
importer as a condition to grant entry.
  I would like to have seen additional enforcement tools included in 
the legislation. For example, granting FDA the authority to destroy 
unsafe products that are refused admission into our country would 
enhance FDA's ability to protect the public from tainted products.
  Likewise, I think FDA should have been granted subpoena authority and 
have it on a par with other Federal law enforcement authorities because 
currently FDA lacks subpoena authority and has to go through the 
Department of Justice, which is time-consuming and burdensome.
  Ultimately, this legislation is a needed step in the right direction 
toward securing our supply chain. This legislation did not address a 
top priority of mine; that is, ensuring whistleblowers have adequate 
protections. Four months ago, my office learned of an abusive treatment 
by the Food and Drug Administration toward whistleblowers due to their 
protected communications with Congress, more specifically with the 
office of this Senator. Once the agency learned of the communications, 
it began actively monitoring and observing employees' personal e-mail 
accounts for 2 years until the agency was able to have the employee 
fired.
  Regrettably, I was not shocked to learn that the FDA was mistreating 
whistleblowers within this agency as it has done on more than the one 
occasion in the past that I have identified. What makes the example 
different and worse is that the FDA intentionally went after an 
employee because they knew that employee had no protection under the 
Whistleblower Protection Act.
  The employee in question happened to be a member of the Public Health 
Service--the title is the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps. 
Because of the decision from the Court of Federal Claims, those 
employees are, in the Public Health Service, along with other members 
of the uniformed services, not covered by Federal employee 
whistleblower protections.
  In 2009, the Court of Federal Claims held in Verbeck v. United States 
that an officer in the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps is a 
member of the uniformed services and as such is not covered under the 
Civilian Whistleblower Protection Act nor the Military Whistleblower 
Protection Act. This

[[Page S3469]]

same logic extends to the commissioned corps of NOAA. So under this 
precedent, officers of the Public Health Service and NOAA currently 
have no whistleblower protection under Federal law.
  This is particularly problematic when we consider that the Public 
Health Service and NOAA officers can be detailed to agencies such as 
the Food and Drug Administration or the Centers for Disease Control. 
That is the case here where that Public Health Service officer was 
working with FDA. At FDA they have to work side by side with civilian 
employees doing critical work to review and approve drugs, oversee 
medical devices, and even work on infectious diseases. However, unlike 
their civilian colleagues sitting right beside them, if these employees 
uncover wrongdoing, waste, fraud, and abuse, they can be retaliated 
against by the agency and have no recourse for it.
  This is wrong and needs to be fixed. Whistleblowers point out waste, 
fraud, and abuse when no one else will. They do so while risking their 
professional careers. Whistleblowers have played a critical role in 
exposing government failures, and retaliation against whistleblowers 
should never be tolerated whether they are in the Public Health Service 
or otherwise.
  For this reason, I will offer an amendment that expands whistleblower 
protection for uniformed employees of the Public Health Service. It 
corrects the anomaly pointed out in the Court of Federal Claims and 
ensures that officers in the Public Health Service have some baseline 
whistleblower protection. It expressly includes the commissioned corps 
of the Public Health Service within the protections of the Military 
Whistleblower Protection Act. This is consistent with the structure of 
the commissioned corps functioning like a military organization and 
matches the fact that these officers receive military-like benefits and 
retirement.
  All Federal employees should feel comfortable expressing their 
opinion both inside the agency and to those of us in Congress. The 
inclusion of this language will ensure those opinions receive 
appropriate protections. I want to take this opportunity to express my 
appreciation to Senator Harkin and Senator Enzi for their commitment 
and effort over the years to reform and improve the Food and Drug 
Administration.
  We have to do what we can to protect whistleblowers. They know where 
the skeletons are buried. They and enterprising journalists come to us 
in Congress so we can investigate. We need those sources of 
information.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the execution of the 
previous order with respect to S. 3187 be delayed until 2:15 today; 
that at 2:15 p.m. the majority leader be recognized prior to the 
execution of the order, and that all provisions of the previous order 
remain in effect at that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are close to a way to move forward on the 
FDA bill. I do say this, however: On this side we have cleared 
everything. So the disputes now are with the Republicans on the 
Republican amendment. We are willing to do whatever is necessary on 
that amendment. So I hope we can get this worked out. It would sure be 
helpful. We have heard all the speeches about this important bill. It 
really is important, as I indicated today in talking about some of the 
shortages we have had in Nevada where people die as a result of not 
having the medicines.
  We are nearing a time where we cannot prolong this any more. This 
legislation is necessary because the bill--the information we have in 
this bill, everything we need expires at the end of this month.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the 
importance of passing the Food and Drug Administration Safety and 
Innovation Act, more commonly known as the user fee reauthorization 
bill. This bipartisan legislation would reauthorize the user fee 
program for the medical device industry, incredible important in my 
home State of Minnesota, as well as the pharmaceutical industry.
  This bill represents over 1 year of negotiations between the FDA, 
Congress, and the industry. I believe we have achieved a good balance 
in terms of the improved performance, incentives through increased 
accountability, more meaningful goals, important process improvements, 
better metrics, and additional resources.
  Not only does this legislation include the user fee agreements 
negotiated between the industry and the FDA, it also includes several 
reforms that will benefit the entire health care system and improve 
public health. The bill will make medicines safer for children. It will 
protect the global drug supply chain. It will improve access to safe, 
innovative medical devices and treatments, and it will tackle the drug 
shortage crisis that is spreading across the country.
  On Monday I talked about the work I did leading the effort on drug 
shortages. I am so pleased that Senator Harkin and Senator Enzi 
included this provision in this bill. But I also believe it is 
important to talk about the guts of the bill; that is, the improvements 
with the FDA and the work that needs to be done.
  I commend the HELP Committee, on which the Presiding Officer serves, 
and specifically Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Enzi for being 
dedicated to ensuring that this process was open, transparent, and 
bipartisan.

  At a time when Congress has been deeply divided, this legislation 
shows we can still overcome our differences and address the needs of 
the country through strong bipartisan cooperation.
  For the State of Minnesota, passing this bill is vital to our 
continued economic growth and strength. With strong institutions such 
as the Mayo Clinic and the University of Minnesota and innovative 
companies such as 3M and Boston Scientific and Medtronic and St. 
Jude's, Minnesota's job numbers have fared better than the national 
average, with our unemployment rate now more than 2\1/2\ points below 
the national average; that is, 5.6 percent compared to 8.1 percent.
  That is also attributed to the fact that Minnesota has one of the 
largest and most dynamic pockets of medical device companies in the 
country. I mentioned a few of the big ones, but there are also many 
small thriving companies. Many of our biggest innovations have come 
from the small companies, adding up to about 400 firms employing over 
35,000 people across our State.
  We cannot forget that it was Minnesota that brought the world one of 
the biggest innovations in the country. I am not talking about the 
Post-It note, although it is true that did come from our State. I am 
talking about the pacemaker, which we give thanks to a company called 
Micronic that started out in a garage in Minneapolis.
  So our roots run deep in this industry. But medical technology is 
just not important to Minnesota, it is important to our country, 
putting billions of dollars in our economy each year. It is important 
to the world. The devices we make in the United States do not just save 
lives locally, they save lives globally.
  As we look at potential exports and how we are going to reach the 
President's goal of doubling our exports in 5 years, and how we are 
going to get out of the economic rut we have been in, a lot has to do 
with exports, new markets, and a rising middle class in countries such 
as China and India where people are finally going to the hospital, will 
use our medical devices, and will bring jobs to the United States.
  But that only works if these medical devices get approved and if we 
are able to make them, have the skilled workers to make them, and can 
beat our competition, basically, of companies in other countries that 
may be growing unless we make sure we have a proper approval process 
here that keeps things safe but also moves smoothly and quickly. The 
kind of meaningful, innovative work that our country needs more of is 
this kind of work. It is high-tech manufacturing, and that is what we 
need more of in this country.
  As cochair of the bipartisan Med-Tech Caucus in the Senate, I have 
had several conversations with FDA about ways to improve this 
regulatory environment. I have introduced bills, as has the Presiding 
Officer, and looked at the

[[Page S3470]]

importance of putting in things that guarantee safety but also make 
sure we improve the process so we get more innovation and more jobs in 
this country.
  If we are not careful, as we know, continents such as Europe--if they 
move faster than us, as they have in some instances, then we have a 
problem because then the venture capital money goes to Europe. With 
China requiring country-of-origin approval, we can have a situation 
where companies decide they can get things done quicker if they move 
their business to a place such as Europe and then get the approvals in 
place so they can sell in China. We do not want that to happen.
  The FDA will now be responsible for total review time goals. That is 
an important part of this bill. This measures the time from submission 
of a new application to the time the technology is available to 
patients. Putting the FDA on the hook for this measure will streamline 
the approval process and help get innovative and lifesaving devices and 
treatments to patients.
  In addition to improved review times and performance standards, the 
one aspect I hear about the most from our medical device companies, 
both small and large, is they need better communication between the FDA 
and industry. This agreement takes significant steps to address this 
issue by opening clear lines of discussion before a submission is made. 
This helps provide companies with clear direction and requires the FDA 
to stick to their commitments.
  It also requires interaction between the FDA and the applicant during 
the review process to keep everyone on the same page and avoid 
miscommunication and costly delays. The agreement also requires the FDA 
to work with companies to find the best path forward if goals are not 
met. Most importantly, this legislation will give the FDA the tools 
necessary to meet these goals.
  This agreement provides for $595 million in user fees over the next 5 
years. This is meant to provide for additional reviewers, enhanced 
training, and increased efficiencies to help improve FDA performance 
and help patients get access to the most innovative and safest products 
available.
  But a positive user fee agreement does not guarantee success. We must 
also focus on the execution and administration of these new resources 
and new guidelines. That is why I introduced a bipartisan bill with 
Richard Burr of North Carolina, a Republican, and Michael Bennet of 
Colorado, a Democrat, that would significantly improve the regulatory 
process.
  It would tackle three important things related to the approval 
process: First, it would increase efficiency by strengthening the 
agency's least burdensome principle, which has been continuously 
overlooked by FDA's reviewers. The average time to approve an 
application has increased 43 percent from the 2003-to-2007 time period 
to 2010. This simply is unacceptable.
  Second, it would improve conflict-of-interest provisions making it 
easier for the FDA to recruit top-line experts to take part in the 
review process.
  This would allow the FDA to protect the integrity of the review from 
undue conflicts of interest but also take advantage of available 
expertise.
  Third, it would require the FDA to use an independent consulting 
organization to assess the management processes at the Center on 
Devices. This would encourage the agency to consider the impact of its 
decisions on innovation, while also considering the balance between the 
risk and benefits of the new devices.
  I am thankful that, in working with Senators Harkin and Enzi, we were 
able to include these improvements in this bipartisan legislation.
  Equally as important to improving the regulatory process at the FDA, 
this legislation also includes my provision on drug shortages. I have 
come to the floor several times in the past year to talk about the 
crisis as it has impacted individuals all across our country. There is 
the story of a little 4-year-old boy who was going to get treatment for 
his leukemia, and his parents were put in a panic. He was a little bald 
boy with a smile on his face. They found out that the drug he needed, 
Cytarabine, was missing in action; it was not in the hospital, not in 
the pharmacy. They were actually looking into booking flights to Canada 
so that he could get the drug treatment he needed. At the last minute 
someone located the drug.
  Sadly, that doesn't happen in many cases across the country, where we 
have had people come forward and talk about missing breast cancer 
treatments and people who have died because drugs were not available. 
The fact that physicians, nurses, and pharmacists are spending hours 
and hours of their time, which should be spent with patients, looking 
for pharmaceuticals is an outrage.
  We know there are many reasons for this. We are glad the industry was 
willing to work with us to come up with at least a short-term patch 
here, where the FDA will be alerted as a result of the provisions in 
this bill when the pharmaceutical companies believe there is going to 
be a shortage. Right now, they are only required to do it for orphan 
drugs. Now they will be required to do it for all drugs. These can be 
shortages as a result of raw materials that are not there, as a result 
of mergers in the pharmaceutical industry, or shortages as a result of 
a decision not to produce a drug because it may not be as profitable or 
shortages because of all kinds of things that could happen in the 
course of commerce.
  The key point here is that when the FDA finds out early, they have 
been able to avert drug crises. They can find another manufacturer in 
our country or abroad, and they get the drugs in; they have done it 
over 200 times in 2 years. This will give them more tools to be able to 
avert what is an escalating crisis in this country where we are seeing 
more and more shortages of drugs on a weekly basis.
  As I said, I am glad this bipartisan provision--and Senator Casey 
introduced it originally with me, and we have had support from Senator 
Collins and others, and our working group worked out an agreement to 
get this provision in the Senate bill, with good prospects in the House 
under the leadership of Congresswoman DeGette from Colorado.
  I thank my colleagues for their work for two reasons. One, this is 
important for medical devices and pharmaceuticals in terms of getting 
fast approval, and that is better for patients and for jobs in America 
as we become a country again that makes products and invests in goods 
that we export to the world. To do that, you need the regulatory 
process working.
  Second, this bill is good because it contains a drug shortage 
provision to finally get at something that is long overdue, and that is 
the escalating crisis of drugs that have gone missing, which should be 
in the hands of patients across this country. Now we put them in a much 
better position in terms of being able to find alternative drugs in 
either our country or others, so we don't have these shortages we are 
seeing every day. That is why I think it is very important that we get 
this bill done soon.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            The Disclose Act

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a subject 
that I know is dear to the heart of the Presiding Officer, which is the 
sorry state of our campaign finance system and the need for the 
DISCLOSE Act of 2012, which we call DISCLOSE 2.0.
  The Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal 
Election Commission opened the floodgates to unlimited corporate and 
special-interest money in our elections, bringing about an era in which 
corporations and other wealthy interests can drown out the voices of 
individual voters in our political system. Worse still, much of this 
spending is anonymous, so we don't even know who is spending millions 
to influence our elections.
  Here is how my State's newspaper, the Providence Journal, explained 
it when the ruling came down:

       The ruling will mean that, more than ever, big-spending 
     economic interests will determine who gets elected. More 
     money will especially pour into relentless attack campaigns. 
     Free speech for most individuals will

[[Page S3471]]

     suffer because their voices will count for even less than 
     they do now. They will simply be drowned out by the big 
     money.

  The Providence Journal had a lot of foresight with that warning. What 
has happened since then has proven them right. Senator John McCain 
recently said this:

       I predicted when the United States Supreme Court, with 
     their absolute ignorance of what happens in politics, struck 
     down the law--

  Referring to the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law

       --That there would be a flood of money into campaigns, not 
     transparent, unaccounted for, and this is exactly what is 
     happening.

  Senator McCain, is it ever. In the 2010 midterm election, the first 
after Citizens United, there was more than a fourfold increase in 
expenditures from super PACs and other outside groups compared to 2006, 
with nearly three-quarters of political advertising coming from sources 
that were prohibited from spending money in 2006. Also in 2010, 
501(c)(4) and (c)(6) not-for-profit organizations spent more than $135 
million in unlimited and secret contributions. This anonymous secret 
spending rose from 1 percent of outside spending in 2006 to 44 percent 
in 2010.
  We are already seeing the influence of money on the 2012 elections. 
Super PACs and other outside groups have spent around $140 million in 
this election cycle. That is about twice what was spent over the same 
period in 2008 during the last Presidential election. In the 2 weeks 
leading up to Super Tuesday, outside PACs that supported the Republican 
Presidential candidates spent three times as much on advertising as the 
campaigns did themselves.

  There are already signs things are going to get even worse. The 
Washington Post reported:

       Groups that do not reveal their funding sources have spent 
     $28.5 million on advertising related to the November 
     presidential matchup, or about ninety percent of the total.

  Ninety percent. And these are groups that don't reveal their funding 
sources.
  Our campaign finance system is broken. Action is required to fix it. 
Americans of all political stripes are disgusted by the influence of 
unlimited, anonymous corporate cash in our elections, and disgusted by 
campaigns that succeed or fail depending on how many billionaires the 
candidates have in their pockets. More and more, people believe their 
government responds only to wealthy and corporate interests.
  As they see their jobs disappear and their wages stagnate and 
bailouts and special deals for the big guys, they lose ever more faith 
their elected officials are actually listening to them. Over the 
deafening roar of secret special interest spending, they get harder and 
harder to listen to.
  This growing consensus across the political spectrum was reflected in 
the brief Senator John McCain and I filed with the Supreme Court last 
week in American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock. In that brief, we 
urged the Court to reconsider the flawed central premise of its 
decision in Citizens United: the proposition that independent 
expenditures do not lead to corruption or the appearance of corruption.
  As the statistics about anonymous spending and public perception make 
clear, this premise is discredited. I am proud to have worked on the 
brief with Senator McCain, who has long been a leader in Congress on 
campaign finance issues. I hope our partnership will mark the beginning 
of greater cooperation across party lines on this issue of vital 
importance to the integrity of our great American democracy. I also 
hope the Supreme Court will take heed of the nearly universal opinion 
that the system they have unleashed in Citizens United puts our very 
democracy in jeopardy.
  Until the Court acts, or until we enact a constitutional amendment to 
repair what they have done, we are left with one weapon in the fight 
against the overwhelming tidal wave of money from special interests--
and that is disclosure. At least make them fess up to who they are.
  That is why I stand here today in support of the DISCLOSE Act of 2012 
or, as I said, DISCLOSE 2.0, in recognition of Senator Schumer's great 
work on the DISCLOSE Act. This legislation will shine a bright light on 
these powerful interests and their spending. With this legislation, 
which now has 43 cosponsors in the Senate, every citizen will know who 
is spending these great sums of money to get their candidates elected 
and to influence those candidates.
  I would like to give particular thanks to the previous Presiding 
Officer, Senator Franken, and the current Presiding Officer, Senator 
Tom Udall, as well as Senators Chuck Schumer, Michael Bennet, Jeff 
Merkley, and Jeanne Shaheen for their hard work on developing this 
legislation. Senator Schumer, as we all know, has been leading the 
charge for disclosure since Citizens United upended and fouled our 
campaign finance system.
  In 2010, with Senator Schumer's leadership, we came within one vote 
of passing the original DISCLOSE Act. Since then, the problem of 
anonymous, unaccountable special interest money has become much worse. 
We must redouble our efforts and pass DISCLOSE 2.0.
  DISCLOSE 2.0 says two very simple things: First, if you are an 
organization, such as a corporation, a super PAC, or a 501(c)(4), and 
you are spending money in an election campaign in support of or in 
opposition to a candidate, you have to tell the public where that money 
came from and what you are spending it on in a timely manner.
  That should not be a controversial idea to anyone, at least to anyone 
who is not seeking secret special influence. This chart shows how easy 
it is under our current system for wealthy interests to anonymously 
spend millions on election ads. This amounts to a form of legalized 
money laundering or identity laundering. Super PACs are supposed to 
disclose their donors under current law. But if someone wants to avoid 
that disclosure, they can set up a shell corporation, which may be 
nothing more than a P.O. box, and send the money to the super PAC 
through that.
  Worse still, instead of using a shell corporation, they can pass the 
money through to a 501(c)(4), a so-called ``social welfare'' 
organization set up just for the purpose of spending money in 
elections. Think about that. The IRS gives nonprofit status to groups 
whose primary purpose in many cases is to shield billionaires and 
corporations spending money in elections from having their identities 
disclosed. In many cases, these 501(c)(4) groups are so closely 
affiliated with their super PACs they have all the same staff and all 
the same office space, and the (c)(4) groups still don't have to 
disclose the identities of their donors.
  On this chart we see the money raised through the end of 2011 by two 
political groups started after Citizens United by Republican political 
operatives. These two organizations have the same staff and the same 
office space, and they run negative ads against many of the same 
candidates. One, American Crossroads, is a super PAC and is supposed to 
disclose its donors. The other, Crossroads GPS, is a 501(c)(4) group 
and doesn't have to disclose donors. Guess which one has raised more 
money. Of course it is the 501(c)(4) group which doesn't have to 
disclose its donors. That group has raised $76.8 million as compared to 
only $46.4 million by its sister super PAC.
  This is, by no means, a unique situation. For corporations trying to 
buy influence through spending in elections, ``nondisclosure is always 
preferred,'' as an unnamed corporate lobbyist recently told Politico. 
Why? Well, for one thing there is no accountability--not to the company 
shareholders, not to their customers, and not to the public. 
Nondisclosure is ``preferred'' because it makes it impossible for the 
public and for law enforcement to track the corrupting influence of the 
money these corporations spend in elections. DISCLOSE 2.0 would put an 
end to using 501(c)(4) groups and shell corporations to shield the 
identities of big campaign contributors.
  One thing that shouldn't be lost in this discussion of anonymous 
spending is the fact there is one person to whom this spending is 
certainly not anonymous, and that is the candidate--the elected 
official. The donors manage to hide their identities from the public, 
but they can sure tell the candidate how much money they put into that 
candidate's super PAC and what positions they want the candidate to 
take on issues. What this creates is a perfect

[[Page S3472]]

formula for corruption: wealthy corporations and individuals spending 
millions of dollars to influence a candidate without any oversight or 
public accountability or scrutiny.
  Also, as a former Attorney General--and I know the Presiding Officer, 
the Senator from New Mexico, can appreciate this as well--a well-heeled 
donor doesn't have to make the contribution necessarily, doesn't have 
to launch the ad necessarily. They can also secretly threaten a massive 
expenditure against a candidate if the candidate doesn't vote right on 
their issue. Political scientist Norm Ornstein recently said:

       I have had this tale told to me by a number of lawmakers. 
     You're sitting in your office and a lobbyist comes in and 
     says, ``I'm working with Americans for a Better America. And 
     I can't tell you who's funding them, but I can tell you they 
     really, really want this amendment in the bill.'' And who 
     knows what they'll do? They have more money than God.

  If the candidate complies and does the right thing by the amendment 
or the right thing by the bill, the expenditure is never made. There 
will be no paper trail; no trace of the threat that drove that vote--
that corrupted that vote--was ever made.
  The whole rationale for unlimited spending was that it was going to 
be done independently of the candidate's campaign. That has proven 
false. The reality is that super PACs are anything but independent. 
Campaigns and super PACs share fundraising lists, donors, former staff, 
and consultants. Candidates appear at fundraisers for their super PACs, 
and super PACs recycle ads originally run by the candidates. They are 
free to act as the ``evil twins'' of candidate campaigns, as one FEC 
Commissioner put it, raising unlimited, anonymous money and then 
spending it on massive amounts of advertising--most of it negative--
which further hides the identity of the interest behind the ad because 
if all you are doing is trashing a candidate, you don't even have to 
show what your interest is, let alone your identity.
  About 70 percent of ads in this election cycle have, as a result, 
been negative ads, up from only 9 percent in 2008. This brings us to 
the second thing DISCLOSE 2.0 does. If someone is a top executive or a 
major donor of an organization spending millions of dollars on campaign 
ads, they have to take responsibility for their ads, just the way we do 
as candidates. These are reasonable provisions that should have wide 
support from Democrats and Republicans alike. As Trevor Potter, a 
Republican former Chairman of the Federal Election Commission, said in 
a statement submitted to the Rules Committee of the Senate:

       [DISCLOSE 2.0 is] . . . appropriately targeted, narrowly 
     tailored, clearly constitutional, and desperately needed.

  We have made every effort to craft an effective and fair proposal 
while imposing the least possible burden on covered organizations. 
Passing this law would remove a dark cloud of unlimited, anonymous 
money from our elections, and it would prove to the American people 
that Congress is capable of fairness, equality, and following the 
fundamental principle of a government ``of the people, by the people, 
and for the people.''
  I urge my colleagues to support the DISCLOSE Act of 2012.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I was just listening to the 
Senator who is now in the Chair, and I want to congratulate him on 
filing that amicus brief with Senator McCain in the Supreme Court. I 
believe the Supreme Court should heed the good advice both Senator 
McCain and Senator Whitehouse have given them, and I think if they do 
not heed that advice, the authority they have undertaken themselves 
will be taken away from them by the people who are urging a 
constitutional amendment to give this back to the Congress and back to 
the State legislatures.
  I join my colleagues today to highlight what I consider a significant 
problem in our country--the unprecedented flow of money into our 
democratic elections.
  Over the past several months, a group of us have been working 
together to address this problem. We have asked the FEC, IRS, and the 
FCC to take actions that would help curb the impact of money on our 
elections.
  Led by Senator Whitehouse, we have introduced the DISCLOSE Act. This 
bill would shine a light into the dark corners of the campaign finance 
system. Senator Bennet and I have introduced a constitutional 
amendment, which currently has 22 cosponsors, to overturn the 
disastrous judicial opinions that have led to the broken system we have 
today.
  In January 2010, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Citizens 
United v. FEC. Two months later, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals 
decided the SpeechNow v. FEC case. These two cases gave rise to the 
super PACs.
  Millions of dollars now pour into negative and misleading campaign 
ads, and often without disclosing the true source of the donations. But 
our campaign finance system was hardly a model of democracy before 
these disastrous opinions. The Citizens United and SpeechNow decisions 
renewed our concerns about campaign finance, but the Court laid the 
groundwork many years ago.
  We can go all the way back to 1976. That year, the Court held in 
Buckley v. Valeo that restricting independent campaign expenditures 
violates the first amendment right to free speech; in effect, that 
money and speech are the same thing.
  The damage is clear. Elections become more about the quantity of the 
cash and less about the quality of ideas; more about the special 
interests and less about public service.
  We cannot truly fix this broken system until we undo the flawed 
premise that spending money on elections is the same thing as 
exercising free speech. That only can be achieved in two ways: The 
Court could overturn Buckley and subsequent decisions based on it, 
something the current Court seems highly unlikely to do, or we amend 
the Constitution to not only overturn the previous bad Court decisions 
but also to prevent future ones. Until then, we will fall short of the 
real reform that is needed.
  In Federalist No. 49, James Madison argued that the U.S. Constitution 
should be amended only on ``great and extraordinary occasions.'' I 
believe we have reached one of those occasions. In today's political 
campaigns, our free and fair elections--a founding principle of our 
great democracy--are for sale to the highest bidder.
  I know amending the Constitution is difficult. And it should be. But 
we didn't start this effort last year or even in the last Congress. 
Others before us have urged that this longstanding problem needs a 
long-term solution. Many of our predecessors understood the corrosive 
effect money has on our political system. They spent years championing 
the cause.
  Senator Fritz Hollings introduced bipartisan constitutional 
amendments similar to our amendment in every Congress from the 99th 
Congress to the 108th Congress. Senators Schumer and Cochran introduced 
one in the 109th Congress. And those were all before the Citizens 
United decision--before things went from bad to worse. The out-of-
control spending since that decision has further poisoned our 
elections, but it has also ignited a broad movement to amend the 
Constitution.
  I participated in a panel discussion in January with several 
activists in this movement. One of the panelists, Maryland State 
Senator Jamie Raskin, was asked about overcoming the difficulty of 
amending the Constitution. Jamie said that:

       A constitutional amendment always seems impossible until it 
     becomes inevitable.

  I think we are finally reaching the point of inevitability.
  Across the country, more than 200 local resolutions have passed 
calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. 
Legislators in four States--Hawaii, Vermont, Rhode Island, and my home 
State of New Mexico--have called on Congress to send an amendment to 
the States for ratification. Many more States

[[Page S3473]]

have similar resolutions pending. Over 1 million citizens have signed 
petitions in support of an amendment, and more than 100 organizations 
under the banner of United for the People are advocating for 
constitutional remedies.
  This grassroots movement is yielding progress. In addition to our 
amendment, several other campaign finance-related amendments have been 
introduced in the House and the Senate. Senators Leahy and Durbin 
recently announced that Senator Durbin's Judiciary Subcommittee on the 
Constitution will hold a hearing on the Senate proposals in July. I 
thank them for their support. The hearing will be a great opportunity 
to examine the different approaches, to solicit input from 
constitutional experts, and to have a national discussion about the 
need to return our elections to the American people.
  I hope this dialogue will convince some of my Republican colleagues 
to join me. Fixing our campaign finance system is only a partisan issue 
in Washington. A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found that nearly 
70 percent of registered voters want super PACs to be illegal. Among 
independent voters, that figure rose to 78 percent. But the Court, in 
its misguided reading of the first amendment, told the Congress that we 
can't rein in super PACs. In doing so, it gave millionaires and 
billionaires unchecked power to influence our elections. It has allowed 
a flood of PAC money to drown out the voices of average Americans. This 
is a fatal misreading of the real world of political campaigns, and it 
is wrong. Supporters of super PACs and unlimited campaign spending 
claim they are promoting the democratic process. But the public knows 
better. Wealthy individuals and special interests are buying our 
elections. Citizens United has meant citizens denied. Our Nation cannot 
afford a system that says ``come on in'' to the rich and powerful, and 
says ``don't bother'' to everyone else.
  The faith of the American people and their electoral system is shaken 
by big money. It is time to restore that faith. It is time for Congress 
to take back control.
  I know the Senator from Rhode Island, as Senator Whitehouse, has 
worked very hard on this issue, and has pulled us together. I believe 
we are going to have others join us in this hour. The crucial thing we 
are trying to say is we need reform, we need disclosure. We need to get 
to the bottom of what is happening in this broken system and get our 
democracy back for the American people.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). Without objection, 
it is so ordered.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, while we are waiting for the next 
speaker to arrive, I wanted to take a moment and discuss the brief 
Senator McCain and I filed in the Supreme Court last week. It can be 
found at http://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/download/?id=e3ba7f1b-d132 
4aef-b5bc-c49fd711fc51.
  The Supreme Court in the Citizens United decision was in a difficult 
situation. No member of the Court had ever run in an election for 
office. It may be the first time in the history of a country that no 
member of the Supreme Court had ever run for office, so it is a Supreme 
Court that as a corporate group was uniquely inexperienced in the 
actual ins and outs of elections and politics.
  Moreover, the way the Citizens United case came up to the Court, the 
question they ended up deciding is one that they asked for additional 
briefing on. It is a question that, in many respects, the Court raised 
itself. And so the Court did not have the benefit of the usual process 
of a case beginning in the trial court and amassing a record of 
evidence, of testimony, of witnesses, of a review of all of that at the 
appellate court level, and then final review at the Supreme Court. So 
they did something very unusual. They actually made a finding of fact.
  A finding of fact is not something Supreme Courts are supposed to do 
in the first instance. That is the job of the trial judge and the jury, 
if there is a jury trial. Those are the fact-finders in our system of 
law. And certainly for a Supreme Court that has an appellate tribunal 
between it and the trial branches, as our Federal system does, it is 
very unusual for them to be making findings of fact. They made findings 
of fact in this case. And, unfortunately, because they had no 
experience in elections, any of them, and because they had no record, 
they made a finding of fact that was not in fact a fact. They made a 
finding of a false fact.
  The mistake they made was to determine that no amount of corporate 
spending in an election could create either the risk or the appearance 
of corruption, and I think the practical facts of that are pretty easy 
to rebut.
  They stood that finding of fact, that premise, on two subordinate 
premises and we rebut both of them in the brief. If I have further 
time, I will come back to that, but I see that the Senator from New 
Hampshire is here and I do not want to cut into her time, so I yield to 
the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, and I appreciate her 
great work through the long period of discussion and draftsmanship that 
brought 2.0 to the floor with its now 43 cosponsors.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am pleased that I could be here today 
to join you, to join Senator Whitehouse and our colleagues who have 
been working to try to bring to light for the public the serious and 
ongoing problem of excessive campaign spending. I congratulate Senator 
Whitehouse for all of his work in leading this effort. It has been very 
important.
  This excessive spending has been a problem for the last 2 years, 
since the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United, because their 
decision has allowed for the formation of what has been called super 
PACs, which are really organizations that can spend unlimited amounts 
of money without ever having to disclose where that money came from. So 
the public doesn't know who is spending the money, doesn't know how the 
decisions about spending are made.
  We are actually in the middle of the first Presidential election 
since that Supreme Court decision, and we can see the dramatic impact 
of that spending. There are now more than 500 super PACs registered 
with the Federal Election Commission. They are permitted to raise and 
spend unlimited amounts of secret money to fund political 
advertisements.
  Again, I want to emphasize the fact that we do not know where this 
money is coming from. We do not know if it is coming from corporations. 
We have heard a lot of stories and seen a lot of stories that there are 
very wealthy individuals who are putting up money for these super PACs. 
But the amount of money that has been spent by these super PACs so far 
this election cycle alone has just topped $100 million. Nearly $80 
million of that came from just five groups.
  As we are looking at this money being spent, it is important for all 
of us to reflect on our national priorities. What does it say about our 
country that we allow this kind of deluge of money to flood our 
electoral process? Who is really being represented? Are average voters 
in America being represented in this process?
  To provide some perspective, I think it might be useful to examine 
what else this amount of money could pay for. In the past few weeks we 
have been discussing the importance of providing survivors of domestic 
violence and sexual assault with the resources they need by 
reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. What has already been 
spent so far by these super PACs, $100 million, could fund all of the 
domestic violence and sexual assault assistance in the State of New 
Hampshire for 20 years. It could serve more than 320,000 victims.
  The New Hampshire job training program provides workers with valuable 
instruction at community colleges across our State. It prepares workers 
for high-skilled jobs and creates a stronger economy. With the $100 
million that has been spent by these super PACs, we could train 288,434 
workers in New Hampshire. Mr. President, $100 million would provide 
low-income heating assistance to more than 135,000 households. That is 
enough to keep

[[Page S3474]]

New Hampshire's neediest families warm for three winters.
  The starting salary for a police officer in the city of Manchester, 
the largest city in New Hampshire, is $50,000. With $100 million we 
could put an additional 2,000 police officers on the street. Instead, 
this money is being spent on political advertisements, millions of 
dollars from groups that refuse to disclose their donors. Most of these 
expenditures are being made on attack ads. According to a study by the 
Wesleyan Media Project, at this point during the last Presidential 
campaign in 2008, just 10 percent of the ads were negative. Now, in 
this Presidential campaign, 70 percent of those ads are negative. It is 
no wonder that Americans are becoming increasingly disillusioned with 
our political process.
  The challenges confronting this country are significant. We need 
Americans to be engaged and invested in our political process, not 
throwing up their hands in frustration as the attack ads pile up. We 
need campaign finance reform.
  I have been pleased to work with the Presiding Officer, with Senator 
Whitehouse, and with all of our colleagues in developing the DISCLOSE 
Act, which makes some important changes to our system. Senator 
Whitehouse described the DISCLOSE Act very well. It will make sure 
voters know who is paying for all of these campaign ads. It does not 
eliminate super PACs, but it is a very important step in the right 
direction.
  I urge all our colleagues to join us in calling for change and urging 
reform of our campaign finance system. I urge everyone in this body to 
support the DISCLOSE Act.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to ask a question 
of my colleague from Rhode Island.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I was very engaged by the comments 
Senator Whitehouse was making a short time ago. I was very struck, as I 
have been all along, by the substantial challenge posed by Citizens 
United. My colleague was speaking to the impact on our constitutional 
system. When I think about this, I often think about those first three 
words of our Constitution, ``we the people.'' Is it the Senator's sense 
that this phrase, ``we the people,'' that starts out the Constitution 
is more than simple window dressing? Does it go to the heart of who and 
what we are as a society, as a nation?
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. The great experiment that the Founders of this 
country embarked upon when they founded this country was to allow for a 
democratic form of government that was governed by the people--not 
kings, not lords, not pharaohs, by the people. It has been a consistent 
thread throughout our history at important times.
  As the Civil War came to a close and our beloved President Lincoln 
stood at Gettysburg to give his great address, he talked about the 
importance of a government ``of the people, by the people, and for the 
people.'' That has always been the core, heart, and hallmark of the 
American form of government.
  It has lit a blaze that has illuminated the rest of the world as 
well. It is not just an American value. People from around the world 
look at this and say: You know, it can be that way.

  Mr. MERKLEY. So I think if any three words would summarize the heart 
of our Constitution, it would be those three words. It would be ``we 
the people.'' Yet we have a Supreme Court decision, Citizens United, 
that essentially unleashes a flood of special interest money. Is that 
fundamentally in conflict with the notion of ``we the people''?
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I believe it is. We operate in a modern world in 
which we are bombarded by media. The average person, the average, 
ordinary member of ``the people,'' does not have much access to that 
media, cannot get his or her voice much heard in that bombardment. But 
if someone has enormous amounts of money, either because they are a 
corporation with a vast treasury or because they are a billionaire, 
they can take a big chunk of that media and can use it to broadcast 
their view. That will drown out other voices that do not have that 
power. So it really does attack the basic premise of ``we the people.''
  Mr. MERKLEY. So Citizens United goes right against the very heart of 
our Constitution. How is it possible that the Supreme Court found, in 
this 5-to-4 decision, that this has no corrupting impact on our 
electoral process?
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I think three things went wrong. First of all, this 
is a Supreme Court that, unlike most if not all other Supreme Courts, 
has no political experience. None of them have ever run for office, so 
they do not have a practical sense of how politics engages in an 
election.
  Second, because they sort of invented this question, they did not 
have a record where people who did know about politics and did know 
about elections and did know about corruption could assemble a record 
from which they could then learn. So they were operating in a much 
greater vacuum than the Supreme Court usually does.
  Finally, they made two presumptions that supported it. One was that 
the super PACs and all these big entities would be independent from the 
candidates. We have seen that was a false assumption. That was a wrong 
premise. Now the super PACs are connected to a candidate. They have one 
purpose: to get the candidate elected. They have funds raised by the 
candidate, they share staff with the candidate, they share consultants 
with the candidate. They use the same footage as the candidate. The 
idea that they are independent has been made preposterous by the facts.
  The second was that there would be disclosure so the public could at 
least evaluate, OK, this is the coal mining industry coming after 
somebody who is fighting for climate change. We get that. We can make 
an appropriate judgment about that use of corporate money to attack a 
candidate. They were wrong about that as well. That is why we are here 
on this DISCLOSE 2.0, and we have been working so hard to make sure 
this bill has gotten to the floor in the good shape it has been.
  Mr. MERKLEY. So the Supreme Court envisioned this steel wall, this 
high, impenetrable wall between an independent campaign and the 
candidate's campaign, and thereby saw fit to unleash unlimited money on 
one side of the wall while saying the other side has campaign caps, and 
that made sense together but their fundamental premise was wrong?
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Absolutely dead wrong, as proven by reality. It is 
not just a theoretical wrongness, it is a factual, actual wrongness.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Most of our campaigns for the Senate involve millions of 
dollars--some are $2 million, some are $20 million, some more. There 
are super PACs that have that much money and can bring that much money 
to bear in a single race. Did the Supreme Court wrestle with the type 
of intimidation, that precensorship, the precensorship impact on this 
body when somebody thinks about what should I say? Do I want to offend 
someone who has, not just $1 million but millions and millions of 
dollars to bring to bear? Did they wrestle with the impact on 
corrupting the debate and dialog and decisionmaking of this body?
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Not only did they not wrestle with it, it is not 
clear they even thought about it. When there are people who have come 
out of the judicial monastery--not quite the right word because they 
are men and women alike--but out of the separate province of high-end 
adjudication, they are not familiar with this. They did not think of 
this. They didn't think of that, and the other thing they didn't think 
of was that the threat of launching a multimillion-dollar negative 
attack against a candidate could have a corrupting effect, even if no 
dollars were ever spent.
  If the threat is successful, if the scheme works, there is no trail 
left to it. Before Citizens United, if someone wanted to make a threat, 
their threat was limited to a big PAC contribution, having a big 
fundraiser, things like that. It was not a real threat in the sense it 
could knock somebody out of their office.
  Now the idea that a corporate identity can hide its identity, can 
launder its identity through 501(c)(4)s and then launch a multimillion-
dollar attack in somebody's State is a credible threat, and I think 
that is a threat, among others, they overlooked completely.
  Mr. MERKLEY. I thank my colleague from Rhode Island very much for

[[Page S3475]]

championing this bill and for what he has done helping folks to 
understand this issue.
  I will make a few comments on this issue. My friend from Vermont is 
standing by and, I think, wants to make some remarks as well.
  I wanted to have the key words we are talking about put up before us. 
This is a picture of the Constitution, or at least the top of the front 
page, if you will. I was always struck that our Founders saw fit to 
start this document that lays out the framework for our Nation, the 
framework for our system of government, with three simple words, ``we 
the people.'' They got to it right from the very beginning. They did 
not put in three paragraphs of polite this and that and then get to the 
heart of it. They started with the heart: ``We the people.'' They did 
not put it in small print, they put it in super-sized print. We can see 
it is written in a font that is probably 10 times the size of the rest 
of the Constitution. They deliberately said this is the premise on 
which our Nation will operate. This is the foundation on which we 
stand.
  These words are not ``we the powerful.'' There is a huge distinction 
between ``we the people'' and ``we the powerful.'' But the Supreme 
Court, in Citizens United, attacked the very heart of our 
Constitution--by saying the most powerful companies with vast sums of 
money can flood our political system, can buy up the airwaves, and 
completely dominate the conversation.

  Free speech wasn't about one side buying up the airwaves. Airwaves 
didn't exist then. It wasn't about one side buying up the airwaves. It 
was about all ideas being able to compete in the marketplace of ideas 
so citizens could hear the pros and cons and decide who they wished to 
elect and how they wished to vote based on their understanding of what 
would work best for ``we the people.''
  The Supreme Court did not benefit from seeing the Republican 
primaries of this year in operation. They didn't see how a super PAC 
would sweep into a State, buy up the airwaves, dominate the 
conversation, and determine the outcome. No, they had some other 
vision. My colleague has referred to the fact that none of the members 
of the Supreme Court had the political experience to understand the 
impact of this flood of money.
  You may be thinking to yourself: Well, how much money can we be 
talking about? Well, money beyond an amount that a working man or woman 
could ever envision. If it were in dollar bills and stacked in a room 
in your house, it would fill the room in your house, plus. All of those 
dollar bills would not fit into a room. We are talking about such an 
enormous amount of money that it completely controls the sound in the 
airwaves.
  Let me give you an example. In 2008, if one of the rather well-off 
companies in America--I will use one as an example. ExxonMobil made a 
lot of money that year. If they had spent just $3 out of $100 of their 
net profits on the Presidential race, they would have spent as much as 
the rest of America put together. That is the type of flood of money we 
are talking about washing across the cities and the countryside of 
America, buying up the newspapers, buying up the airwaves, and 
dominating the debate. That is not a competition of ideas envisioned in 
our Constitution. That is the power. That is not ``we the people.''
  It is my hope that the members of the Supreme Court will stand back 
and realize their findings of fact were wrong, and their findings of 
fact that there was no corruption from this flood of money were wrong, 
their argument that they didn't attack the heart of the Constitution 
was wrong, the fact that they didn't consider the precensorship this 
type of flood of money creates was in error, and that they will change 
their decision.
  But we can't be sure this activist rightwing Court will consider the 
facts and reach a finding consistent with the very heart of the 
Constitution. We can't be sure of that. We have to do what we can in 
this Chamber, and that is the DISCLOSE Act, the DISCLOSE Act that at 
least says at a minimum this huge flood of money will be identified by 
the donor, and it will be identified promptly so citizens will be able 
to find out where it came from; also that the advertisements purchased 
by this money will have disclaimers that will say who the major 
contributors are so the citizens can see it in real time, so when that 
group says they are the group for America's green forests and blue 
skies, and it is really by a very powerful group against blue skies and 
green forests, we can find out who it is. That is the heart of this. 
Citizens United is a dagger poised at the heart of the American 
Constitution. We must reverse it, and we must use every tool at our 
disposal to make that happen.
  I encourage citizens to summon their full instincts about what they 
value in our democracy and make their voices heard. Let's get this 
DISCLOSE Act passed and let's go further to reverse Citizens United.
  Thank you very much.
  I yield the floor to my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Whitehouse and Senator 
Merkley and everybody else for the very hard work they have done on 
this monumentally important issue. It is hard for me to think of an 
issue that is more important.
  A moment ago Senator Merkley used the word ``precensorship,'' which 
is an interesting concept. I want to give an example of this.
  Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record an article that appeared in the ``American Banker'' fairly 
recently.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the American Banker, May 23, 2012]

   Bankers Form SuperPac for `Surgical' Strike at Industry's Enemies

                          (By Barbara A. Rehm)

       Frustrated by a lack of political power and fed up with 
     blindly donating to politicians who consistently vote against 
     the industry's interests, a handful of leaders are determined 
     to shake things up.
       They have formed the industry's first SuperPAC--dubbed 
     Friends of Traditional Banking--that is designed to target 
     the industry's enemies and support its friends in Congress.
       ``It comes back to the old philosophy of walking softly and 
     carrying a big stick,'' says Howard Headlee, the president 
     and chief executive officer of the Utah Bankers Association. 
     ``But we've got no big stick. And we should. We have the 
     capacity to have one, we just aren't organized.''
       Think of it as an Emily's List for bankers and their 
     allies.
       ``Congress isn't afraid of bankers,'' adds Roger Beverage, 
     the president and CEO of the Oklahoma Bankers Association. 
     ``They don't think we'll do anything to kick them out of 
     office. We are trying to change that perception.''
       Unlike traditional banking PACs, which target hundreds of 
     House and Senate races, the SuperPAC instead is focusing on 
     making a big difference in just a handful of close elections.
       SuperPACs are the latest campaign finance innovation, made 
     possible by two 2010 court decisions. They are officially 
     known as ``independent-expenditure only committees'' because 
     they are not allowed to coordinate their activities with 
     candidates. SuperPACs are attractive because there are no 
     limits on contributions or expenditures.
       With a regular political action committee, like the 
     American Bankers Association's BankPAC, an individual may 
     donate no more than $5,000 a year. Then the PAC may 
     contribute up to $10,000 to any one candidate in an 
     election--cycle $5,000 for the primary and another $5,000 for 
     the general election.
       But Friends of Traditional Banking can direct as much money 
     as it can raise to certain races without such restrictions. 
     Matt Packard, the SuperPAC's chairman and president and CEO 
     of $670 million-asset Central Bank in Provo, Utah, views the 
     SuperPAC as a complement to BankPAC.
       ``BankPAC is much broader and covers lots of different 
     candidates. This is much more surgical,'' Packard says. ``If 
     someone says I am going to give your opponent $5,000 or 
     $10,000, you might say, `Yea, okay.' But if you say the 
     bankers are going to put in $100,000 or $500,000 or $1 
     million into your opponent's campaign, that starts to draw 
     some attention.
       ``That's why I think this is much more instrumental than 
     BankPAC in a close race.''
       Friends of Traditional Banking will ask contributors to 
     pledge from $150 to $500 to two congressional races each 
     election cycle. An advisory council will research races and 
     select the candidates to be targeted. A board of directors 
     will sign off on the selections, and then information will be 
     sent to those who pledged funding explaining how to donate to 
     a particular candidate.
       The SuperPAC itself will not touch the money. Unlike 
     Emily's List, which raises money for female candidates, 
     Friends of Traditional Banking will merely point its 
     supporters toward the races and the candidates considered key 
     to the future of traditional banking.

[[Page S3476]]

       If 10,000 supporters sign up at the minimum pledge level--
     not a high bar considering 2.1 million people work in the 
     banking industry--Friends of Traditional Banking would be 
     channeling more than $1 million. That's enough to make a 
     difference in a tight race.
       ``My short-term goal is to get to the $1 million mark,'' 
     Headlee says. ``I have a lot of confidence that once we get 
     there we will get way beyond there. People will see how 
     effective it is and they will jump on board.''
       SuperPACs are considered pretty cutting-edge, which is not 
     a place a lot of bankers feel comfortable. Headlee says the 
     first question most bankers ask him is, ``Is this legal?'' 
     Friends of Traditional Banking got Federal Election 
     Commission approval last September and federal banking 
     regulators have been briefed on the effort.
       But SuperPACs are still relatively rare. As of early April, 
     407 had been formed and just 18 had raised more than $1 
     million.
       ``It would be nice to sit on the sidelines or sit on our 
     hands and say, `Oh we don't get involved in that stuff,' but 
     that just means you get run over,'' says Don Childears, the 
     president and CEO of the Colorado Bankers Association. ``We 
     need to get more deeply involved as an industry in supporting 
     friends and trying to replace enemies.''
       Childears says he's seen SuperPACs in action, citing a 
     credit union that donated $50,000 to an independent 
     expenditure committee and defeated a candidate in Colorado. 
     ``Regretfully that is our world these days,'' he says. 
     ``Everyone from the Realtors to the credit unions to the 
     consumer groups are playing more hardball. It would be nice 
     not to have to engage in that, but we do.''
       [The Credit Union National Association, the industry's 
     largest trade group, does not operate a SuperPAC. But it does 
     accomplish many of the same goals by marshalling both 
     institutions and their customers to donate to specific races. 
     PACs are allowed to make these ``independent expenditures,'' 
     or donations that are not coordinated with a campaign, and 
     according to the Center for Responsive Politics, CUNA's PAC 
     spent $837,000 to influence six tight races during the 2010 
     elections.]
       The ABA's BankPAC has spent $1.146 million so far in the 
     2011 12 election cycle, which ranks it 9th overall, just 
     behind CUNA at $1.184 million, and well behind the second-
     ranked National Association of Realtors at $1.629 million, 
     according to the Center for Responsive Politics. BankPAC 
     expects to raise $3.5 million during this election cycle.
       Gary Fields, BankPAC's treasurer, says it will contribute 
     to 380 House races and virtually all the Senate races this 
     year. Fields says the ABA is considering an effort that would 
     parallel Friends of Traditional Banking loosely dubbed the 
     ``Chairman's Club.''
       ``For those bankers who want to do more than just 
     contribute to the PAC, Howard has his Friends of Traditional 
     Banking and we're looking at something, the Chairman's Club, 
     which would be a pledge program that would complement Friends 
     of Traditional Banking,'' Fields says. ``But it's only on the 
     drawing board and nothing has been rolled out to the public 
     on that yet.''
       Fields, however, sounds more focused on the traditional 
     PAC. Asked if he is excited about the prospects for Friends 
     of Traditional Banking, Fields says, ``I'm more excited about 
     the ABA BankPAC . . . What we would like to see is more 
     bankers participate in the PAC.''
       Why isn't ABA, the industry's broadest trade group, or the 
     Independent Community Bankers of America, the group devoted 
     to Main Street banking, involved in Friends of Traditional 
     Banking?
       ``We didn't ask the ABA or ICBA to participate,'' Headlee 
     said. ``I don't think they want to have any kind of control 
     over this because we may piss some people off inside the 
     Beltway. We fully intend to. They have to work back there.''
       ICBA President and CEO Cam Fine is enthusiastic about the 
     effort.
       ``I am for any PAC that is going to defeat our enemies,'' 
     Fine says. ``I agree with Howard on this. More power to him. 
     I hope he raises a lot of money and hammers these guys.''
       Beyond Utah, Oklahoma and Colorado, the advisory council 
     currently includes members from eight other state 
     associations: Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, 
     Minnesota, New Jersey and Vermont.
       Headlee and the other state association leaders see Friends 
     of Traditional Banking going beyond bankers to tap 
     shareholders and customers and anyone else who sees the value 
     in preserving Main Street banking.
       ``Clearly there are Members of Congress who have absolutely 
     no reservations about kicking traditional banks in the teeth, 
     and we are tired of it,'' says Headlee. ``We've got to be 
     able to defend the folks who have the courage to stand up for 
     us as well.''
       The vehicle now exists. The potential is there. It's up to 
     bankers to make it happen.

  Mr. SANDERS. Let me read what this article says. This is a member of 
the banking industry who contrasts what the old rules would have 
allowed, and that is under the old rules where there are limits as to 
how much people can contribute into a PAC, and that is $5,000 before 
the primary, $5,000 after, for a total of $10,000.
  This is what this gentleman, Mr. Packard, from the banking industry, 
says:

       If someone says I am going to give your opponent $5,000 or 
     $10,000, you might say, ``Yea, okay.'' But if you say the 
     bankers are going to put in $100,000 or $500,000 or $1 
     million into your opponent's campaign, that starts to draw 
     some attention.

  What that gentleman is saying, and what this whole issue is about, is 
that if a Member of Congress is prepared to stand up to Wall Street, 
they better watch out. If they are going to vote for a bill that 
protects consumers, they better watch out because--as this banker 
said--there may be $500,000 or $1 million going to your opponent and 
going into television and radio ads.
  So when Members of the House and the Senate are thinking about how 
they want to address the recklessness and irresponsibility on Wall 
Street--if they are thinking, as I am thinking, about the need to break 
up these huge banks which have so much power and have done so much harm 
to our country; if they want to bring about reform of the Fed so we 
don't have representatives of the largest banks in America sitting on 
regional Feds--guess what. They are going to think twice about going 
forward because they are going to worry that when they go home on the 
weekend, there are going to be all kinds of ads from the banking 
industry.
  Maybe they are concerned as to why in America we spend almost twice 
as much per person on health care as any other Nation. Maybe they want 
to move, as I do, to a single-payer health care system. Well, the 
private insurance companies are not going to like that. They are going 
to pour huge amounts of money into advertising.
  Maybe they are concerned that in America we pay the highest prices in 
the world for prescription drugs. Are they going to take on the 
pharmaceutical industry if they now have the ability to spend unlimited 
sums of money?
  I come to the Senate floor this afternoon to express my profound 
disgust with the current state of our campaign finance system and to 
call for more disclosure until we can finally overturn Citizens United. 
I know the Presiding Officer from New Mexico has a very good 
constitutional amendment to do just that. I have one. There are other 
good amendments. Long term, there is no question in my mind that we 
need to overturn Citizens United. In my view, it will go down in 
history as one of the worst decisions ever to come from the Supreme 
Court by a 5-to-4 decision. Five members on the Court came to the 
bizarre conclusion that corporations should be treated as if they were 
people and that they have a first amendment right to spend as much 
money as they want in elections, even though corporations cannot vote.
  On election day, the average American, after studying the issues, 
goes out and with pride votes for the candidate of his or her choice. 
There are many people in this country who make campaign contributions. 
Maybe they will contribute $25, maybe they will contribute $50. If they 
have a lot of money, maybe they will contribute $1,000 or $2,000. But 
what Citizens United is saying is that a small number of people who run 
large multinational corporations can spend as much as they want on 
campaigns. And if that is what American democracy is supposed to be 
about, you surely could have fooled me, and I think many of the 
Americans who have put their lives on the line to defend American 
democracy. American democracy is one person, one vote. We are all in 
this together. You may be rich or you may be poor, but under our 
Constitution you have one vote.
  This country has had to go through a very rocky process to ensure one 
person, one vote. In the beginning poor whites could not vote, women 
could not vote, African Americans could not vote. We struggled and 
struggled, and we said in America every citizen of this country is 
going to have their say on election day. That is what we learned when 
we were in elementary school. That is what democracy is about. And by a 
5-to-4 Supreme Court vote, the Supreme Court said: Everybody has one 
vote, but if you are rich or if you are the head of a corporation, you 
can go into corporate treasuries and spend as much money as you want. 
For the average Joe, it is one vote. Corporate America can spend 
unlimited sums of money buying the airwaves, and we are seeing this 
today.
  This is no academic or intellectual debate. People all over America 
are

[[Page S3477]]

seeing the results of Citizens United today on their television 
stations and on their radio stations. In the past few months the 
American people have seen what Citizens United means.
  According to the Center for Responsive Politics, super PACs alone 
have spent over $112 million on this election, and we are still more 
than 5 months away from election day. If 2 weeks before the election 
there is a billionaire out there or the head of some corporation, who 
is to say that person cannot take hundreds of millions of dollars out 
of a large corporation and spend it on an election? It is totally legal 
but not what America is supposed to be about.
  Mr. President, I know you are aware of it, once again, because of 
your excellent constitutional amendment. What we are seeing throughout 
grassroots America is that people are beginning to stand and they are 
saying: No, we don't want Citizens United. We want to overturn it. We 
want real democracy in this country.
  I am very proud that in the State of Vermont, and in four other 
States, State legislatures have gone on record saying: Overturn 
Citizens United. There are 209 cities that have passed resolutions to 
that effect, including some 50 or 60 in the State of Vermont, and 
people are organizing all over America on this issue.
  I thank Senator Whitehouse and others for the work they are doing on 
this DISCLOSE bill. This is the very least we can do, and I am eagerly 
waiting to hear the arguments from those people who oppose it.
  If I put an ad on as a candidate or if Senator Whitehouse puts an ad 
on as a candidate, we have to say: I approve this ad. If you are saying 
something nasty or dishonest, the viewers have a right to know you are 
behind that ad, you are not hiding. Right now the ads that are going 
out over this country--who is paying for them? We don't know who is 
paying for them. We don't see that pretty face on TV saying: I am the 
CEO of this corporation, and I approve this ad. We don't get the 
immediate disclosure we should as to who is paying for that ad. That is 
all this DISCLOSE legislation does.
  Long term, no question, we need a constitutional amendment to 
overturn Citizens United. It would be awfully nice if maybe our friends 
on the Supreme Court realized the error of their ways and acted 
accordingly. But at the very least here in the Congress, we need to 
pass a DISCLOSE piece of legislation and minimize the severe damage 
that Citizens United is doing to our democracy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. It is my understanding I am to be recognized at 2 p.m. 
for 10 minutes. I understand the majority leader has something to say 
at about 2:15 in regard to the progress of this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the legislation 
that is actually before us as opposed to the topic before, the Food and 
Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act that we are currently 
debating. In addition to reauthorizing the user-fee agreements, this 
legislation includes many other important provisions. Members should 
know what is in this bill and how important these provisions are.
  There is language to permanently reauthorize pediatric research 
incentives, programs to incentivize antibiotic research and 
development, and more transparency and accountability for the FDA and 
stakeholders, which we hope will help to address drug shortages. That 
is a big problem not only in urban areas but in the rural health care 
delivery system in every State. Every Senator ought to be aware of 
that, and I am sure they are hearing about it.
  In May I joined with Senators Reed, Murray, and Alexander in 
introducing the Better Pharmaceuticals and Devices for Children Act, 
the BPDCA. I don't think that makes a very good acronym, so I am not 
even going to try it. Back in 1997 Congress passed the Best 
Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, which acknowledged the importance of 
ensuring medications were effective and safe for children by providing 
an incentive for pharmaceutical companies to invest in pediatric 
research. In 2003, with the passage of the Pediatric Research Equity 
Act, Congress required the pharmaceutical companies to engage in these 
studies.
  These bills are often referred to as the carrot-and-the-stick 
approach for pediatric drug development. I prefer carrots to sticks 
around here, especially mandates, but they have proven over time to 
work--the carrot-and-the-stick approach. Since the enactment of these 
laws, approximately 426 drug labels have been revised with important 
pediatric information, and the number of off-label drugs used in 
children has declined from 80 to 50 percent. That is certainly good 
news.
  In 2007 a complementary initiative to promote the development of 
pediatric medical devices; that is, the Pediatric Medical Device Safety 
and Improvement Act, was enacted. This law has resulted in a fivefold 
increase in the number of small-market medical devices designated for 
pediatric use.
  The Better Pharmaceuticals and Devices for Children Act will 
permanently extend these worthwhile programs, while providing some real 
predictability and accountability for pediatric drug and medical device 
development.
  The legislation also includes the Generating Antibiotic Incentives 
Now Act that I joined with Senators Blumenthal and Corker in supporting 
last year. This title contains provisions that aim to boost development 
of products to treat serious and life-threatening infections--something 
that is a growing problem in all of our hospitals. It provides 
meaningful market incentives and reduces--get this--reduces regulatory 
burdens. Glory be. Here is a bill that actually reduces regulatory 
burdens to encourage development of new antibiotics. Why? Well, the 
antibiotic pipeline has slowed to an alarming rate. According to the 
FDA, the approval of such drugs has decreased by 70 percent since the 
mid-1980s. This is unacceptable. The development of just one new 
antibiotic can take upwards of 10 years. We must act now to avoid a 
potential health care crisis.
  When I am back in Kansas--and I know when other Senators are back in 
their States--talking to folks about health care, I often hear about 
the problem with drug shortages. When a problem exists in an urban 
setting, simply multiply that 10 times, and that is what we have in our 
rural areas. This is never more true than on the issue of drug 
shortages. This is a crisis. As difficult as it is to hear from my 
hospital administrators and pharmacists in Kansas about the 
difficulties they are having in getting drugs to fill prescriptions for 
patients, nothing compares to the patients and the families of patients 
who can't get their drugs, who can't get their treatment, who are 
already scared about their future and they can't get their lifesaving 
medication due to shortages. This is unacceptable. That is why I joined 
with a number of my colleagues on the HELP Committee to work together 
to see if we could come to a bipartisan consensus on a way to alleviate 
at least some of the burden drug shortages create. The legislation now 
requires reporting on drug shortages, but it also provides some 
transparency and accountability in the hope that we can get to the root 
cause of this problem.
  Not everything in this legislation is what I would have done if I had 
my choice--that is obvious and probably the case with every Senator and 
every major bill on which we must make decisions. I am certain many of 
my colleagues on the HELP Committee are thinking the same thing. 
However, I think we are all pleased we were able to come to a 
bipartisan consensus on this legislation and in addressing many of the 
issues that are affecting Kansans and the rest of Americans.
  I talked with a fellow last night who said: Why can't you all work 
together? Why can't you pass something in a bipartisan way?
  This legislation is a good example of exactly what that gentleman was 
talking about and what a lot of Americans are concerned about. In that 
regard, I thank Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Enzi for all of 
their work and for all of the work by their staff and our staff over 
the past years and months in putting together this important piece of 
legislation. This took a long time. It took a lot of effort. It took a 
lot of hard work. Their commitment to a bipartisan process and their 
willingness to communicate with all

[[Page S3478]]

the members of the HELP Committee has led us through a relatively 
noncontentious markup, and I hope the same will happen as we consider 
this legislation on the floor.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin). The Senator from New York.


                        Campaign Finance Reform

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Kansas for 
finishing his speech in a timely manner.
  I come to the floor to talk a little bit about the DISCLOSE Act and 
Citizens United. For the last 2\1/2\ years, Americans have heard us 
talk about the need for full disclosure of money donated to campaigns. 
It is time for Congress to stop stalling and let the American voters 
find out where the money being spent on elections is coming from once 
and for all.
  All of our predictions in the aftermath of the flawed Citizens United 
decision unfortunately are coming true. This decision handed a 
megaphone to the wealthiest voices among us and strapped a muzzle on 
every other American. Sure, average Americans can talk to one another, 
but they are not spending $10 million on TV ads, and we know what kind 
of an effect that has. If anything, the situation is even worse than we 
could have possibly anticipated because unlimited spending by just a 
handful of the wealthiest Americans has put true democracy in danger--a 
true democracy of one person, one vote, of true equality. This is 
worrisome when we have such huge amounts of money being spent by so few 
people who seem to speak with one voice and one conservative point of 
view.
  The list of the top donors to super PACs reads like a who's who of 
the richest people in America. The contributions to super PACs that 
were released in the most recent disclosure reports are truly 
astonishing. Six-figure sums seem like pocket change now compared with 
today's trend of seven- and eight-figure donations.
  Let's take Bob Perry, for instance, top donor to Mitt Romney's super 
PAC, Restore Our Future. People may know him as the former top donor to 
Swift Vets and POWs for Truth, the group that ran smear ads questioning 
John Kerry's military service in 2004. When we add up his donations to 
super PACs this cycle, we have almost $14 million of political 
influence from just one man. Another example is Harold Simmons. When we 
combine his personal donations with the corporation he owns with his 
wife, we get contributions of over $17 million to six different super 
PACs.
  Because disclosures to the FEC are only made publicly available once 
a month, this paints a mere fraction of the picture of total super PAC 
spending. The reports don't even address spending through so-called 
nonprofit organizations. As we all know, 501(c)(4) organizations are 
able to serve as conduits for huge sums of anonymous funding that are 
never publicly disclosed. I call them ``so-called'' because they 
function the same as the super PACs, except they can't say ``vote for'' 
or ``vote against,'' but their effect on campaigns, obviously intended, 
is just as real.
  It doesn't stop at the Federal level. We are also seeing the concern 
over corporate spending at the State level through the Montana case, 
American Tradition Partnership v. Attorney General Bullock. This case 
hinges on a challenge to Montana's century-old campaign finance law by 
special interest groups that want to take advantage of the anonymous 
political spending made possible by Citizens United. In fact, the 
fundraisers in this case, a group called American Tradition 
Partnership, solicits contributors by actually bragging about their 
secrecy. In their promotional literature, they promise potential 
donors:

       We're not required to report the name or the amount of any 
     contribution that we receive. So, if you decide to support 
     this program, no politician, no bureaucrat, no radical 
     environmentalist, will ever know you helped make this program 
     possible.

  It is no surprise, given mounting concerns about the corruptive 
effects of unlimited and often anonymous campaign spending on our 
democracy, that so many individuals and groups have filed amicus briefs 
to this case--including Senators Whitehouse and McCain, several House 
Democrats, and dozens of others--urging the court to uphold Montana's 
100-year-old law.
  We cannot sit idly by and watch our democracy put up for sale to the 
highest bidders. Full disclosure--the kind the DISCLOSE Act of 2012 
requires--is still necessary to shed light on which groups and 
individuals are funding our elections, to keep some modicum of faith 
that the voters at least know what is going on.
  In 2010 the original DISCLOSE Act passed the House and had widespread 
support in the Senate and from the President but failed to gain cloture 
by one vote because not one Republican was willing to step across the 
aisle and do what the American people clearly regard as the right 
thing. Well, now there is no excuse. We have removed the original 
provisions my Republican colleagues most objected to. All that remains 
is disclosure and disclaimer, plain and simple.
  The time to act on campaign finance reform is now. While America's 
richest billionaires can afford to keep contributing millions of 
dollars to super PACs and 501(c)s, America cannot afford to be kept in 
the dark any longer.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The majority leader is recognized.


                            Flood Insurance

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the first thing we are going to talk about--
I have had conversations in the last few days--in fact, a longer period 
of time than that--with Senator Vitter, Senator Coburn, Senator 
Johnson, Senator Shelby, and others on flood insurance.
  Like a lot of things that happen, it has become critical that we do 
something on flood insurance. It affects almost 6 million people. We 
need to get something done on a more permanent basis.
  There has been a general agreement--we do not have it in writing yet, 
but I want to make sure the record on the floor is clear what my 
intention is--that we would have a 60-day short-term extension. In that 
extension there would be language for the duration of 60 days that 
would include in that the second-home subject that is part of the 
underlying bill on which Senator Coburn is focused. That would be for 
60 days. Then I would be happy to make a statement here on the floor 
today that during the next work period we will move to that bill, the 
flood insurance bill, so we would have the opportunity to make it 
permanent. It is very important we do that. With the economy being such 
as it is, we cannot, in this area--and probably others but in this 
one--we cannot have these short-term extensions. It does not allow 
people to do what they need to do. Mr. President, 40,000 homes a day go 
through a process where they have to have flood insurance. If there is 
no flood insurance, that is 40,000 loans every day that will not be 
approved.
  Senators Johnson and Shelby have done good work to narrow down the 
list of amendments we would have to consider when the Senate takes up 
this long-term flood insurance bill. It is my understanding there are a 
dozen or so amendments--six, eight on each side. But I hope we can do 
that. If we cannot do that, we are going to have to go to the bill 
anyway.
  I wanted to make sure Senator Vitter, who is on the floor today, 
understands that is my understanding of things he and I have talked 
about in the last couple weeks.
  I appreciate the work that Senators Johnson, Tester, Shelby, Coburn, 
and Vitter have put into working out an agreement on flood insurance.
  As Senators have noted, this program that provides insurance coverage 
to 5.5 million people is set to expire next week.
  If the program were to expire, new housing construction would stall, 
real estate transactions would come to a halt, and taxpayers would be 
on the hook for future disasters. So this is something that we have to 
do.
  I understand that Senators Johnson and Shelby have done good work to 
narrow down the list of amendments that we would consider when the 
Senate takes up a long-term flood insurance bill. I believe that they 
have made

[[Page S3479]]

good progress. And we could consider eight or even fewer relevant 
amendments per side on a long-term bill.
  And thus I believe that the Senate can consider a long-term bill in 
the next work period. And I am committed to turning to a long-term bill 
in June.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority leader 
very much for this important announcement and this plan. It certainly 
meets two--
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding he was going to ask 
me a question, because I do not want to lose the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader has the floor.
  Mr. VITTER. Yes. I have no intention of his losing the floor. I just 
want to thank him for the announcement. From my perspective, it meets 
the two main goals we have been in search of: first of all, making sure 
in the short term there is not a lapse of the program; that would be 
disastrous; that would cancel, as the majority leader suggested, 
thousands of good closings, really put a hiccup in the economy for no 
good reason--and, in addition, getting to a permanent bill in the next 
work period. So I appreciate the leader's announcement.
  I would also note, as he did, that there has been great work and 
great progress in narrowing the field of relevant amendments. I 
certainly hope that leads to a limited and reasonable number of 
amendment votes, as he does, on the floor. I understand what he said 
about, if that becomes unwieldy, we will just proceed with the bill as 
is. But that certainly it is my expectation. I will continue to work on 
that amendment list so we can have a reasonable opportunity for 
relevant amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am glad the Republican leader is on the 
floor. We have worked very hard to arrive at this point where I am 
going to ask for this consent agreement. I appreciate everyone's help, 
and it takes everyone's help to get to where we are. That is why we 
call them unanimous consent agreements.
  I ask unanimous consent that the only first-degree amendments in 
order to the bill that is now pending before the Senate be the 
following: Bingaman No. 2111; McCain No. 2107----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the majority leader suspend for one 
moment.

                          ____________________