[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 34 (Wednesday, March 2, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1223-S1226]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. CORNYN:
S. 2617. A bill to provide for the development of a United States
strategy for greater human space exploration, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2617
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Mapping a New and Innovative
Focus on Our Exploration Strategy for Human Spaceflight Act
of 2016'' or the ``MANIFEST for Human Spaceflight Act of
2016''.
SEC. 2. REAFFIRMATION OF POLICY AND FINDINGS.
(a) Reaffirmation of Policy.--Congress reaffirms that the
long-term goal of the human space flight and exploration
efforts of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
shall be to expand permanent human presence beyond low-Earth
orbit and to do so, where practical, in a manner involving
international partners, as stated in section 202(a) of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization
Act of 2010 (42 U.S.C. 18312(a)).
(b) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) In accordance with section 204 of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of
2010 (Public Law 111-267; 124 Stat. 2813), the National
Academy of Sciences, through its Committee on Human
Spaceflight, conducted a review of the goals, core
capabilities, and direction of human space flight, and
published the findings and recommendations in a 2014 report
entitled ``Pathways to Exploration: Rationales and Approaches
for a U.S. Program of Human Space Exploration''.
(2) The Committee on Human Spaceflight included leaders
from the aerospace, scientific, security, and policy
communities. With input from the public, the Committee on
Human Spaceflight concluded that many practical and
aspirational rationales together constitute a compelling case
for
[[Page S1224]]
human space exploration. These rationales include economic
benefits, national security, national prestige, inspiring
students and other citizens, scientific discovery, human
survival, and a sense of shared destiny.
(3) The Committee on Human Spaceflight affirmed that Mars
is the appropriate long-term goal for the human space flight
program.
(4) The Committee on Human Spaceflight recommended that the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration define a series
of sustainable steps and conduct mission planning and
technology development as needed to achieve the long-term
goal of placing humans on the surface of Mars.
SEC. 3. HUMAN EXPLORATION STRATEGY.
(a) Human Exploration of Mars.--Section 202(b) of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization
Act of 2010 (42 U.S.C. 18312(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) to achieve human exploration of Mars, including the
establishment of a capability to extend human presence to the
surface of Mars.''.
(b) Exploration Strategy.--
(1) In general.--In accordance with this subsection, the
Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration shall submit an interim report and final
report setting forth a strategy to achieve the objective in
paragraph (5) of section 202(b) of the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010, as
amended by subsection (a) of this section, through a series
of successive, sustainable, free-standing, but complementary
missions making robust utilization of cis-lunar space and
employing the Space Launch System, Orion crew capsule, and
other capabilities provided under titles III, IV, V, and IX
of that Act (42 U.S.C. 18301 et seq.).
(2) Strategy requirements.--In developing the strategy
under paragraph (1), the Administrator shall include--
(A) the utility of an expanded human presence in cis-lunar
space toward enabling missions to various lunar orbits, the
lunar surface, asteroids, Mars, the moons of Mars, and other
destinations of interest for future human exploration and
development;
(B) the utility of an expanded human presence in cis-lunar
space for economic, scientific, and technological advances;
(C) the opportunities for collaboration with--
(i) international partners;
(ii) private industry; and
(iii) other Federal agencies, including missions relevant
to national security or scientific needs;
(D) the opportunities specifically afforded by the
International Space Station (ISS) to support high priority
scientific research and technological developments useful in
expanding and sustaining a human presence in cis-lunar space
and beyond;
(E) a range of exploration mission architectures and
approaches for the missions identified under paragraph (1),
including capabilities for the Orion crew capsule and the
Space Launch System;
(F) a comparison of architectures and approaches based on--
(i) assessed value of factors including cost effectiveness,
schedule resiliency, safety, sustainability, and
opportunities for international collaboration;
(ii) the extent to which certain architectures and
approaches may enable new markets and opportunities for
United States private industry, provide compelling
opportunities for scientific discovery and technological
excellence, sustain United States competitiveness and
leadership, and address critical national security
considerations and requirements; and
(iii) the flexibility of such architectures and approaches
to adjust to evolving technologies, partners, priorities, and
budget projections and constraints;
(G) measures for setting standards for ensuring crew health
and safety, including limits regarding radiation exposure and
countermeasures necessary to meet those limits, means and
methods for addressing urgent medical conditions or injuries,
and other such safety, health, and medical issues that can be
anticipated in the conduct of the missions identified under
paragraph (1);
(H) a description of crew training needs and capabilities
(including space suits and life support systems) necessary to
support the conduct of missions identified under paragraph
(1);
(I) a detailed plan for prioritizing and phasing near-term
intermediate destinations and missions identified under
paragraph (1);
(J) an assessment of the recommendations of the report
prepared in compliance with section 204 of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of
2010 (Public Law 111-267; 124 Stat. 2813), including a
detailed explanation of how the Administrator has ensured
such recommendations have been, to the extent practicable,
incorporated into the strategy under paragraph (1); and
(K) technical information as needed to identify interest
from potential stakeholder or partner communities.
(3) Independent review.--
(A) In general.--The Administrator shall enter into an
arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences to review
and comment on each interim report pursuant to paragraph (1).
Under the arrangement, the National Academy of Sciences shall
review each interim report on the strategy described in
paragraph (1) and identify the following:
(i) Matters in such interim report agreed upon by the
National Academy of Sciences.
(ii) Matters in such interim report raising concerns for
the National Academy of Sciences.
(iii) Such further recommendations with respect to matters
covered by such interim report as the National Academy of
Sciences considers appropriate.
(B) Timing of review and comment.--The Administrator shall
ensure that the review and comment on an interim report
provided for pursuant to subparagraph (A) is conducted in a
timely manner to comply with the requirements of this
subsection and, to the maximum extent practicable, to
facilitate the incorporation of the comments of the National
Academy of Sciences pursuant to subparagraph (A) into the
applicable final report required by this subsection.
(4) Deadlines.--
(A) Interim reports.--Not later than 90 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, and not less than every five
years thereafter, the Administrator shall submit to the
National Academy of Sciences an interim report on the
strategy required by paragraph (1) in order to facilitate the
independent review and comment on the strategy as provided
for by paragraph (3).
(B) Final reports.--Not later than one year after the date
of the enactment of this Act, and not less than every five
years thereafter, the Administrator shall submit to Congress
a final report on the strategy required by paragraph (1),
which shall include and incorporate the response of the
National Academy of Sciences to the most recent interim
report pursuant to paragraph (3).
______
By Ms. HEITKAMP:
S. 2619. A bill to require the Secretary of Commerce to carry out a
pilot program on the award of financial assistance to local governments
to support the development of startup businesses, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I am introducing the Startup
Entrepreneur Empowerment Delivery, SEED, Act today to address the
challenges faced by startup businesses in North Dakota, as well as
other rural States and small cities, by helping them get the early
stage funding they need to grow their business.
Access to capital is one of the single largest barriers between
startup businesses and success. This bill addresses the unique needs of
startup companies in our country's more rural States by creating a
pilot program through the U.S. Department of Commerce aimed at
providing small amounts of capital to qualifying startups.
Innovation does not just happen in Silicon Valley or at our country's
biggest research institutions. Innovative ideas are blooming in our
heartland and startups are forming on our main streets making the
entrepreneurial ecosystem of our smaller cities stronger than ever
before. But too often, we hear the same challenges from startups and
small businesses that they are trying to fit a square peg into a round
hole, meaning they run into the barrier of not being able to qualify
for Federal support or Federal programs because they are asking for too
little funding. We can't let these innovators slip through the cracks.
The Startup Entrepreneur Empowerment Delivery, SEED, Act would grant
financial assistance to ten small sized cities across the country which
then would make awards directly to startups to use for marketing,
infrastructure, recruitment and hiring resources. This bill directly
addresses the concerns that I continue to hear from startups in North
Dakota and will help drive them to success and reinvest and diversify
the local economies of our Nation's more rural areas.
With my SEED Act, we can invest in small cities, in rural States,
like North Dakota, helping drive startups to success. Just like anyone
from a small or rural town, we know how to make a little go a long way,
and this bill will help make that possible. The SEED Act will allow the
Federal Government to continue its priority of investing in innovation
and will ensure those investments are felt in America's heartland.
______
By Mr. MERKLEY (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Tester, Mrs.
Feinstein, and Mr. Sanders):
S. 2621. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
with respect to genetically engineered food transparency and
uniformity; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
[[Page S1225]]
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, the genius of America was a government
designed, as President Lincoln so eloquent summarized, ``Of the people,
by the people, for the people.''
I will be rising periodically to address issues that affect Americans
across our country and that this Chamber should be addressing. This
week I am using my speech to highlight the labeling of genetically
modified foods. This is truly a ``We the people'' versus ``We the
Titans'' battle because citizens routinely poll in very high numbers
about their desire to know what is in their food, and they like the
idea of being alerted when their food contains genetically modified
organisms or GMOs, but that is not necessarily the consequence, as when
we go through the legislative process, often the ``We the people's''
commonsense vision is lost in favor of pressures applied by powerful
interest groups. We are in the middle of a debate like that right now.
So that is why I thought it appropriate to rise at this moment to
address this.
This is a debate about whether you believe that in a democracy,
citizens have a right to know or whether that right to know is going to
be taken away from them. I guess it goes to whether you feel that
citizens have the minds they are put on this Earth with to make
decisions of their own versus being told what decisions to make by a
Federal Government.
This debate over genetically modified organisms is a debate that gets
complicated because there are tremendous differences in the types of
genetic changes in plants. Let me give you some examples. You might
have a crop where the crop has been modified genetically in the
laboratory to produce natural toxins that defend plants against root-
dwelling insect pests. Perhaps as a result of that, the farmers can
reduce the amount of synthetic pesticides they apply to crop lands.
That might be a very positive thing. It might save a lot of money, and
it also might save a lot of runoff of pesticides. That is one example.
Other crops have been modified to fortify foods with vitamins and
nutrients. For example, golden rice, developed by the International
Rice Institute, provides greater amounts of vitamin A to reduce the
deficiency of this essential vitamin in our diets. There are other
positive impacts. For example, you have transgenic carrots--carrots
that have been modified genetically to produce drugs inside the carrot
to treat the genetic disorder known as Goucher's disease. Other genetic
modifications have been used to attempt to increase crop yields through
more efficient photosynthesis.
So that is a whole variety of different ways of trying to make plants
contribute better to our nutrition and certainly in terms of the
dynamics to the farming environment, but there are also changes that
are made that raise concerns among some of our citizens. For example,
most of the genetically modified crops grown in the United States have
been altered to confer resistance to a chemical herbicide known as
glyphosate. I was looking at a chart. I do not have it to display, but
I will describe it. After the introduction of these GMO crops in the
early 1990s, the amount of acreage that has been planted with
glyphosate-resistant crops has gone to nearly 100 percent. With
soybeans, it went to 100 percent by about 2005--just about every
soybean plant in America. Glyphosate-resistant cotton, virtually all
cotton, falls into that category, and a great deal of the corn, the
vast majority of the corn planted in our country falls into that
category.
So now we have millions of acres being sprayed with glyphosate. At
first glance, one might say: Well, that is a great thing because it is
an easy way to reduce weeds--but often Mother Nature is complicated.
For example, when you have all of that glyphosate being sprayed on acre
after acre, millions of acres, the weeds start to evolve a resistance
to it. Then that resistance means you have to put more herbicides on
than before. So that is a concern or, for example, as you put more
glyphosate on, you have more glyphosate runoff, and that runoff becomes
a concern because you have herbicides running off into our waterways,
and that can have an impact on sensitive aquatic species, including
fish, mussels, amphibians, microorganisms. So it merits study, but it
is certainly something to be concerned about.
You can also have the impact of going to a separate item in which you
have, as I mentioned as a positive, the fact that plants have been
genetically modified to resist certain bugs that attack the roots.
Western corn rootworm is an example of that, but now it appears to be
evolving to eat the corn that was bioengineered to kill it because,
over time, with millions and millions of acres, there is some genetic
change, and some worm that would have been killed because it has a
genetic diversity and genetic changes is now resistant. It produces
offspring, and suddenly you have a bug that is sometimes referred to as
superbugs that are evolving to be resistant to pesticides. What is the
impact of that?
Let me give you another example. We had a huge drop in the population
of Monarch butterflies, magnificent creatures. I think humans just see
a Monarch and they fall in love, just seeing one beautiful butterfly.
Of course, these butterflies manage to travel thousands of miles in the
course of their lives, which is just stunning that such a fragile,
beautiful, little creature could travel so far to go way south in order
to reproduce and come way back north. When we apply huge amounts of
glyphosate herbicides, one of the side effects is that it kills a lot
of the plants; that is, the milkweed, that the Monarch eats. So you
have an attack on the Monarch. That is not the only impact on the
Monarch, but it is a contributing factor, and the result is that it has
contributed to a crash in this population.
To summarize, you have many potential positive impacts of genetic
engineering, and you have many potential concerns from genetically
engineered crops.So there are considerations that need to be balanced.
Some individuals hear that and are not concerned at all. They say: It
is fine. I want to buy products that are genetically engineered or I
would like to buy these and not those. Others say: I am really
concerned about a specific feature of genetically modified crops, and I
don't want to use my dollars to buy that crop and contribute to the
problem I am concerned about. This is an adult conversation. It is a
complex conversation. There are benefits and there are disadvantages
and there are more studies to be done to discover just how much the
concern should be. Some individuals are concerned that with this huge
amount of biphosphate being sprayed--and biphosphate is now a known
carcinogen--is there any residue that stays on the crops that people
harvest and eat. So they are concerned about that.
That is why labeling is leveling the field. It allows those who are
concerned to know what is going on. It allows those who are not
concerned to not pay attention. My daughter happens to like to look at
ingredient lists and tries not to consume high-fructose corn syrup. It
is helpful to her to know what is in it, and she can exercise her
consumer preference. Other folks don't want to have excessive salt or
maybe they are allergic to peanuts, so peanuts are on the ingredients
list, and it is helpful to them to be able to make that decision.
Honoring our citizens' right to know seems to be disappearing on
Capitol Hill because we have powerful special interests that don't want
to let citizens make these judgments, make these evaluations, between
the advantages and the disadvantages. Last summer, a few hundred yards
from here in the House of Representatives, the majority voted for a law
that blocks States from passing laws to provide this type of
information on a label.
Just yesterday in the Senate, the Senate Agricultural Committee voted
out a law to block the rights of citizens to know whether GMOs are in
their food. That is an outrageous--outrageous--bill. It would halt any
progress in ensuring that consumers can simply and easily access
information about GMO ingredients through labeling.
This bill that was passed out of committee also included a proposal
that the Secretary of Agriculture do an education campaign touting the
economic, nutritional, humanitarian, and scientific benefits of GMOs,
but the bill didn't say--and educate consumers about the substantial
concerns the scientific community has, about the impact on the
evolution of weeds, about the impact on the evolution of bugs, about
potential residues that are on
[[Page S1226]]
the crops, about the runoff that is in our waterways affecting how
healthy our waterways are and the organisms that live in our streams
and in our rivers.
So this is a very unbalanced presentation to the American public. It
is the type of thing that government shouldn't be involved in--
basically, running a promotional campaign on taxpayers' dollars to not
create a balanced understanding of an issue but instead an unbalanced
understanding of an issue.
The truth is, all Americans have the right to know what is in their
food. They are buying food to feed their children. They have the right
to know the ingredients so they can make responsible decisions.
Providing information regarding genetically modified ingredients is a
commonsense way to empower consumers to make their own personal
decisions on issues they care about on the food they purchase. It is a
pretty emotional issue when you start talking about the food you are
putting in your own mouth or the food you are feeding your children.
Campbell's Soup has begun taking steps to voluntarily disclose on all
of their soups whether the products contain genetically modified
ingredients. Why are they doing this? They say they have a relationship
of integrity with their customers. They want their customers to know
full information about their products and let the customer decide what
the customer wants, and they will provide information about the type of
genetic modifications and what they mean so the customer will have
enough information to make a decision. There are advantages and
disadvantages to GMO ingredients.
Our Federal Government already requires the labeling of ingredients
and basic nutritional information in order to protect the public and
guard against false product marketing. These food labels tell consumers
many things. They are supposed to tell how many calories. They tell how
much there is of a variety of vitamins. They list the ingredients and
do so in order of how prominent they are in the product. Our labeling
laws even say that when fish are sold in large supermarkets, they have
to state whether a fish is farm raised or wild caught. Why do we
require supermarkets to label the fish as farm raised or wild caught?
Because our consumers care about that. There are implications of
whether a product was grown in an artificial lake or whether it was
caught in the wild. Consumers want to know and use their own minds to
make these decisions. That is something about being in a free society--
you get to make your own decisions based on disclosure. We make the
information available.
This type of labeling about genetic modifications or genetically
modified organisms in the ingredients is routine around the world.
Sixty-five other countries, including twenty-eight members of the
European Union, plus Japan, plus Australia, plus China, plus Brazil,
already require mandatory GM labeling. Has it come to the point that we
in America are denying information that is routinely required in China
for consumers? Is that the point we are coming to on this bill, this
DARK Act, Denying Americans the Right to Know Act? This is not the
direction we should be going.
Instead, we believe in our American citizens, we believe in
education, we believe in individual decisionmaking, and consumer
information on the label honors that. Blocking States from being able
to provide information that those State legislators or those State
citizens, by initiative, say they want, that is an overstepping of
Federal authority to crush States' rights on an issue important to
citizens.
That is why today I am introducing a compromise bill, a bill trying
to bring this conversation to a commonsense compromise. It is called
the Biotechnology Food Labeling and Uniformity Act. I am introducing
this bill today with Senator Tester and Senator Leahy. It would give
the FDA the authority to develop a uniform Federal standard for on-
package disclosure of genetically modified ingredients.
I have met with industry groups. I have met with the pro-label
groups. I tried to find that area of compromise between the two. What I
found is a great deal of flexibility on the labeling groups. Those
groups said there doesn't have to be information on the front of the
package. It is OK if it is on the ingredients list on the back of the
can or the back of the package. It doesn't have to be in supersized
print. It is OK if it is in the same small print that the ingredients
are printed in. In fact, they are open to many different versions of
how a company discloses this information, as long as a person can go to
the store, pick up the package, turn it over, and quickly find out if
there is a GMO impact.
These are some of the ideas--and there are a variety--that are
acceptable to the labeling side of the world. One is on the ingredients
area. After the ingredient, it could either say it is genetically
modified or put in a code like GM--it doesn't take up much space, it is
on the list of ingredients--or if there are several ingredients and you
would rather use an asterisk, you would rather put an asterisk and put
what the asterisk means: ``This ingredient has been genetically
modified,'' or ``May contain genetically modified ingredients.'' So a
simple phrase at the bottom or a symbol. Brazil uses a symbol. They use
a T. This is an example of using a symbol T for transgenic--not all of
them at once, just each of them would be fine. It will take effort for
consumers to look and see it. It is not upfront. They have to pick up
the product. They have to look. It can be typed in small print, but it
gives a person who cares the ability to get to the bottom of the
question. Then, if they want, they can look up at the Web site the
product, through a quick response code, and get more details. That
range of flexibility is where the compromise can be honoring a
citizen's right to know, while not taking up a lot of space on a
package or not doing anything on the front of the package that says
that this product is healthy or unhealthy or otherwise. It means the
share of Americans who want this information--just as there is a share
of Americans who want to know if there is high-fructose corn syrup,
there is a share of Americans who want to know if fish is farmed or
wild fish--can in fact find this out.
This also addresses the big issue manufacturers have been raising.
They don't want a patchwork across the country of 50 different States
having different labeling laws. Our supply inventory doesn't work that
way. We don't have a warehouse that only serves one State. Quite
frankly, it gets very complicated and even more so on the East Coast,
where the States are all packed together, than it does back home in
Oregon. That is a legitimate concern. So there are big concerns. About
50 different versions of the law or maybe counties even having
different laws is addressed.
I am going to simply conclude with this understanding: Citizens have
a right to know in a free society what is in their food. Let's honor
that. Should the DARK Act--the Deny Americans the Right to Know Act
that passed out of the Agriculture Committee--come to this floor, many
of us will stand up to fight it in every possible way. It shortchanges
American citizens, denies them critical information, and takes the
right of a fundamental privilege in our society. It strips our States.
It is a Federal overreach, and it is an assault on consumer information
and consumer rights. It is just wrong, and we will oppose it
vigorously.
____________________