[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 108 (Wednesday, July 6, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4800-S4814]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CLOTURE MOTION
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The bill clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
concur in the House amendment with an amendment to S. 764, a
bill to reauthorize and amend the National Sea Grant College
Program Act, and for other purposes.
Mitch McConnell, Mike Crapo, John Thune, Richard Burr,
James M. Inhofe, Pat Roberts, Lamar Alexander, John
Barrasso, Thad Cochran, Deb Fischer, Shelley Moore
Capito, John Boozman, Thom Tillis, David Perdue, Jerry
Moran, John Hoeven, Roger F. Wicker.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to concur in the House amendment with an amendment to S. 764
shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
(Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sergeant at Arms will restore order in the
gallery.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Utah (Mr.
Lee).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is
necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 65, nays 32, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 121 Leg.]
YEAS--65
Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Flake
Franken
Gardner
Grassley
Hatch
Heitkamp
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kaine
Kirk
Klobuchar
Lankford
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Moran
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Vitter
Warner
Wicker
NAYS--32
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Cantwell
Cardin
Collins
Durbin
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Hirono
King
Leahy
Markey
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Paul
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Sullivan
Tester
Udall
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--3
Brown
Graham
Lee
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). On this vote, the yeas are 65,
the nays are 32.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
NATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2015
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
House message to accompany S. 764, a bill to reauthorize
and amend the National Sea Grant College Program Act, and for
other purposes.
Pending:
McConnell motion to concur in the House amendment to the
bill, with McConnell (for Roberts) amendment No. 4935, in the
nature of a substitute.
McConnell amendment No. 4936 (to amendment No. 4935), to
change the enactment date.
McConnell motion to refer the House message to accompany
the bill to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry, with instructions, McConnell amendment No. 4937, in
the nature of a substitute.
McConnell amendment No. 4938 (to (the instructions)
amendment No. 4937), to change the enactment date.
McConnell amendment No. 4939 (to amendment No. 4938), of a
perfecting nature.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Former Secretary Clinton's Use of an Unsecured Email Server
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, some have taken yesterday's announcement
by FBI Director Comey as vindicating Secretary Clinton for her use of a
private, unsecured email server. But that would be exactly the wrong
conclusion to draw. While the FBI did not recommend that the former
Secretary of State be indicted, the concerns I have previously raised
time and again have only been reaffirmed by the facts uncovered by
Director Comey and the FBI's investigation.
It is now clear beyond a reasonable doubt that Secretary Clinton
behaved with extreme carelessness in her handling of classified
information and that she and her staff lied to the American people and,
at the same time, put our Nation at risk.
First, Director Comey said unequivocally that Secretary Clinton and
her team were ``extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive,
highly classified information.'' He went so far as to describe specific
email chains that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access
Program level at the time they were sent and received--in other words,
at the highest classification level in the intelligence community.
Remember, Secretary Clinton said that she never sent emails that
contained classified information. Well, that proved to be false as
well. The FBI Director made clear none of those emails should have been
on an unclassified server--period--and that Secretary Clinton and her
staff should have known better.
Director Comey noted that Secretary Clinton's actions were
``particularly concerning'' because these highly classified emails were
housed on a server that didn't have full-time security staff like those
at other departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
It is pretty clear that Secretary Clinton thought she could do
anything she wanted, even if it meant sending classified information
over her personal, unsecured home server. It should shock every
American that America's top diplomat--someone who had access to our
country's most sensitive information--acted with such carelessness in
an above-the-law sort of manner.
Unfortunately, our threshold for being shocked at revelations like
this has gotten unacceptably high. I saw a poll reported recently that
81 percent of the respondents in that poll believed Washington is
corrupt. Public confidence is at an alltime low, and we ask ourselves
how that could be. Well, unfortunately, it is the sort of activity we
have seen coming from Secretary Clinton and her misrepresentations
and--frankly, there is no way to sugarcoat it--her lies to the American
people--lies that were revealed in plain contrast yesterday by Director
Comey's announcement.
Secondly, we know the FBI found that Secretary Clinton behaved at
odds with the story she has been telling the American people, as I said
a moment ago. To be blunt, yesterday's announcement proved that she has
not been telling the American people the truth for a long, long time
now. When news of her private server first broke, Secretary Clinton
said:
I did not e-mail any classified material to anyone on my e-
mail. There is no classified material.
Yesterday, Director Comey made clear that wasn't true--not by a long
[[Page S4801]]
shot. In fact, he said more than 100 emails on her server were
classified, and, as I mentioned, that includes some of the highest
levels of classification. We are talking not just about some
abstraction here. We are talking about people gaining intelligence--
some in highly dangerous circumstances--who have been exposed to our
Nation's adversaries because of the recklessness or extreme
carelessness of Secretary Clinton and her staff.
Another example: Secretary Clinton also maintained that she gave the
State Department quick access to all of her work-related emails. Again,
according to Director Comey, that wasn't true either. He said the FBI
discovered several thousand work-related emails that Secretary Clinton
didn't turn in to the State Department 2 years ago.
From the beginning, Secretary Clinton and her staff have done their
dead-level best to play down her misconduct, even if that meant lying
to the American people. To make matters even worse, Director Comey
confirmed that Secretary Clinton's actions put our national security
and those who are on the frontlines protecting our national security in
jeopardy. The FBI Director said that hostile actors had access to the
email accounts of those people with whom Secretary Clinton regularly
communicated with from her personal account.
We know she used her personal email--in the words of the FBI
Director--``extensively'' while outside of the continental United
States, including in nations of our adversaries. The FBI's conclusion
is that it is possible that hostile actors gained access to her
personal email account, which, as I said a moment ago, included
information classified at the highest levels recognized by our
government.
My point is that this is not a trivial matter. Remember that several
months ago, Secretary Gates--former Secretary of Defense and head of
the CIA, serving both in the George W. Bush and the Obama
administrations--said he thought the odds were pretty high that the
Russians, Chinese, and Iranians had compromised Clinton's server--
again, all the time while she is conducting official business as
Secretary of State for the U.S. Government.
It was also reported last fall that Russian-linked hackers tried to
hack into Secretary Clinton's emails on at least five occasions. It is
hard to know, much less estimate, the potential damage done to our
Nation's security as a result of this extreme carelessness demonstrated
by Secretary Clinton and her staff. In reality, it is impossible for us
to know for sure. But what is clear is that Secretary Clinton acted
recklessly and repeatedly lied to the American people, and I should
point out that she didn't do so for any particularly good reason. None
of the explanations Secretary Clinton has offered, convenience and the
like, have held up to even the slightest scrutiny. Her intent was
obvious, though. It was to avoid the accountability that she feared
would come from public recognition of her official conduct. So she
wanted to do it in secret, away from the prying eyes of government
watchdogs and the American people.
The FBI may not have found evidence of criminal intent, but there is
no doubt about her intent to evade the laws of the United States--not
just criminal laws that Director Comey talked about but things like the
Freedom of Information laws, which make sure the American people have
access to the information that their government uses to make decisions
on their behalf. These are important pieces of legislation that are
designed to give the American people the opportunity to know what they
have a right to know so they can hold their elected officials
accountable.
In the end, this isn't just a case of some political novice who
doesn't understand the risks involved or someone who doesn't really
understand the protocols required of a high-level government employee.
This is a case of someone who, as Director Comey pointed out, should
have known better.
I know Secretary Clinton likes to talk about her long experience in
politics as the spouse of a President of the United States when she
served as First Lady, as a United States Senator, and then as Secretary
of State. But all of this experience, as Director Comey said, should
have taught her better than she apparently learned.
The bottom line is that Secretary Clinton actively sought out ways to
hide her actions as much as possible, and in doing so, she put our
country at risk. For a Secretary of State to conduct official
business--including transmitting and receiving information that is
classified at the highest levels known by our intelligence community--
on a private, unsecured server when sensitive national defense
information would likely pass through is not just a lapse of judgment;
it is a conscious decision to put the American people in harm's way.
As Director Comey noted, in similar circumstances, people who engage
in what Secretary Clinton did are ``often subject to security or
administrative sanctions''; that is, they are held accountable, if not
criminally, in some other way. He said that obviously is not within the
purview of the FBI. But he said that other people, even if they aren't
indicted, will be subjected to security or administrative sanctions.
Secretary Clinton evidently will not be prosecuted criminally, but
she should be held accountable. From the beginning, I have had concerns
about what Secretary Clinton did and whether this investigation would
be free of politics. However one feels about the latter, it is clear
that Secretary Clinton's actions were egregious and that there is good
reason why the American people simply don't trust her and why she
should be held accountable.
In closing, I would just say that we know there was an extensive
investigation conducted by the FBI, and we know that Director Comey
said that no reasonable prosecutor would seek an indictment and
prosecute Secretary Clinton for her actions. That being the case, I
would join my colleagues--Senator Grassley, chairman of the Senate
Judiciary Committee, and others--who have called for the public release
of the FBI's investigation so we can know the whole story. That would
also include the transcript from the 3\1/2\ hour interview that
Secretary Clinton gave to the FBI, I believe just last Saturday. That
way, the American people can have access to all the information.
What I suspect it would reveal--because it is a crime to lie to an
FBI agent, I suspect Secretary Clinton, perhaps for the first time, in
her interview with the FBI told the FBI the truth. If I were her
lawyer, I certainly would advise her: No matter what happens, you had
better tell the truth in that FBI interview because the coverup is
something you can be indicted for as well.
So I suspect what happened is that, in that FBI interview, she did
tell the FBI the truth. That is where Director Comey got so much of his
information, which he then used to dismantle brick by brick the public
narrative that Secretary Clinton has been spinning to the American
people for the last couple of years.
If transparency and accountability are important, as Director Comey
said yesterday, you would think that Secretary Clinton would want to
put this behind her by also supporting the public release of this
investigation, as well as the transcript of her interview with the FBI.
I will be listening very carefully to see whether she joins us in
making this request. But under the circumstances, where she no longer
has any credible fear of indictment or prosecution, she owes to the
public--and we owe to the public--that the entire evidence be presented
to them in an open and transparent way. That is why the FBI should
release this information, particularly the transcript of this interview
she gave to FBI agents for 3\1/2\ hours at the FBI's headquarters
downtown. Then, and only then, will the American people be able to
render a well-informed and an adequate judgment on her actions taken as
a whole because right now there appear to be nothing but good reasons
why, in poll after poll after poll, people say they just don't trust
her.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to address the bill before
us, a bill that presents itself as a labeling bill but which is deeply
defective, with three major loopholes that mean this labeling bill will
not label GMO products, and I am going to lay out those challenges.
First, I want to be clear that this is about American citizens' right
to know what is in their food. We have all kinds of consumer laws about
rights to know,
[[Page S4802]]
but maybe there is nothing as personal as what you put in your mouth or
what you feed your family. That is why emotions run so deep. Citizens
have a right to make up their own mind.
We talk a lot about the vision of our country being a ``we the
people'' democracy, and certainly it was Jefferson who said ``the
mother principle'' of our Republic is that we can call ourselves a
Republic only to the degree that the decisions reflect the will of the
people, and that will happen only if the people have an equal voice.
In this case, we have a powerful enterprise--a company named
Monsanto--that has come to this Chamber with a goal, which is to take
away the right of consumers across this Nation and take away the right
of citizens across this Nation to know what is in their food.
I am specifically referring to the Monsanto DARK Act. Why is it
called the DARK Act? It is called the DARK Act because it is an
acronym: Deny Americans the Right to Know. But it also very much
represents the difference between an enlightenment that comes from
information and knowledge, and a darkness that comes from suppressing
information.
James Madison, our country's fourth President and Father of the
Constitution, once wrote:
Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who
mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the
power which knowledge gives.
That is what this debate is about--whether citizens can arm
themselves with the knowledge, arm themselves with the power that
knowledge gives. And this act before us, the Monsanto DARK Act, says:
No, we are not going to allow citizens to acquire in a simple way the
information about whether the product they are considering buying has
genetically modified ingredients.
There is something particularly disheartening about that, and that is
that this is one of the few issues in the country about which you can
ask Republicans, you can ask Democrats, you can ask Independents, and
they all have the same answer. Basically, nine out of ten Americans,
regardless of party, want a simple indication on the package: Does this
container include GMO ingredients? That is all--a simple, consumer-
friendly right to know, and this bill is all about taking that away.
Let me turn to the three big loopholes in this bill.
Monsanto loophole No. 1: A definition that exempts the three major
GMO products in America. Isn't it ironic to have a bill where the
definition of GMO has been crafted in a fashion never seen anywhere
else on this planet, is not in use by any of the 64 countries around
the world that have a labeling law, and it just happens to be crafted
to exclude the three major Monsanto GMO products? What are those
products?
The first is GMO corn when it becomes high-fructose corn syrup. Well,
it is GMO corn, but under the definition of high-fructose corn syrup
from GMO corn, it is suddenly not GMO.
Let's talk about soybeans. When Monsanto GMO soybeans become soybean
oil, they magically are no longer GMO under the definition in this
bill.
Let's talk about sugar beets. Monsanto GMO sugar beets--when the
sugar is produced and goes into products, it is suddenly, magically not
GMO sugar.
Isn't it a coincidence that this definition is not found anywhere
else in the world? This bill happens to exclude the three biggest
products produced by Monsanto. Well, it is no coincidence. They are
determined to make sure they are not covered. High-fructose corn syrup,
sugar from GMO sugar beets, oil from GMO soybeans--none of those are
covered.
This has been an issue of some debate because folks have said: Well,
the plain language in the bill might be overruled and modified by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture when they do rules. Of course, a rule
that contravenes the plain language of the bill would in fact not
stand. It wouldn't be authorized. So what does the plain language of
the bill say? It says: ``The term `bioengineering,' and any similar
term, as determined by the Secretary, with respect to a food, refers to
a food . . . that contains genetic material that has been modified.''
That was the magic language not found anywhere in the world--
``contains genetic material that has been modified''--because when you
make high-fructose corn syrup, when you make sugar from sugar beets,
when you make soy oil from soybeans, that information is stripped out.
That is what magically transformed a GMO ingredient to a non-GMO
ingredient.
They have a second loophole, and that loophole says ``for which the
modification could not otherwise be obtained through conventional
breeding.'' Well, the ``could'' factor here certainly raises all kinds
of questions. In theory, is it possible to obtain through natural
selection what we obtain through genetic engineering? Well, then
suddenly it is not genetic engineering. We haven't been able to find
out exactly which crop they are trying to protect, wave that magic
wand, and convert a GMO crop into a non-GMO crop, but certainly it is
there for a specific purpose.
What does this mean? This means that if you look around the world and
you examine the labeling laws from the European Union or Brazil or
China, corn oil, soybean oil, sugar from sugar beets--all of those, if
they come from a GMO form, GMO soybean, or GMO sugar beets, they are
all covered. They are all covered everywhere in the world except,
magically, in this bill.
We have consulted many experts. The language of the bill is very
clear, but many experts have weighed in and they say things like this:
This definition leaves out a large number of foods derived
from GMOs such as corn and soy oil, sugar beet sugar. That is
because, although these products are derived from or are
GMOs, the level of DNA in the products is very low and is
generally not sufficient to be detected in DNA-based assays.
That is the basic bottom line. That is loophole No. 1.
Let's turn to Monsanto loophole No. 2. What this loophole is, is this
law doesn't actually require a label that says there are GMO
ingredients. It provides a couple of options, voluntary. Those options
already exist in law so that is not giving anything we don't currently
have. Under this law, a manufacturer is allowed to put in a phrase and
say this product is partially derived from GMO ingredients or partially
made from GMO ingredients. They can do that right now. It also says the
USDA will develop a symbol, and that symbol can be put on a package to
indicate it has GMO ingredients. Somebody can voluntarily put on a
symbol right now. If you don't voluntarily do those things that
actually disclose it has GMO ingredients, this is the default.
We see here this barcode. It is also referred to as a quick response
code. It says: Scan this for more information. Scan me. Of course,
package after package across America already has barcodes. Package
after package already has quick response codes, as these are referred
to, these square computer codes--scan me for more information. It
doesn't say there are GMO ingredients in this package. It doesn't say:
Scan here for more information on the GMO ingredients in this food. No,
just scan me.
Certainly, this defies the ability of anyone to look at that and say
whether there are GMO ingredients. All it does is take you to a Web
site. How do you get to that Web site? You have to have a smartphone.
You have to have a digital plan you pay for. You have to have wireless
coverage at the point that you are there. You have to scan it and go to
a Web site to find out--the Web site, by the way, will be written by
the company that makes the food so it is not going to be easy to find
that information.
The bill says it will be in the first page of the Web site. There
could be a lot of information on that Web page and always in a
different format. This is not a label. This is an obstacle course. It
is an obstacle course that causes you to spend your own money and your
digital time.
If I want to compare five different products and see if they have a
GMO ingredient and I have five versions of canned carrots, I can pick
up that can, and if there is a symbol or a phrase that says ``partially
produced with genetically modified ingredients,'' I can pick that up,
turn it over, and in 1 second I get the answer. In 1 second, I can get
the answer about the number of calories. In 1 second, I can get the
answer of whether it contains peanuts. In 1 second, I can get the
answer on how much sugar it has. I can compare these
[[Page S4803]]
five products in 5 seconds, which one--oh, here is the one I want. I
want one that does have GMO. I want one that doesn't have GMO. That is
a GMO label.
This is an obstacle course. This provides no details unless you go
through a convoluted system that takes up a lot of time. If I want to
compare those five products, I would have to stand in the aisle of the
grocery store for 30 minutes trying to go to different Web sites,
hoping there was wireless coverage. Quite frankly, that whole process,
no one would do that. That is exactly why Monsanto wants this code
because no one will use it. They don't know they should use it for GMO
ingredients because it doesn't say it, and they know it will take so
much time that no busy person or not-so-busy person would see that as a
significant way to obtain the data desired.
Let's say I am going shopping for 20 items. If each of those items
required comparing five products, if it was a 1-second label, it would
take up to 50 seconds of my time shopping for 20 products--or 100
seconds of my time, excuse me. In this case, if it took half an hour
per product, it would be 10 hours standing in the grocery store, on
just 20 items, trying to figure out which variety does not contain
GMOs. That obstacle course, combined with the definition that excludes
Monsanto products, comprises Monsanto loophole No. 1 and Monsanto
loophole No. 2.
There is a third loophole in this bill. Wouldn't it be wonderful,
Monsanto says, to have a bill with no enforcement in it. When we look
at other labeling laws, there is always enforcement. You violate this,
there is a $1,000 fine. You violate it again, there is a $1,000 fine or
something of that nature. This is the type of provision we had in our
COOL Act. What was COOL? C-O-O-L--Country of Origin Labeling, the COOL
Act. That was something that required labeling to say that meat--
specifically, pork and beef--whether it had been grown and processed in
the United States of America. If I, as a patriotic American, wanted to
support American farmers, American ranchers, I could do so because the
meat had a label.
What was the consequence of failing to provide that label? There was
a fine. This bill does not have a USDA fine. This bill does not have
any enforcement. It is very clear. They cannot recall any product. They
cannot ban a product going to market. The only consequence in this bill
is the Secretary could have the possibility of doing an audit of a
company that had been the subject of complaints and could disclose the
results of an audit. In a press release, he could say: We have done an
audit of this company and they are not following the law. That is the
consequence--a public announcement. Well, hardly anything this
compelling--it just invites people to ignore this law.
At every level, Monsanto has undermined this being a legitimate
labeling law--a definition that excludes the big Monsanto products, an
obstacle course instead of a label, and no enforcement. This bill says
we oppose the bill because it is actually a nonlabeling bill under the
guise of a mandatory labeling bill. That sums it up. It pretends to be
a labeling bill, but it is not. This is a letter signed by 76 pro-
organic organizations and farmer groups.
I had to do this very quickly. There has been no hearing on this
bill. For this unique, never-in-the-world definition that exempts the
Monsanto products, there has never been a hearing. What kind of
deliberative body is the U.S. Senate when it is afraid to hold a
hearing because people might point out that a very powerful special
interest, Monsanto, had written a definition that excludes their own
products?
Apparently, Senators are quaking in their boots for fear the public
might find out they just voted on a bill with a definition that
excludes Monsanto products so they didn't want to risk a hearing that
would make that clear.
I am so appreciative of these groups. While you can't make out this
print, it gives you a sense of what type of groups we are talking about
from across the country--the Center for Food Safety, Food & Water
Watch, Biosafety, the Cedar Circle Farm, Central Park West, Food
Democracy, Farm Aid, Family Farm Defenders, Good Earth Natural Foods,
on and on--because these groups believe citizens have a right to know
what is in their food.
Some folks have said: Well, they don't deserve to have that right
because this food is not going to do them any harm. Boy, isn't that Big
Brother talking once again. The powerful Federal Government is going to
make up your mind for you and not going to allow you to have that power
that comes from knowledge.
As I noted earlier, James Madison wrote: ``Knowledge will forever
govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must
arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.''
Big Brother says we don't want the people to have the power of
knowledge; we don't let them make their own decision. Why is it so many
people feel so powerfully about this issue? First, various groups have
determined a major genetic modification that makes crops glyphosate-
resistant, weed killer-resistant is a health issue. Why is it a health
issue? Because glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen.
That is something citizens have a right to be concerned about, the
possibility of cancer. In areas where glyphosate is sprayed on crops,
it has shown up even in samples of rainfall, and it has shown up in the
urine of people who live in that area. Do people have the right to be
concerned about the fact that a weed killer is being sprayed, and it is
ending up in their urine? Yes, I think they do. They have the right to
be concerned about that.
Do they have a right to be concerned about the impact when this
massive amount of weed killer flows off the farms and into our streams
and rivers because that weed killer proceeds to kill organisms in the
rivers, in the streams, altering the biology of the stream? Yes, they
have a right to be worried about that.
Do they have a right to be concerned when the huge application of
glyphosate is producing superweeds; that is, weeds growing near the
fields that are exposed so often that mutations that make them
naturally resistant proceed to produce weeds that are resistant to
glyphosate, meaning you have to put even more weed killer on the crops.
Do they have a right to be concerned when there is a genetic
modification called Bt corn that actually causes pesticide to grow
inside the cells of the corn plant? What is the impact of that on human
health? We don't yet know. Yet that particular genetic modification
that causes pesticide to be growing inside the cells of the plant is
covering more than 90 percent of the corn grown in America. That is a
legitimate concern.
Do the citizens have a right to be concerned when they discover the
insects a pesticide is designed to kill are evolving and becoming
superpests and are becoming immune to that pesticide; meaning, not only
is there pesticide growing in the cell of the plant, but now the farmer
has applied pesticide to the field as well, which was the whole goal of
ignoring that in the first place--that you wouldn't have to do that.
They have a right to be concerned. They have a right to educate
themselves. They have a right to make their own decision. This is a Big
Brother bill if there ever was one, saying, for those who supported
cloture on this bill: This bill says citizens do not have the right to
know. We are going to have a label that actually doesn't label. We are
going to have a label that is an obstacle course. We are going to have
a definition that excludes a commonly understood definition of what GMO
crops are, and we are going to have no enforcement.
This is not good work. This is not a deliberative Senate. Let's send
this bill to committee and have a complete hearing on the deficiencies
I am talking about. Let's invite Monsanto to come and testify. Let's
invite the many scientists who weighed in about the fact that this
exempts the primary GMO products in America. Let them come and speak.
Let all of us get educated, not have this rammed through the Senate at
the very last moment.
There are individuals here who said: Wait. Time is urgent because we
can't have 50 different State labeling standards. We only have one
State that has a labeling standard, and that is Vermont. There is no
real concern that we have two conflicting standards because we only
have one standard. Could
[[Page S4804]]
there be more than one standard down the road? Yes, that is a
possibility, but that is down the road. That doesn't require us to act
today.
There are folks who say: Well, the Vermont law goes into effect July
1 so we have to act now to prevent the Vermont law from going into
effect. The Vermont law has a 6-month grace period. It doesn't go into
effect until January 1 of 2017. We have lots of time to hold hearings.
We have lots of time to embrace knowledge rather than to convey and
enforce ignorance, lots of time. So these arguments that are made about
the urgency are phony arguments. They are made to take and enable a
powerful special interest to push through a bill that 90 percent of
Americans disagree with, to do it essentially in the dark of the night
by not having hearings, not on the House side, not on the Senate side,
not having a full debate on this floor. No, instead we are using an
instrument that is a modification of a House bill that is a
modification of a Senate bill because procedurally it makes it easier
to ram this bill through without due consideration. That is wrong.
What I am asking for is a simple opportunity to have a series of
reasonable amendments voted on, on the floor of this Senate. Let's
actually embrace the Senate as a deliberative body. There is an
amendment that would fix the definition. That is the amendment by
Senator Tester from Montana. That amendment would simply say: The
derivatives of GMO crops are GMO ingredients. Soybean oil from GMO
soybean is a GMO ingredient.
Many proponents of the bill said they think that is what is going to
happen with the regulation down the road. If you believe that is what
will happen, then join us. Let's correct the definition right now. Why
have law cases? Why go into our July break having passed something with
a definition that we don't have a consensus on what it means?
I know what the plain language says. I know what it exempts as GMO
crops, but some say: Well, maybe not, maybe there is something that the
USDA can do to change that, and they will be covered. The USDA was
asked that question, and they wouldn't answer it directly. They sent
back this very convoluted legal language that said: Foods that might or
might not have GMO or non-GMO ingredients might possibly be covered, of
course, based on what other ingredients are in the food.
Would the soybean oil from a GMO soybean be considered a GMO
ingredient? That is the question. The USDA needs to answer that yes or
no instead of this long, convoluted, lengthy dodging that occurred
because they were afraid to answer the question. That is knowledge we
could use on the floor of the Senate. Would high-fructose corn syrup
from GMO corn be considered a GMO ingredient? The USDA wouldn't answer
those questions directly, but lots of other folks did. The FDA, or the
Food and Drug Administration, answered the question in technical
guidance. They said: Absolutely they wouldn't be covered. All kinds of
other experts weighed in and said: Absolutely they wouldn't be covered.
Maybe that is the type of information that we should have from a
hearing on this bill.
How about voting on a simple amendment that clears up this confusion
and clearly uses a definition, not one written by and for exempting
three major GMO Monsanto crops. We need a straightforward definition
that is used elsewhere and covers all of the products that are
ordinarily considered a GMO. That is not too much to ask. Let's have a
debate on that amendment. We should vote on whether we are going to
have a clear definition in this bill.
Let's vote on changing the QR code. The QR code has a phrase in it
that says: ``Scan here for more food information.'' What if this simply
said: Scan here for information on GMO ingredients? Now we have a GMO
label. Now it would be truthful and authentic to say that this bill is
going to require a GMO label simply by saying: ``Scan here for GMO
ingredients in this product.'' Let's have an amendment that changes
that language. I have such an amendment, and I would like to see us
have a vote on it. To the proponents who are saying this is a GMO
labeling bill, this would actually make it a GMO labeling bill.
I know the two Senators from Vermont each have an amendment they
would like to have considered, one of which would take the Vermont
standard and make it the national standard, thereby making one single
national standard, and another would grandfather Vermont in and say:
Let's not roll over the top of Vermont. Maybe there are a couple of
other Senators who have things that will improve this legislation. How
about an amendment that would actually put in the same authority to
levy fines that we have on the country-of-origin labeling law. I have
that amendment. What about a vote on that amendment? These should be
things that we can come together on.
If you truly want to have a national labeling standard, you want a
definition that has integrity and is consistent with what is commonly
understood to be a GMO. You want to have a label that indicates there
are GMO ingredients inside because that is authenticity. You want to
have the ability to have the U.S. Department of Agriculture levy a fine
if people disobey the law so that it actually has some teeth in it and
some compelling force. That is what I am asking for. Let's have a vote
on several basic amendments rather than blindly embracing ignorance and
denying Americans the right to know.
I thank the Presiding Officer.
Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Do I need to make any specific
request to reserve the remainder of my 1 hour?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). No, the hour remains.
Mr. MERKLEY. I thank the Presiding Officer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
MILCON-VA and Zika Virus Funding Bill
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I rise today to emphasize the importance
of the MILCON-VA and Zika conference bill. As a member of the
conference committee that crafted this report and a member of the
subcommittee that drafted the Military Construction and Veterans
Affairs appropriations bill, I cannot overstate the significance of
this legislation.
Sadly, we have watched the Senate Democrats play politics with
critical funding for our military, our veterans, and funding to combat
Zika. In my view, this stunt--and I call it a stunt because that is
what it is--is both dangerous and disheartening. It is an insult to the
men and women who sacrifice so much to keep us safe. It is a reckless
game to play with our veterans and public health across this country.
The conference report includes record-level funding for America's
veterans. It fully funds the VA's request for veterans' medical
services and provides an overall increase of nearly 9 percent for our
veterans programs. It includes measures for the Department of Veterans
Affairs to improve access and efficiency for military services. We
certainly know we have a long way to go before we get satisfaction
there. We have a long way to go to reduce the backlogs in claims
processing, strengthen our whistleblower protections, and improve
information technology in medical research.
The drug epidemic plaguing our Nation has unfortunately hit our
veterans community particularly hard, especially in my home State of
West Virginia. The overdose rate in my State is more than twice the
national average. With almost 40 percent of our State's veterans using
the VA health care system, it is vital that we strengthen the VA's
ability to help treat opioid addiction.
Whether our veterans are recovering from injuries obtained during
their service or tending to their daily health needs, this bill
provides funding to give veterans a new lease on life. This includes
supporting the VA's Opioid Safety Initiative--something I have been
very involved with--which improves pain care for those who have a
higher risk of opioid-related overdoses. It also encourages the VA to
continually expand treatment services and better monitor our at-risk
veterans.
Another thing we can do for our veterans is ensure they have ample
employment opportunities as they transition into civilian life--another
problem we have identified. In West Virginia, where the majority of our
veterans live in rural areas--and as many of you know, almost the whole
State is
[[Page S4805]]
rural--the unemployment rate is almost 2 percent higher than the
overall national average.
I recently witnessed something that was great to see: an innovative
agritherapy program that helps our veterans cope with PTSD. It has also
helped to arm our veterans with skills they can use to start a
business. I met several veterans who were suffering from PTSD who have
embarked on an agritherapy program using bees and beekeeping. At Geezer
Ridge Farm in Hedgesville--yes, it is Geezer Ridge--I saw veterans use
beekeeping to overcome PTSD. To date, the program has helped create 150
new veteran-owned farms.
The benefits of agritherapy have been acknowledged by publications
such as Psychology Today and Newsweek. However, we need research to
further explore the benefits of this type of treatment. That is why I
offered a provision in this bill calling for a pilot program at the VA
to better understand agritherapy, and I am excited about what we
learned.
While I was out there, I met a veteran who was suffering from PTSD
and who was seeing a therapist once a week because he was having such
difficulty coping at the VA, and he got interested in beekeeping. He
began to grow a business, to learn about bees, pollen and honey, the
queen bee, and all those kinds of things. He said that now he only sees
a therapist every other month. He has such relief, and it gives him
such a positive outlook for his future, just by having this type of
therapy available to him.
This bill also prioritizes a full range of programs to ensure that we
honor our commitment to our men and women in uniform and that we
deliver the services our veterans have dutifully earned.
Let's talk for a moment about a growing public health threat facing
us, and that is the Zika virus. We have all heard about it, and we have
seen pictures of children who were born from mothers who were infected
by Zika. It is very disheartening, sad, and difficult to see and to
think about those young families starting out.
This conference report includes $1.1 billion to tackle Zika. With
every conversation I have and every statistic and article I have read,
I grow more concerned. I think everybody does. I spoke to a group of
young students just the other day. Young students are tuning in to this
difficult problem.
After hearing testimony before the Appropriations Committee and
meeting with the CDC Director, I understand the immediate need to
provide funds for research, prevention, and treatment. We are all
vulnerable to what the CDC Director told me is an unprecedented threat.
We must act to protect ourselves and prevent the spread of this
deadly virus. We must do it smartly, efficiently, and without wasting
our taxpayers' dollars. This conference report that is stalled, that is
stuck in this stunt, does just that. It takes the necessary and
responsible actions to protect Americans from an outbreak.
The $1.1 billion allocated in this conference report is the same
amount the Democrats supported just last month when an amendment
addressing Zika funding passed out of the Senate. It doesn't make
sense. Their reasoning for opposing this funding lacks merit. The
conference report does not prohibit access to any health service. In
fact, it provides the same access to health services that was in the
President's request. The conference report even expands access to
services by boosting funding for our community health centers, public
health departments, and hospitals in areas most directly affected by
Zika. The safety and health of Americans should be our No. 1 priority.
Sadly, the other side has chosen to prioritize politics over the
American people.
We will have another opportunity to vote on this conference report,
and I am hopeful that my Democratic colleagues will do the right thing.
Rather than blocking critical funding for veterans and the Zika
response, we need to join together to send this conference report to
the President's desk as soon as possible.
Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Fighting Terrorism
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, last week terrorists wearing suicide vests
entered the Istanbul airport and opened fire on travelers before
detonating their vests. Forty-five people were killed and more than 200
were injured. While no group has yet claimed responsibility, Turkish
officials believe that ISIS was behind the attack.
The list of ISIS-related terrorist attacks in the United States and
against our allies is steadily growing: Paris, San Bernardino,
Brussels, Orlando, and Istanbul. Then, of course, there is the constant
barrage of attacks in the Middle East, such as last week's deadly
attack in Baghdad that resulted in the death of 250 people.
So far the attacks in the United States have been inspired by--rather
than carried out by--ISIS, but that could change at any moment. In the
wake of the Istanbul attacks, CIA Director John Brennan stated he would
be ``surprised'' if ISIS isn't planning a similar attack in the United
States.
Given the terrorist violence in recent months, it is no surprise that
a recent FOX News poll found that an overwhelming majority of
Americans, 84 percent, think that ``most Americans today are feeling
more nervous than confident about stopping terrorist attacks.''
Unfortunately, they have reason to be nervous because under President
Obama we are not doing what we need to be doing to stop ISIS. For proof
of that, we have President Obama's own CIA chief, who has made it clear
that the measures the administration has taken to stop ISIS have failed
to reduce the group's ability to carry out attacks.
Testifying before Congress 3 weeks ago, Director Brennan stated:
``Unfortunately, despite all our progress against ISIL on the
battlefield and in the financial realm, our efforts have not reduced
the group's terrorism capability and global reach.''
Let me repeat that: `` . . . our efforts have not reduced the group's
terrorism capability and global reach,'' said CIA Director Brennan.
That is a pretty serious indictment of the Obama administration's
ISIS strategy or the lack thereof. If our efforts have not reduced
ISIS's terrorism capability and global reach, then our efforts are
failing and we need a new plan, but that is something that President
Obama seems unlikely to produce. Despite a halfhearted campaign against
ISIS, the President has never laid out a comprehensive strategy to
defeat the terrorist group. As a result, ISIS's terrorism capability
and global reach are thriving.
Keeping Americans safe from ISIS requires a comprehensive approach.
It requires not just containing but decisively defeating ISIS abroad.
It requires controlling our borders and strengthening our immigration
system. It requires us to give law enforcement and intelligence
agencies the tools and funding they need to monitor threats abroad and
here at home. It requires us to secure the homeland by addressing
security weaknesses that would give terrorists an opening to attack.
Unfortunately, President Obama has failed to adequately address these
priorities, and at this late date, the President is unlikely to change
his approach.
The Republican-led Senate cannot force the President to take the
threat posed by ISIS seriously, but we are committed to doing
everything we can to increase our Nation's security. A key part of
defeating ISIS abroad is making sure the men and women of our military
have the equipment, the training, and the resources they need to win
battles.
This month, the Senate will take up the annual appropriations bill to
fund our troops. This year's bill focuses on eliminating wasteful
spending and redirecting those funds to modernize our military and
increase troop pay. It rejects President Obama's plan to close
Guantanamo Bay and bring suspected terrorists to our shores, and it
funds our efforts to defeat ISIS abroad.
The bill received unanimous bipartisan support in the Appropriations
Committee. I am hoping the outcome will be the same on the Senate
floor.
Last year, the Democrats chose to play politics with this
appropriations bill and voted to block essential funding for our troops
no fewer than three times, even though they had no real objections to
the actual substance of the bill.
Playing politics with funding for our troops is never acceptable, but
it is
[[Page S4806]]
particularly unacceptable at a time when our Nation is facing so many
threats to our security. I hope this time around Senate Democrats will
work with us to quickly pass this legislation.
In addition to funding our military, another key aspect to protecting
our Nation from terrorist threats is controlling our borders. We have
to know who is coming into our country so that we can keep out
terrorists and anyone else who wants to harm us. If criminals and
suspected terrorists do make it across our borders, we need to
apprehend them immediately.
One thing we can do right now to improve our ability to keep
criminals and suspected terrorists off our streets is to eliminate so-
called sanctuary cities. Right now, more than 300 cities across the
United States have policies in place that discourage local law
enforcement from cooperating with immigration officials. That means
that when a Homeland Security official asks local authorities to detain
a dangerous felon or suspected terrorist until Federal authorities can
come collect the individual, these jurisdictions may refuse to help.
Sanctuary city policies have resulted in the release of thousands of
criminals who could otherwise have been picked up by the Department of
Homeland Security and deported.
Senator Toomey has offered a bill to discourage these policies by
withholding certain Federal funds from jurisdictions that refuse to
help Federal officials keep dangerous individuals off the streets. I
have to say that I am deeply disappointed that this afternoon the
Senate Democrats chose to block this important legislation. By opposing
this bill, Democrats are complicit in making it easier for felons and
suspected terrorists to threaten our communities.
Giving our intelligence and law enforcement agencies the tools they
need to track terrorists is one of the most important ways we can
prevent future attacks.
In June, the Senate took up an amendment to give the FBI authority to
obtain records of suspected terrorists' electronic transactions, such
as what Web sites they visited and how long they spent on those sites.
The FBI has stated that obtaining this authority is one of its top
legislative priorities.
The agency already has authority to obtain similar telephone and
financial records, but what the FBI Director described as ``essentially
a typo in the law'' has so far prevented the FBI from easily obtaining
the same records for Web sites. Fixing this intelligence gap would
significantly improve the FBI's ability to track suspected terrorists
and to prevent attacks. Unfortunately, again, the majority of Senate
Democrats inexplicably voted against this amendment, which I hope will
be reconsidered in the Senate in the near future.
On top of that, Democrats are threatening to block this year's
Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill, which provides funding
that the FBI and other key law enforcement agencies need to operate.
When the President's CIA Director testified before Congress in June,
he told Members: ``I have never seen a time when our country faced such
a wide variety of threats to our national security.''
Given these threats, and especially given the recent ISIS-inspired
attack on our own soil, it is both puzzling and deeply troubling that
Democrats would block the FBI's No. 1 priority and then play politics
with the funding that will help the agency track suspected terrorists
in our country.
As I mentioned above, the final essential element to protecting
Americans from terrorist attacks is addressing our vulnerabilities here
at home. The recent terrorist attacks in Istanbul and Brussels
highlighted vulnerabilities at airports we need to address to prevent
similar attacks in the United States.
This afternoon, the House and Senate announced they had reached
agreement on a final version of aviation legislation. In addition to
aviation safety measures and new consumer protections--such as
guaranteed refunds of baggage fees for lost or seriously delayed
luggage--this legislation provides one of the largest, most
comprehensive airport security packages in years.
This legislation improves vetting of airport employees to address the
insider terrorist threat, the risk that an airport employee would give
a terrorist access to secure areas of an airport. It includes
provisions to get more Americans enrolled in Precheck to reduce the
size of crowds waiting in unsecured areas of our airports, and it
contains measures to add more K-9 and other security personnel at
airports so we are better able to deter attacks. In addition, the bill
requires the TSA to look at ways to improve security checkpoints to
make the passenger screening process more efficient and effective.
I look forward to sending this legislation to the President by July
15. As the President's own CIA Director made clear, President Obama's
halfhearted approach to countering ISIS has failed to reduce the threat
this terrorist organization poses.
While I would like to think the President will develop a greater
seriousness about ISIS in the last 6 months of his Presidency, I am not
holding out a lot of hope. But whatever the President does or fails to
do, Republicans in the Senate will continue to do everything we can to
protect our country and to keep Americans safe from terrorist attacks.
I hope that Democrats in Congress will join us.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Alzheimer's Caregiver Support Act
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, today I rise with my colleague from
Maine, Senator Susan Collins, to bring attention to the millions of
Americans living with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias and the
loving caregivers who take care of them.
One in three seniors who die each year has Alzheimer's or related
dementia. The cost is incredible. In 2016, we will spend $236 billion
caring for individuals with Alzheimer's. By 2050, these costs will
reach $1.1 trillion.
The one thing we know is we are seeing more and more people with
Alzheimer's. We are working diligently--all of our doctors and medical
professionals--for a cure, but we know that, in the meantime, we will
have many family members involved in taking care of them.
Senator Collins and I have introduced the Alzheimer's Caregiver
Support Act, which authorizes grants to public and nonprofit
organizations to expand training and support services for families and
caregivers of patients with Alzheimer's disease or related dementias.
We think that these sisters and brothers, sons and daughters, and
husbands and wives who are doing this caregiving all want to have the
best quality of life possible for their loved one who has this
devastating disease--and they want to be trained. If they don't have
that ability to learn what tools they can use when someone around them
just starts forgetting what they said 10 minutes before, they need to
learn how to take care of them, and many of them want to do that. Our
bill simply gives them the tools to do that.
I thank Senator Collins for her longtime leadership.
I thank Senator Carper, who moved the schedule around a bit so we
could talk about this important bill.
I know Senator Collins wishes to speak about this as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, before I speak, I also extend my
appreciation to the Senator from Delaware.
I rise today with my friend and colleague from Minnesota, Senator
Klobuchar, to briefly talk about the bill that we have introduced, the
Alzheimer's Caregiver Support Act, which would provide training and
support services for the families and caregivers of people living with
Alzheimer's and other dementias.
As many caregivers can attest, Alzheimer's is a devastating disease
that exacts a tremendous personal and economic toll on individuals,
families, and our health care system. For example, it is our Nation's
most costly disease. It is one that affects more than 5.4 million
Americans, including 37,000 Mainers living with Alzheimer's today. That
number is soaring as our older population grows older and lives longer.
Last year and this year, we have done a good job in increasing the
investment
[[Page S4807]]
in biomedical research that someday will lead to effective treatments,
a means of prevention, or even a cure for Alzheimer's. But often
forgotten when we discuss this disease are the caregivers. There are
many families across this Nation who know all too well the compassion,
commitment, and endurance it takes to be a caregiver of a loved one
with Alzheimer's disease.
When I was in Maine recently, I saw an 89-year-old woman taking care
of her 90-year-old husband with Alzheimer's. I met a woman in her
fifties who, with her sisters, was juggling care of their mother along
with demanding work schedules. I discussed with an elderly husband his
own health problems as he tries to cope with taking care of his wife's
dementia. Most important, these caregivers allow many with Alzheimer's
to remain in the safety and the comfort of their own homes.
Last year, caregivers of people living with Alzheimer's shouldered
$10.2 billion in health care costs related to the physical and
emotional effects of caregiving. And that is why the bill Senator
Klobuchar and I have introduced is so important. It would help us do
more to care for our caregivers. It would award grants to public and
nonprofit organizations like Area Agencies on Aging and senior centers
to expand training and support services for caregivers of people living
with Alzheimer's.
Mr. President, it has been estimated that nearly one out of two of
the baby boomer generation--our generation--reaching 85 will develop
Alzheimer's if we are not successful with biomedical research. As a
result, chances are that members of our generation will either be
spending their golden years with Alzheimer's or caring for someone who
has it. It is therefore imperative that we give our family caregivers
the support they need to provide high-quality care.
Our legislation has been endorsed by the Alzheimer's Association, the
Alzheimer's Foundation of America, and UsAgainstAlzheimer's. I urge all
our colleagues to support it.
Mr. President, to reiterate I rise today to speak in support of the
Alzheimer's Caregiver Support Act that I have been pleased to join my
friend and colleague from Minnesota, Senator Klobuchar, in introducing.
Our bill would provide training and support services for the families
and caregivers of people living with Alzheimer's disease or related
dementias. As many caregivers can attest, Alzheimer's is a devastating
disease that exacts a tremendous personal and economic toll on
individuals, families, and our health care system.
It is our Nation's most costly disease. Approximately 5.4 million
Americans are living with Alzheimer's disease today, including 37,000
in Maine, and that number is soaring as our overall population grows
older and lives longer. If current trends continue, Alzheimer's disease
could affect as many as 16 million Americans by 2050.
There are many families across our Nation who know all too well the
compassion, commitment, and endurance that it takes to be a caregiver
of a loved one with Alzheimer's disease. Our caregivers devote enormous
time and attention, and they frequently must make many personal and
financial sacrifices to ensure that their loved ones have the care they
need day in and day out. When I was in Maine recently, I saw an 89-year
old woman taking care of her 90-year old husband with Alzheimer's; a
woman in her, fifties who with her sisters was juggling care of their
mother with their work schedules; and an elderly husband trying to cope
with his own health problems as well as his wife's dementia. Most
important, however, these caregivers enable many with Alzheimer's to
remain in the safety and comfort of their own homes.
According to the Alzheimer's Association, nearly 16 million unpaid
caregivers provided 18 billion hours of care valued at more than $221
billion in 2015. These caregivers provide tremendous value, but they
also face many challenges. Many are employed and struggle to balance
their work and caregiving responsibilities. They may also be putting
their own health at risk, since caregivers experience high levels of
stress and have a greater incidence of chronic conditions like heart
disease, cancer, and depression. Last year, caregivers of people living
with Alzheimer's or related dementias shouldered $10.2 billion in
health care costs related to the physical and emotional effects of
caregiving.
The bipartisan legislation we introduced on the last day of June--
which was Alzheimer's and Brain Awareness month--would help us do more
to care for our caregivers. It would award grants to public and
nonprofit organizations, like Area Agencies on Aging and senior
centers, to expand training and support services for the families and
caregivers of people living with Alzheimer's disease.
The bill would require these organizations to provide public outreach
on the services they offer, and ensure that services are provided in a
culturally appropriate manner. It would also require the Secretary of
Health and Human Services to coordinate with the Office of Women's
Health and Office of Minority Health to ensure that women, minorities,
and medically underserved communities benefit from the program.
It has been estimated that nearly one in two of the baby boomers
reaching 85 will develop Alzheimer's. As a result, chances are that
members of the baby boom generation will either be spending their
golden years with Alzheimer's or caring for someone who has it. It is
imperative that we give our family caregivers the support they need to
provide high quality care to their loved ones. Our legislation has been
endorsed by the Alzheimer's Association, Alzheimer's Foundation of
America, and UsAgainstAlzheimer's, and I urge all of our colleagues to
support it.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, before they leave the floor, I want to say
a special thanks to Senators Klobuchar and Collins for their leadership
on this issue. This is one that hits close to home for me and my sister
and my family. Our mother had Alzheimer's disease, dementia, and her
mother and grandmother. So this is one I care a lot about, and I
applaud their efforts to work together on a hugely important issue on a
personal level as well as a financial one.
For a long time, I thought Medicaid was a health care program for
mostly moms and kids. As it turns out, most of the money we spend in
Medicaid is to enable elderly people, many with dementia, Alzheimer's
disease, to stay in nursing homes. The lion's share of the money is
actually for seniors, many of them with dementia and Alzheimer's
disease. So there is a fiscal component and a personal human component.
I thank the Senators for this. I have written down the information
about their bill, and I will be researching it through the night to see
if I can join them as a cosponsor. I thank them both, and I really
appreciate what they are doing.
ISIS
Mr. President, just before Senators Collins and Klobuchar took to the
floor, one of our colleagues--one of my three favorite Republican
colleagues--spoke about ISIS and suggested that we are not doing too
well in the battle against ISIS.
I have a friend, and when you ask him how he is doing, he says:
Compared to what? I want to compare now with where we were with ISIS
about 2 years ago.
Two years ago, ISIS was on the march. They were almost knocking on
the door of Baghdad. They stormed through Syria, through much of Iraq,
headed toward Baghdad, and were stopped almost on the outskirts of
Baghdad. The question was, Can anybody stop them?
The United States, under the leadership of our President, and other
countries said: Let's put together the kind of coalition that George
Herbert Walker Bush put together when the Iraqis invaded Kuwait many
years ago.
Some of us may recall that under the leadership of former President
Bush, we put together a coalition of I think more than 40 nations.
Everybody in the coalition brought something to the fight. Among other
things, we brought some airpower and some troops on the ground. Other
countries, like the Japanese, didn't send any military forces, but they
provided money to help support the fight. We had Sunni nations, we had
Shia nations, and we had nations from NATO. It was a very broad
coalition, and we were ultimately very successful in pushing Saddam
Hussein and the Iraqis out of Kuwait and enabling the Kuwaitis--even
today--to live as a free people.
[[Page S4808]]
So when we hear people talk about how things are going with respect
to ISIS, let me say this: Compared to what? Compared to 2 years ago, a
heck of a lot better--a whole lot better.
You may remember that 2 years ago, ISIS had the Iraqis on the run.
The Iraqi soldiers were running away, leaving all kinds of equipment
behind for the ISIS folks to take over. ISIS came in and took control
of the oilfields and took over banks and looted them.
Two years ago, they were attracting 2,000 fighters per month from
around the world. Every month, 2,000 fighters were going to Iraq and
Syria to fight with ISIS. How about last month? Two hundred.
Two years ago, the ISIS folks were attracting 10 Americans per month
to the fight in Iraq and Syria--10 Americans per month 2 years ago.
Last month? One American.
The land mass that the ISIS folks took over to create their caliphate
was about half of Iraq--not that much, not half of Iraq, but they had
taken over large parts of Iraq. Today, with the alliance, we have
retaken I think at least half of that. With American airpower and
American intelligence, with some support on the ground--but mostly
Iraqis and Kurds and other components of our coalition have enabled the
Iraqis to retake what we call the Sunni Triangle, which includes
Ramadi, Tikrit, and Fallujah. That is the triangle in western Baghdad
where a whole lot of the Sunnis live. And a lot of the boots on the
ground were not ours. The boots on the ground were those of the Iraqi
Army, which is starting to show a sense of cohesiveness and a sense of
fight we didn't see 2 years ago.
Up in the northern part of Iraq, there is a big city called Mosul
which is being surrounded by forces of the alliance that include not so
much U.S. troops on the ground--we have some support troops on the
ground. We certainly have airpower there. We are providing a fair
amount of help in intelligence, and we will have elements of the Kurds,
their forces, the Iraqi Army, and some other forces, too, surrounding
Mosul. My hope and expectation--we are not going to rush into it--is
that we are getting ready to gradually go into that city, try to do it
in a way the civilians there do not get killed unnecessarily. It is
something we are going to do right, and I think ultimately we will be
successful.
If you go almost due west from Mosul toward Syria, you come to a big
city called Raqqah, and that is essentially the capital--almost like
the spiritual capital of the caliphate the ISIS folks are trying to
establish. Raqqah is now being approached from the southwest by Syrian
Army forces, some Russian airpower, and for us from the northeast--not
American ground forces but Kurds and others and US airpower. It is
almost like a pincer move, if you will. Two forces that are not ours
but seen as allies--one led by the United States and the other by the
Russians--are moving in against a common target, and that is Raqqah.
So how are we doing? Compared to what? Compared to 2 years ago, we
are doing a heck of a lot better. And it is not just the United States.
We don't want to have boots on the ground, but there are a lot of ways
we can help. As it turns out, there are a lot of other nations in our
coalition that are helping as well.
So far in this fight in the last 18 months or so, we have killed I
think over 25,000 ISIS fighters. We have taken out roughly 120 key ISIS
leaders. We have reduced the funds of ISIS by at least a third. I am
told that we have cut in half the amount of money they are getting from
oil reserves, from oil wells and so forth that they had taken over.
It is not time to spike the football, but I think anybody who wanted
to be evenhanded in terms of making progress toward degrading and
destroying ISIS would say it is not time to spike the football but it
is time to inflate the football.
We are on the march. We are on the march--and not just us but a lot
of others. We have two carriers groups, one in the Mediterranean and
another in the Persian Gulf. I understand that F-16s and F-18s are
flying off those aircraft in support of these operations. We have B-52s
still flying. They are operating out of Qatar. We have A-10s operating
out of someplace. We have to operate flights, I believe, out of Iraq
and maybe even out of Turkey, maybe even out of Jordan--not necessarily
all--maybe even out of Kuwait. So there are a lot of assets involved--a
lot of their assets involved--and I think to good effect.
I am a retired Navy captain. I served three tours in Southeast Asia
during the Vietnam war. I am not a hero like John McCain and some of
our other colleagues, but I know a little bit about doing military
operations with units of other branches of the service or even in the
Navy--naval air, working with submarines, working with service ships.
It is difficult and complicated. Try to do that with other countries
speaking different languages and having different kinds of military
traditions and operating norms, and it is not easy to put together a
16-nation alliance and be an effective fighting machine all at once.
But we are getting there. We are getting there. We are making progress,
and I am encouraged.
But I would say, if I could add one more thing--and then I want to
talk about what I really wanted to talk about, Mr. President--there is
a fellow named Peter Bergen who is one of the foremost experts in the
country and in the world maybe on jihadi terrorism. He points out that
if you go back to the number of Americans who have been killed since 9/
11 by jihadi terrorists in our country, they have all been killed by
American citizens or people who are legally residing in this country.
Part of what we need to do is to make sure folks in this country
don't get further radicalized. I think one of the best ways to make
sure they are not going to get radicalized is to not have one of our
candidates for President saying we ought to throw all the Muslims out
of this country, send them all home. If that doesn't play into the
hands of ISIS, I don't know what does. That is not the way to make sure
we reduce the threat of jihadism in this country; it actually
incentivizes and is like putting gasoline on the fire.
What the administration, what the Department of Homeland Security is
trying to do, and what I am trying to do in our Committee on Homeland
Security is to make sure we reach out to the Muslim community not with
a fist and saying ``You are out of here,'' but in the spirit of
partnership. They do not want their young people to be radicalized and
go around killing people. That is not what they want. We need to work
with people of faith, people in the Muslim community, with families,
and with nonprofit organizations and others to make sure it is clear
that we see them as an important part of our country. We are not
interested in throwing them out of this country. There are a lot of
them making great contributions to this country. We want them to work
with us and we want to be a partner with them to reduce the incidence
of terrorism by Muslims and, frankly, any other faith that might be
radicalized here.
That isn't why I came to the floor, Mr. President, but I was inspired
by one of my colleagues whom I greatly admire.
Federal Records Act
What I want to talk about, Mr. President, is something that, when you
mention it, people really light up. It really excites them; and that is
the Federal Records Act. It will likely lead the news tonight on all
the networks. It is actually topical and I think important. Maybe when
I finish, folks--the pages who are sitting here dutifully listening to
my remarks--will say: That wasn't so bad. That was pretty interesting.
So here we go.
Mr. President, I rise this evening to address the importance of the
Federal Records Act and the recent attention that has been given to the
Federal Government's recordkeeping practices during investigations into
former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of a personal email
server.
Yesterday, as we all know, FBI Director James Comey announced that
the FBI had completed its investigation into Secretary Clinton's use of
a personal email server. After an independent and professional review
that lasted months, the FBI recommended to the Justice Department that
based on the facts, charges are not appropriate and that ``no
reasonable prosecutor'' would pursue a case.
In addition, the State Department's inspector general recently
concluded
[[Page S4809]]
its review of the recordkeeping practices of several former Secretaries
of State, including those of Secretary Clinton.
While these investigations have been the subject of much discussion
in the media and here in the Senate, I just want to put into context
the findings and their relation to Federal recordkeeping.
The truth is, for decades, and across Republican and Democratic
administrations, the Federal Government has done an abysmal job when it
comes to preserving electronic records. When Congress passed the
Federal Records Act over 60 years ago, the goal was to help preserve
our Nation's history and to ensure that Americans have access to public
records. As we know, a lot has changed in our country since that time
due to the evolution of information technology. Today, billions of
documents that shape the decisions our government makes are never
written down with pen and paper. Instead, these records are created
digitally. They are not stored in a filing cabinet, they are not stored
in a library or an archive somewhere but in computers and in bytes of
data.
Because of a slow response to technological change and a lack of
management attention, agencies have struggled to manage an increasing
volume of electronic records and in particular email. In fact, the
National Archives and Records Administration, the agency charged with
preserving our Nation's records, reported that 80 percent--think about
this, 80 percent--of agencies are at an elevated risk for the improper
management of electronic records. As the inspector general's recent
report showed, the State Department is no exception to this
governmentwide problem.
The report found systemic weaknesses at the State Department, which
has not done a good job for years now when it comes to overseeing
recordkeeping policies and ensuring that employees not just understand
what the rules are but actually follow those policies. The report of
the inspector general and the report of the FBI also found that several
former Secretaries of State, or their senior advisers, used personal
emails to conduct official business. Notably, Secretary Kerry is the
first Secretary of State--I believe in the history of our country--to
use a state.gov email address, the very first one.
The fact that recordkeeping has not been a priority at the State
Department does not come as a surprise, I am sure. In a previous
report, the inspector general of the State Department found that of the
roughly 1 billion State Department emails sent in 1 year alone, 2011,
only .0001 percent of them were saved in an electronic records
management system. Think about that. How many is that? That means 1 out
of every roughly 16,000 was saved, if you are keeping score.
To this day, it remains the policy of the State Department that in
most cases, each employee must manually choose which emails are work-
related and should be archived and then they print out and file them in
hard-copy form. Imagine that. We can do better and frankly we must.
Fortunately, better laws have helped spur action and push the
agencies to catch up with the changing technologies. In 2014, Congress
took long-overdue steps to modernize the laws that govern our Federal
recordkeeping requirements. We did so by adopting amendments to the
Federal Records Act that were authored by our House colleague Elijah
Cummings and approved unanimously both by the House of Representatives,
where he serves, and right here in the United States Senate. Today,
employees at executive agencies may no longer conduct official business
over personal emails without ensuring that any records they create in
their personal accounts are properly archived in an official electronic
messaging account within 20 days. Had these commonsense measures been
in place or required when Secretary Clinton and her predecessors were
in office, the practices identified in the inspector general's report
would not have persisted over many years and multiple administrations,
Democratic and Republican. Secretary Clinton, her team, and her
predecessors would have gotten better guidance from Congress on how the
Federal Records Act applies to technology that did not exist when the
law was first passed over 60 years ago.
Let's move forward. Moving forward, it is important we continue to
implement the 2014 reforms of the Federal Records Act and improve
recordkeeping practices throughout the Federal Government in order to
tackle these longstanding weaknesses. While doing so, it is also
imperative for us to keep pace as communications technologies continue
to evolve. While it is not quick or glamorous work, Congress should
support broad deployment of the National Archives' new record
management approach called Capstone. Capstone helps agencies
automatically preserve the email records of its senior officials.
Now, I understand Secretary Clinton is running for President, and
some of our friends in Congress have chosen to single her out on these
issues I think largely for that reason--because she is a candidate--but
it is important to point out that in past statements, Secretary Clinton
has repeatedly taken responsibility for her mistakes. She has also
taken steps to satisfy her obligations under the Federal Records Act.
The inspector general and the National Archives and Records
Administration have also acknowledged she mitigated any problems
stemming from her past email practices by providing 55,000 pages of
work-related emails to the State Department in December of 2014.
The vast majority of these emails has now been released publicly
through the Freedom of Information Act. This is an unprecedented level
of transparency. Never before have so many emails from a former Cabinet
Secretary been made public--never. I would encourage the American
people to read them. What they will show is, among other things,
someone working late at night, working on weekends, working on holidays
to help protect American interests. The more you read, the more you
will understand her service as Secretary of State. She called a dozen
foreign leaders on Thanksgiving in 2009. What were the rest of us doing
that day? She discussed the nuclear arms treaty with the Russian
Ambassador on Christmas Eve. What are most of us doing on Christmas
Eve? She responded quickly to humanitarian crises like the earthquake
in Haiti.
Finally, I should point out that the issue of poor recordkeeping
practices and personal email use are not unique to this administration
or to the executive branch. Many in Congress were upset when poor
recordkeeping practices of President George W. Bush's administration
resulted in the loss of White House documents and records. I remember
that. At times, Members of Congress have also used personal email to
conduct official business, including some who are criticizing Secretary
Clinton today, despite it being discouraged.
Now that the FBI has concluded its review, I think it is time to move
on. Instead of focusing on emails, the American people expect us in
Congress to fix problems, not to use our time and resources to score
political points. As I often say, we lead by our example. It is not do
as I say, but do as I do. All of us should keep this in mind and focus
on fixing real problems like the American people sent us to do.
Before I yield, I was privileged to spend some time, as the Presiding
Officer knows, as Governor of my State for 8 years. After I was elected
Governor, but before I became Governor, all of us who were newly
elected and our spouses were invited to new Governors school for new
Governors and spouses hosted by the National Governors Association.
That would have been in November of 1993. The new Governors school, for
new Governors and spouses, was hosted by the NGA, the chairman of the
National Governors Association, and by the other Governors and their
spouses within the NGA. They were our faculty, and the rest of us who
were newbies, newly elected, we were the students. We were the ones
there to learn. We spent 3 days with veteran Governors and spouses, and
those of us who were newly elected learned a lot from the folks who had
been in those chairs for a while as Governors and spouses. One of the
best lessons I learned during new Governors school that year in
November of 1992, as a Governor-elect to Delaware, was this--and I
don't recall whether it was a Republican or Democratic Governor at the
time, but he said: When you make
[[Page S4810]]
a mistake, don't make it a 1-day problem, a 1-week problem, a 1-month
problem, or a 1-year problem. When you make a mistake, admit it. That
is what he said. When you make a mistake, admit it. When you make a
mistake, apologize. Take the blame. When you have made a mistake, fix
it, and then move on. I think that is pretty good advice. It helped me
a whole lot as Governor and has helped me in the United States Senate,
in my work in Washington with our Presiding Officer on a number of
issues.
The other thing I want to say a word about is James Comey. I have
been privileged to know him for a number of years, when he was
nominated by our President to head up the FBI and today as he has
served in this capacity for a number of years. We are lucky. I don't
know if he is a Democrat, Republican, or Independent, but I know he is
a great leader. He is about as straight an arrow as they come. He works
hard--very hard--and provides enlightened leadership, principled
leadership, for the men and women of the FBI. I want to publicly thank
him for taking on a tough job and doing it well.
I hope we will take the time to sift through what he and the FBI have
found, but in the end, one of the things they found is that after all
these months and the time and effort that has gone into reviewing the
email records and practices of Secretary Clinton--which she says she
regrets. She has apologized for doing it. She said if she had to do it
all over, she certainly wouldn't do it again, even though it wasn't in
contravention of the laws we had of email recordkeeping at the time. We
changed the law in 2014. She has taken the blame. At some point in
time--we do have some big problems we face, big challenges we face, and
we need to get to work on those as well.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SASSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Standards for Protecting Classified Information
Mr. SASSE. Mr. President, I sprinted to the floor when I saw the
Senator from Delaware speaking. I have high regard for the Senator from
Delaware. I think he is a man of integrity who has served his country
well, both in the Navy and in this body. I have traveled with the man.
We have explored the Texas-Mexico border before. I think very highly of
him.
I wanted to come to the floor and ask, in light of the comments he
just made about Secretary Clinton, if he has any view about what should
happen the next time, when a career intelligence or military officer
leaks classified information. I am curious as to what should happen
next. And I welcome a conversation with any of the defenders of the
Secretary of State who want to come to the floor and engage in this
issue.
As I see it, one of two things happens the next time a classified
document is leaked in our intelligence community. Either we are going
to not prosecute or not pursue the individual who leaks a document that
compromises national security and compromises potentially the life of
one of the spies who is out there serving in defense of freedom--and we
are potentially not going to pursue or prosecute that individual
because yesterday a decision was made inside the executive branch of
the United States Government to lower the standards that govern how we
protect classified information in this country.
That will be a sad day because it will mean we are a weaker nation
because we decided to lower those standards, not in this body, not by
debate, not by passing a law, but a decision will have been made to
lower the standards by which the U.S. national security secrets are
protected. Or conversely, a decision will have been made to prosecute
and pursue that individual for having leaked secrets, at which point
that individual, his or her spouse and their family and his or her
peers are going to ask the question, which is, Why is there a different
standard for me, the career military officer or the career intelligence
officer, than there is for the politically connected in this country?
As I see it, we are in danger of doing one of two things: We are
either going to make the United States less secure by lowering the
standards that are written in statute about how we govern classified
information in this country, or we are going to create a two-tier
system of justice by which the powerful and the politically connected
are held to a different bar than the people who serve us in the
military and the intelligence community.
Again, I have great respect for the senior Senator from Delaware, but
I listened to his comments. I was in a different meeting, and I saw
that he was speaking. I unmuted my TV and listened to his comments, and
I would welcome him to come back to the floor and engage me and explain
which way he thinks we should go next because one of those two things
is going to happen the next time a classified document is leaked.
Either we are going to not pursue that person and we are going to have
lowered the standards for protecting our Nation's secrets, or we are
going to pursue that person, which means they will be held to a
different standard, a higher standard, than the Secretary of State. I
don't understand that. I don't understand why anybody in this body
would think either of those two outcomes is a good thing.
We do many, many things around here. A small subset of them are
really important. Lots of them aren't very important. This is a
critically important matter. This body and this Congress exist for the
purpose of fulfilling our article I obligations under the Constitution.
The American system of government is about limited government because
we know, as Madison said, that we need government in the world because
men aren't angels, and we need divided government; we need checks and
balances in our government. We need three branches of government
because those of us who govern are not angels.
We distinguish in our Constitution between a legislative, executive,
and a judicial branch, and this body--the legislative branch--is
supposed to be the body that passes the laws because the people are
supposed to be in charge, and they can hire and fire those of us who
serve here. Laws should be made in this body, not in the executive
branch. The executive branch's obligations are to faithfully execute
the laws that are passed in this body.
If we are going to change the standards by which our Nation's secrets
are protected, by which classified information is governed, we should
do that in a deliberative process here. We should pass a law in the
House and in the Senate so that if the voters--if the 320 million
Americans, the ``we the people'' who are supposed to be in charge,
disagree about the decisions that are made in this body, they are
supposed to be able to fire us.
The people of America don't have any way to fire somebody inside an
executive branch agency. Deliberation about the laws and the standards
that govern our national security should be done here, and the laws
should be made here.
For those who want to defend Secretary Clinton, I am very curious if
they would explain to us which way they want it to go the next time a
classified secret is leaked because either we are going to have
standards or we are not going to have standards. If we are not going to
have standards, that is going to make our Nation weaker. If we are
going to have standards, they should apply equally to everyone because
we believe in equality under the law in this country.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. RUBIO. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Central Everglades Planning Project
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, as you and others are well aware, Florida
is often associated with its crystal blue waters, sport and commercial
fishing,
[[Page S4811]]
and pristine vacation destinations. This summer, a thick and putrid
algal bloom known as the blue-green algae is threatening all of that
and much more along large stretches of the St. Lucie River and the
Indian River Lagoon.
On Friday, I visited the area, and I can tell you this is an economic
disaster in addition to an ecological crisis. I met many of the people
whose lives have been thrown into turmoil. The algae has forced the
closure of several beaches. Even this morning we were hearing reports
of a surf camp where kids go out and learn how to surf and paddle board
and so forth. They sign up in the summer to do this, and they are
having parents canceling, and in some cases having to cancel themselves
because of this.
There were beaches closed during the Fourth of July, which is the
peak season for many of these resorts, hotels, and local businesses.
That is why I say they have been thrown into turmoil. Beyond that, this
algae bloom is killing fish and oysters. It is hurting tourism. It is
harming local businesses. It is sinking property values.
Imagine if you just bought a home on the water there--the values are
largely tied to access to water and the boat dock--and now you step
outside, and sitting right there on your porch, basically, there is a
thick green slime that some have compared to guacamole sitting on the
surface of the ocean. You can imagine what that is doing to property
values. Parents, of course, are viewing all of this and are concerned
for the health of their children. There are a number of things we can
do to address this immediately, and I have been working to make these
things happen.
First of all, let me describe how this is happening. This is
happening because nutrient-rich water--water that has things in it like
fertilizer--is running into Lake Okeechobee, which is at the center of
the State. It is the largest inland body of water in the State.
Historically, the water that sat in Lake Okeechobee would run southward
into the Everglades. With development, canal systems, and so forth,
that all stopped.
Now this water is held back by a dike, which is put in place to
prevent flooding. When the waters need to be released, they are
released east and west. These waters are already rich in nutrients in
Lake Okeechobee, and then they are released into the estuaries and
canals, which also have nutrients in them because of runoff from faulty
and old septic tanks. When these things reach the ocean, when they
reach the estuaries, when they reach the lagoon or the lake or the
river and they get into this heat, the result is what we are seeing
now.
Last week I wrote the Army Corps of Engineers, and I urged them to
stop the discharges from Lake Okeechobee until the balance and health
of the ecosystem in the area can recover. By the way, these discharges
have been ongoing since January of this year, which has lowered
salinity levels, and it caused the algae to bloom. I also invited the
Assistant Secretary of the Army Corps to visit the area so they can
witness the conditions firsthand.
I was pleased that after my request the Army Corps announced it would
decrease the discharges but, of course, much more needs to be done. My
office has also been working with the Small Business Administration for
months now on the harmful impact of these discharges. In April, we were
able to ensure disaster loans were made available to businesses
suffering from the discharges. Just yesterday, we were able to confirm
that the disaster loans will apply to those currently affected by the
current algal blooms.
Perhaps the most important long-term solution that we can put in
place is for the Senate and the House to pass and the President to sign
the authorization for the Central Everglades Planning Project. The
Central Everglades Planning Project will divert these harmful
discharges away from the coastlines and send more water south through
the Everglades.
This is a project I had hoped would have been authorized in the last
water resources bill in 2014, but delays by the administration in
releasing the final Chiefs report prevented that from happening in
2014. Thanks to the leadership of Chairman Inhofe, the Central
Everglades Planning Project is included in the EPW committee-reported
Water Resources Development Act of 2016.
Last week, I joined 29 of my colleagues in urging our leaders to
bring this important bill before the full Senate. I plan to continue
this support, and I hope we are able to get the Central Everglades
Planning Project signed into law as soon as possible.
Finally, we also need to know the long-term health risks posed by
this algal bloom. I mentioned a moment ago that many parents are
concerned about the safety of their kids as they play outside this
summer. Let me tell you why they are concerned. The algae I saw lining
the shores and in the coves and inlets will literally make you sick.
There are already people complaining of headaches, rashes, and
respiratory issues.
At Central Marine in Stuart, you could not stand outside near the
water and breathe the air without literally feeling sick. The smell is
indescribable. The best thing I can use to describe it is if you opened
up a septic tank or opened sewage in a third world country--that is how
nasty this stuff is.
By the way, when it dies, it turns this dark green-blue color, and
then it becomes even more toxic. No one knows how to remove it. No one
knows what is going to happen to it after it dies, except it is going
to sit there. That is why we have been in contact with the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, which has been working with State
officials, and I requested that they keep me informed and that they
remain vigilant in their efforts to assist those impacted by the algae.
This is truly a crisis for the State of Florida, but we are fortunate
that Florida is well equipped to handle this issue. I have spoken to
the Governor and to key officials on the ground about this. This should
continue to be a joint effort by the Federal and State governments.
Should the government decide this warrants a Federal disaster
declaration, I will urge the President to approve it. That means that
more resources could flow to those who have been negatively impacted by
this, especially small businesses that have seen themselves in the peak
season truly hurt by this event.
In the meantime, Florida continues to face this serious problem, and
unfortunately there simply is no silver bullet. Its effects will linger
for quite some time. For people who are suffering through this right
now, that is not a promising thing for me to say. If that were my house
facing this algae, if that were my business wiped out with the
cancelations, I would be angry too.
It is important to remember this is not just an ecological crisis; it
is a tragedy for the people on the Treasure Coast who have had to watch
this algae threaten their communities and their livelihoods. This is a
heated issue, as you can imagine, because we are talking about people's
homes. We are talking about a way of life. Many people came up to me
and said they grew up in the area, they remember the days where their
whole summers were spent near that water, and now they can't even go in
it. When we see a place as naturally beautiful as the Treasure Coast
looking and smelling like an open sewer, you have a visceral and angry
reaction to it. I know that I did.
Sadly, whenever there are emotional and heated issues like these,
people on both sides are willing to exploit them. Anyone who tells you
they have the silver bullet answer to this problem is simply not
telling the truth. They are lying. I have talked to experts, dozens of
them. I visited with people across the spectrum on this issue, and the
reality is that solving this issue will take time, persistence, and a
number of things. There is no single thing we can do. There are a
number of things, and they all have to happen in order for this to get
better.
These problems have existed for decades. This didn't happen
overnight. This isn't something that started 2 weeks ago. This has been
going on for decades. I have now been a Senator for a little less than
6 years, and in my time here, we have made steady progress on this
issue. But it is not coming as fast as I would like, and it is not
coming as fast as the people of the Treasure Coast need. The worst
thing we could do right now is to divert critical resources from a plan
that will work, from a plan designed by scientists, from a plan
designed by experts that will work, but we have to put that plan in
place.
[[Page S4812]]
That is why I once again urge my colleagues to move forward on the
Central Everglades Planning Project. It will allow us to begin the
process of authorizing these important projects that will not only
retain more water but will result in cleaner water going into Lake
Okeechobee, cleaner water flowing out of Lake Okeechobee, and cleaner
water moving south into the Everglades, the way it should be flowing
and not east and west into these impacted communities.
I am calling the Presiding Officer's attention to this because, as I
have detailed, this is far from being merely a State issue. We do have
our work cut out for us on the Federal level to help get this solved,
but I am committed to this task. I ask my colleagues for their
assistance so we can ensure that 5 and 10 years from now we are not
still here talking about this happening all over again.
With that, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for up to 20 minutes, although I don't think I will
use it all.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Climate Change
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am here for the 143rd time now to
urge Congress to wake up to the damage that carbon pollution is
inflicting on our atmosphere and oceans and to make a record for when
people look back at this time and at this place and wonder why Congress
was so unresponsive in the face of all of the information.
What are we up against that has prevented progress? What we are up
against is a many-tentacled, industry-controlled apparatus that is
deliberately polluting our discourse in this Nation with phony climate
denial. That apparatus runs in parallel with a multi-hundred million
dollar electioneering effort that tells politicians: If you don't buy
what the apparatus is selling, you will be in political peril.
As we look at the apparatus that is propagating this phony climate
denial, there is a growing body of scholarship that helps us that is
examining this apparatus, how it is funded, how it communicates, and
how it propagates the denial message. It includes work by Harvard
University's Naomi Oreskes, Michigan State's Aaron McCright, Oklahoma
State's Riley Dunlap, Yale's Justin Farrell, and Drexel University's
Robert Brulle, but it is not just them. There are a lot of academic
folk working on this to the point where there are now more than 100
peer-reviewed scientific articles examining this climate denial
apparatus itself. These scientists are doing serious and groundbreaking
work.
Dr. Brulle, for instance, has just been named the 2016 recipient of
the American Sociological Association's Frederick Buttel Distinguished
Contribution Award, the highest honor in American environmental
sociology. Dr. Brulle has also won, along with Professor Dunlap, the
American Sociological Association's Allan Schnaiberg Outstanding
Publication Award for their book ``Climate Change and Society.'' The
work of all of these academic researchers maps out an intricate,
interconnected propaganda web which encompasses over 100 organizations,
including trade associations, conservative so-called think tanks,
foundations, public relations firms, and plain old phony-baloney
polluter front groups. A complex flow of cash, now often hidden by
donors' trusts and other such identity-laundering operations, support
this apparatus. The apparatus is, in the words of Professor Farrell,
``overtly producing and promoting skepticism and doubt about scientific
consensus on climate change.''
The climate denial apparatus illuminated by their scholarship is part
of the untold story behind our obstructed American climate change
politics.
This apparatus is huge. Phony-baloney front organizations are set up
by the score to obscure industry's hand. Phony messaging is honed by
public relations experts to sow doubt about the real scientific
consensus. Stables of payrolled scientists are trotted out on call to
perform. Professor Brulle likens it to a stage production.
Like a play on Broadway, the countermovement has stars in
the spotlight--often prominent contrarian scientists or
conservative politicians--but behind the stars is an
organizational structure of directors, script writers, and
producers, in the form of conservative foundations. If you
want to understand what is driving this movement, you have to
look at what is going on behind the scenes.
The whole apparatus is designed to be big and sophisticated enough
that when you see its many parts, you can be fooled into thinking it is
not all the same animal, but it is, just like the mythological Hydra--
many heads, same beast.
The apparatus is huge because it has a lot to protect. The
International Monetary Fund has pegged what it calls the effective
subsidy to the fossil fuel industry every year in the United States
alone at nearly $700 billion. That is a lot to protect.
Here is one other measure. The Center for American Progress has
tallied the carbon dioxide emissions from the power producers involved
in the lawsuit to block implementation of President Obama's Clean Power
Plan, either directly or through their trade groups. It turns out they
have a lot of pollution to protect. The companies affiliated with that
lawsuit were responsible for nearly 1.2 billion tons of carbon
pollution in 2013. That is one-fifth of the entire carbon output in our
entire country, and 1.2 billion tons makes these polluters, if they
were their own country, the sixth biggest CO2 emitter in the
world--more than Germany or Canada. Using the Office of Management and
Budget's social cost of carbon, that is a polluter cost to the rest of
us of $50 billion every year. When this crowd comes to the court, they
come with very dirty hands and for very high stakes.
Not only is this apparatus huge, it is also complex. It is organized
into multiple levels. Rich Fink is the former President of the Charles
G. Koch Charitable Foundation. He has outlined the model they use
called the ``Structure of Social Change'' to structure what he called
``the distinct roles of universities, think tanks, and activist groups
in the transformation of ideas into action.''
As a Koch-funded grantmaker out to pollute the public mind, the Koch
Foundation realized that multiple levels were necessary for successful
propaganda production. They went at it this way: The ``intellectual raw
materials'' were to be produced by scholars funded at universities,
giving the product some academic credibility. I think at this point,
Koch funding reaches into as many as 300 college campuses to create
this so-called intellectual raw material. Then think tanks and policy
institutions mold these ideas and market them as ``needed solutions for
real-world problems.'' I guess they are using the technique of ``think
tank as disguised political weapon'' described by Jane Mayer in her
terrific book ``Dark Money.''
Then comes what we would call ``astroturf''--citizen implementation
groups ``build diverse coalitions of individual citizens and special
interest groups needed to press for the implementation of policy
change'' at the ground level. So the apparatus is organized not unlike
a company would set up manufacturing, marketing, and sales.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
Mr. Fink's ``The Structure of Social Change.''
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From libertyguide.com, Oct. 18, 2012]
The Structure of Social Change
(By Rich Fink, President, Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation)
why public policy?
Universities, think tanks, and citizen activist groups all
present competing claims for being the best place to invest
resources. As grant-makers, we hear the pros and cons of the
different kinds of institutions seeking funding.
The universities claim to be the real source of change.
They give birth to the big ideas that provide the
intellectual framework for social transformation. While this
is true, critics contend that investing in universities
produces no tangible results for many years or even decades.
Also, since
[[Page S4813]]
many academics tend to talk mostly to their colleagues in the
specialized languages of their respective disciplines, their
research, even if relevant, usually needs to be adapted
before it is useful in solving practical problems.
The think tanks and policy development organizations argue
that they are most worthy of support because they work on
real-world policy issues, not abstract concepts. They
communicate not just among themselves, but are an immediate
source of policy ideas for the White House, Congress, and the
media. They claim to set the action agenda that leaders in
government follow. Critics observe, however, that there is a
surfeit of well-funded think tanks, producing more position
papers and books than anyone could ever possibly read. Also,
many policy proposals, written by ``wonks'' with little
experience outside the policy arena, lack realistic
implementation or transition plans. And all too often, think
tanks gauge their success in terms of public relations
victories measured in inches of press coverage, rather than
more meaningful and concrete accomplishments.
Citizen activist or implementation groups claim to merit
support because they are the most effective at really
accomplishing things. They are fighting in the trenches, and
this is where the war is either won or lost. They directly
produce results by rallying support for policy change.
Without them, the work of the universities and policy
institutes would always remain just so many words on paper,
instead of leading to real changes in people's lives.
Others point out, however, that their commitment to action
comes at a price. Because activist groups are remote from the
universities and their framework of ideas, they often lose
sight of the big picture. Their necessary association with
diverse coalitions and politicians may make them too willing
to compromise to achieve narrow goals.
Many of the arguments advanced for and against investing at
the various levels are valid. Each type of institute at each
stage has its strengths and weaknesses. But more importantly,
we see that institutions at all stages are crucial to
success. While they may compete with one another for funding
and often belittle each other's roles, we view them as
complementary institutions, each critical for social
transformation.
Hayek's Model of Production
Our understanding of how these institutions ``fit
together'' is derived from a model put forward by the Nobel
laureate economist Friedrich Hayek.
Hayek's model illustrates how a market economy is
organized, and has proven useful to students of economics for
decades. While Hayek's analysis is complicated, even a
modified, simplistic version can yield useful insights.
Hayek described the ``structure of production'' as the
means by which a greater output of ``consumer goods'' is
generated through savings that are invested in the
development of ``producer goods''--goods not produced for
final consumption.
The classic example in economics is how a stranded Robinson
Crusoe is at first compelled to fish and hunt with his hands.
He only transcends subsistence when he hoards enough food to
sustain himself while he fashions a fishing net, a spear, or
some other producer good that increases his production of
consumer goods. This enhanced production allows even greater
savings, hence greater investment and development of more
complex and indirect production technologies.
In a developed economy, the ``structure of production''
becomes quite complicated, involving the discovery of
knowledge and integration of diverse businesses whose success
and sustainability depend on the value they add to the
ultimate consumer. Hayek's model explains how investments in
an integrated structure of production yield greater
productivity over less developed or less integrated
economies.
By analogy, the model can illustrate how investment in the
structure of production of ideas can yield greater social and
economic progress when the structure is well-developed and
well-integrated. For simplicity's sake, I am using a snapshot
of a developed economy, as Hayek did in parts of Prices and
Production, and I am aggregating a complex set of businesses
into three broad categories or stages of production. The
higher stages represent investments and businesses involved
in the enhanced production of some basic inputs we will call
``raw materials.'' The middle stages of production are
involved in converting these raw materials into various types
of products that add more value than these raw materials have
if sold directly to consumers. In this model, the later
stages of production are involved in the packaging,
transformation, and distribution of the output of the middle
stages to the ultimate consumers.
Hayek's theory of the structure of production can also help
us understand how ideas are transformed into action in our
society. Instead of the transformation of natural resources
to intermediate goods to products that add value to
consumers, the model, which I call the Structure of Social
Change, deals with the discovery, adaptation, and
implementation of ideas into change that increases the well-
being of citizens. Although the model helps to explain many
forms of social change, I will focus here on the type I know
best--change that results from the formation of public
policy.
Applying Hayek's Model
When we apply this model to the realm of ideas and social
change, at the higher stages we have the investment in the
intellectual raw materials, that is, the exploration and
production of abstract concepts and theories. In the public
policy arena, these still come primarily (though not
exclusively) from the research done by scholars at our
universities. At the higher stages in the Structure of Social
Change model, ideas are often unintelligible to the layperson
and seemingly unrelated to real-world problems. To have
consequences, ideas need to be transformed into a more
practical or useable form.
In the middle stages, ideas are applied to a relevant
context and molded into needed solutions for real-world
problems. This is the work of the think tanks and policy
institutions. Without these organizations, theory or abstract
thought would have less value and less impact on our society.
But while the think tanks excel at developing new policy
and articulating its benefits, they are less able to
implement change. Citizen activist or implementation groups
are needed in the final stage to take the policy ideas from
the think tanks and translate them into proposals that
citizens can understand and act upon. These groups are also
able to build diverse coalitions of individual citizens and
special interest groups needed to press for the
implementation of policy change.
We at the Koch Foundation find that the Structure of Social
Change model helps us to understand the distinct roles of
universities, think tanks, and activist groups in the
transformation of ideas into action. We invite you to
consider whether Hayek's model, on which ours is based, is
useful in your philanthropy. Though I have confined my
examples to the realm of public policy, the model clearly has
much broader social relevance.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, investigative books, journalists'
reporting, and academic studies repeatedly compare the climate denial
effort to the fraud scheme that was run by the tobacco industry to
disguise the harms of smoking. When I was a U.S. attorney, the Justice
Department pursued and ultimately won a civil lawsuit against tobacco
companies for that fraud. When I was here in the Senate, I wrote an
opinion piece about a possible DOJ investigation into the fossil fuel
industry fraud on climate change. This gave me a new appreciation of
the apparatus in action. In response came an eruption of dozens of
rightwing editorials, most of which interestingly were virtually
identical, with common misstatements of law and common omissions of
facts. The eruption recurred some months later in response to me asking
Attorney General Lynch about such an investigation when she was before
us during a hearing of the Judiciary Committee.
Virtually every author or outlet in these eruptions was a persistent
climate denier. Common markers in the published pieces seemed to point
to a central script. When multiple authors all say something that is
true, that is not necessarily noteworthy, but when multiple authors are
all repeating the same falsehoods, that is a telling fingerprint. I
happened to notice this because unlike most people, I get my news clips
so I saw all these articles as they emerged in this eruption that took
place. The articles regularly confused civil law with criminal law,
suggesting that I wanted to ``slap the cuffs'' on people or
``prosecute'' people when the tobacco case was a civil case, and in a
civil case there are no handcuffs. The articles almost always
overlooked the fact that the government won the tobacco fraud lawsuit
and won it big. The pieces usually said my target was something other
than the big industry protagonist. My targets were described as
``climate dissidents'' or ``independent thought'' or ``scientists'' and
``the scientific method'' or even just ``people who just disagree with
me.'' Nothing like that transpired in the tobacco fraud case,
obviously.
Time and time again, the articles wrongly asserted that any
investigation into potential fraud by this climate denial apparatus
would be a violation of the First Amendment. This was a particularly
telling marker because it is actually settled law--including from the
tobacco case itself--that fraud is not protected under the First
Amendment. So the legal arguments were utterly false, but nevertheless
the apparatus was prolific. They cranked out over 100 articles in all
in those two eruptions.
Now the State attorneys general who have stepped up to investigate
whether the fossil fuel industry and its front groups engaged in a
fraud have faced a similar backlash. First came the editorial barrage,
often from the same outlets and authors as mine and usually with the
same false arguments.
[[Page S4814]]
Then, Republicans on the U.S. House Science, Space, and Technology
Committee sent the attorneys general letters with a barrage of demands
to discourage and disrupt their inquiries. A group of Republican State
attorneys general even issued a letter decrying the efforts of their
investigating colleagues. All of them insisted the First Amendment
should prevent any investigation.
In one ironic example, the Koch-backed front group Americans for
Prosperity rode to the rescue of the Koch-backed Competitive Enterprise
Institute, one of the climate denial mouthpieces under investigation.
The Koch-backed front group Americans for Prosperity announced it was
joining a coalition of 47 other groups to support what it called ``a
fight for free speech,'' but according to realkochfacts.org, 43 of the
47 groups in that so-called coalition also have ties to the Kochs, and
28 of them are directly funded by the Kochs and their family
foundations. Welcome to the apparatus.
The Koch brothers' puppet groups claim to stand united against what
Americans for Prosperity described as ``an affront to the First
Amendment rights of all Americans,'' but scroll back, and the tobacco
companies and their front groups and Republican allies made exactly the
same argument against the Department of Justice's civil racketeering
lawsuit--the one the Department of Justice won.
Big Tobacco's appeal in court argued that, quoting the appeal, ``the
First Amendment would not permit Congress to enact a law that so
criminalized one side of an ongoing legislative and public debate
because the industry's opinions differed from the government or
`consensus' view.''
How did they do? They lost. They lost because the case was about
fraud, not differences of opinion. Courts can tell the difference
between fraud and differences of opinion. They do it all the time.
Fraud has specific legal requirements. The courts in the tobacco case
held firmly that the Constitution holds no protection for fraud--zero--
and the tobacco industry had to stop the fraud. Now the fossil fuel
industry says it is different from the tobacco industry while it uses
the very same argument as the tobacco schemers.
To really appreciate how bogus the First Amendment argument is, think
through what it would mean if fraudulent corporate speech were
protected by the First Amendment. Out would go State and Federal laws
protecting us from deceitful misrepresentations about products.
Consumer protection offices around the country would shrivel or shut
their doors, and it would be open season on the American consumer. That
is a dark world to envision, but it is the world that results if
corporate lies about the safety of their products or industrial
processes are placed beyond the reach of the law. I say lies because
you have to be lying for it to be fraud.
This begs the question of whether there is really a difference of
opinion about climate change among scientists. Last week, 31 leading
national scientific organizations, including the American Association
for the Advancement of Science, the American Meteorological Society,
the American Geophysical Union, and 28 others sent Members of Congress
a no-nonsense message that human-caused climate change is real, that it
poses serious risks to society, and that we need to substantially
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They told us this:
Observations throughout the world make it clear that
climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research
concludes that the greenhouse gases emitted by human
activities are the primary driver. This conclusion is based
on multiple independent lines of evidence and the vast body
of peer-reviewed science.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
the letter from the 39 scientific organizations.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
June 28, 2016.
Dear Members of Congress: We, as leaders of major
scientific organizations, write to remind you of the
consensus scientific view of climate change.
Observations throughout the world make it clear that
climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research
concludes that the greenhouse gases emitted by human
activities are the primary driver. This conclusion is based
on multiple independent lines of evidence and the vast body
of peer-reviewed science.
There is strong evidence that ongoing climate change is
having broad negative impacts on society, including the
global economy, natural resources, and human health. For the
United States, climate change impacts include greater threats
of extreme weather events, sea level rise, and increased risk
of regional water scarcity, heat waves, wildfires, and the
disturbance of biological systems. The severity of climate
change impacts is increasing and is expected to increase
substantially in the coming decades.
To reduce the risk of the most severe impacts of climate
change, greenhouse gas emissions must be substantially
reduced. In addition, adaptation is necessary to address
unavoidable consequences for human health and safety, food
security, water availability, and national security, among
others.
We, in the scientific community, are prepared to work with
you on the scientific issues important to your deliberations
as you seek to address the challenges of our changing
climate.
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Meteorological Society
American Public Health Association
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists
American Society of Naturalists
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography
Association for Tropical Biology and Conservation
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
BioQUEST Curriculum Consortium
Botanical Society of America
Consortium for Ocean Leadership
Crop Science Society of America
Ecological Society of America
Entomological Society of America
Geological Society of America
National Association of Marine Laboratories
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society for Mathematical Biology
Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles
Society of Nematologists
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. That letter is the voice of fact, of scientific
analysis, and of reason.
Up against it is the apparatus. The apparatus has the money. The
apparatus has the slick messaging. The apparatus has the political
clout. It has that parallel election spending muscle, it has the
lobbying armada, and it has that array of outlets willing to print
falsehoods about climate change and, for that matter, about fraud and
the First Amendment.
The scientists? Well, they have the expertise, the knowledge, and the
facts. Whose side we choose to take says a lot about who we are.
With that, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________