[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 108 (Wednesday, July 6, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4779-S4794]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         STOP DANGEROUS SANCTUARY CITIES ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 3100, which the 
clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 531, S. 3100, a bill to 
     ensure that State and local law enforcement may cooperate 
     with Federal officials to protect our communities from 
     violent criminals and suspected terrorists who are illegally 
     present in the United States.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.


                     Legislation Before the Senate

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I see my colleagues from Kansas and 
Michigan on the floor, and I know they are here to speak on the GMO 
issue. I will make a brief statement and cut short what I planned on 
saying so they can take the floor on this important and pending issue.
  The Senate Republican leader came to the floor this morning and 
congratulated the Senate on the fact we passed, on a bipartisan basis, 
the Puerto Rico legislation necessary to deal with the financial 
disaster they face. We did that last week, truly in a bipartisan way. 
The Republican leader said this morning we need to keep our focus on 
serious issues, but then he comes to us with four bills that he 
requests we take up during the abbreviated session we have this week 
and next week, and among those four bills are two he acknowledges are 
clearly only introduced for the political impact, for the message, they 
might deliver.
  One bill that is being promoted by the junior Senator from 
Pennsylvania is a bill relating to sanctuary cities. This measure was 
largely considered and voted on only 8 months ago and defeated in the 
Senate. Why are we bringing it back today? Well, there has been some 
candor on the Republican side. The Senator who is offering this measure 
is up for reelection. He believes this is an important ``message 
amendment'' that he needs to take back to his home State of 
Pennsylvania, and he wants to make sure the Senate takes up this 
measure before the Republican convention, which starts up in a couple 
weeks. This is a political tactic that is sadly going to eat up the 
time of the Senate with the same ultimate result. Senator Toomey's 
sanctuary bill will not pass, but it gives him something to talk about 
when he goes home and perhaps something to give a speech about at the 
Republican convention.
  Going back to the Senate Republican leader's suggestion that we ought 
to be focusing in a bipartisan way on serious issues, the first 
suggestion out of the box on a message amendment is clearly being done 
for political purposes only. The second measure is one that is brought 
to the floor at the request of Senator Ted Cruz, the junior Senator 
from Texas. This will bring us back to some debate over immigration, 
again,

[[Page S4780]]

on what is known as Kate's Law and the suggestion by Senator Cruz that 
we create a new mandatory minimum criminal sentence.
  On its face, this measure is unacceptable and unaffordable. It would 
criminalize, with mandatory minimum sentencing, conduct that would 
affect thousands of people who have crossed over the border into the 
United States undocumented. Of course, the Senator from Texas wants 
this message amendment during this abbreviated short session before the 
Republican convention, which I assume he will be speaking to, in order 
to make his political point.
  So here we are with the Republican leader first congratulating us on 
being bipartisan on serious issues and then turning around and two of 
the four things he suggests we do these 2 weeks have no chance to pass. 
One at least has been voted on within the last 8 months on the floor of 
the Senate, and they have acknowledged they are only offering these 
amendments to give the Senators who are making the requests a chance to 
make some political hay in the weeks and days before the Republican 
convention in Cleveland.
  Why? Because the ``presumptive,'' as they call him, Republican 
nominee for President wants to focus on immigration. As a consequence, 
those who are lining up behind him, like the junior Senator from 
Pennsylvania, want to have some arguing points to make to support 
Donald Trump's candidacy and his position on immigration.
  It is a sad reality that 3 years ago, on the floor of the Senate, we 
actually did something constructive on the issue of immigration. With 
the votes of 14 Republicans joining the Democrats, we passed 
bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform. Sadly, that measure died 
in the House when they wouldn't even consider that bill or any bill on 
the issue. We had a constructive alternative, and it passed here in a 
bipartisan fashion on a serious issue. Yet, since then, the Republicans 
have stonewalled and stopped every effort to constructively deal with 
immigration.
  The two measures before us, by Senators from Pennsylvania and Texas, 
should be taken for what they are. They are political posturing before 
the Republican National Convention. They are efforts so these two 
Senators will have something to talk about or brag about at the 
Cleveland convention, but they do not take us to the serious issues we 
still face; issues such as the GMO compromise, an important issue 
because of measures taken by some States; issues such as funding for 
Zika, a measure which passed the Senate 89 to 1 in a strong bipartisan 
vote and then went over to the House and languished in a conference 
committee and finally was reported out with no Democratic signatories 
to the conference report. That measure has been defeated once, and the 
Senate Republican leader said we will just go call the same measure 
again, with obviously the same outcome.
  We still have questions on funding on Zika, questions about funding 
on opioid abuse. These are serious measures that should be taken up 
rather than these so-called message amendments being offered by the 
other side.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I understand I have 10 minutes reserved, 
and I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute, if I do not 
finish. I am to be followed by my distinguished ranking member, Senator 
Stabenow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Agriculture Biotechnology

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about a topic 
and a bipartisan bill that will affect what consumers pay for their 
food, the grave threats of worldwide malnutrition and hunger, and the 
future of every farmer, every grower, and the future of every rancher 
in America. That topic is agriculture biotechnology.
  We have all heard about our growing global population, currently at 7 
billion and estimated to reach over 9.6 billion in the next few 
decades. Tonight, 1 in 9 people--that is roughly 800 million people--
worldwide will go to bed hungry. Around the world, impoverished regions 
are facing increased challenges in feeding their people. Show me a 
nation that cannot feed itself, and I will show you a nation in chaos. 
Goodness knows, we have had enough of that.
  We have seen too many examples in recent years where shortfalls in 
grain and other food items or increases in prices at the consumer level 
have helped to trigger outbreaks of civil unrest and protests in places 
such as the Middle East and Africa. In light of these global security 
threats, today's farmers are being asked to produce more safe and 
affordable food to meet the demands at home and around the globe. At 
the same time, farmers are facing increased challenges to their 
production, including limited land and water resources, uncertain 
weather, to be sure, and pest and disease issues. However, over the 
past 20 years, agriculture biotechnology has become an invaluable tool 
in ensuring the success of the American farmer in meeting the challenge 
of increasing yield in a more efficient, safe, and responsible manner.

  For years now, the United States has proven that American agriculture 
plays a pivotal role in addressing food shortfalls around the world. We 
must continue to consider new and innovative ways to get ahead of the 
growing population and production challenges. In addressing these 
issues, we must continue to be guided by the best available science, 
research, and innovation.
  If my colleagues have heard any of my previous remarks on this topic, 
they have heard me say time and again that biotechnology products are 
safe. My colleagues don't have to take my word for it. The Agriculture 
Committee held a hearing late last year where all three agencies in 
charge of reviewing biotechnology testified before our members. Over 
and over again, the EPA, the FDA, and the USDA told us that these 
products are safe--that they are safe for the environment, safe for 
other plants, and certainly safe for our food supply. Since that 
hearing, the U.S. Government reinforced their decisions on the safety 
of these products.
  Last November, the FDA took several steps, based on sound science, 
regarding food that is produced from biotech plants, including issuing 
final guidance for manufacturers who wish to voluntarily label their 
products as containing ingredients from biotech or exclusively 
nonbiotech plants. More importantly, the Food and Drug Administration 
denied a petition that would have required the mandatory on-package 
labeling of biotech foods. The FDA maintained that evidence was not 
provided for the agency to put such a requirement in place because 
there is no health safety or nutritional difference between biotech 
crops and their nonbiotech varieties.
  A recent report from the National Academy of Sciences ``found no 
substantiated evidence of a difference in risks to human health between 
current commercially available genetically engineered crops and 
conventionally bred crops.''
  Just last week, 110 Nobel laureates sent an open letter to the 
leaders of Greenpeace, the United Nations, and all governments around 
the world in support of agriculture biotechnology, and particularly in 
support of golden rice. Golden rice has the potential--has had the 
potential and has the potential--to reduce or eliminate much of the 
death and disease caused by a vitamin A deficiency, particularly among 
the poorest people in Africa and Southeast Asia. These world-renowned 
scientists noted that ``scientific and regulatory agencies around the 
world have repeatedly and consistently found crops and foods improved 
through biotechnology to be as safe as, if not safer, than those 
derived from any other method of production.''
  Furthermore, the laureates said:

       There has never been a single confirmed case of a negative 
     health outcome for humans or animals from their consumption. 
     Their environmental impacts have been shown repeatedly to be 
     less damaging to the environment, and a boon to global 
     biodiversity.

  There has been a lot of discussion about agriculture biotechnology 
lately, and that is a good thing. We should be talking about our food. 
We should be talking about our farmers and producers, and we should be 
talking to consumers. It is important to have an honest discussion and 
an open exchange of dialogue. After all, that is what we do in the 
Senate--discuss difficult issues, craft solutions, and finally vote in 
the best interests of our constituents.
  The difficult issue for us to address is what to do about the 
patchwork of biotechnology labeling laws that soon will

[[Page S4781]]

wreak havoc on the flow of interstate commerce of agriculture and food 
products in every supermarket and every grocery store up and down every 
Main Street. That is what this discussion should be about. It is not 
about safety or health or nutrition; it is all about marketing. If we 
don't act today, what we will face is a handful of States that have 
chosen to enact labeling requirements on information that has nothing 
to do with health, safety, or nutrition.
  Unfortunately, the impact of those State decisions will be felt 
across the country and around the globe. Those decisions impact the 
farmers who would be pressured to grow less efficient crops so 
manufacturers could avoid these demonizing labels. Those labeling laws 
will impact distributors who have to spend more money to sort different 
labels for different States. Those labeling laws will ultimately impact 
consumers, who will suffer from much higher priced food. When on-
package labels force manufacturers to reformulate food products, our 
farmers will have limited biotechnology options available. This will 
result in less food available to the many mouths in our troubled and 
hungry world.
  It is not manufacturers who pay the ultimate price; it is the 
consumer--at home and around the globe--who will bear this burden, 
unless we act today.
  I am proud of the critical role the Department of Agriculture has 
played and will continue to play in combating global hunger. Farmers 
and ranchers in Kansas, Michigan, and all across this country have been 
and are committed to continue to doing their part. And those of us who 
represent them in the U.S. Senate should do our part to stand up in 
defense of sound science and innovation. We should stand up to ensure 
that our farmers and ranchers have access to agriculture biotechnology 
and other tools to address these global challenges.
  The proposal put forth by my distinguished ranking member Senator 
Stabenow and me provides that defense of our food system and our 
farmers and ranchers, while at the same time providing a reasonable 
solution to consumer demand for more information. That is what the bill 
does.
  Our amendment strikes a careful balance. It certainly is not perfect 
from my perspective. It is not the best possible bill, but it is the 
best bill possible under these difficult circumstances we find 
ourselves in today. That is why, I say to my colleagues, it is 
supported by a broad coalition of well over 1,000 food and agriculture 
industries, and that sets a record in the Senate Agriculture Committee. 
They include the American Farm Bureau Federation, Grocery Manufacturers 
Association, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, just to name a few.
  I urge my colleagues to not merely support cloture on a bill this 
afternoon but to support your broad range of constituents who benefit 
from its passage.
  Passing this bill benefits farmers and ranchers by providing a 
mechanism for disclosure that educates rather than denigrates their 
technology.
  Passing this bill benefits manufacturers by providing a single 
national standard by which to be held accountable, rather than an 
unworkable system of many more State standards.
  Finally, passing this bill benefits consumers by greatly increasing 
the amount of food information at their fingertips but does so in a way 
that provides cost-effective options to avoid devastating increases in 
the price of food.
  Passing this bill is the responsible thing to do. It is time for us 
to act. I urge my colleagues to join us in doing just that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first I wish to thank the chairman of 
the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee. We had some tough 
negotiations on this issue, and I think we have come to a place that 
makes sense for farmers and the food industry, as well as consumers. So 
I wish to thank Senator Roberts. We worked together on a bipartisan 
basis on issue after issue after issue coming before the committee, and 
I am sure we will continue to do that. I don't think we have an economy 
unless somebody makes something and grows something. That is how we 
have an economy. And we worked very hard to come to a spot where we can 
actually get things done because that is what people expect us to do. 
It is great to talk, but people want us to actually solve problems and 
get things done.
  So today I rise to discuss an important bipartisan agreement--a hard-
fought, tough negotiated agreement that the Senate will soon vote on 
regarding the issue of GMO labeling. This bill is frankly very 
different from what passed the House of Representatives about a year 
ago, I think now, and from what we voted on in March. I thank Senator 
Roberts and his staff for working in a bipartisan way to get us to the 
spot where we are now.
  As everyone knows, I have opposed voluntary labeling at every turn. I 
don't think it is right to preempt States from having labeling laws and 
replace it with something that is voluntary. There needs to be a 
mandatory system, which is what this bill does.
  I worked to keep what was done by activists known as the DARK Act 
from becoming law three different times here in the U.S. Senate. 
Throughout this process, I worked to ensure that any agreement would 
first recognize the scientific consensus that biotechnology is safe; 
second, to ensure that consumers have the right to know what is in 
their food; and third, to prevent a confusing patchwork of 50 different 
labeling requirements in 50 different States. And while this issue 
stirs strong emotions in all scientific debate--I certainly understand 
that--the fact is, this bill achieves all of those goals. For the first 
time ever, we will ensure we have a mandatory national labeling system 
for GMOs.
  Unfortunately, in many ways this debate has served as a proxy fight 
about whether biotechnology has a role in our food system and in 
agriculture as a whole. I think that is really fundamentally what the 
debate is about under this whole issue.
  When we wrote the farm bill back in 2013, I made it a top priority to 
support all parts of agriculture. It was very important to me to say 
that consumers need choices and that we need to support every part of 
agriculture, and that is what we did in a very robust way. We made 
important investments and reforms that helped our traditional growers--
conventional growers--and we made significant investments in organics, 
in local food systems, small farms, and farmers' markets in a way we 
have not done before as a country. We did this because we recognized 
that it takes all forms of agriculture to ensure we continue leading 
the world with the safest, most affordable food supply.
  That is why, when I hear friends who oppose this bill denying the 
overwhelming body of science that says biotechnology poses no human 
health or safety risks while believing the very same National Academy 
of Sciences that tells us that climate change is real, I have to shake 
my head. I believe in science; that is why I know climate change is 
real. I believe in science; that is why the same people--the National 
Academy of Sciences and over 100 Nobel laureates last week--and when 
the FDA tells us that biotechnology is safe for human consumption and 
that there is no material difference between GMO and non-GMO 
ingredients, I believe science.
  In fact, as was indicated earlier, over 100 Nobel laureates signed a 
letter to Greenpeace last week asking them to end their opposition to 
GMOs over a strain of rice that will reduce vitamin A deficiencies that 
cause blindness and death in children in the developing world. I stand 
with the scientific evidence from leading health organizations like the 
American Medical Association, the National Academy of Sciences, the 
FDA, and the World Health Organization, which all say that GMOs are 
safe for consumption. I find it ironic that those who challenge this 
science have latched onto comments from the FDA--an agency that has 
found no scientific evidence that biotechnology threatens human 
safety--as some type of credible challenge to this agreement.

  In talking about comments from the FDA, I find it interesting that 
they omit the first paragraph, which was, by the way, that they don't 
believe from a health risk safety standpoint that GMOs should be 
labeled and which is why they have consistently said no to labeling and 
would, not surprisingly, interpret a biotechnology definition in the 
narrowest way because they don't believe that GMOs should be labeled.

[[Page S4782]]

  So I stand before colleagues and this Chamber today to say enough is 
enough. I have been through enough of these debates in the past to know 
that sometimes, no matter the amount of reason or logic, someone is not 
going to change their position. I understand that. But I remember 
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, who used to say that 
everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts. So 
in that spirit, let's talk about the facts.
  For the first time, consumers in all 50 States will have a mandatory 
national GMO label on their food. Right now, if we do nothing, those 
who get labeling are Vermont and potentially a couple of other States 
in the Northeast. When we vote, if we vote yes, everyone will have the 
opportunity to get more information about their food as it relates to 
GMOs. While many want to hold up the Vermont law, the fact is that law 
ensures that a little more than 626,000 people have information about 
their food. There are nearly 16 times more people in Michigan, and they 
deserve the right to know as well. That is why this mandatory national 
labeling system is so important.
  Let's talk about what we are saying--not in a voluntary way as passed 
the House but requiring one of three choices--three well-regulated ways 
for companies to disclose information. Some have already chosen what 
they are going to do and have said: We're going to continue to do on-
pack words, like Vermont. There are significant companies that have 
said: We want certainty. We want this law passed, but this is what we 
are doing.
  We also give a choice of an on-pack symbol, and this is not the 
specific, but it is the idea of what it would be. We have some major 
retailers in this country who have said: Regardless of what happens, we 
are only going to get products on our shelves if they have the first--
which is words--or a symbol. So the marketplace is definitely going to 
drive where this goes, and consumers will continue to drive it.
  But we also know that an electronic label makes sense if it is 
regulated in a specific way to make sure that consumers can have 
access. We also know there are those who want very much to make sure 
they not only share information that there are GMO ingredients but also 
important things, such as the National Academy of Sciences saying they 
are safe for human consumption. So there is some context around this. 
It is not scare tactics; it is fact based.
  Let me also say that we know consumers want other kinds of 
information than just whether or not there are genetically modified 
ingredients in their food. The No. 1 issue I am told consumers ask 
about is food allergies. We know others are concerned about antibiotics 
in meat. There are a whole range of issues people care about. For me 
and the world of smartphones and electronics, going forward, it makes 
sense from a consumer standpoint to have a universally accepted 
platform where you not only get information about GMOs but whether you 
should be concerned about your food allergies and what is, in fact, in 
the ingredients. Right now I have friends who have to go to a book in 
the back of a store to figure out what is going on in terms of food 
ingredients. Having something that is accessible to all of us who are 
using these phones would make sense, and that is what we are talking 
about.
  So we have three different options, and the companies or stores, if 
they put them in, will drive what the options are.
  Let me debunk a little bit of this whole question on allowing an 
electronic label. First of all, Nielsen tells us that 82 percent of 
American households right now own a smartphone. It is so interesting to 
me that the people expressing outrage about technology are using their 
smartphones in order to tweet that or are going to Facebook and other 
social media--a socially accepted way for us to be communicating 
together. So 82 percent of American households own a smartphone, and we 
are told by Nielsen that very quickly will become 90 percent.
  For someone who doesn't have a smartphone--or maybe they are in an 
area where there is concern about broadband, which concerns me, in some 
rural areas--we make sure that before this is implemented, the USDA has 
to survey areas where this is a problem and make sure there is more 
accessibility with additional scanners in the store and additional 
opportunities for people to be able to get the information and to be 
able to use this if they don't have a smartphone. They might want to be 
able to put the can up to a scanner. That is another option as well.

  Let me also say that more and more, using smartphones and electric 
labels is very much a part of our lives. We have those doing it for 
food information right now. You can scan to get a price right now on a 
can. We have all kinds of apps on our phone, from paying bills, to 
going through the airport, to connecting with friends. This is very 
much about the future and how we are going to find out all kinds of 
information. So it is not unreasonable that, in order to help consumers 
get information not just on GMOs but on food allergies and other kinds 
of important issues, we would look at electronic labels in a way to do 
that. This is an idea that came from the Secretary of Agriculture 
looking at all of the different requests to their Department for 
information.
  I appreciate some of the concerns about the electronic label, but 
this is not about hiding information because we will be working to make 
sure there is accessibility in the store for that information. And 
going forward, we have virtually everyone at some point using their 
smartphone to communicate--to do business, to do banking, to 
communicate with friends, and so on. I think this will become less and 
less of an issue as we go forward.
  Let me also say one more time that one of three things must be done. 
Major companies have already said that while they want the certainty of 
a national law so they can plan--and we don't see disruptions for our 
farmers and for our grocery store owners and others--they will simply 
do on-pack words or an on-pack symbol. But there are three choices 
available. You must do one of those in order to make information 
available, and I fully expect that consumers will engage with companies 
to advocate as to which one of those they want to see happen.
  Let me talk about something else that has not been focused on enough. 
We have been talking about how to label, which is only one piece of it. 
Another piece of this is the fact that the bill in front of us ensures 
that around 25,000 more products will be labeled than are labeled in 
Vermont or any of the other States we are talking about. Around 25,000 
more products will be labeled, and consumers will have the opportunity 
to know what is in those products. This has really been glossed over, 
and I think that is very unfortunate. Right now, in Vermont, anything 
with meat, eggs, cheese, dairy--including broth or anything that has 
any bit of meat in it--is automatically exempt. This agreement gives 
consumers information about 25,000 more products that contain meat when 
the product also contains GMO ingredients. So 25,000 more products--
that is good for consumers and families who want to know.
  To be clear, this bill has the same tough standards as the European 
Union and many other countries when it comes to livestock. However, 
unlike Vermont, this bill doesn't provide the full exemption for a GMO 
food product just because it contains a trace of meat as an ingredient. 
What does that mean? In Vermont, you walk in--if it is a cheese pizza, 
it is labeled; a cheese pepperoni pizza is not labeled, even though it 
has GMO ingredients. In Vermont, vegetable soup is labeled; vegetable 
beef soup is exempt, even though it has GMO ingredients. In Vermont, a 
fettuccine alfredo--I'm getting hungry for lunch--fettuccine alfredo is 
labeled; fettuccine alfredo with chicken and broccoli is exempt, even 
though it has GMO ingredients. Now, somebody tell me why that makes any 
sense from a consumer standpoint. We fix that in this bill.
  The next thing we focus on is making sure that we maintain and 
strengthen the organic label, something not done in other versions of 
the bill. As we know, organics have always been non-GMO. Those families 
who wish not to buy products with GMOs--those who have wanted to buy 
products with no GMOs--will always have that option. But for many 
consumers it is a bit unclear. People question: Well, does ``organic'' 
mean the same thing as ``non-GMO''? To make it clear, among a number of 
changes we are making to

[[Page S4783]]

strengthen and protect the organic label, this agreement ensures that 
organic producers can now display a non-GMO label in addition to the 
USDA organic seal. This is also important information not in any other 
bill and important information to give consumers choices about the food 
they eat.
  Let's talk now for a moment about the definitions that have been 
talked a lot about in terms of biotechnology. First of all, let me say 
it is the USDA, not the FDA, that is the sole agency that will 
implement this mandatory national labeling system. They are the ones 
given the authority to label everything that contains GMOs on the 
grocery shelf, and that is what this label and definition does. While 
we saw a lot of fervor last week about comments from the FDA, it does 
not change the fact that USDA will implement this mandatory national 
labeling system--not the FDA, which doesn't believe it should be 
labeled and has the most conservative view on what a biotech definition 
is.
  As I said before, it is rather ironic that labeling advocates who 
clung to these statements when the FDA sent out a memorandum of 
technical assistance have missed or refused to also indicate that the 
FDA has repeatedly denied petitions to label GMOs. That is why this is 
going through the USDA from an information and marketing standpoint and 
not the FDA--because there is not scientific evidence to put it into 
the FDA as a health risk.
  Furthermore, we have heard from many opponents who say the definition 
in this agreement does not match any other international definition of 
``biotechnology.'' The fact is, the definition of ``biotechnology'' 
varies greatly among the 64 countries with mandatory labeling laws. Our 
definition is in line with many of those countries and even has the 
potential to cover more foods. For example, the European Union's 
definition of ``biotechnology,'' which applies to food produced in 27 
countries, clearly does not include gene editing or other new 
technologies. This agreement we will be voting on provides authority to 
the USDA to label those things. Japan only requires labels on 8 crops--
33 specific food products--and exempts refined sugar. Our bill provides 
authority to the USDA to label refined sugars and other processed 
products.
  When people point to international laws, let's really look at the 
details of those laws before we start holding those laws as the gold 
standard for GMO labeling laws.
  I reflect on the statement from Senator Moynihan. Everyone is 
entitled to his or her opinion but not his or her own facts.
  This bill creates the first-ever mandatory national GMO labeling 
requirement. We cover 25,000 more foods than are labeled in Vermont or 
the other States.
  We protect and strengthen the organic label, which is non-GMO and 
makes it a clear choice for consumers.
  We preserve and protect critical State and Federal consumer laws. 
That is where this will be enforced. One of the major areas of 
negotiations was to make sure that while there was a preemption of the 
capacity to label, it did not bleed over into the capacity to enforce 
fraud or inaccuracy or other issues that relate to labeling. We have 
been very clear--the enforcement will come from Federal and State 
consumer protection laws.
  Finally, we are preventing a patchwork of 50 State labeling laws 
that--as in every other area of international commerce--we as a country 
have said does not make sense.
  So we can nitpick this agreement around the edges. Certainly, in any 
negotiation, there are always things you would like to see in an 
agreement that are not there. Certainly, in any bipartisan agreement, 
that is going to be the case. But this bill moves us forward with a 
commonsense approach that for the first time guarantees consumers who 
want to know if their food includes GMOs the ability to know, while at 
the same time creating certainty for our food producers, our farmers, 
our manufacturers, and our grocers.
  I urge colleagues to come together to look at the facts, to look at 
the science, and to support this bipartisan agreement. We have an 
opportunity to really get something done--not just talk but to actually 
get something done that is positive. I hope we will do that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Remembering Abner J. Mikva

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, Monday, the Fourth of July, was the 
240th anniversary of the creation of the United States of America. It 
was a day on which we celebrated this great Nation. We celebrated our 
great leaders, but in Illinois we lost one of our best in the passing 
of Abner Mikva on the Fourth of July.
  Abner Mikva was a friend. In addition to that, he was an 
extraordinary individual. His record of public service is unmatched. I 
can't think of anyone off the top of my head who did so many 
distinguished things in the legislative branch of our Federal 
Government, serving in the House of Representatives; serving on the 
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Columbia in the judicial branch; 
and serving as general counsel to President William Clinton in the 
White House in the executive branch. Abner Mikva combined them all.
  The highlights of his life are an amazing story of a young man going 
through law school who decided in 1948 that he wanted to get involved 
in politics. Judge Mikva got his start when he walked into the 8th Ward 
headquarters in the city of Chicago in 1948--back in the day when the 
Democratic organization of Chicago was a powerful operation. Here he 
was, a young man, a young law student who was inspired by the 
candidacies of Adlai Stevenson for Governor of Illinois and Paul 
Douglas for the U.S. Senate, and he wanted to do his part.
  What transpired when he made that effort has become legend in 
Chicago.
  Abner Mikva showed up. A ward committeeman saw him at the door and 
said: What can I do for you?
  He said: Well, I am looking to volunteer.
  The ward committeeman said to Ab Mikva: Who sent you?
  Abner Mikva said: Nobody sent me.
  The ward committeeman said: We don't want nobody nobody sent.
  He then said to him: Are you looking for a job?
  Abner Mikva said: No, I am not really looking for a job.
  The ward committeeman said: We don't want nobody who ain't looking 
for a job.
  The ward committeeman then said: Where are you from, kid?
  He said: I go to the University of Chicago.
  The ward committeeman made it clear: We don't want nobody from the 
University of Chicago.
  That was Abner Mikva's introduction into politics. You would think he 
would have been discouraged by that, but he was not. He went on to 
graduate from the University of Chicago Law School, to clerk for a U.S. 
Supreme Court Justice, and then to practice law in the city.
  In the 1950s, he decided to run for the Illinois House of 
Representatives. He ran against the same political organization that 
turned away his efforts to be a volunteer, and he won. He came to 
Springfield, IL--my hometown and the capital of our State--to the 
Illinois House, and found some kindred spirits. One of them, Paul 
Simon, who eventually served here in the U.S. Senate, was Abner Mikva's 
closest friend in the Illinois House of Representatives. State 
representative Tony Scariano was another independent who had come to 
the Illinois House to try to make a difference. The three of them 
roomed together--Mikva, Jewish religion; Paul Simon, Lutheran; and Tony 
Scariano, Catholic. They called their gang the Kosher Nostra, and they 
set out to try to change the government of Illinois. But even more than 
their contributions legislatively, politically they created a force in 
Illinois--both downstate and in Chicago, which made a big difference in 
the history of our State.

  Abner Mikva went on to be elected to the U.S. House of 
Representatives, where he served with distinction until he was 
appointed to the district court for the District of Columbia. He had a 
tough congressional district. He started off on the South Side of 
Chicago, around Hyde Park. Eventually, when he saw the demographics 
changing, he

[[Page S4784]]

picked up and literally moved north to the Evanston area, which was the 
base for his political operations in the new congressional district. He 
moved his entire operation up north and inspired the kind of 
followership and devotion that politicians dream of. If you were part 
of the Mikva organization in his district, you took it personally. I 
can recall people saying with a straight face that they were part of 
the Mikva operation but decided to move out of his district. When they 
broke the news to the coordinator, of course, the coordinator insisted 
that before they could move, they had to find someone to replace them 
as precinct volunteers to help Ab Mikva get reelected to the U.S. House 
of Representatives, which he did sporadically. He lost a couple of 
times, but he won as well. The time came when he was appointed to the 
Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the second 
highest court in the land, where he wrote many important decisions 
relative to the basic rights of people under the Constitution.
  He was my friend. I was introduced to him by Paul Simon, my 
predecessor here in the Senate. I think of the two of them as my North 
Star, when it comes to issues of integrity, independence, and 
progressive values. I was lucky to know Ab Mikva throughout my 
congressional career in the House and Senate and to have Loretta join 
me when we had dinner with Ab and his wife Zoe in Chicago several times 
over the last several years after his retirement.
  Ab Mikva received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President 
Barack Obama, and one of the reasons was that they were close personal 
friends. It was Ab Mikva to whom Barack Obama went when he was 
interested in a career in politics, and Mikva counseled him in terms of 
what he needed to do. He suggested that he should listen more carefully 
to African-American ministers so he could put a little more life and 
emotion into his speaking style. Obviously, President Obama took that 
lesson to heart. It was Abner Mikva who stood by Obama in his early 
days, running for the U.S. Senate and then running for the Presidency. 
He was always his right-hand man, willing to offer advice and connect 
him with the right people on the political scene. Their friendship 
endured until Ab's passing just a couple of days ago. I know the 
President feels, as I do, that we have lost a great friend and a great 
supporter in what he was able to achieve.
  He also had a friendly and happy way about him. He enjoyed life. He 
used to engage in poker games that included Supreme Court Justices and 
Federal judges, some of whom will surprise you. William Rehnquist would 
play poker with Ab Mikva. Those were two men from opposite ends of the 
political spectrum, and they still had a chance to get together and to 
get to know one another.
  He left an enduring mark on America's legal system. There were so 
many people who started off as clerks for Abner Mikva and turned out to 
be amazing contributors to the American political scene. One of his 
former clerks sits on the U.S. Supreme Court. Elena Kagan was a clerk 
for Judge Mikva and then went on to the highest Court in the land. That 
gives you an indication of the quality of the people who worked with 
and for him. His law clerks went on to serve Justices William Brennan, 
Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, and Lewis Powell.
  The New York Times once branded Abner Mikva as ``the Zelig of the 
American legal scene.'' One brilliant young lawyer actually turned down 
a Mikva clerkship, and that was Barack Obama, who did find another way 
to contribute to this Nation.
  In 1997, Judge Mikva and his wife Zoe founded the Mikva Challenge, a 
program I have become acquainted with and worked with over the years. 
Abner Mikva and Zoe tried to engage young people in politics, and they 
did it on a bipartisan basis. If a young person wanted to volunteer for 
the Republican Party, they would find a way for that person to become a 
part of the campaign and work in an office so they could see firsthand 
what politics and government was all about, and, of course, they would 
provide similar volunteers for the Democratic candidates. These young 
people would see their lives transformed and changed by this Mikva 
Challenge. I have met them, and many times I wondered what their future 
might hold, but knowing full well that some of them would be in public 
service, much as Abner Mikva was during his life.
  Just a couple of months ago, there was a special luncheon to 
celebrate Abner's contributions to public service and the Mikva 
Challenge. At the time they made the decision--and I hope they carried 
it through--to make this a permanently funded foundation-supported 
effort that will survive Abner and Zoe and will live on for many 
decades to come.
  Some years ago, Judge Mikva told a reporter that it was important for 
a society to have heroes. He said:

       You have to have live heroes. . . . It is not enough to be 
     exposed to George Washington in grade school or Abraham 
     Lincoln in high school. You have to have somebody who you can 
     identify with in the here and now, who makes the institutions 
     we are trying to preserve worthwhile.

  I am very proud to join the Alliance for Justice and many other 
groups that have stood up and acknowledged the amazing contributions 
that have been made by Abner Mikva and Zoe during the course of Abner's 
life. I am particularly honored to have counted him as a friend. He 
would call and give me words of encouragement so many times when we 
were going through some tough decisionmaking. I can't tell you how much 
it meant to hear from him personally and to know he approved of what I 
was doing. He was always, as I said, my North Star and hero in 
political life. With his old buddy, Paul Simon, his old roommate in the 
Illinois House, they probably inspired this Senator as much as any two 
people who have been living during my tenure in public service.
  I stand today in tribute to a great man and a great American. Abner 
Mikva of Illinois made this a better country and Illinois a better 
State.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                        Remembering Elie Wiesel

  Mr. CRUZ. Madam President:

       I remember: it happened yesterday, or eternities ago. A 
     young Jewish boy discovered the Kingdom of Night. I remember 
     his bewilderment, I remember his anguish. It all happened so 
     fast. The ghetto. The deportation. The sealed cattle car. The 
     fiery altar upon which the history of our people and the 
     future of mankind were meant to be sacrificed.
       I remember he asked his father: ``Can this be true? This is 
     the twentieth century, not the Middle Ages. Who would allow 
     such crimes to be committed? How could the world remain 
     silent?''
       And now the boy is turning to me. ``Tell me,'' he asks, 
     ``what have you done with my future, what have you done with 
     your life?'' And I tell him that I have tried. That I have 
     tried to keep memory alive, that I have tried to fight those 
     who would forget. Because if we forget, we are guilty, we are 
     accomplices.
       And then I explained to him how naive we were, that the 
     world did know and remain silent. And that is why I swore 
     never to be silent whenever, wherever human beings endure 
     suffering and humiliation. We must take sides. Neutrality 
     helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the 
     tormenter, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere. 
     When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in 
     jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become 
     irrelevant. Wherever men and women are persecuted because of 
     their race, religion, or political views, that place must--at 
     that moment--become the center of the universe.

  Elie Wiesel spoke these words as he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize in 
1986. He was a living testimony to the vow ``Never forget.'' Although 
he endured the unspeakable darkness of Auschwitz and Buchenwald, his 
defiant light burned ever brighter as he dedicated his immense talents 
to providing a voice for not only the Jewish victims of the Holocaust 
but also for the voiceless, the condemned, and the forsaken around the 
globe. Elie tirelessly reminded the world that the savage horror of the 
Third Reich was not an aberration in the past that was defeated in 
World War II. He knew that the potential for such genocidal evil 
remains with us in the present, and he warned that we must always be on 
guard against it. Now, that little boy who was always with him must 
always be with us.
  I was blessed to know Elie and his incomparable wife Mary personally. 
They have been powerful and fearless voices for justice no matter the 
cost. It is humbling to encounter the true greatness that is embodied 
by Elie and Mary.
  When Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed a joint 
session of Congress, it was one of the

[[Page S4785]]

great privileges of my life to host Elie Wiesel and join him on a 
panel, together discussing the profound threat imposed by a nuclear 
Iran.
  A nuclear Iran, I believe, is the single greatest national security 
threat facing America. Elie shared that view. ``Never again'' is a 
critically important phrase. After the victory of World War II, it 
might seem like a comforting affirmation of fact that humanity had 
evolved and a horror like the Holocaust could never happen again, but 
``never again'' is something more. Elie Wiesel was a living testimony 
to the fact that ``never again'' is a sacred vow. It is a promise that 
we will not take this for granted, but we will be ceaselessly vigilant 
because we know that while the evil of anti-Semitism was defeated once 
in World War II, it was not eradicated. To assume in our sophisticated 
modern age that we somehow transcended evil would be a tragic mistake.
  We have seen the face of evil this year in the savage ISIS terrorists 
who are targeting Jews, Christians, and Muslims--murdering regardless 
of faith. We see it even more clearly in the Islamic Republic of Iran, 
which is seeking the world's deadliest weapons and the means to deliver 
them to make good on the many threats to annihilate not only the nation 
of Israel but the entire free world. These are not empty words uttered 
by an ayatollah without consequence. They are not simply words to 
placate a domestic political audience. These are articles of faith with 
the Iranian leadership, and they have backed them up with 35 years of 
violent hostility towards Israel and the United States.
  Last year, the world marked the 75th anniversary of the liberation of 
Auschwitz, and we remembered the unspeakable atrocities of the death 
camps. We cannot afford a nuclear Auschwitz. We all know that Iran's 
terrorist proxies--Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Palestinian Islamic 
Jihad--have engaged in vicious terror attacks against our Nation, and 
already too many of our citizens have been killed and maimed. We know 
that the danger posed by Iran is not a thing of the past. Their 
intention is to use these weapons of destruction.
  This threat should not be a partisan issue. This threat should unite 
us because that is the only way we will be able to defeat this threat, 
and defeat it we must because Iran's threat is not only to wipe us off 
the map but to erase us from the historical record all together. Think 
about that for a moment. The stated objective of the Ayatollah Khamenei 
is a world without even the memory of the United States of America, the 
Great Satan, as they call us--or even a memory of Israel, the Little 
Satan, as they call Israel.

  Together we can stop that threat, just as we did in World War II. 
Together we can stand up and repudiate this catastrophic Iranian 
nuclear deal that sends billions of dollars to Islamic terrorists 
committed to our murder. Together we can look evil in the eye and call 
it by its name, and we can do what we must to ensure that the vow of 
``never again'' is fulfilled.
  Elie Wiesel left an extraordinary legacy. His memory is a blessing, 
an inspiration, but it is also a challenge to keep his legacy burning 
in our hearts. Our prayers go out to Marion and to all of Elie's loved 
ones. May he rest in peace, but may every one of us rise to answer the 
call to truth and justice that Elie Wiesel championed each and every 
day.


                               Kate's Law

  Madam President, there is a second topic I wish to address on the 
floor today.
  Last week, as many of us were looking forward to Independence Day and 
vacations with our family, fireworks, hot dogs by the grill, another 
family was mourning a loss--the loss of a daughter, the loss of a life, 
and a loss that should never have occurred. Last Friday was the 1-year 
anniversary of the senseless killing of a vivacious 32-year-old young 
woman, Kate Steinle. She was shot as she was walking arm in arm with 
her dad on a San Francisco pier. After the bullet tore through her, she 
collapsed to the ground, crying out, ``Dad, help me. Help me.'' She 
died 2 hours later.
  As the father of two daughters, I cannot imagine the anguish and the 
heartbreak that was going through Mr. Steinle as he held his dying 
daughter.
  Her murderer was an illegal alien, and he wasn't just any illegal 
alien. He was one who had already been deported five times. On top of 
that, he had a long rap sheet that included up to seven felonies. What 
was he doing on that San Francisco pier? He should never have been 
there, and if he were not there, Kate Steinle would be alive today.
  Just a few months before killing Kate, this illegal alien was 
released from the custody of the San Francisco sheriff's office, even 
though Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Federal agency 
responsible for deporting illegal aliens, had requested he remain in 
custody. The Federal Government said: Keep this criminal illegal alien 
in custody. And the San Francisco sheriff said: No, we will release him 
to the public. The San Francisco sheriff's office refused to honor that 
request because of a so-called sanctuary city policy that prohibits the 
San Francisco sheriff's deputies from cooperating with Federal 
immigration enforcement officers. Local cities are putting in place 
policies that prohibit local law enforcement from working to keep our 
country safe.
  The sad truth is, Kate should be alive today, but she isn't because 
the Federal Government failed her. It has failed to secure the border. 
It has failed to faithfully and vigorously enforce the immigration laws 
that are on the books. It has failed to strengthen those laws to deter 
illegal aliens like Kate's killer from coming back over and over and 
over again. It has failed to enforce the law against sanctuary 
jurisdictions--which now number in the hundreds all across America--
that aid and abet illegal aliens evading deportation.
  The President of the United States is the officer charged by the 
Constitution with the sole responsibility to faithfully execute the 
law. When his administration tolerates and encourages lawlessness, is 
it any surprise that terrible things happen? We must put an end to this 
administration's lax enforcement of our immigration laws, which 
threatens the safety and security of the American people, and we should 
begin by putting a stop to sanctuary cities, which this administration 
has been unwilling to do on its own. A real President, faithful to the 
Constitution, would end sanctuary cities by cutting off money to any 
jurisdiction openly defying Federal immigration law.
  That is why I am a proud cosponsor of Senator Pat Toomey's Stop 
Sanctuary Cities Act, which would withhold Federal grant money from 
cities that refuse to cooperate with Federal immigration enforcement 
officers. Cities that flout Federal law should not be rewarded with 
Federal taxpayer dollars.
  We must also address the persistent problem of aliens like Kate's 
killer who illegally reenter this country after deportation. That is 
why I introduced, exactly 1 year ago, an earlier version of Kate's Law. 
Unfortunately, no action was taken on that bill until it was 
incorporated into Senator Vitter's Stop Sanctuary Policies Act. Senate 
Democrats voted in virtual lockstep to defeat the bill. Last fall, I 
went again to the Senate floor and asked for unanimous consent to pass 
Kate's Law as a stand-alone bill, but the senior Senator from 
California--the very State where Kate's senseless murder occurred--
stood on this floor and objected.
  Today, I thank the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, for 
scheduling a vote on Kate's Law and a separate vote on stopping 
sanctuary cities, for giving this body another chance to address the 
problem and to listen to the people. The time for politics is over. We 
should come together and protect the American people. It is a time to 
confront the sobering issue of illegal aliens, many of whom have 
serious criminal backgrounds and yet are allowed to illegally reenter 
this country with impunity.
  Kate's Law would do three things. First, it would increase the 
maximum criminal penalty for illegal entry from 2 to 5 years. Second, 
it would create a new penalty for up to 10 years in prison for any 
person who has been denied admission and deported three or more times 
and illegally enters the country. Finally, and most importantly, it 
would create a 5-year mandatory minimum sentence for anyone convicted 
of illegal reentry who, like Kate's killer, had an aggravated felony 
prior to deportation or had been convicted of illegal reentry twice 
before. This class of illegal aliens has a special disregard and 
disdain for our Nation's laws. Violent criminals keep coming in over 
and

[[Page S4786]]

over and over again, and all too often these illegal aliens have 
criminal records that go back years or even decades.
  For example, in 2012, just over one-quarter of the illegal aliens 
apprehended by the Border Patrol had prior deportation orders. That is 
an astounding 99,420 illegal aliens. In fiscal year 2015, of the 
illegal reentry offenders who were actually convicted--that is 15,715 
offenders--the majority had extensive or recent criminal histories. At 
least one-third had a prior aggravated felony conviction, but even 
though the majority of offenders had criminal records, the average 
prison sentence was just 16 months, down from an average of 22 months 
in 2008. In fact, more than one-quarter of illegal reentry offenders 
received a sentence below the guidelines range because the government 
sponsored the low sentence.
  Clearly, we are failing to adequately deter deported illegal aliens 
from illegally reentering the country, especially those with violent 
criminal records. That is why we need to pass Kate's Law. We must 
increase the risk and the penalties for those who would contemplate 
illegally returning to the United States to commit acts of murder.
  I thank all the leaders in this body. I thank leaders like Bill 
O'Reilly for shining a light on this vital issue. This vote ought to be 
an easy decision. Just ask yourself this: With whom do I stand?
  I hope my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, will choose to stand 
with the American people, the people we should be protecting, rather 
than convicted felons like Kate Steinle's killer.
  It is worth noting the city of San Francisco--bright blue Democratic 
San Francisco--voted out the sheriff after the murder of Kate Steinle. 
All Americans, regardless of being a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, 
Independent--all Americans deserve to be protected, and we need a 
government that stops allowing violent illegal aliens to prey on the 
innocents.
  If our Democratic colleagues make the choice to put politics over 
protecting innocent Americans by refusing to enforce our immigration 
laws, the consequences of that are a mess. Doing so is quite literally 
playing with people's lives. This isn't hyperbole. Unfortunately, it is 
a fact.
  Tragically, Kate's death was not just an isolated occurrence, as much 
as we all wish that were the case. Just last week, an illegal alien 
killed three innocent people and wounded a fourth outside a blueberry 
farm in Oregon. According to ICE officials, the illegal alien had been 
deported from the United States an astounding six times since 2003.
  Enough is enough. Stop letting in violent criminal illegal aliens who 
are murdering innocent Americans. This should bring us all together. 
How many more of these terrible acts must we endure until Congress 
acts? What does it take to break the partisan gridlock and actually 
come together and protect the American people? The votes this afternoon 
will help answer that question. I very much hope we will not wait one 
day longer.
  I urge my colleagues to stand together united against lawlessness, to 
stand against dangerous criminal illegal aliens who flout our laws, and 
I urge each of us to hear the words of Kate Steinle, ``Help me, dad. 
Help me, dad.'' That was a cry that went not just to a grieving father, 
but it is a cry that should pierce each and every one of us and move 
this body out of slumber and into action, to help and stand with the 
American people.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. TESTER. Madam President, before we start, do I need unanimous 
consent to speak for 15 or 20 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is free to speak.
  Mr. TESTER. I thank the Presiding Officer.


                           GMO Labeling Bill

  Madam President, I come to the floor today to speak out against the 
GMO labeling bill we will be considering a little bit later this week 
or next week and to raise concerns for the millions of American 
families who want to know and who have the right to know exactly what 
is in their food. I have come to the floor before to endorse GMO 
labeling legislation and to oppose efforts to keep folks in the dark 
when it comes to what they feed their families.
  This is an issue that impacts each and every one of us. Every day, 
there is nothing more important than choosing the food we eat. Food 
provides us with nutrition and energy. Good food helps our kids grow 
strong and helps us remain healthy as we get older.
  I strongly believe that when folks decide what food to purchase, they 
do so and should do so with all the information available to them. 
Unfortunately, Members of this body want to keep folks in the dark. 
They don't want consumers to know exactly what is in the food they are 
eating.
  This fight is nothing new. In 2013, I was on the floor fighting 
against a piece of legislation called the Monsanto Protection Act, 
which gave blanket immunity to major seed companies whose products had 
been or could be a target of litigation. Earlier this year, I was in 
this Chamber to fight against the DARK Act, which trampled on the 
rights of States and consumers alike at the request of the food 
industry.
  Once again, the Senate GMO labeling bill provides major food 
corporations with an out where they can hide behind a complex QR code 
to prevent folks from knowing if their food contains genetically 
modified organisms. It brings into question the very question of 
bioengineering, and it raises concerns about the growing influence 
agribusiness has on this body.
  The bill before us raises all these major concerns and many more. 
Besides keeping folks in the dark and besides telling States they 
cannot write their own consumer information laws, this bill gives the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture complete authority to unilaterally 
interpret and implement the controversial provisions of this bill.
  To make things worse, this is not a collaborative bill. This bill 
provides corporate agribusiness with handout after handout, but it 
really doesn't do a thing for family farm producers and the small mom-
and-pop shops, the operations that are the backbone of our farming 
economy. Quite frankly, it undermines the work of organic producers, 
and it ignores the folks who purchase organic products. To me, it is 
clear that this is a one-sided bill--a bill that benefits multinational 
corporations at the expense of family farmers and ranchers.
  To be more specific, I want to talk about four major problems I have 
with this bill.
  First, this bill mandates that companies that use genetically 
engineered ingredients disclose that information on the packaging. On 
the surface, this looks like a step forward, but as we dig a little 
deeper, the bill allows companies to meet this mandate in three ways: a 
written label on a package, which would be fine; a symbol created by 
the USDA, which could also be fine; but then we have this--a QR barcode 
that folks have to scan using their smartphones to figure out whether 
there are genetically modified ingredients in the food they are going 
to buy. Yes, this bill allows companies to meet the disclosure 
requirement with this--a QR barcode. If you can tell me what that says 
by looking at it, you are a much smarter man than I.
  The bill before us today specifically mandates that the words next to 
the QR code say ``Scan here for more food information.'' Those are the 
words in the bill. So if folks want to know if their cereal contains 
commodities that originated in a lab, rather than read it on a package 
clear as a bell, rather than read the words on a package, they will 
first have to know that the QR code will provide them with information 
about whether that product contains GMOs and not just more marketing 
information or a coupon. They would have to know that the phrase ``more 
food information'' means information about GMOs--maybe, maybe not. Then 
they would scan that code into their phones. Hopefully they will have 
cell service in that grocery store, but what happens if they don't? 
That is not transparency. That is not the consumer's right to know. 
They could not tell.

[[Page S4787]]

  If they somehow know what the phrase ``more food information'' means 
and they are fortunate enough to have Wi-Fi in their grocery store, 
they will be directed to a Web site, and then maybe they can learn 
about what is really in the food, potentially genetically engineered 
products, although it is not clear what else they will have to read 
about or where that information will be hidden within that Web site.
  Other companies--maybe those that aren't as big as the big 
international agribusinesses--will be allowed to hide that important 
information behind an 800 number. A mom or dad who wants to know what 
is in their child's soup or bread will have to call many different 800 
numbers in the aisles of the grocery store or scan many of these QR 
codes. Anybody who has ever gone to a grocery store with a small child 
in tow knows that is not going to happen. Quite frankly, it is probably 
not even going to happen if you don't have a small child in tow. 
Between these ridiculous QR codes and the 1-800 numbers, mom or dad 
could easily end up standing in a grocery store for hours scanning each 
individual product with a smartphone or dialing an international call 
center just to find out basic information about what they are going to 
eat.
  This is completely ridiculous, a nightmare for consumers, and an 
illusion of transparency. What if companies were allowed to use QR 
codes instead of basic nutritional information? What if you had to scan 
a barcode to find out how much fat is in a bag of chips, how much 
protein is in a can of beans, or how much vitamin C is in a jug of 
orange juice, and the only clue you had was ``Scan here for more 
information''?
  It is interesting. When I go to a store and buy orange juice, I buy 
orange juice that is not made from concentrate. That is my choice. I 
can read it right on the package. I have to tell you, I don't know if 
that orange juice is any better than stuff that is made from 
concentrate, but it is written on the package, so I can determine what 
orange juice I want to buy.
  So if you don't want to buy food or if you want to buy food with GMOs 
in it, you get to scan this little doodad up here, this QR code, and 
then maybe, if you hit the right Web page, you can find out what is in 
the food. We did this as a Senate. We did this to allow people to know 
what is in their food, and we actually think this is an effective 
method to let people know what is in their food. How would folks in 
Congress react if lobbyists and dark-money campaigns began pushing to 
get all nutrition labels off our foods, the same way this bill hides 
origins of our food? I can tell you there would be a ton of folks here 
on the floor. They would be raising big hell, rather than just a 
handful who really aren't afraid of Monsanto or the other massive food 
corporations.
  Hiding massive information behind barcodes and 800 numbers is totally 
unacceptable. The Senate should not be in the business of hiding 
information from consumers.
  When I grew up, I was told the consumer is always right. We should be 
empowering those consumers, those American consumers, with more 
information about the food they purchase, not with less. Don't take it 
from me--9 out of 10 consumers say they want labeling required for 
genetically engineered foods. What is the problem with that? It is 
already done in 64 countries.
  When you bring up the issue of consumer rights, of the ability of 
individuals to have some idea where their food comes from, you are told 
that GMOs are perfectly safe, but that response completely misses the 
point and insults every single person who has ever asked about the 
source of their food.
  What this is really about is consumers' right to know--not with a 
Mickey Mouse QR code, not with a different 800 number on every package 
of food you pick up, but with simple words that say that product 
contains GMO or it doesn't. That will allow the consumer to make his 
choices. That will allow mothers and fathers around this country to be 
empowered, not to be controlled.
  Sixty-four countries, including places you would never ever think of 
as having transparency--places such as Russia, China, Saudi Arabia--
require GMO labeling.
  If this bill passes, we are going to say--and it had 68 votes the 
last time it came to the floor--that we have GMO labeling. That is a 
joke. We have a Mickey Mouse GMO labeling law.
  So why is the United States the only developed country in the world 
that doesn't require an easy-to-read GMO label on its food or an easy 
symbol that signifies it? There is a one-word answer: money. Here is an 
example. In 2012, California's Proposition 37 would have required GMO 
labeling. Opponents of that labeling bill spent $45 million to defeat 
that proposition. Supporters of that labeling bill spent about $7 
million. In fact, Monsanto alone spent $8 million. They outspent the 
supporters alone. That was in 2012.

  In 2013, Washington State had an initiative called 522 that required 
GMO labeling. More than $20 million was spent in opposition. About $7 
million was spent in support of the campaign, with $1.6 million coming 
from Washington residents.
  These campaigns and lobbying organizations have spent nearly one-half 
billion dollars to prevent commonsense labeling standards, and we have 
caved to that. If these companies are proud of GMO products, they 
should label them and make it a marketing tool. Instead, they are 
spending hundreds of millions of dollars to defeat commonsense measures 
that 90 percent of the public of this country supports because they are 
afraid the word ``GMO'' would hurt their billion-dollar profits.
  I am not asking for a skull and crossbones on the package. This isn't 
about the safety or health of these products. It is about transparency. 
It is about the public's right to know. It is about putting families 
ahead of corporations. It is about valuing the consumer's right to know 
over lobbyists in their slick suits and their influence here. They are 
denying consumers an easy-to-read national GMO label standard. Why? 
They are denying folks the transparency they need to make the best 
decisions for their families. It makes no sense to me.
  The second issue I have with this bill is the way it changes the 
definition of GMOs in a way that will not be good for consumers. To me, 
it is pretty simple. If a crop is found to develop in nature, then God 
had his hand in making it. Products that have been genetically modified 
or engineered in a lab, well, those products are made by man. They are 
genetically engineered. In this bill, the definition of GMO is very 
different. This definition is very dangerous, and it will be a major 
mistake if it becomes a new national standard.
  As the bill currently reads, the term ``bioengineering'' requires 
food to contain genetic material that has been modified by rDNA 
techniques, and for which the modification could not otherwise happen 
through conventional breeding or be found in nature.
  That sounds harmless enough, but there are some huge problems with 
this definition. First, rDNA techniques are not the only way we modify 
plants and animals. Scientists can use cell fusion, macroinjection, 
gene deletion, gene editing, and that is just what has been invented 
today. Tomorrow there will be other things they can do to manipulate 
the genes.
  The problem is, the definition requires the food product to contain 
genetic material that has been modified by rDNA. That is it. There are 
a handful of products that are so refined, the final product would not 
be listed as GMO, even when the original plant is GMO--soybean oil, 
high-fructose corn syrup, to give an example.
  So as not to get in the weeds too far, organics certify a process. 
They certify the process a plant goes through. If you don't have water-
soluble fertilizers, if you don't spray it with herbicides, and you 
have a soil-building program and good crop rotation and all those kinds 
of things, you can get certified as being organic. That would mean, the 
way I read this--and I am not a lawyer, but I will bet you we will find 
out in courts because we will have a lot of lawyers with smiles on 
their faces if we get this passed--you could take GMO corn, for 
example, raise it under organic standards, because the oil does not 
show it is modified rDNA, and it could be organic. That means Roundup 
Ready soybeans, corn, could ultimately be excluded from labeling of the 
GMO QR code.
  Folks will be purchasing products they think are GMO-free, when 
nothing could be further than the truth. I am not talking about obscure 
products. I

[[Page S4788]]

am talking about very common ingredients. This is a huge loophole and 
one that was created on purpose. And why? Because if you control the 
food supply, you control the people.
  In this country right now, we have very limited competition in the 
marketplace. When you sell your grain or your cattle, it doesn't 
matter. There is not much competition out there because there are just 
a few major multinational agribusiness companies that are your market. 
So that is controlled. You buy inputs for your crops--fertilizers, 
sprays--there are just a few companies. There is no competition in 
that. They haven't had control of the seed until recently, and now they 
are getting control of it in a big way.
  The farmer always had control of his own seed. He was always able to 
keep his own seed and use it the next year--not anymore. This bill will 
promote that going into the future, and we ask why people are leaving 
rural America. We ask why towns are drying up. We ask why farms are 
going away. All we have to do is look at this body and you can answer 
those questions.
  The GMO labeling bill--this GMO labeling bill--will exclude some of 
the most prevalent GMO products in our marketplaces. Do you think that 
was done by accident? I think not.
  The second part of the definition refers to modifications that can be 
found in nature--extremely vague, and it also threatens transparency. 
But you know what. There are some natural gene modifications that 
happen in bacteria--not plants, not animals, in bacteria. Under this 
definition, that provides another unnecessary loophole that will impact 
consumers because it says it is OK if it is found in nature.
  So we have a QR code and we have a really bad definition. By the way, 
they could have used the other definition--the one that is standard 
across the world. They chose not to. They put this definition in and 
said: Oh, the good thing about this is, it only applies to this bill. 
So it is OK. Don't worry about it.
  The third problem I have with this bill is, it gives the USDA 
incredible rulemaking power. It allows them to determine what 
percentage of GMO ingredients would be on the label. It gives the 
Department the power to establish a national standard with that 
information. If that isn't enough, the USDA then will design all forms 
of food disclosure, whether it is text, symbol, or electronic digital 
link. The Department also must provide alternative labeling options for 
small packages. Finally, the agency must consider establishing 
consistency between the labeling standard in this bill and the Organic 
Food Productions Act of 1990.
  Now, why in the heck would that be in there? For the very same reason 
I talked about earlier. You could literally have a GMO plant be raised 
under organic conditions, and because of this bill, it could be 
certified organic.
  All of this power we just talked about would be given to unelected 
bureaucrats in an office building here in Washington, DC--quite a large 
office building. They are going to make the decisions, and we in 
production agriculture are going to have to live with it.
  The last point I want to make is how this bill is going to negatively 
impact the organic industry. I know folks have come to the floor to 
talk about how it is going to be great for organics. The truth is, the 
organic industry is one of the bright spots in agriculture, quite 
frankly. For the last 30 years, it has grown between 10 and 30 percent 
a year. As a matter of fact, it grew 11 percent last year, with $43 
billion in sales. That isn't much in terms of the overall food system, 
but to organics it has moved quite impressively along.
  So I would ask: What good does this bill do for organics? I will tell 
you what it does. It states that products not required to label GMOs 
don't automatically qualify for non-GMO status. Why not? I mean, that 
is kind of a given. It also states that organic certification is a 
means of verifying non-GMO claims in the marketplace.
  Look, I have been through organic certifications. This farm is 
organic. I have been through organic certifications now for 30 years 
next year, and I can tell you one of the first questions the inspector 
asks when he comes on the farm is this: Where did you get your seed and 
is it GMO? Because GMOs are flatly--flatly--forbidden in the organic 
system.
  So what they are saying is what we already have; that organic 
certification is a means of verifying non-GMO claims. The fact is, if I 
used GMO plants, I would not be organic and neither would anybody else 
in production agriculture who uses GMO plants. So that is a biggie--
gives us what we already have.
  It clarifies that the narrow definition of GMOs and biotechnology in 
this bill--remember that definition we had up a minute ago--is only 
applicable to labeling--only applicable to this bill--and not other 
relevant regulations, like the organic rule, which is what we already 
have.
  This bill falls drastically short. I know there are trade 
organizations, such as the Organic Trade Association, and I know there 
are big companies out there that have said: This is perfect. Go ahead 
and move forward. I am telling you they haven't read the bill. They 
haven't looked at the requirements. They haven't looked at hiding 
behind a QR code. They haven't looked at the definition and what its 
real impact could be. They haven't looked at giving the USDA incredible 
latitude. Then, when it is all done, we have to live with it.
  In the end, the result will be that this country will have a 
different production system, I believe. I hope this has positive 
impacts on production agriculture. As I look at legislation we pass 
around here, I ask myself: Is this going to help revitalize rural 
America or is this going to continue the relocation of people and 
smalltown America going away?
  I have said many times on this floor, this is a great country, and 
one of the reasons it is great is because we have had a great public 
education system and we have had family farm agriculture. I believe, if 
we lose either one of those, this country will change and it will 
change for the worse. I think this piece of legislation is not a step 
in the right direction for family farm agriculture.
  Look, this is a picture of my farm. My grandfather came to this area 
from the Red River Valley in 1910. When he came out, the place didn't 
look like this. It was grass. In fact, this wasn't his homestead. He 
traded my great uncle a team of horses for this place. There wasn't 
anything there. There used to be an old house that sat here, the 
homestead shack. It was a pretty nice old house. That is what he built 
first.
  Then, after he patented in 1915, he built this barn in 1916. Now, you 
have to remember, back then they had nails and hammers. That is it. 
They didn't have any pneumatics or hydraulics. He and his neighbors got 
together and built that barn in 1916. It was colder than old Billy out, 
but they had to have that barn because that barn was where they had 
their animals. It was farmed with horses then. Unfortunately, 2 years 
after he built it, a tornado came through, a cyclone, and flattened it. 
He built it again in 1919. He rebuilt the doggone thing. He just got 
out there, didn't have anything but a bunch of grass, and put all this 
money--and that is a pretty good-sized barn. By the way, that blew down 
so he rebuilt it.
  Then, in 1920, they had a drought and he had to move back to North 
Dakota because they were starving to death. My mom was born back in 
North Dakota that year, in 1920, and then they moved back a couple 
years later. They survived the Dirty Thirties. My folks took over in 
the early 1940s. Dad built that butcher shop. That is where this 
happened. We put up the shop here, which is equivalent to this. This is 
where we take care of our equipment now.
  This farm today is 1,800 acres. It was 1,200 acres for a good many 
years. We were able to add another 600 acres to it 20 years ago. This 
farm is about one-third the size of the average farm in Eastern Montana 
and has supported two families for its entire life, with the exception 
of the first 20 years and with the exception of when my mom passed in 
2009. My dad passed 5 years earlier.
  It is a great place. It is part of who I am. It is bills like this--
not the Dirty Thirties, not the Great Depression, not the attack on 
Pearl Harbor, not the mass exodus of the 1980s--that will remove my 
family from this farm after over 100 years.

[[Page S4789]]

  So when we take up pieces of legislation like this and they are not 
good pieces of legislation--and we all think this is a great country. 
It is a great country. We just celebrated our 240th anniversary. When 
we take up pieces of legislation like this and say ``It will be all 
right; things will get better,'' guess what. Things don't get better. 
And things aren't getting better in rural America. The reason is that 
we are getting swallowed up by agribusiness. We don't make a move 
anymore without agribusiness. Let me give an example. Take your product 
to the marketplace; you have a couple of people who will bid on it. Go 
buy your inputs; you have a couple people who will buy it. It will not 
be long, folks, before we will be paying taxes on the land, and we will 
be providing the labor, and the profits will go to the big guys--the 
guys who can never get enough. This bill will help facilitate that 
happening.
  I fully anticipate that, come Monday or whenever we vote on this, 
there will be enough votes to pass this because a lot of the folks have 
read the propaganda put out that you have to have this kind of stuff to 
feed the world. That may be true. I have never thought that, but it may 
be true. But the truth is, shouldn't the consumer at least know what is 
on the food they are eating? Shouldn't they at least have a clue? 
Shouldn't they at least be given that right in the greatest country in 
the world? Shouldn't we have more transparency than Russia, not less?
  We will see what happens on Monday or whenever we vote on the GMO 
bill. I do appreciate Senator Stabenow's work on this bill. 
Unfortunately, it falls woefully short on what we need in this country 
as far as transparency on food.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I am here to talk about the sanctuary 
cities legislation and the GMO labeling issue, which Senator Tester was 
so eloquent about. If ever there should be a leader on this Senate 
floor telling us the truth about the GMO labeling bill, it is he 
because he deals with this. As he explained, he has worked the family 
farm for a long time--and his family, for generations. Unfortunately, 
at this point, it is big agribusiness that is influencing this. I am 
more hopeful than he is that we can stop the bill.
  But let me talk about the fact that we have an immigration crisis in 
this Nation. Part of it is because we turned away from a very important 
bill, a bipartisan bill, in 2013 that was comprehensive immigration 
reform--bipartisan, passed by a huge number of Senators, and it died in 
the Republican House. That is No. 1. No. 2, we have the Supreme Court 
that is deadlocked on the immigration issue, and Senators on the other 
side of the aisle will not even bring up President Obama's Supreme 
Court nominee for a hearing. They will not do their job. So the House 
Republicans killed immigration reform that was comprehensive back in 
2013, and the Senate Republicans are deadlocking the Supreme Court for 
partisan purposes. It is a nightmare that can be rectified only in this 
election that is coming up.
  Today we are going to be facing a vote on sanctuary cities 
legislation instead of taking another vote on the comprehensive 
immigration bill, which would have added 20,000 more Border Patrol 
agents, increased surveillance, and hired additional prosecutors and 
judges to boost prosecutions of illegal border crossings. The measure 
would have made clear that serious or violent felons will never, ever 
get a pathway to citizenship or even legal status. That bill would have 
brought families out of the shadows, taking away the fear of 
deportation, or being separated from loved ones, or parents being sent 
back, leaving kids who were born here alone. Sanctuary cities are 
important because it leads to cooperation with the local police, and it 
leads to reporting crimes in the communities.
  The fact is, the sanctuary cities bill before us will increase crime 
and make our communities less safe. It would undermine the trust that 
has been developed between police and immigrant communities, setting 
back efforts to protect victims and put criminals behind bars.
  Let us be clear. The sanctuary cities bill of Senator Toomey--for 
some crazy reason--cuts Community Development Block Grant funding, 
which can be used by the police to buy equipment, rehab a police 
station, fund special anti-crime initiatives. Why would anyone ever get 
rid of funding for our law enforcement when they are under siege? The 
bill also cuts Economic Development Administration grants, which foster 
job creation and attract private investment.
  I know this sanctuary cities bill is another piece of political 
garbage. I want to be clear because, at the end of the day, it will 
increase crime in our communities. I was a county supervisor. I served 
proudly, and I know how important local grants are to the local 
economy. So to punish communities by taking these funds away because 
they don't decide that Uncle Sam has a right to tell them what to do is 
the dumbest idea ever. Let's make communities safer by passing real 
immigration reform--comprehensive reform--and defeat these misguided 
bills that are coming before us.


                           GMO Labeling Bill

  Speaking of misguided bills, I want to talk about another one, and 
that is the Roberts bill on labeling genetically modified organisms--
or, should I say, not labeling genetically modified organisms, because 
the definition of GMO is so narrow that most of the products that 
really are engineered will not have to have the label.
  If ever there were a bill that proves that leaders are out of touch, 
that leaders are elitist, it is this bill. People want information--
information that is given in 64 nations, simple information. You go to 
the grocery store, and you see on a label whether the product you are 
buying is genetically modified. That is pretty straightforward. Don't 
create some definition that essentially exempts most of the products. 
What a scam on the American people, and what a scam to say: By the way, 
for some of the products that will still be labeled, you may have to 
use your smartphone or a Web site to find out what is in the product.
  Call me old-fashioned, but I believe that if two-thirds of the 
world's population--64 countries--have this information, I want my 
constituents to have the information. Why should a Russian have this 
information and an American not? Why should a Chinese person have this 
information and an American not? Why should someone in New Zealand have 
this information and an American not? Why should a Japanese person have 
this information and an American not? Why should 64 nations give their 
people this simple information, and we can't do it here? Why are we 
punishing our people, giving them less information? Do we feel we are 
so smart and smug that we can keep this information from our people? I 
don't understand it. This bill should be rejected.
  Is this an issue people care about? Yes. Ninety percent of Americans 
want to know if the food they buy has been genetically engineered. What 
this bill gives them is confusing at best and no information at worst. 
Let me be specific because I don't want someone to say: Oh, Senator 
Boxer is upset, but she hasn't given us the details.
  Bear with me. Here are the details.
  First, the bill's definition of genetically engineered, or GE food, 
as it is known--genetically engineered--is extremely narrow. The Food 
and Drug Administration, the FDA, says that many common foods made with 
genetically engineered corn syrup, sugar, and soybean oil would not be 
labeled under this bill. For example, products that many of us have 
right now in our kitchen--such as yogurt, salad dressings, cereal, 
ketchup, ice cream, pink lemonade, and even cough syrups--would not be 
required to have a label even though they are derived from genetically 
modified organisms.
  It is important to know if your food is made with GMOs. I will tell 
you why. Many of us don't know yet if GMOs are fine. Let's say we think 
they are fine. We still need to know if they are in our food, No. 1, 
because it is our right to know but, secondly, because GMO crops are 
heavily sprayed with pesticides.
  Let me repeat that. You may think GMOs are fine, and they may be 
fine. The jury is out. But we know GMO crops are heavily sprayed with 
pesticide. So if I have a little baby and I don't want to expose my 
baby to pesticides--if it is a GMO product, you know it has been 
sprayed heavily. According to USGS, the U.S. Geological

[[Page S4790]]

Survey, growers sprayed 280 million pounds of Roundup in 2012--a pound 
of herbicide for every single person in our country, a pound of 
pesticide sprayed for every single person in our country. GMO foods are 
heavily sprayed. I want to know when I go to the store--because 
sometimes I do shop for my grandkids--if it is a GMO product because, 
guess what, then I know it has been sprayed with pesticides.
  Now I want to take us to the label. Let's set aside the narrow 
definition. Let's look at what somebody has to go through under the 
Roberts bill to find out if there are GMOs.
  Here is a picture. This is a dad in his supermarket with his kids. 
One is in the basket with the products, and one is a toddler walking 
alongside--a pretty common sight. What would it be like for this dad 
with his two kids to get the information he wants under this bill? He 
is searching the shelves for items on his grocery list. We know what 
that is like. You have the two kids here, one in the basket, one over 
here. You have your list in front of you. He picks up a product, and he 
looks for a label to learn whether the food has been genetically 
engineered. Under this bill, the chances are overwhelming that there 
will not be a simple label on it, but there may be a phone number, a 
Web site, or a QR code. It is not clearly defined in this bill. But 
what it means is that this dad would have to stop shopping for every 
item on his list. He would have to pull out his phone to make a call or 
type in a long Web site or scan a QR code just to find out if the 
product he wants to buy is genetically engineered. Let's say he has 50 
products in his basket--50. Does he have to make 50 phone calls? Can 
you imagine looking up 50 Web sites, scanning 50 different QR codes 
with a confusing cell phone app? You can't imagine it because it isn't 
going to happen because by that time these kids have melted down and so 
has dad, and he says: I can't. I give up. I give up. He is not going to 
make 50 phone calls. And even if he owns a smartphone--which, by the 
way, many Americans still do not--he may not really know exactly how to 
work it.
  According to Pew Research, only 30 percent of Americans over 65 own a 
smart phone and just half of the people living in a rural area own one. 
Just because someone owns a smart phone, that doesn't mean they know 
how to use it.
  Why are we putting Americans through hoops like this just to find out 
what they are feeding their families? Why? I will tell you why: Big 
Agriculture, special interests, campaign donations. We will be able to 
prove it.
  Seventy groups are against this horrible legislation: Center for Food 
Safety, Empire State Consumer Project, Family Farm Defenders, Farm Aid, 
Food Alliance, Label GMOs, Maine Organic Farmers, Midwest Organic and 
Sustainable Education Service, Northeast Organic Farming, Our Family 
Farms, Rural Advancement Foundation International, Sierra Club, Slow 
Food USA, Sunnyside CSA, and Public Interest Research Group. It goes on 
and on. Believe me, my colleagues, you are going to hear from these 
people over the next several days until we vote on this.
  Why are my friends in this body so afraid of letting consumers know 
what is in their food? Because they are doing the bidding of the big 
agricultural companies, and that is what I believe. It is my opinion. 
Why on Earth would we stop people in this country from getting the same 
information the people of Russia get, the people of Japan get, the 
people in the EU get, the people in Australia get, and the people in 
New Zealand get? Why would you do that? Don't you believe in the 
consumer's right to know? This bill should be entitled ``the consumer's 
right not to know''--not to know. That is what this bill is.
  We know the people of this Nation are smart. They will use this 
information if we only give it to them in the best way they can. Some 
will decide they don't want GMOs. Some will decide they do. If the 
price is better and they don't have a problem, it is fine. Let the 
people decide. It is like the dolphin-safe label I created in the 
1990s. The tuna fishermen were killing tens of thousands of dolphins a 
year because they were using purse seine nets. The dolphins were 
swimming over the tuna, and tens of thousands of dolphins a year were 
dying. The people wrote to me and said: Senator, is there a way you can 
help? I said: Yes, let's put a label on and say which tuna companies 
are fishing dolphin-safe, and let the consumer decide.
  We have saved hundreds of thousands of dolphins over the years, but 
some people still will buy the other kind of tuna. That is their 
choice. All I am saying is to treat people with respect. Don't be an 
elitist. Don't keep information from them. Don't make them jump through 
hoops. I will tell you the truth. This is the biggest issue in this 
election. The government elite is telling people what they can know and 
what they can't know and is making them go through hoops and making 
them use a smart phone and defining GMO in such a way that many 
products aren't covered.
  What a sick bill that is. If you don't want to have this done by the 
States, why don't you come to the table and negotiate in good faith? 
The FDA currently labels more than 3,000 ingredients. They require the 
labeling of more than 3,000 ingredients, additives, and processes. 
Millions of Americans have filed comments with the FDA urging the 
agency to label GE foods so they can have this information at their 
fingertips.
  Ninety percent of the people want a simple label. What you are giving 
them in this so-called compromise is the narrowest definition of what 
is a genetically modified food so that most of that food is never going 
labeled. By the way, it could even be labeled organic, which is a 
travesty. You have 70 organizations, and counting, against it. Ninety 
percent of the people want a simple bill. But, oh, no, the elitists in 
this Chamber know better. Oh, they know better.
  They took a simple concept--labeling just like we did on the tuna 
can--and they turned it into a nightmare for the consumer. The consumer 
will never find out. This dad will never know because while he has his 
kids there and his grocery list, he has to be looking at every single 
item that is in his cart, every single product, and most of them will 
not have a simple label. A lot of them are GMO, and they are not 
labeled. It seems to me that it is an embarrassment that we would even 
bring this bill up. I will do everything in my power to stop this bill.
  I would rather do nothing than this sham of a bill that does the 
bidding of the special, powerful interests and says to the American 
people: You know what, sorry, folks, we don't really trust you with 
this information because we don't really know what you are going to do 
with it.
  It is too bad that you don't know what they are going to do with it. 
You have no right as a Senator to determine what the American people 
will do with information. If it is a national security issue, of 
course, that is different. We know about that. If it is a consumer's 
right to know what is in their food, don't talk about how great this 
bill is because it is the opposite. It is completely the opposite of 
what it says. It is not truly a labeling bill. It is a phony sham, and 
I hope we defeat it whenever we get to it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, almost 1 year ago to the day, a young 
woman was walking arm in arm with her father along a pier in San 
Francisco. She had hopes and dreams and a bright future ahead, but her 
life was cut short when she was tragically shot, dying in her father's 
arms. Her name was Kate Steinle.
  The suspected killer, who was illegally in the country and deported 
five times prior to that day, was released into the community by a 
sanctuary jurisdiction that did not honor a detainer issued by 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The suspect in Kate's death 
admitted that he chose to be in San Francisco because of its sanctuary 
policies.
  Unfortunately, nothing has changed in the last year. Sanctuary 
cities, including San Francisco, continue to harbor people in the 
country illegally.
  Since Kate was killed, there has been a long list of tragedies, 
tragedies that could have been avoided--some that could have been 
avoided if sanctuary policies were not in place, some that could have 
been avoided if we had a more secure border and beefed-up penalties for 
those who enter the country illegally time and again. Allow me to

[[Page S4791]]

mention a few of the cases I have been following.
  In July, Marilyn Pharis was brutally raped, tortured, and murdered in 
her home in Santa Maria, CA, by an illegal immigrant who was released 
from custody because the county sheriff does not honor ICE detainers.
  In July, Margaret Kostelnik was killed by an illegal immigrant who 
also allegedly attempted to rape a 14-year-old girl and shoot a woman 
in a nearby park. The suspect was released because ICE refused to issue 
a detainer and take custody of the suspect.
  In July, a 2-year-old girl was brutally beaten by an illegal 
immigrant in San Luis Obispo County, CA. He was released from local 
custody despite an immigration detainer and extensive criminal history 
and is still at large.
  In September, 17-year-old Danny Centeno-Miranda from Loudoun County, 
VA, was allegedly murdered by his peers--people in the country 
illegally who also had ties to the MS-13 gang--while walking near his 
school bus stop.
  In November, Frederick County Deputy Sheriff Greg Morton was attacked 
by an MS-13 gang member who was in the country illegally.
  In January, my constituent, Sarah Root, was rear-ended and killed by 
a man in the country illegally who was street-racing and had a blood-
alcohol level four times the legal limit. Sarah had graduated from 
college with perfect grades that very day. ICE refused to issue a 
detainer, and the suspect was released. He is still at large.
  In February, Chelsea Hogue and Meghan Lake were hit by a drunk 
driver, leaving one injured and the other in a coma. The driver was in 
the country illegally and had previously been removed from the country 
five times.
  In February, Stacey Aguilar was allegedly shot by a man who was in 
the country illegally. The suspect had also been previously convicted 
of a DUI.
  Last month, five people were trapped by a fire and killed in a Los 
Angeles apartment building. The man who allegedly started the fire was 
in the country illegally and had been previously arrested for domestic 
violence and several drug charges. The man was known to immigration 
authorities, but he wasn't a priority for removal and was allowed to 
walk free. The fire killed Jerry Dean Clemons, Mary Ann Davis, Joseph 
William Proenneke, and Tierra Sue-Meschelle Stansberry--all my 
constituents from Ottumwa, IA.
  When will this end? We can do something today by voting to proceed to 
S. 3100 and S. 2193.
  Sanctuary policies and practices have allowed thousands of dangerous 
criminals to be released back into the community, and the effects have 
been disastrous. Even the Secretary of Homeland Security acknowledges 
that sanctuary cities are ``counterproductive to public safety.'' He 
has said these policies were ``unacceptable.'' Just last week, before 
the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Secretary said he wanted to see 
more cooperation from various counties and cities in working with 
immigration enforcement authorities. He said he has not been successful 
with Philadelphia and Cook County, IL. And we know that nothing has 
changed in San Francisco where Kate Steinle was killed.
  The Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act, authored by Senator Toomey, 
addresses the problem of sanctuary jurisdictions in a common sense and 
balanced way. There seems to be consensus that sanctuary jurisdictions 
should be held accountable, so we do that with the power of the purse. 
This bill limits the availability of certain Federal dollars to cities 
and States that have sanctuary policies or practices.
  The Toomey bill also provides protection for law enforcement officers 
who do want to cooperate and comply with detainer requests. It would 
address the liability issue created by recent court decisions by 
providing liability protection to local law enforcement who honor ICE 
detainers. Major law enforcement groups support this measure because it 
reduces the liability of officers who want to do their job and comply 
with immigration detainers.
  Today, we will also vote on Kate's law, a bill honoring Kate Steinle 
and many others who have been killed or injured by people who have 
repeatedly flouted our immigration laws. Kate's law addresses criminals 
attempting to reenter the United States, many times after we have 
expended the resources to remove them. The bill creates a mandatory 
minimum sentence of 5 years for any alien who has been deported and 
illegally reenters the United States who is also an aggravated felon or 
has been twice convicted of illegal reentry. This is necessary to take 
certain individuals off our streets who are dangerous to our 
communities and have no respect for our laws.
  This bill has broad support by law enforcement groups. It also has 
the support of groups that want enforcement of our immigration laws. 
And it has the support of the Remembrance Project, a group devoted to 
honoring and remembering Americans who have been killed by illegal 
aliens.
  I would also mention that we could have the opportunity to vote on 
Sarah's law if we get on either one of these bills today. Sarah's law, 
which was introduced by Senators Ernst, Sasse, Fischer, and myself last 
week, is a measure that would honor Sarah Root of Iowa. Sarah Root was 
a bright, talented, energetic young woman whose life was taken far too 
early by someone in the country illegally. ICE refused to issue a 
detainer on the drunk driver, and he was released from custody. Sarah 
Root's family is left wondering if they will ever have justice for 
their daughter's death.
  Sarah's Law would amend the mandatory detention provisions of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act to require the Federal Government to 
take custody of anyone who entered the country illegally, violated the 
terms of their immigration status, or had their visa revoked and is 
thereafter charged with a crime resulting in the death or serious 
bodily injury of another person. The legislation also requires ICE to 
make reasonable efforts to identify and provide relevant information to 
the crime victims or their families. It is important that Americans 
have access to information about those who have killed or seriously 
harmed their loved ones.
  Sarah's opportunity to make a mark on the world was cut short in part 
because of the reckless enforcement priorities of the Obama 
administration. By refusing to take custody of illegal criminal 
immigrants who pose a clear threat to safety, the Obama administration 
is putting Iowans at risk. It is time for this administration to 
rethink its policies and start enforcing the law.
  Today we have the opportunity to vote to proceed to two bills to help 
protect Americans from criminal immigrants. For too long, we have sat 
by while sanctuary jurisdictions release dangerous criminals into the 
community to harm our citizens. It is time we work toward protecting 
our communities, rather than continuing to put them in danger. And, it 
is time that we institute real consequences for people who illegally 
enter the United States time and again.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, just over 3 years ago, the Senate 
overwhelmingly passed comprehensive, bipartisan immigration reform. 
That bill secured the border. It provided an earned path to citizenship 
that would bring millions out of the shadows and reformed and 
modernized our legal immigration system. It represented the Senate at 
its finest. It was a serious effort to solve a serious problem.
  The two bills the Senate will turn to shortly stand in stark 
contrast. It appears that Republican leadership prefers instead an 
approach that is inspired by Donald Trump and the anti-immigrant 
rhetoric that is fueling his campaign. These efforts, embodied in the 
Toomey and Cruz bills, would take our immigration system in the 
opposite direction and pit local law enforcement and communities 
against each other, pushing hard-working immigrants back into the 
shadows. What a difference a change in leadership makes.
  There are few topics more fundamental to our national identity than 
immigration. A consistent thread through our history is the arrival of 
new people to this country seeking a better life. Immigration has been 
an ongoing source of renewal for America--a renewal of our spirit, our 
creativity, and our economic strength.
  The Senate reaffirmed its commitment to these ideals when we approved 
S. 744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration 
Modernization Act 3 years ago. That legislation was supported by 68 
Senators

[[Page S4792]]

from both parties. It was a remarkable, bipartisan effort that was the 
subject of an extensive amendment process in the Senate Judiciary 
Committee. It was an example of all that we can accomplish when we 
actually focus on the hard job of legislating.
  The bills we begin considering today could not be more different. 
They are not bipartisan. They do not reflect a desire to meaningfully 
improve what we all agree is a broken immigration system. Instead, 
these bills scapegoat an entire population for the crimes of a few.
  Those who support these bills point to a tragedy that captured our 
attention last summer. Any time an innocent person is killed, we have 
an obligation to understand what happened and try to prevent similar 
tragedies in the future. We all feel that way about the senseless and 
terribly cruel death of Kate Steinle. Her death was avoidable. Our 
system failed, period. And it is heart-wrenching that such a beautiful, 
young life was taken by a man who should never have been free on our 
streets.
  We are motivated to do something in the wake of her death, just as we 
are motivated to act in the wake of the senseless killings of 49 
innocent people at an LGBT nightclub in Orlando, FL--or nine men and 
women attending a bible study class at the historic Mother Emanuel 
African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, SC--or the nine 
innocent people brutally murdered at an Oregon community college. These 
are moments that demand leadership. We should roll up our sleeves and 
address the problems that led us here, not seek bumper-sticker 
solutions that simply divide us further.
  Not only does the rhetoric around the Toomey and Cruz bills unfairly 
paint immigrants and Latinos as criminals and threats to the public, 
they actually risk making us less safe. Senator Toomey's bill would 
require State and local law enforcement to become immigration agents 
and, in doing so, would undermine basic community policing principles. 
It would undermine the trust and cooperation between police officers 
and immigrant communities that is necessary to encourage victims and 
witnesses to step forward and report the crime that impacts us all. It 
would weaken law enforcement's ability to apprehend those who prey on 
the public. And the draconian penalties in this bill will hurt our 
communities, which rely on Community Development Block Grants to fund 
crime prevention programs, provide housing for low-income families, 
support economic development and infrastructure projects, and rebuild 
communities devastated by natural disasters. Not surprisingly, it is 
opposed by mayors, domestic violence groups, Latino and civil rights 
groups, and labor organizations.
  Senator Cruz's bill is also dangerous. By creating two new mandatory 
minimums that will cost us billions of dollars to enforce, the bill 
diverts valuable resources away from efforts that actually keep us 
safe, like supporting State and local law enforcement and victim 
services, and does nothing to fix the broken immigration system we have 
today. The penalties imposed in Senator Cruz's bill would not have 
prevented Kate Steinle's murder. The man who murdered Kate served over 
5 years for three separate illegal reentry violations and served a 
total of 16 years in prison. Judges already have the authority to 
impose long prison sentences, and this case proves they actually do.
  It is troubling that the majority leader is seeking a vote on this 
punitive, partisan bill, instead of working to pass the meaningful 
criminal justice reform legislation that has strong bipartisan support. 
It is yet another example of his willingness to put politics above real 
solutions.
  The problems plaguing our immigration system demand that we respond 
thoughtfully and responsibly. We can do better. We owe it to the 
American public to do better. I urge Senators to vote against cloture 
on these partisan bills that will not make us safer.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, today the Senate is voting to achieve 
cloture on two bills that would improve the safety of our citizens and 
help ensure that foreign criminals convicted of a crime in the United 
States are no longer able to freely remain in our country.
  This issue was brought to the Nation's attention with the tragic 
murder of Kate Steinle, who was shot and killed by Francisco Lopez-
Sanchez as she walked along a San Francisco waterfront pier.
  To be clear, this type of case is rare, but we should provide little 
lenience to convicted, repeat offenders that should not even be in the 
country.
  This is not a debate about immigration reform. Francisco Lopez-
Sanchez is not a representative of the immigrant community. He is a 
criminal and someone that should have been removed from the country 
when in the custody of the San Francisco's sheriff's department. For 
those that wish to defend this man or the policies that allowed him to 
stay here, I would recommend looking clearly at his criminal history 
and interactions with law enforcement while in the United States.
  February 2, 1993: Lopez-Sanchez is convicted of felony heroin 
possession in Washington State criminal court and sentenced to 21 days 
in jail.
  May 12, 1993: Lopez-Sanchez is convicted of felony narcotics 
manufacturing in Washington and sentenced to 9 months in jail.
  November 2, 1993: Lopez-Sanchez is convicted of felony heroin 
possession in Pierce County, WA, and sentenced to 4 months in jail.
  June 9, 1994: Lopez-Sanchez is convicted of misdemeanor imitation 
controlled substance in Multnomah, OR, and ordered to pay a fine.
  June 10, 1994: Lopez-Sanchez is arrested by Immigration and 
Naturalization Service, INS, and convicted of a controlled substance 
violation and an aggravated felony. A Federal immigration judge orders 
him deported on June 20, and he is removed to Mexico.
  July 14, 1994: Lopez-Sanchez illegally reenters the U.S. after his 
first deportation and falls into the hands of Arizona State 
authorities. His probation is revoked, and he is sentenced to 93 days 
in jail.
  July 11, 1996: Lopez-Sanchez is arrested in Washington and convicted 
of felony heroin possession. He is sentenced to 12 months, plus 1 day 
in prison.
  March 12, 1997: INS arrests Lopez-Sanchez on an order to show cause 
and charges him as a deportable alien because of his illegal reentry 
and his aggravated felony conviction. He is deported back to Mexico for 
the second time on April 4, 1997.
  July 22, 1997: Lopez-Sanchez is arrested in Arizona for his first 
known act of violence on an assault and threatening/intimidation 
charge.
  January 13, 1998: Lopez-Sanchez is arrested by U.S. Border Patrol 
agents. Two days later, an immigration judge orders him removed, and he 
is deported for the third time on February 2 of that year.
  February 8, 1998: Lopez-Sanchez illegally reenters the U.S. 6 days 
after his previous deportation, but is apprehended by U.S. Border 
Patrol.
  September 3, 1998: He is convicted of felony reentry in U.S. District 
Court and sentenced to 63 months in prison.
  February 20, 2003: Seemingly at the end of his prison sentence, the 
U.S. Bureau of Prisons hands Lopez-Sanchez over to INS. He is deported 
again to Mexico on March 6.
  July 4, 2003: Lopez-Sanchez again illegally reenters the U.S. and is 
apprehended by U.S. Border Patrol, this time in Texas.
  November 7, 2003: Lopez-Sanchez is convicted of two Federal charges: 
reentry after removal and violation of a supervised Federal release. He 
is sentenced to 51 months and 21 months for the charges, respectively.
  June 29, 2009: After a lengthy prison sentence, the U.S. Bureau of 
Prisons hands Lopez-Sanchez over to ICE. He is immediately deported to 
Mexico.
  September 20, 2009: Lopez-Sanchez again reenters the U.S. illegally. 
This time, he is arrested by U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents 
in Eagle Pass, TX.
  October 14, 2009: A U.S. attorney for the Western District of Texas 
files for a reindictment of Lopez-Sanchez for illegal reentry after 
removal. He is charged in September 2010 for violating Federal 
probation.
  May 12, 2011: Lopez-Sanchez is sentenced to 46 months in prison and 
36 months of supervised release for illegal reentry and probation 
violations. Two months later, ICE places a detainer request with the 
Bureau of Prisons upon

[[Page S4793]]

his release from prison. In October 2013, ICE's Southern California 
Security Communities Support Center places a similar detainer request 
with the Bureau of Prisons.
  March 26, 2015: After serving his sentence in Federal prison in 
Victorville, CA, Lopez-Sanchez is released and handed over directly to 
the San Francisco sheriff's department, which had a warrant out for 
felony sale of marijuana. The next day, ICE received an automatic 
electronic notification that Lopez-Sanchez had been placed into the 
custody of the San Francisco sheriff's department. ICE then placed a 
detainer request with the sheriff to be notified prior to Lopez-
Sanchez's release.
  April 15, 2015: The San Francisco sheriff's department releases 
Lopez-Sanchez from its custody without notifying ICE.
  July 1, 2015: Lopez-Sanchez allegedly shoots Steinle on San 
Francisco's Pier 14 as she is walking with her father and a friend. 
Steinle dies. Lopez-Sanchez is arrested soon after.
  As you can see, Lopez-Sanchez was apprehended and deported five times 
by Customs and Border Protection. The system failed Kate Steinle when 
San Francisco, a sanctuary city that refuses to cooperate with ICE, 
decided to release a convicted felon rather than contact DHS to have 
him deported to Mexico.
  The bills we are voting on today would help prevent a similar tragedy 
from happening again. S. 2193 will provide a 5-year mandatory minimum 
sentence for any illegal immigrant who reenters the United States after 
having been convicted of an aggravated felony or after having been 
twice convicted of illegally reentering the United States. S. 3100 will 
withhold certain Federal funds from cities with sanctuary policies in 
an effort to convince these cities to allow their law enforcement to 
cooperate with Federal immigration officials.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture on these two bills to 
prevent a further tragedy like that suffered by the Steinle family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. SASSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for as 
much time as I may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


       Former Secretary Clinton's Use of Unsecured Email Servers

  Mr. SASSE. Madam President, yesterday, James Comey, the FBI Director, 
announced that his agency will not recommend that the Department of 
Justice bring Federal criminal charges against former Secretary of 
State Hillary Clinton regarding her use of a set of off-the-books, 
undisclosed, unsecured email servers, not only for her own personal 
correspondence but also for her official duties, including highly 
sensitive material related to foreign intelligence and related to 
terrorist targeting.
  Director Comey's rationale for systematically and devastatingly 
recounting Secretary Clinton's many violations of the law and yet 
recommending against a prosecution is being hotly debated both outside 
and inside the FBI, as it should be.
  I rise in this body today, as a matter of oversight, to speak to a 
slightly different matter than the prosecutorial discretion and 
decision. The debate about why the crimes are not being prosecuted in 
this case should not blind us to a broader, debasing problem in our 
civic life today. Simply put, lying matters. Public trust matters. 
Integrity matters. And woe to us as a nation if we decide to pretend 
this isn't so. This issue is not about political points or about 
Presidential politics. It is about whether the people can trust their 
representatives, those of us who are supposed to be serving them in 
government for a limited time.
  I am going to read today a series of direct quotes from Secretary 
Clinton regarding this investigation, and then I will also read a 
series of direct quotes from Director Comey's statement yesterday, as 
well as from the State Department's official inspector general report 
on this issue. I will not provide a running commentary. I will, 
instead, simply recount the words and the assertions of Secretary 
Clinton, and I will hold them up to the light of what the FBI and the 
State Department investigations have found. Sadly, this will be damning 
enough.
  When the story broke about the Secretary's use of a personal email 
account and set of undisclosed servers, she called a press conference 
at the United Nations on March 10 last year, and she emphatically and 
without qualification declared this:

       I did not email any classified material to anyone on my 
     email. There is no classified material.

  Period, full stop.
  Yesterday, Director Comey said: That is not true.

       110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the 
     owning agency to contain classified information at the time 
     they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained 
     information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 
     36 chains contained Secret information.

  Later, Secretary Clinton adjusted her defense to say: ``I did not 
send nor receive information that was marked classified at the time 
that it was sent or received.''
  Yesterday, Director Comey directly addressed and directly dismissed 
this defense, noting that while only a small number of the emails 
containing classified information bore the markings indicating the 
presence of classified information, ``even if information is not marked 
`classified' in an e-mail, participants who know--or should know--that 
the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.''
  Throughout this controversy, Secretary Clinton has maintained: ``I 
[have] fully complied with every rule I was governed by.''
  She said: I have fully complied with every rule I was governed by.
  The inspector general of her own State Department has concluded 
exactly the opposite.

       Sending emails from a personal account to other employees 
     at their Department Accounts is not an appropriate method of 
     preserving any such emails that would constitute a Federal 
     record. Therefore, Secretary Clinton should have preserved 
     any Federal records she created and received on her personal 
     account by printing and filing those records with the related 
     files in the office of the Secretary. At a minimum, Secretary 
     Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with 
     Department business before leaving government service and, 
     because she did not do so, she did not comply with the 
     Department's policies that were implemented in accordance 
     with the Federal Records Act.

  Regarding those subsequently surrendered emails, Mrs. Clinton has 
said:

       After I left office, the State Department asked former 
     secretaries of state for our assistance in providing copies 
     of work-related emails from our personal accounts. I 
     responded right away and provided all my emails that could 
     have possibly been work-related.

  Yesterday, Director Comey explicitly rejected this claim, noting not 
only that several thousand emails were missing but, also, that some of 
the emails she withheld were in fact classified.
  Director Comey said:

       The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-
     mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were 
     [initially] returned by Secretary Clinton to [the] State 
     [Department] in 2014. . . . With respect to the thousands of 
     emails we found that were not among those produced to [the] 
     State [Department], agencies have concluded that three of 
     those were [also] classified at the time they were sent or 
     received, one at the Secret level.

  Lest we be confused, here is Director Comey's summary of the 
situation:

       Any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position, or 
     in the position of those government employees with whom she 
     was corresponding about these [classified] matters, should 
     have known that an unclassified system was no place for that 
     conversation.

  We could go on. There is more about the foreign adversaries--on which 
all of us in this body get our classified briefs--that we know were and 
are today trying to hack sensitive U.S. Government classified material. 
What I have presented here is not an opinion. This is not political 
talking point or spin. All we have done here is to recount some of the 
specific defenses, claims, and excuses Secretary Clinton has offered 
regarding her use of a set of unsecured, undisclosed off-the-books 
email servers and then contrasted those claims with how both the FBI's 
and the State Department's inspectors general have proved those claims 
to be clearly and knowingly false.
  If any of Secretary Clinton's defenders in this body would like to 
come to the floor to dispute any of the FBI's assertions, I would 
welcome that conversation.

[[Page S4794]]

  These are serious matters, and they deserve our serious attention. As 
elected officials, we have been entrusted for a time with the security 
of the Nation and with the trust of the people. Quite apart from the 
specific questions and debates about whether Secretary Clinton is going 
to be convicted for her crimes, we must grapple with the reality that 
the public trust, the rule of law, and the security of our Nation have 
been badly injured by her actions.
  In the coming months, the next time that a career military or 
intelligence officer leaks an important secret that is a legally 
defined classified matter that relates to the security of our Nation 
and the security of our Nation's spies, who are putting their lives at 
risk today to defend our freedoms, one of two things is going to 
happen: Either that individual will not be held accountable because 
yesterday the decision was made to set a new, lower standard about our 
Nation's security secrets, and we will therefore become weaker, or, in 
the alternative, the decision will be made to hold that person 
accountable, either by prosecution or by firing. In that moment, that 
individual and his or her peers and his or her family will rightly ask 
this question: Why is the standard different for me than for the 
politically powerful? Why is the standard different for me, a career 
intelligence officer or a career soldier, than for the former Secretary 
of State? This question is about the rise of a two-tiered system of 
justice, one for the common man and one for the ruling political 
elites. If we in this body allow such a two-tiered system to solidify, 
we will fail in our duties, both to safeguard the Nation and for the 
people to believe in representative government and in equality before 
the law.
  This stuff matters. Lying matters. The dumbing down and the debasing 
of expectations about public trust matter. Honor matters, and woe to us 
as a nation if we decide to forget this obvious truth of republican 
government.

                          ____________________