[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 109 (Thursday, July 7, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4841-S4910]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2015
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of the House message to accompany S. 764, which
the clerk will report.
The bill 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Auditing the Books of the Department of Defense
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to send a
message to Secretary of Defense Carter. I wish to alert him to a
problem that needs high-level attention. It is standing in the way of
one of the top priority goals of the Congress--auditing the books of
the Defense Department.
The need for annual financial audits was originally established by
the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990. By March of 1992, each agency
of the Federal Government was supposed to present a financial statement
to an inspector general for audit in accordance with the prescribed
standards. To date, all departments have earned unqualified or clean
opinions. But there is one glaring exception; that is, the Defense
Department. It has a dubious distinction, under both Republican and
Democrat administrations, of earning an unblemished string of failing
opinions known as ``disclaimers.''
In the face of endless slipping and stumbling, Congress finally
cracked down--except it looks as though the crackdown hasn't done any
good. At that time, there was a new line drawn in the sand. It was
placed in section 1003 of the National Defense Authorization Act of
2009. In 2009, the Department was given a charitable 7-year reprieve
from the requirement to have their books auditable, and it was given
until September 30, 2017. Those 7 bonus years did not buy us in the
Congress much. All the slipping and sliding and stumbling have
continued undiminished.
The 25-year push to audit the books is stuck at a roadblock. Billions
of dollars have been spent trying to solve the root cause of the
problem, but the fix is nowhere in sight. And until it is, auditing the
books will remain an elusive goal for the Department of Defense but a
goal that has been met by every other agency of the Federal Government.
What I am talking about is the Department's broken accounting system.
This problem has been a festering sore for many years. It adversely
affected every facet of the audit effort. The broken accounting system
is driving the audit freight train. How could the mighty Defense
Department be buffaloed for so long by something so simple? The
Pentagon develops and produces the most advanced weapons the world has
ever known and does it with relative ease. Yet the Defense Department
can't seem to acquire the tools it needs to keep track of the money it
spends.
With little or no fiscal accountability, Congress cannot exercise
effective oversight of defense spending. If Congress can't do that,
then adding money to the defense budget, and borrowing at the same time
to do it, is foolish, in my book. That is precisely why I opposed a
recent amendment to add $18 billion to the Defense bill.
I want to take a moment to put my spotlight on the issue. My hope is
to stimulate creative problem-solving and innovative solutions that
seem to not be getting their proper attention at the Department of
Defense.
A recent press report pinpointed the cause for all the stumbling that
is going on at the Defense Department. It drew on testimony by the
government's preeminent authority on accounting, Comptroller General
Gene Dodaro. His testimony before the Senate Committee on the Budget
had a razor-sharp edge. It zeroed right in on the old stumbling block--
underlying accounting problems. While the Pentagon is spending in
excess of $10 billion a year to modernize its vast accounting system,
the GAO director said these investments ``have not yielded positive
results.'' And since DOD officials ``continue to make system
investments that don't produce better systems,'' he said, those
responsible ``need to be held accountable.'' They are wasting money, in
other words. As a clear, unambiguous indicator of the continuing
accounting mess, he cited
[[Page S4842]]
in excess of $1 billion in Antideficiency Act violations incurred by
DOD. The Antideficiency Act violations, according to the Comptroller
General, means the Department is ``spending money that it should not be
spending.''
I agree with the Comptroller General. That is what I call unlawful
spending. A good accounting system, one with effective internal
controls, should be able to detect and should be able to stop illegal
spending and particularly fraud and theft. What is in place today
doesn't accomplish that goal. Unauthorized spending is usually
discovered, instead, by chance and long after the fact.
When asked how much of DOD's $600 billion in yearly expenditures is
actually accounted for, the Comptroller General stated bluntly--his
words--``very little.'' The Comptroller General's assessment is a very
bruising indictment of how the taxpayers' precious money is mishandled
in the Pentagon.
The Secretary of Defense has a fiduciary responsibility under the
Constitution and under the law to account for every penny spent. None
has honored that responsibility. One Secretary of State, however, made
a good-faith effort. Leon Panetta formally launched the audit readiness
initiative in October of 2011. While giving it a big boost with
visibility, this effort sputtered to a standstill, like all the others,
over the past decades.
During Secretary Carter's nomination hearing, Senator Manchin of West
Virginia questioned him about the faltering efforts to audit the
Defense Department. The Secretary replied: ``I am committed on the
audit front.'' In response to a followup question, he stated: I will
hold the Chief Financial Officer ``responsible and accountable for
making auditability one of my top business reform priorities.'' During
a meeting in my office, he provided me similar assurances. These solemn
vows don't give me a whole lot of confidence. His predecessors spoke
the same words, but all we see is a trail of broken promises.
To win this war on making the books auditable, it will take
perseverance and guts. It will take top-notch, hands-on leadership
skills and a chief financial officer who grasps the root cause problem
and is committed to solving it.
In watchdogging the audit process for years, I have come to know the
underlying problem all too well. I have been down in the trenches and
have seen it up close with my own eyes. I was introduced to the problem
when it just popped up right in the face. It came in the form of
unusual notations in audit reports published by the inspector general.
They read: ``No audit trail found.'' That red flag prompted me to dig
deeper. So I asked: How do you perform financial audits with no money
trail to follow?
The answer: You don't, except with great difficulty, risk, and
expense.
One question led to another and eventually to my first indepth audit
oversight report. It was published in September 2010. It zeroed right
in on the root cause problem. I call it the audit-accounting mismatch.
My observations were derived mainly from reviewing Corps of Engineers
audits for fiscal years 2008 to 2010. These were some of the
Department's earliest attempts to comply with the Chief Financial
Officers Act, requiring all agencies of the government to have
auditability of their books.
The results of my study were mixed. This work provided a startling
introduction to a problem. During extensive interviews, senior managers
readily admitted that auditors had to do manual workarounds that are
prone to errors. They could not connect the dots between contracts and
payments and accounting records and make the necessary match-ups.
Transactions were not properly posted to accounts and supporting
documentation had gone missing. In fact, financial records were so bad
it took hundreds of highly paid certified public accountants doing
manual labor, characterized as ``audit trail reconstruction work'' or
``pick-and-shovel work'' to finish the job. Such labor-intensive
accounting procedures are very costly--$50 million for the Corps of
Engineers alone--and leave gaping holes in audit evidence even after it
is spent. Such unorthodox procedures place outcomes on very shaky
ground.
True, these observations were made 5 years ago, but I keep running
into the same old problems. For example, I am seeing it again today in
my ongoing inquiry into the Department's Task Force for Business and
Stability Operations in Afghanistan. I see it everywhere I go.
The recently concluded Marine Corps audit is a perfect example of the
same old problem. The broken accounting system is still driving the
audit freight train. The Marine Corps, which is the smallest of the
military services, had been claiming for several years that it was
audit ready. However, when the time came, the Marine Corps flunked the
test. Oversight audits by the inspector general and the Government
Accountability Office concluded there was not sufficient, appropriate
audit evidence to support a clean opinion. The transaction data was
largely incomplete, unreliable, unverifiable, and unsupportable. In the
opinion of the experts, the final call ``was not even close.''
When I spoke about the results of the Marine Corps audit on the floor
last August 4, 2015, I underscored the need for reliable transaction
data. Transactions are the lifeblood of financial statements, and the
lack of those transaction statements doomed the Marine Corps audit from
the get-go.
I ask Secretary Carter to pause and reflect on why the Marine Corps
audit was unsuccessful. I urge him to explore the questions with Chief
Financial Officer Mike McCord. He might be surprised at what he hears.
Maybe Mr. McCord does not understand the problem. If he did, why would
he continue throwing money at solutions that don't produce what is
needed most; that is, reliable transaction data. Why doesn't he know
the same old garbage is still coming out the other end of the sausage
machine? How is it Comptroller General Dodaro knows it? Why do I see it
plain as day? It is written all over that Marine Corps audit that
failed--and a whole bunch of other audits--in big bold print. So why
can't Mr. McCord see it? He does not seem to have a handle on the core
problem--the so-called feeder systems. Though ridiculed recently on
Federal News Radio as being ``museum ready,'' they remain the heart and
soul--the foundation--of any accounting system.
In most business operations, transactions are transmitted
instantaneously from the cash register or other points of origin to
finance and accounting. At the Pentagon, they take a roundabout route.
From their points of origin, transactions must first pass through a
series of gates--literally thousands of feeder and other business
systems. The trip through the bureaucratic maze is neither smooth nor
certain. Somewhere along the way, vital linkages are broken. When
ledgers and account balances are no longer hooked up to transactions,
forget about auditing the books. It is nothing more than a pipedream.
In a nutshell, this is the root cause of the problem that still has
the very mighty Pentagon buffaloed, and it is lying in wait for the
next go-around. According to Comptroller General Dodaro, Mr. McCord is
making the wrong choices, wasting billions of dollars on systems that
don't work. CFO McCord wants us to believe that staying the course
offers the best chance for success. I disagree. More of the same will
not cut it. He needs to refocus on doable solutions. Maybe it is time
for some new ideas, a whole new approach.
The audit strategy needs to be rebalanced. It is out of whack. The
roadblocks need to be bypassed. Other agencies seem to be taking care
of business by pooling accounting resources to save money. So why not
draw on those skills and capabilities from other government
agencies that meet the requirements of the law and use them to leverage
a potential solution--maybe where we know things have worked
successfully.
Why not allow a service provider--let's say, at the Department of
Defense as an example, take any Department--to handle a slice of the
Defense Department's bookkeeping pie, like civilian pay? Run a test and
see if it works. If it works, build on it. For the next go-around, tear
off a bigger chunk, farm it out, and see what happens. Try alternative
solutions. Keep experimenting until the answer is found. After all
these decades, nothing seems to be right for this agency, compared to
all the other agencies of government that
[[Page S4843]]
meet the requirement of the financial records law.
CFO McCord needs some direction. Secretary Carter needs to challenge
him to do the impossible. As difficult as it may be in the Pentagon
bureaucracy, the Secretary needs to encourage him to think outside the
box. Maybe Comptroller General Dodaro and CFO McCord could put their
heads together. Maybe if they would team up, they could figure out how
to simplify the whole system and make it play like a symphony
orchestra.
Mr. McCord seems to be having trouble shaking mistaken notions, and
here is a new one. He thinks the whole Department is poised for a major
breakthrough; that the looming congressionally mandated September 2017
deadline is within reach. The Marine Corps audit proves that isn't
possible. The military services--the Army, Navy, and Air Force--echo
his assessment. They claim to be ``on track to be ready for audit'' by
the deadline. I suspect they are about as ready as the Marine Corps
was. The experts think the other services are in far worse shape than
the Marine Corps. If true, the probability of earning a departmentwide
clean opinion is slim to none.
Now, suddenly, to my amazement, Mr. McCord appears to be backing away
from his prediction about meeting the deadline. On June 15, he told the
House Armed Services Committee that the Department is, in his words,
``many years'' away from a clean opinion. How can the Department be
audit ready and meet the deadline if it is still years away from a
clean opinion? His messages are downright confusing and maybe
contradictory. If he knows DOD is years away from a clean opinion, then
he must also know it is not audit ready or even close to it. Mr. McCord
needs to explain his apparent inconsistency.
Clearly, the impending deadline remains an elusive goal. However, of
one thing I am certain, the next round is being touted as ``the largest
audit ever undertaken.'' If Mr. McCord fails to come up with some
workable solution that gets a firm handle on transactions, there will
not be enough auditors in the universe to tackle this job. This job is
just too big for the pick-and-shovel routine, and the cost could be
astronomical.
I want Secretary Carter to succeed. I am counting on him to get the
faltering audit readiness initiative back on track and moving in the
right direction. The taxpayers deserve nothing less.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rounds). The assistant Democratic leader.
Gun Violence
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if a student is failing in school, many
people will rally around that student and ask: What is missing? Is the
student working hard enough? Is the teacher connecting with the
student? But we are concerned.
Then, when we take a closer look at the situation, sometimes we find
the student has a problem, a challenge, a learning disability. One of
those is attention deficit disorder: The student can't focus, can't
really put his mind on a specific issue and stick with it until the
task is completed, the mind wanders, the student loses focus, and
unfortunately the net result is the lack of a positive learning
experience.
There are many critics of Congress today and of the Senate for our
failure to address some of the major issues that are challenging us in
America. It turns out that when it comes to one issue, the problem in
the Senate is attention deficit disorder. Let me be specific.
A few weeks ago, we had the worst mass shooting in the modern history
of the United States of America. A crazed person went into the Pulse
nightclub in Orlando, FL, killing 49 people and injuring dozens more.
It was a shocking experience, and we heard about it early on Sunday
morning. The entire Nation responded. The President spoke to the issue,
even going down to Orlando with the Vice President to meet with some of
the families and some of those who survived this terrible mass
shooting.
Then we came back to Washington, and the obvious question was: What
will the Senate do in response? The Senate had a plan, and the plan
from the Republican leadership was to have a moment of silence. Well,
that is entirely appropriate. I am glad we did, and we should, but it
is not sufficient. It is not enough. So a number of us came to the
floor--under the leadership of Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut,
Senator Blumenthal of Connecticut, and Senator Booker of New Jersey--
and initiated a filibuster on the floor of the Senate, demanding that
we at least consider legislation that would reduce the likelihood of
more mass murders and reduce the likelihood of more violent crimes and
gun deaths in America.
The proposal we suggested was straightforward. It said we should
close the loophole in the background check system. It turns out that if
you go to a licensed gun dealer in America, you will go through a
background check through a computer. They will see if there is any
evidence that you are a convicted felon or have a history of mental
instability or other prohibitor. If that is the case, you are
disqualified. You can't buy a firearm. But those who are paying close
attention know there are alternatives to a licensed gun dealer. If you
went instead to a gun show--which happens in Illinois and many other
States on a regular basis--many of them have no background check for
firearm sales. That is the case in northern Indiana where the laws are
very flexible and light when it comes to background checks. The bill we
supported from Senator Murphy, similar to an earlier bill by Senators
Manchin and Toomey, would have closed the so-called gun show loophole
so you would have a background check before a firearm is sold, keeping
the firearm out of the hands of a convicted felon or person who is
clearly mentally unstable.
The second proposal we had reflects the times we live in. We now have
no-fly rules. If you are suspected of being a terrorist or having
terrorist connections, our government can stop you from boarding an
airplane. The theory behind it is obvious. We want to keep the
passengers on the airplane safe, and we would rather run the risk of a
suspected terrorist being denied a flight than run the risk of a
suspected terrorist coming onto an airplane and endangering innocent
lives.
The proposal Senator Feinstein brought to the floor of the Senate
said that if you are on the no-fly list or the selectee list, which
means you go through a special search, or are reasonably suspected of
terrorist involvement, you would be disqualified from buying a firearm.
It seems to stand to reason, does it not, that if we are worried about
a terrorist in our midst hurting innocent people, we certainly don't
want that terrorist to legally buy an assault weapon in the United
States of America. That seems obvious.
These assault weapons, semiautomatic and automatic, are dangers to
not just a few but to dozens of people. There was a Snapchat that was
taken by one of the victims in Orlando during the last 9 seconds of her
life. The shooter at the Orlando nightclub fired off 17 rounds in 9
seconds. You can see the devastating impact of these weapons when they
get in the wrong hands. The Feinstein amendment attempted to close that
loophole.
Over 90 percent of the American people think the issues I just
described--closing background check loopholes, closing the gun show
loophole, keeping guns out of the hands of suspected terrorists--are
reasonable steps toward gun safety. We have to do more to keep guns out
of the hands of people who have no business owning them and might
misuse them.
In light of that, you would have thought that this proposal would
have passed, that there wouldn't have been much controversy,
particularly after the mass murder in Orlando. At the end of
filibuster, we had votes. Both measures were defeated on the floor of
the Senate. Then Senator Susan Collins of Maine, a Republican, decided
to try her best to come up with a bipartisan compromise. I salute her.
She worked long and hard. It wasn't easy, and it certainly wasn't
popular in some corners of the Senate. She brought her measure to the
floor--a no-fly, no-buy measure, a variation on the Feinstein
amendment--and there was an attempt to table it, to stop the amendment
in its tracks, but Senator Collins managed to get eight Republicans,
including herself, to vote with the Democrats, and the measure was not
tabled, but the measure now sits as part of an appropriations bill and
has not been addressed again.
[[Page S4844]]
While we have gone through this in the last several weeks, the House
had a different approach. There was a sit-in that lasted over 24 hours
to call attention to the need for debate and votes on gun safety. We
have been told the Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, has promised them a
vote this week. It is unlikely that anything is going to pass in the
House of Representatives.
What is next? The American people ask us: Is that it? Are you
finished with gun safety? You play to a draw on the amendments in the
Senate, you take up a measure in the House, which has a dim likelihood
of passing, and that is all you are going do? And then we leave. Next
week will be the last week in session before September. We will be gone
for 7 weeks, the longest period of recess in 50 or 60 years in the U.S.
Senate, while we recess for the conventions and for the August period
when we spend time with our families. My concern, of course, is one
that is shared by many. It would be miraculous if we didn't have
another mass shooting in that 7-week period of time. I hope we do not.
I pray we do not. History tells us that it is highly likely it will
happen. Then we will return and have a moment of silence, and then we
will do nothing.
You see, it is attention deficit disorder in the Senate when it comes
to issues involving gun safety, but for many Americans all around this
country, this is an issue they think about regularly. I can certainly
tell you that in my home State of Illinois, the city of Chicago I am
honored to represent, it is an issue that is on the front page of every
newspaper every day.
Over the holiday weekend, the Fourth of July holiday weekend, at
least 66 people were shot in the city of Chicago. At least five of them
died. The victims of the gun violence include children. A 5-year-old
girl and her 8-year-old cousin were shot and wounded while playing with
sparklers on the Fourth of July. An 11-year-old boy was hit in the arm.
A 15-year-old boy was shot in the chest while he was coming out of a
store. These shootings took place, despite a surge in police presence
and thousands of additional officers over the weekend.
Sadly, it is not rare to see a weekend like this in Chicago marked by
dozens of shootings. The weekend before this, at least 58 people were
shot in Chicago, 7 of them fatally; Memorial Day weekend, 69 people
were shot in Chicago, 7 of them fatally.
Last week I visited the 11th District police station on the West Side
of Chicago. The 11th is the Harrison District. It is one of the most
violent in the city. More than 270 people have been shot in the
Harrison Police District this year. I met with the commander, Chicago
Police Deputy Chief James Jones, as well as other officers in the
district. We had a long talk about the violence and drug sales taking
place on the streets in that district. We talked about so many
different challenges--the lack of economic opportunity in that area,
gang activity. They showed me a map, which looked like a map of Europe
with all of the different countries--in this case, all of the different
gangs that controlled a few blocks here or a larger section there.
We talked about the lack of trust and cooperation between citizens
and law enforcement. We talked about the overwhelming number of
children and young adults who have either been the victims of violent
trauma or who have directly witnessed it. Solving any of these
challenges is difficult, but we need to do all we can to reduce the
devastating level of gun violence and to save lives. We can't wait for
the next mass murder.
The most immediate problem in the Harrison District in the city of
Chicago is that it is far too easy for dangerous people to get their
hands on guns. So many of the shootings that kill and injure people in
Chicago are preventable. They never would have happened if our laws did
a better job of keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives division of
the Federal Government told me last year that they had looked at the
crime guns that were confiscated in the deadliest sections of Chicago
and that up to forty percent of those guns were coming from gun shows
in Northern Indiana where there are no background checks. The
traffickers and gang leaders literally opened the trunks of their cars
and filled them with firearms in Northern Indiana and then took a one-
half hour trip back to the city and sold them at night in the
neighborhood and alleys.
That is the reality--no background checks. We can close that
loophole. Will it end gun violence? Of course not. Will it make it more
difficult for those who have no business to own guns to get them? Yes.
Why shouldn't we do it?
We cannot allow this to continue. We need to stand up to the gun
lobby and their allies in Congress who block commonsense gun reforms
that are supported by 90 percent of the American people.
Let's be honest. Reforms like requiring universal background checks
to keep guns out of the hands of suspected terrorists are no-brainers.
The only reason these reforms get tied up and dropped in Congress is
that the politicians in Washington are afraid to death of the gun
lobby. The truth is, the gun lobby is not about the Second Amendment.
The gun lobby is about selling guns. If you reduce their volume of
sales, you reduce their profits, and they will fight you. Many of the
colleagues I joined in this Chamber are scared to death of what they
might do to them in the next election.
The gun lobby may care about selling guns, but I care more about
saving lives. I have been fighting their agenda for many years in the
Senate. I am going to keep at it. I am proud to join my colleagues in
the House and Senate in saying ``enough'' to this bloodshed in our
streets.
Several weeks ago when I joined Senators Murphy, Booker, and
Blumenthal, we decided to move for votes on commonsense gun reform. Our
friends in the House of Representatives had a similar effort. I was
also proud to support the Democratic Members of Congress, Robin Kelly,
Jan Schakowsky, Danny Davis, Bill Foster, Mike Quigley, and Steny
Hoyer, who joined with local leaders and community members last
Thursday in Federal Plaza in Chicago to protest Congress's failure to
act on gun violence.
The American Medical Association a few weeks ago declared that gun
violence is ``a public health crisis.'' It is. Each year more than
32,000 Americans are killed by guns, and 80,000 are injured. On
average, 297 Americans are shot every day--every day--and 91 die. The
daily toll of gun homicides, suicides, assaults, and accidental
shootings is devastating. Our Nation suffers from mass shootings on a
daily basis.
Since 49 people were murdered in Orlando, FL, and 53 injured in the
worst mass shooting in modern American history, there have been at
least 47 more mass shootings in America. These are shooting incidents
where at least four people were hit gun by gunfire. That is a
staggering total.
No city has suffered more from the epidemic of gun violence than my
city of Chicago. So far this year, 2,026 people have been shot in that
city, and 329 have been murdered. And 7 of the 47 mass shootings that
have occurred since Orlando have taken place in Chicago. No city in
America has experienced the number of shootings and gun deaths that we
have in Chicago. These shootings are the result of a flood of illegal
guns brought into the city by gun traffickers and straw purchasers.
They take advantage of clear loopholes in our Federal gun laws, and
they put guns into the hands of gangbangers and dangerous people. It
has to stop.
There are so many victims of gun violence in Chicago it is
overwhelming. Let me mention a few recent ones. On Father's Day, a 3-
year-old boy named Devon Quinn was sitting in a car seat next to his
father in the Woodlawn neighborhood when their car was riddled with
bullets by a drive-by shooter. The gunman tried to target nearby gang
members. He was a terrible shot. Innocent people were hurt. The boy's
father dove in front of his son to try to shield him, but a bullet
struck 3-year-old Devon, who almost died. This 3-year-old is currently
alive but paralyzed, unable to breathe on his own.
On June 30, Chanda Foreman was killed on her 37th birthday in a mass
shooting in the Washington Heights neighborhood that also injured 4
other people. She was described by her family as a great person and
responsible worker. She had a 6-year-old daughter
[[Page S4845]]
who will now grow up without a mother. She was sitting in her car when
apparently two rival gangs started shooting at one another, and she was
killed in the crossfire.
On July 2, a father named Dionus Neely, his 10-year-old daughter,
Elle, and his 3-year-old daughter Endia were shot and killed in their
home in Hazel Crest. Investigators said this appeared to be a targeted
attack. They described it as pure evil. Erin Neely, the wife of Dionus
and mother of Elle and Endia, said:
Endia was the light of this world, always smiling and
hugging and laughing. And Elle was a dancer. She was the life
of the party. And my husband, he was a stay-at-home dad. He
was a good father.
She said:
They did not deserve this.
I am going to keep these shooting victims and families in my thoughts
and prayers, but thoughts and prayers and moments of silence are not
enough. Lawmakers have a responsibility to do everything in their power
to protect innocent Americans from being shot and killed in their
homes, their cars, and in their neighborhoods. We can't allow this to
continue.
I am going to join my allies in Congress to try to stop it with real
gun reform. I am going to focus my attention on the problem that will
not go away. My colleagues who think if they just wait long enough we
will forget this issue are just plain wrong. I am not going to quit. We
need the American people to stand with us. If they will help us in
speaking out for commonsense reform, we can finally beat the gun lobby
and stop putting guns in the hands of people who have no business
owning them and save lives across America.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished senior Senator
from Illinois for what he said. As he knows, like many Vermonters, I
consider myself a responsible gun owner, but I don't think it is
responsible when people are allowed to come in and buy guns with no
background checks, get whatever they want, and then make a profit
selling them to gangs. I don't know how anybody, any lobby or any
Member of Congress, can say they can support that. I thank the Senator
from Illinois for what he said. He is absolutely right.
Mr. President, it has been just 2 weeks since negotiators released
what can only be called a farce of a proposal to require the labeling
of genetically engineered foods. Less than a week after it was
released--without any committee action, any testimony, no recorded
feedback from either proponents or opponents--the Senate majority
leader filed cloture on a privileged vehicle to fast-track this bill.
Gone are the promises of regular order. Gone are the pledges of an
open amendment process. Instead, the Senate will now consider whether
to preempt carefully considered, long-debated State laws that protect
and enforce a consumer's right to know.
Make no mistake: Vermont's first-in-the-Nation GE labeling law is
what is under attack here. Vermont's carefully debated law is the
threat that has driven millions of dollars in lobbying to the doors of
the U.S. Senate. And the millions of dollars from lobbyists seem to
have paid off because suddenly, even with all of the unsolved problems
facing America--we don't have our appropriations bills done, we don't
have money for Zika, and we can't do anything about the sale of high-
powered weapons to gangs who then use them to shoot innocent people--
lobbyists can come in and say: Change all the rules. Ignore all of the
precedence. Forget the pledges you have made. Let's just zip through
this bill and get it done because we want it.
No wonder this Congress is disfavored by the American people. This
bill does not consider that 9 out of 10 consumers support a mandatory
GE label on their food products. What this bill does not recognize is
that 64 countries around the world mandate GE labeling. This bill does
not benefit from a thorough, open, constructive debate, but it has
apparently benefited from millions of lobbying dollars and campaign
contributions. Consumers want a simple, easy to read label. Instead,
this concoction of a so-called deal would offer them a complicated
scavenger hunt.
I was here in March when the Senate voted, convincingly, to reject
the DARK Act. Well, what do we have today? We have a rebooted DARK Act
that makes modest improvements, but falls far short of the disclosure
that consumers demand and Vermonters have required. It does not have
the disclosure that 9 out of 10 consumers say they want. We are
listening to a handful of very well-financed lobbyists and campaign
contributors, but we will not listen to 9 out of 10 of the American
people. Once again, their objective is not to honor and empower
consumers' right to know, but to derail State laws that do and to get
by with as little consumer transparency as possible.
In this shortened period of debate, I hope to create for the Record
what the Agriculture Committee has not: the shortcomings of this
proposal, and the ways in which it should--and could--be improved.
I will first discuss the uncertainty the definition in this bill
creates. We have heard repeatedly these past 2 weeks both worry and
apprehension that the legislation before the Senate would actually
exclude virtually all the GE products that are now on the market. This
concern stems from the very narrow scope of the definition in this
bill. This definition excludes any foods that do not actually contain
the genetic material of a GE crop. So what does this mean in practice?
This definition would exclude a wide variety of highly processed foods,
from soybean oil to corn oil, corn syrup to sugar beets, and an array
of other products that do not possess the actual genetic material after
they have been processed.
Now, the sponsors of this bill tell us, no, no, no--we have it all
wrong. They say that our analysis and interpretation of the legislation
is incorrect. They say to trust them. They say this bill gives USDA
broad authority to label GE products. They point to a letter from USDA
last week--and remind us that USDA would be the only agency with
authority to implement and enforce the GE labeling rules. In that
letter, USDA said that the bill as currently drafted would include all
traditional gene modification products which have come through the USDA
approval process, such as GE corn, soybeans, sugar, and canola products
on the market today, as well as products developed using gene editing
techniques.
So, yes, on the surface, this bill appears to give USDA broad
authority to develop a label for GE products. However, with the swift
speed with which the proponents of this bill have moved, with no
committee process, no debate or amendment process, we will not be able
to ensure the language in this bill does exactly what they say that it
does. Just take their word for it. The language and definition for a
bioengineered food for this new label--and let me quote directly from
the bill here--is a food that ``contains genetic materials that has
been modified through in vitro recombinant DNA techniques.'' Well, let
me interpret that for Vermonters and consumers across the country. That
means that, if the food does not have genetic material in it, then it
is not considered bioengineered under this bill. So even with the
assurances from USDA last week, a simple study of this definition says
that those foods that are highly processed and no longer have the
modified genetic materials would not fall under this new label.
The definition also goes on to say that a bioengineered food is one
that--and, again, let me quote directly from the bill--``for which the
modification could not otherwise be obtained through conventional
breeding or found in nature.'' This raises more red flags because many
of the genes that have been modified or introduced do occur in nature,
just not in the particular crop the gene has been added to. They might
occur naturally--in frogs, say--but not in our crops.
We have heard countless questions asking: Well, would it apply to
this crop, or is it their intention that this other variety would have
to be labeled if the gene being introduced occurs in nature? USDA says
yes today, but will it say yes tomorrow? If you look at this bill,
there is no clear-cut answer. We have seen with the Vermont labeling
law, where the Grocery Manufacturer's Association took the State of
Vermont to court to challenge its
[[Page S4846]]
label, claiming it infringed on the association's freedom of speech,
that such details matter. We know that the details of this bill are
very important if we are going to ensure that it will hold up through
the complicated regulatory process and in court, where surely a farm
group or food manufacturer will challenge this law.
If the sponsors of this bill would allow us to improve this
definition and clarify what is covered, there would be a lot less
concern and heartburn, and it could help to shed light on the true
congressional intent of this proposal. That is why I have filed an
amendment to strengthen the definition in this bill and to bring it
more in line with what we have seen in other countries, where many of
these same food manufacturers are labeling already for their export
markets.
Moving on to genetically engineered fish, another point the sponsors
of this bill have tried to refute is how this bill treats genetically
engineered salmon, potentially exempting such salmon from labeling.
Again, the sponsors say we have it all wrong--that this bill would
require the labeling of GE salmon and will not affect the FDA's
authority to require a label under the agency's existing authority.
However, at issue is that this bill preempts more than just Vermont's
Act 120 on GE labeling. It also blocks laws like Vermont's seed
labeling law and Alaska's fish labeling law, which requires that any GE
fish in the State of Alaska bear a simple label to let consumers know.
The salmon industry is vitally important to Alaska, and that is why the
Alaskan Legislature passed their fish labeling law a decade ago.
And what do we hear again from the bill's sponsors? I will tell you:
They say don't worry. The FDA could still require GE labels for salmon.
But we all know how the FDA has dragged its heels already in responding
to concerns from Congress on the labeling of genetically engineered
fish. Just last year, the omnibus appropriations bill directed the FDA
to provide guidelines for the labeling of a fish as genetically
engineered before the approval of a new genetically engineered salmon.
By preempting Alaska's law, the Senate will tell the people of that
great State that folks here in Washington know best. Even though you
have a State law in place today to require this label, a law you have
had on the books for a decade, Congress is going to preempt your State
law and give USDA another 2 or 3 years before completing their labeling
regulations. In the meantime, not your State--or any State--may have a
law in place to ensure this label. That is not fair to the seafood
industry in Alaska or to consumers who are looking for this
information. That is why I have offered an amendment to grandfather in
those State laws that were enacted before January 1, 2016. We took this
same step in the recent Toxic Substances Control Act reform bill.
States that had already enacted strong chemical safety laws were able
to continue implementing them. We should be able to do the same with
this labeling law today. Doing so would ensure there would be no
``patchwork'' we have been warned about and would let existing laws to
stay on the books.
On another matter, the sponsors of this proposal took careful steps
to ensure that there are no teeth in this bill for any enforcement by
the USDA. They specifically spell out in the bill that there is no
authority for the USDA to recall products found to be improperly
labeled under the requirements in the bill for GE foods. This bill is
also void of any fines or punishments for violators, and there is no
compliance deadline for companies. How, with a straight face, can we
call this a mandatory label?
The sponsors tell us again: Don't worry--there is enough ``strong
enforcement authority through several mechanisms in the bill.'' First,
they assert that, since USDA has been given the authority to audit any
company that mislabels a food product or does not otherwise comply with
the GMO disclosure requirements, it will allow them to ``hold them
publicly accountable.'' They point out that State and Federal consumer
protection laws are preserved in this bill and that the FDA retains its
existing authority to regulate ``truthful and misleading'' claims on
the labels.
Now, that is a confusing point since the proponents of this bill have
just told us that USDA was the only agency with authority to implement
and enforce the GE labeling rules. So how is it that the FDA can still
regulate ``truthful and misleading'' claims? Are we to then believe
that the FDA will use its authority to enforce these labels that
actually comply with a USDA requirement? Perhaps if we could clarify
that issue in this bill, it would help to set the record straight when
it comes to congressional intent and the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act. But, again, no. We will be blocked from offering any
amendments to this bill to clear up this confusion and to ensure that
the FDA can use their residual authority in the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act's section 403, which covers truthful and misleading
labels.
To go from a State law that has some teeth and enforcement
capability, as we have in Vermont, to a Federal standard with no
penalties, recall opportunity, or other ways to enforce this new
labeling requirement is alarming. The proponents point out that states
have the ability to enact an identical State GMO labeling law and can
provide additional enforcement authority if desired.
So first they want to take away strong meaningful State laws on
labeling. Then they tell those States they can pass something identical
to the Federal law, as weak as you may think it is, and enforce it on
behalf of USDA. All this because Congress appears too busy bending to
the whims and interests of powerful interests to include any meaningful
enforcement mechanisms in this bill.
The sponsors of this bill also tell us that they feel that ``public
sentiment'' will be enough to get these companies to comply and just do
the right thing. Will our consumers have to be the cops on the beat to
go after these companies? When these families are already having a
tough enough time trying to squeeze every minute out of their days, now
they will police these multimillion dollar companies to make sure they
comply? That is highly unlikely, and it is patently unfair.
Of course, then there is the matter of international labeling laws.
Although some groups and Members of the Senate try to make it appear
that what Vermont has done is completely novel, the fact is that
labeling laws for GE crops exist in 64 other countries today.
Certainly, they are not all identical, but I will tell you one thing:
The definition for bioengineered food used in this bill is unlike any
other in the rest of the world.
On this point, we hear from the proponents of this bill that, among
the 64 countries who require labeling of GMO foods, there is no
consistently used definition of biotechnology or consistent way that
this is applied to foods. In fact, they highlight that some of our
major trading partners exclude some of the very products that they
believe this bill provides authority to USDA to label.
The fact is that consumers want the right to know for many varied
reasons. For some, the question is a religious point. For others, they
want to know the extent to which GE crops may increase herbicide use,
not just the presence of the genetic materials in the food. That is why
I have filed an amendment to strengthen the definition for the foods
that must be labeled under this bill. My amendment is based on the
United Nations' Codex, an intergovernmental body with more than 180
members, established by the framework of the Joint Food Standards
Programme established by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations and the World Health Organization. A broader definition,
as I have proposed, will also allow for this new label and USDA to keep
up with modern science and the rapidly changing pace of gene
modifications we are seeing developed and our researchers working on
today.
This bill should not be so narrowly drafted that it ties USDA's hands
and ignores the fact that there are dramatic advancements in
biotechnology every day. Ten years ago, it would have been hard to have
predicted the scientific innovations in today's world, and who knows
what developments we will see in the next 10 years. This bill should be
drafted so that we ensure that USDA has sufficient authority to make
these determinations in the future, without Congress needing to update
this authorization every time
[[Page S4847]]
there is a new scientific advancement in biotechnology.
And then there is the so-called patchwork. I have heard from the
proponents of this bill that their efforts are to prevent a patchwork
of different State labeling laws. They claim that the existing State
laws will cause confusion for consumers and food companies. But what
they fail to explain is that we do not have a patchwork of State laws
today. What every Member of the Senate should know is that Vermont is
the only State that has a broad labeling law in place and in effect
today. Maine and Connecticut's laws have yet to take effect due to
trigger clauses in those laws. Even if they were to take effect, these
three States have worked in tandem and all require that the same
language--``Produced with Genetic Engineering''--appear on the package.
In Vermont, our attorney general was given the authority to make
amendments and changes to the State's labeling standard to ensure it is
in line with other state standards to prevent consumer or industry
confusion. So we do not have this fictional ``patchwork'' that some
have claimed and used as reason to act immediately, without thorough
debate and without opportunity for improvement. That is why I have
filed another amendment to grandfather existing State laws for
labeling, whether it be for seeds, GE salmon and Frankenfish, or GE
foods.
Given the mounting unanswered questions and legal ambiguity that
surrounds this bill, I cannot fathom why the Senate is intent to fast-
track it. Rather than going through any sort of orderly committee
process, with hearings and markup, its sponsors have sought to use
procedural tactics to avert a lengthy, controversial debate. It is in
part why there was commotion and confusion last week when the Senate
held a rare rollcall vote on the motion to lay before the Senate a
message from the House to accompany a bill. The Senate Library and the
Congressional Research Service had to hunt back to an example from 1976
that is cited in Riddick's Senate Procedure for when the Senate had to
have such a vote.
This is a complex issue, one that the Senate should consider
deliberately, with a full and open debate of reasonable, germane, and
relevant amendments. Only that process would ensure that we truly have
a mandatory Federal label that does encompass the GE foods in the
marketplace today and future advancements in biotechnology.
Again, I am discouraged that Senators--Senators like me who have the
benefit of their States creating a long record to support effective,
mandatory GE labeling--have been cut out of the process in crafting
this proposal. That is why I have nonetheless joined other Senators,
including Senators Merkley, Sanders, Tester, Blumenthal, Franken, and
Murkowski, in filing amendments for consideration. I would like to take
a moment to explain to the Senate--and for the Record--just how modest
and reasonable some of these amendments are. I have already mentioned a
few.
First, I have filed a series of amendments to address serious flaws
in this proposal's use of electronic or digital codes. I am a proud
supporter of Senator Merkley's legislation, long-pending in the Senate,
to require a mandatory, on-package label of some kind to identify
genetically engineered food for consumers. This proposal includes among
its options digital codes--or QR codes, for those versed in the lingo.
They are black and white boxes. The idea is a consumer takes their
smartphone, scans the code; the Internet takes them to a page, where
they can then scroll to find the information they seek. I don't know if
many of you in this Chamber have been to Vermont. If you haven't, you
should. It is beautiful, especially this time of the year. It is also
rural. We still face internet challenges. More than that, consumers
should not be forced to scan the codes of 30 items in their shopping
basket, simply to learn if they include GE ingredients. What was once a
quick trip to the market for milk and bread will turn into a 2-hour
ordeal--and that is if you can access the Internet in the store. I have
filed an amendment to strike the use of these so-called QR codes as a
means of labeling.
While this bill requires the Department of Agriculture to study the
potential challenges to consumer access, it does nothing to assess
consumer awareness. One of my amendments would expand this study.
Another amendment would require that if such a study determines that
consumers will not have sufficient access to information via electronic
or other digital codes, the Secretary of Agriculture will require only
on-package disclosure. Another amendment I have filed would simply
require the language accompanying an electronic or digital code to say
``GE information,'' instead of simply ``food information.'' What harm
would there be in giving consumers more descriptive and direct
information?
Another amendment that I have filed would strike this proposal's
effort to preempt Vermont's longstanding seed law. On the books since
2004 and supported by organic farmers and hobby gardeners alike, there
is no need for this bill to go so far as to preempt this longstanding
law that gives farmers more information about what they are buying.
Like others, I have filed an amendment to strengthen the definition
of bioengineering and to strengthen consumer privacy with in the bill's
requirements. I have an amendment to match the amount of GE food
required to trigger a label to the 0.9 percent required in Vermont's
Act 120 and other international labeling standards.
And, importantly, I have filed an amendment to grandfather in
Vermont's Act 120 and any other similar labeling laws enacted before
January 1, 2016. The bill before us throws away the work of the Vermont
Legislature. Rather than treat the Vermont law--the first-in-the-Nation
GE labeling law--as the gold standard and the floor for any national
law, instead of using Vermont's law as an instructive starting point
for a national label, we throw away the work of our legislature, the
voices of my constituents. Well, Vermonters will not be silenced on
this matter. I am here to give voice to their views, even as the Senate
muffles the progress our State has made in advancing a consumer's right
to know.
Speaking of which, I have heard from hundreds of Vermonters about
this so-called mandatory labeling bill. For the benefit of the Senate's
short record on this issue, I will take this opportunity to share with
the Chamber some of the messages that I have received over the past few
weeks.
This is a map of our State, and the dots show where I have heard from
my constituents. Many have shared their concerns about digital or
electronic disclosure options. I could read thousands of these letters,
but I will just read from a couple of them.
John from Fairlee, VT, wrote: ``I am incensed over the Senate
proposal to allow companies to put a bar code style label on packaging
that could be read by using a smart phone to determine GMO content.
First, I don't even have a smart phone and have no plans to buy one
since we have no cell reception where I live. Even if stores have Wi-
Fi, and I were willing to buy a smart phone, why should I have to go
the extra step of connecting to a company's website to determine if its
product contains GMOs?''
Well, John from Fairlee makes a lot of sense. For example, suppose
you have a peanut allergy. Packages today will say if the food has
peanuts in it or not. Suppose you have a gluten allergy. You can go
into a store and the store will have whole aisles of gluten-free
products, which would also be labeled that way. Why shouldn't you be
able to just look at a simple label and see whether the ingredients
were produced with genetic engineering? Campbell's Soup is going to do
it. Why can't we just have a label?
Katharine from Brattleboro, VT, wrote: ``I'm one of the many people
who cannot afford a cell phone. The federal proposal for GMO labels
that requires a cell phone would be useless to me and many others on
fixed incomes, disability, etc. Please pass a federal law that doesn't
require a cell phone to access information. I deserve to know what I am
consuming as much as people with extra money who can afford a cell. It
just isn't fair to the rest of us to keep us in the dark. I pay my
bills and live frugally and responsibly. I do not use my money for
entertainment or extras. But I do not deserve to be restricted from
access to important information.''
[[Page S4848]]
She went on to say: ``Additionally, cell coverage in Vermont is, at
best, poor. So even people with cell phones might not be able to access
information.''
Well, this Senator agrees with her.
Maureen said: ``I do not have a smart phone, as is true for most
older Americans, and should not have to buy one in order to find out if
the food I buy is genetically modified. This is a dishonest attempt to
pander to big industry at the citizens' expense.''
Others, like Carl from Putney and Barbara from Hinesburg, said: ``I
don't use a smart phone, and a label I have to scan will do me no good.
I doubt I would want to scan everything I looked at in my supermarket,
in any case.
``The proposed `labeling law' is in fact not a labeling law at all.
As I understand it, the food producers would not need to disclose
anything, just provide a phone number or website that consumers could
use to find out whether the food is genetically modified.''
Carl and Barbara went on to say:
`` . . . to have a label that can be read only with a phone app is
ridiculous. We personally do not have such a phone and will not obtain
one because where we live reception is challenging.''
Hundreds of Vermonters even joined together in sending me a letter
that said: ``The bill requires the labeling of packaged foods
containing GMOs in one of three ways: an electronic code that consumers
can scan; USDA-developed symbol; or a label. The bill leaves it to
manufacturers to decide which of the three methods they prefer.
``Now guess which method Big Food will choose? I have no doubt that
they will choose the electronic code that can only be read with a
scanner. They know that few will want to do this and even fewer will be
able to.''
The letter continued: ``A recent national survey showed that only 16
percent of consumers have ever scanned a QR code for any purpose.
Unless I want to take each item to the customer service desk in the
grocery store, I must download a scanning app onto my smartphone--
assuming I even own one! No matter which app I choose, it may take a
few tries to actually scan the code properly. Then I will have to wait
for the website to pop up on the screen, which could take a long time
depending on your network coverage inside the store, after which I
might have to sift through the company's information to find the GMO
information I am looking for.
``The QR code is hardly a label in any meaningful sense of the word.
It adds a barrier between the consumer and the information he or she
wants, and discriminates against those who do not own smartphones--
which is half of people living in rural areas, 75 percent of those over
65, and half of those making less than $30,000 a year. This legislation
discriminates against all these people and especially the poorest
Americans.''
Well, it is clear that the proposal before us today is driven more by
the perspectives of powerful special interests than by a commitment to
honor a consumer's right to know or by a legitimate effort to make
information available to all Americans. Consumers are far from this
deal's highest priority. If they were, we would not be contemplating an
electronic or digital disclosure method when many rural areas,
including most of Vermont, face significant technological challenges,
not to mention that this digital disclosure would also discriminate
against low-income and elderly populations.
I have also heard from a number of Vermont organizations, all with
grievous concerns about the proposal before us today.
The Vermont Public Interest Research Group wrote: ``VPIRG opposes the
. . . proposal because it is a thinly veiled attempt to keep consumers
in the dark about what is in their food. This proposal is nothing but a
sham aimed at eliminating Vermont's labeling law without replacing it
with any meaningful federal standard.
``Vermont's labeling law took effect on July 1, and companies are
already providing consumers with clear on-package labeling that allows
them to make informed decisions about the food they are purchasing.''
They went on to say: ``Vermont's law is not novel or unique. Over 90%
of Americans support labeling genetically engineered foods, and these
products are already labeled in more than 64 countries around the
world.''
Others, like Rural Vermont, said: ``On behalf of the members of the
Board of Directors of Rural Vermont, who are all working farmers, and
our statewide membership of other farmers and their customers, I am
writing to urge you to do everything you can to prevent passage of this
bill that proposes to provide a national standard for the labeling of
food that is genetically engineered. This bill does not meet the
fundamental needs of the over 90% of Americans who want genetically
engineered food products to be labeled.
``This bill is no better than its predecessors in the Senate or the
bill passed by the House in 2015. The fact that the bill offers as a
`label' the option for food producers to require customers to use so-
called QR codes to access information about the content of the product
they are considering purchasing is absurd and blatantly discriminatory.
The use of a QR code as a `label' requires that the customer A) Own a
'smart' cell phone, B) Have the application required to read the QR
code installed on that phone, C) have adequate access to cellular
service inside their grocery store (highly problematic, esp. in
Vermont), and D) Have the time and patience to navigate the web site to
which the QR code will direct them in order to find the information
regarding the product they are holding in their hand--the content and
transparency of which is still entirely determined by the food
producer. Try suggesting this scenario to a busy mom with a couple of
kids in tow and you are likely to be laughed, if not chased, out of the
room.''
The Northeastern Organic Farming Association of Vermont wrote:
``Vermont's GE food labeling law Act 120, which is in effect as of July
1, provides a more meaningful, enforceable, and consumer-friendly
labeling framework than the current federal proposal. It should be
allowed to stand.''
I heard directly from Ben & Jerry's, which wrote: ``We are incredibly
proud of the ingredients we use and we couldn't be happier to tell our
fans and consumer about them. That's why we find it so hard to believe
that there are food companies that do not want to disclose the
ingredients they use. That they are fighting so hard to oppose what
polls show 90% of American's want, the ability to look at a food
package and know whether or not the product contains GMO ingredients.''
And others have reached out as well, saying this from the League of
Conservation Voters: ``Under the proposal, companies may disclose GMO
content through a QR code, a digital code which requires a smart phone
or other scanning device to decipher. Those who do not have access to a
smart phone--more than 50% of rural and low income populations, and
more than 65% of the elderly--will have to rely upon scanners provided
by another party to access information about GMO content.''
Other Vermonters have reached out to me to share their concerns about
the right of States to legislate in a way that furthers the legitimate
and significant interests of the State. They have reached out, urging
me to reject this ``deal'' or any other bill that would prohibit states
from requiring the labeling of genetically engineered foods unless it
is replaced by a strong mandatory national label.
Jennifer from Bethel, VT, said: ``I and many other Vermonters urge
you to reject this bill, we want Vermont's precedent-setting, mandatory
labeling bill to go into effect, and for it not to be thwarted by
efforts for a weaker, overriding federal program of voluntary, or QR-
code based labeling, which would only let some consumers know what's in
their food some of the time.''
James wrote: ``We have worked too long and hard to have our efforts
scrapped by politicians who know little or nothing about growing
natural nutritional food.''
He continued to explain that he and his wife testified before the
Vermont State Legislature in support of Act 120, Vermont's GE labeling
law.
Another Vermonter said that this bill, which would nullify
Vermonters' right to know what is in their food and legally bar any
other State from enacting such a law, is ``an outrage.'' Many others
also reached out to express their concerns that this ``deal'' is really
just an attempt to undermine Vermont's law.
The overwhelming message that I have heard loud and clear from so
[[Page S4849]]
many Vermonters is that they simply want to know what is in the food
that they feed their families.
Leslie from Middlebury, VT, wrote: ``The people of Vermont have made
their voices known. We want to know what is in the food we eat and feed
our families.''
Eric from Strafford, VT, said: ``I strongly urge you to fight to
defeat the GMO labeling agreement proposed by Senators Stabenow and
Roberts. It would undermine the Vermont labeling law and fails to offer
consumers the clarity they deserve about what's in their food.''
And others have reached out as well, saying: ``I am very disappointed
that legislators in Washington are more interested in protecting the
food industries than they are in providing information to the consumer.
We consumers have a right to know what's in our food, how it was
produced, and its origins.''
And: ``We have the right to know what is in our food in order to make
informed choices about what we eat and feed our families.''
``People need to have the right to know the contents of their food,
it is ludicrous to deny this information to the people of this
nation.''
``Consumers have a right to know what is in their food. And providing
consumers that information shouldn't be left up to the manufacturer.''
``As a concerned consumer, I want the choices I make for my family to
be completely informed.''
As well as: ``Like most Americans, I simply want to know what's in my
food and how it was produced. That is why I support GMO labeling.''
From the many letters that I have received from Vermonters since this
``deal'' was announced, there is one in particular that I would like to
share in full.
Michael of Brookfield, VT, writes: ``Dear Senator Leahy, I have
recently learned that Senators Roberts and Stabenow have proposed GMO
labeling legislation. The proposed measure has numerous defects, and I
urge you strongly to oppose it.
``The bill allows the agency to set the thresholds so high as to
render the labeling requirement practically toothless. It also contains
a loophole that could exempt corn and soy, the two most widely grown
GMO crops in the country. Further, the actual required labeling would
not require any actual information about the food to be put on the
label, but instead can direct consumers to a website that has the
required information. This would require both a smart phone and in-
store internet connectivity in order to make a point-of-sale purchasing
decision, neither of which are universal, especially here in Vermont.
It seems that the authors of the bill are trying to make it as hard as
possible to learn about what's in our food.
``I can understand the desire to prevent numerous conflicting GMO
labeling laws from being enacted at the state level, but this ill-
conceived substitute should be rejected.
``Sincerely, Michael''
I would hope Members of this body will heed Michael's advice. I am
sure constituents in your own States feel the same way.
The legislation before us today undermines the public's right to know
and preempts labeling requirements for genetically engineered
ingredients in States. While it is true that the proposal makes modest
improvements to the legislation that the Senate wisely rejected in
March, the fact remains that this was hastily crafted solely in an
effort to undermine Vermont's GE labeling law that just took effect
last Friday. And so I would like to recap some of these concerns.
I remain concerned that this legislation takes away the rights of
Vermont--or actually any other State--to legislate in a way that
advances public health and food safety, informs consumers about
potential environmental threats, avoids consumer confusion, and
protects religious tradition. Not only would this legislation preempt
Vermont's Act 120 GE disclosure requirement, but it would block other
State laws like Alaska's requirement to label all products containing
genetically engineered fish and shell fish, and Vermont and Virginia's
laws requiring the labeling of genetically engineered seed or
transgenetic seed.
I remain concerned that the bill's definition of ``bioengineered
foods'' has been written so narrowly that it allows some of the most
common foods to go unlabeled. Whether this bill was drafted with the
intent to exempt certain foods remains unclear. What is clear, is that
the definition has created significant confusion, not just among
consumers, but also in this very Chamber and across Federal agencies.
That is why we should be having a full debate and amendment process to
allow for technical corrections and to ensure clarity.
I remain concerned that this bill allows for the use of electronic
disclosure methods. In many rural parts of the country--including rural
parts of the distinguished Presiding Officer's State, the rural parts
of the distinguished Senator from Oregon's State, who is on the floor,
and the many rural parts of Vermont--we have significant technological
challenges that make it nearly impossible for consumers to access the
electronic or digital disclosure methods allowed in this bill. I do
believe that by requiring the Secretary of Agriculture to complete a
study on this issue, these difficulties unavoidably will be recognized.
However, significant questions remain. If the Secretary finds, as I am
sure will be the case, that additional disclosure options are required
for rural areas, will the USDA be responsible for installing scanners
in grocery stores? Or are the proponents of this proposal going to put
the burden on our retail establishments, large and small, to install
costly digital scanners? A scannable code or a 1-800 number is not true
disclosure. It is a burden on consumers. It creates an obstacle course
from consumers. It is the exact opposite of what we mean when we say,
``Just Label It.''
I remain concerned that this proposal doesn't truly support a
consumer's right to know. Consumers were an afterthought in the
crafting of this ``deal.'' We should stay true to the kinds of things
most of us say in our campaigns and our political advertising. We say:
We are there for you. We are there to protect you. We are there for
you.
Well, that is not true. You, the consumer, were an afterthought of
the crafting of this deal. The prime motivation was to allow large
corporations to get by with doing as little as possible, and the bill's
lack of transparency is counterproductive. The more information that we
seek to hide from consumers about how their food is grown and
manufactured, the more unnecessary red flags we raise for them. Our
farmers and food producers should be proud to inform consumers about
what they plant, how they grow it, the choices they make, and why.
I also remain concerned that this proposal--even if you like the
proposal--has no enforcement mechanism. I have trouble believing that
public pressure will be enough to force these multimillion-dollar
corporations to comply. You would think that 9 out of 10 consumers
would be enough public pressure for Congress to respond, but it didn't
do a single thing for this legislation. Consumers are not going to be
able to make these multimillion-dollar corporations comply. This
proposal makes consumers the cops on the beat, policing companies to
provide information about the contents of their product.
These corporations show that they don't really care what the
consumers think, with some notable exceptions. Campbell's Soup, which
is a multibillion-dollar corporation, has voluntarily decided to label
their products, and I applaud them for doing that. So many others are
not going to do so. Surely our Nation's families, who are busy
squeezing every minute, out of every day, will not have time to hold
companies accountable in the court of public opinion. We should not
place this added burden on consumers who only want to know what they
are feeding their families.
Since this proposal was unveiled, I have heard from many Vermonters
who care deeply about this issue. Just last Friday, I joined several
hundred Vermonters on the statehouse lawn in my hometown of Montpelier
to celebrate Vermont's Act 120 law taking effect on that day, July 1. I
heard their voices loud and clear on this issue. The proposed ``deal''
before us falls short. It doesn't offer consumers what they need or
what Vermont's legislators had in mind when they passed Vermont's Act
[[Page S4850]]
120, which is to have a simple and clearly written, on-package label.
All we want is a simple on-package label so that, when we look at it,
we know what we have.
Dozens of Vermonters have told me that they do not own smart phones
or do not get cell phone service in their towns. Katharine, from
Brattleboro, VT, wrote to me and said: ``I'm one of the people who
cannot afford a cell phone. . . . Please pass a federal law that
doesn't require a cell phone to access information. I deserve to know
what I'm consuming, just as much as people with extra money who can
afford a cell phone. It just isn't fair to the rest of us to keep us in
the dark.''
Katharine's sentiments were echoed by Maureen, from Fairlee, VT, who
said: ``I do not have a smart phone, as is true for most older
Americans, and I should not have to buy one in order to find out if the
food I buy is genetically modified.''
Carl from Putney, VT also wrote to me, saying: ``I don't use a smart
phone, and a label I have to scan will do me no good. I doubt I would
want to scan everything I looked at in the supermarket, in any case.''
And you know Katherine and Maureen and Carl and the hundreds of other
Vermonters who I have heard from are right. It is not fair, and it is
exactly what these large corporations want: They want to hide
information behind a QR code or a 1-800 number.
Americans want to make informed decisions for their families and with
their limited grocery budgets. One Vermonter, Denis, said it well in
his message to me: ``The issue is simple: consumers deserve to know
what they are consuming, including whether or not the ingredients are
produced naturally or through genetic engineering, so they can make
personal choices about what to purchase. GMO information needs to be
clearly disclosed on the label as part of the nutrition and ingredient
details.''
Lewis from Enosburg Falls also wrote to me about the importance of a
consumer's right to know. He said: ``Everyone has the right to know
what they are eating. Period. Vermont's labeling law will not judge
GMOs as good or bad, it will simply confirm their presence in any
product. I want to make informed decisions about what is in the food my
family and I eat, whether it's salt, sugar, fat, or GMOs.''
What Vermont did, unlike the U.S. Senate, which had no hearings or
open discussions--the Republican leader brought this bill out here
under a fast-track so we couldn't have any real debate on it--was
debate this issue for years. They held over 50 hearings on the subject.
They had over 130 witnesses testify and all sides of the issue were
heard. Yet the U.S. Senate has failed to hold a single hearing to
debate these issues and hear expert testimony.
The little State of Vermont had over 50 hearings and more than 130
witnesses. Our legislature represents 625,000 people. We had over 50
hearings and heard from more than 130 witnesses, while this Congress,
which represents 325 million people, didn't have time for a single
hearing on GE labeling. This Congress didn't have time to debate these
issues and hear expert testimony. The U.S. Senate did not have one
single hearing so that any of those 325 million Americans could be
heard.
If you saw this in a movie or something where they were poking
satirical fun at the Congress, you would say: Oh, they have gone too
far; that would never happen. Unfortunately, it has happened.
This backroom deal made by the food industry has left too many gaping
holes and questions that should have been addressed before this bill
was fast-tracked through the Senate.
Is the Vermont law perfect in every way? No, I do not contend that it
is. The State was blocked and preempted from requiring a label on
products that contain meat. And I will be the first to point out that
there are challenges with Vermont being out there on its own with a
label, but what we need to replace it is a strong national label that
has been thoroughly debated and any confusion over intent clarified.
This bill has been brought forward at this time simply to preempt
Vermont's GE labeling law that just took effect on July 1. This,
despite the fact that Vermont has a 6-month safe harbor or grace period
until January 1, 2017. With 6 months left before Vermont's grace period
ends, why are we not taking the time to hold a hearing? Why are we not
having a full debate and amendment process? Why are we not listening to
consumers in Vermont and across the nation who simply want to know what
is in the food they feed their families and how it was produced?
I hope other Senators will join me in rejecting these efforts to
undermine the ability of States, such as Vermont, Alaska, Virginia, and
others that choose to offer consumers and farmers purely factual,
noncontroversial, and commercial information that furthers the
legitimate and substantial interest of the State.
I really can't support this so-called compromise. There have been no
hearings and we have heard no testimony on it. It was suddenly handed
to us as a fait accompli. We were told to take it or leave it. After
all, the Big Money interests want us to take it. It is a last-minute
attack on Vermont's law, and it is a last-minute attack on States'
rights to set priorities at State government level.
Instead of caving in to the lobbyists, we should be moving in a
direction that offers consumers more information and more choices
rather than hiding behind a toothless law that puts the industry's
interests ahead of a consumer's right to know and sets industry
interests ahead of consumers' right to know.
This ``deal'' substitutes an easy-to-read label that everyone can
understand, with a complicated scavenger hunt, which most people won't
complete. It is a sham. It does not let people know what they need to
know. It is a sham. Let's accept that. The Senate will vote one way or
the other, but let's not have anybody going home saying we are
protecting consumers. Instead, some Senators voted for a sham put up by
a few well-heeled corporate lobbyists.
I have said it before and I will say it again: 625,000 Vermonters
deserve better. But even more importantly, all 325 million Americans
deserve better. They should at the very least have had the benefit of
hearings and full debate--to have people talk about this bill and have
the opportunity to have our amendments considered. Instead, it was
written in back rooms by heavily financed lobbyists, with input from
corporate interests not the interests of the American people.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
I suggest the absence of a quorum, and ask unanimous consent that the
time run equally on both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Treaties
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today as the ranking
Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to discuss the
importance of treaties to the United States and to express my strong
support for the ratification of a number of treaties whose consistency
with current U.S. law, coupled with the tangible and material benefits
they would deliver to U.S. citizens, businesses, and law enforcement
authorities, should make their ratification noncontroversial.
Treaties enhance and increase stability in an uncertain world. They
offer a framework for U.S. global engagement in which we can work to
promote American values such as equal rights, freedom of navigation,
and the promotion of global commerce. Yet, with the 114th Congress
drawing to a close, the Senate has not yet ratified a single treaty--a
situation I consider to be an extraordinary state of affairs for this
body, and I hope we can change this shortly.
The value and importance of treaties to the interests of the United
States and its citizens can be seen in the seven treaties the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee recently reported out. I thank Senator
Corker and the members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for
reporting these treaties to the floor of the Senate for its
consideration.
These treaties include the Convention on the Law Applicable to
Certain
[[Page S4851]]
Rights in Respect of Securities Held with an Intermediary, known as the
Hague Securities Convention, the International Treaty on Plant Genetic
Resources for Food and Agriculture, two extradition treaties with the
Dominican Republic and Chile, and three mutual legal assistance
treaties with Jordan, Algeria, and Kazakhstan.
Let me talk about these treaties. I am sure they are not getting the
headlines of many other actions, but they are important to U.S.
interests.
The Hague Securities Convention was negotiated to address uncertainty
as to what law governs cross-border transactions in stocks, bonds, and
other securities. That legal uncertainty has imposed friction costs on
securities transactions and increased risks for investors. The
convention provides voluntary choice-of-law rules for securities that
are held by an intermediary. It was drafted with close attention to the
relevant passages of U.S. law on secure transactions, articles 8 and 9
of the Uniform Commercial Code. The result modernizes these
transactions and greatly enhances their predictability. It is totally
consistent with current U.S. law. U.S. ratification of the Hague
Securities Convention would be the deciding vote in bringing the
convention into force, which will encourage other countries to sign on
to this treaty that promotes global commerce and legal certainty with a
system patterned on longstanding U.S. commercial law. The benefit of
this treaty to U.S. business is obvious, which is why the convention is
unanimously supported by the relevant stakeholders in the United
States, including the Uniform Law Commission, which drafted the Uniform
Commercial Code on which the convention is based, the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, the Commercial Finance Association and Securities Industry
and Financial Markets Association, the Financial Services Forum, the
Emerging Markets Traders Association, the Depository Trust & Clearing
Corporation, and numerous other securities clearance and banking
entities. The stakeholders who understand the importance to U.S.
business interests all support the ratification of this treaty.
The second treaty the Foreign Relations Committee just reported is
the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources. This treaty has
been in force for 12 years and already has 139 contracting partners.
The U.S. ratification of the plant genetics treaty will benefit U.S.
farmers as well as U.S. agricultural and research institutions.
Plant breeders, farmers, and researchers need access to raw plant
materials to develop improved plants that are more productive and
nutritious. The plant genetics treaty aims to address this need through
the creation of a formal global network for banking and sharing seeds.
The treaty establishes a stable legal framework for international germ
plasm exchanges of 64 different crops, including wheat, rice, potatoes,
oats, maize, rye, strawberries, and apples. The sharing of these crops
benefits both research and commercial interests in the United States
through the development of new crop varieties that are more nutritious,
more resistant to pests and diseases, show improved yields, and can
better tolerate environmental stresses such as drought.
The treaty is also unanimously supported by relevant U.S.
stakeholders.
I ask unanimous consent to have the full list printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Organizations Supporting U.S. Ratification of the International Treaty
on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture
AgReliant Genetics (Indiana), American Farm Bureau
Federation, American Phytopathological Society, American Seed
Trade Association, American Society of Plant Biologists,
American Soybean Association, Arkansas Seed Dealers'
Association, Bayer CropScience LP (North Carolina), Beck's
Hybrids (Indiana), Biotechnology Innovation Organization
(BIO), California Seed Association, Colorado Seed Industry
Association, Condor Seed (Arizona), Crop Production Services
(Colorado), Crop Science Society of America, Curtis & Curtis
(New Mexico), Delaware-Maryland Agribusiness Association, Dow
AgroSciences (Indiana), DuPont Pioneer (Iowa), Enza Zaden
U.S. (California).
Georgia Agribusiness Council, Georgia Crop Improvement,
Georgia Seed Association, Grain and Feed Association of
Illinois, Grassland Oregon, GROWMARK (Illinois), HED Seeds
(California), HeinzSeed (California), HM.CLAUSE, Inc.
(California), Idaho-Eastern Oregon Seed Association, Illinois
Fertilizer & Chemical Association, Illinois Seed Trade
Association, Independent Professional Seed Association,
Indiana Seed Trade Association, Iowa Seed Association, J.R.
Simplot Company (Idaho), JoMar Seeds (Indiana), Justin Seed
(Texas), Kansas Seed Industry Association, Kansas Wheat
Alliance.
Keithly-Williams Seeds (Arizona), Land O'Lakes, Inc
(Minnesota), Latham Hi-Tech Seeds (Iowa), Limagrain Cereal
Seeds, Monsanto (Missouri), National Association of Plant
Breeders, National Association of Wheat Growers, National
Corn Growers Association, National Cotton Council, National
Council of Commercial Plant Breeders, National Farmers Union,
National Sorghum Producers, Nebraska Agri-Business, New
Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station (NJAES) at Rutgers
University, New York State Agribusiness Association, North
Carolina Seedsmen's Association, Northern Seed Trade
Association, Northwest Nursery Improvement Institute, Ohio
AgriBusiness Association, Oregon Seed Association.
Oregonians for Food & Shelter, Pacific Seed Association,
Produce Marketing Association, RiceTec (Texas), Rocky
Mountain Agribusiness Association, Rural and Agriculture
Council of America, Sakata Seed America (California), Seedway
LLC (Pennsylvania), Sharp Bros Seed (Kansas), Southern Crop
Production Association, Southern Seed Association, Syngenta
North America (Minnesota), Texas Ag Industries Association,
Texas Seed Trade Association, University of California, Davis
College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences,
University of Kentucky College of Agriculture, Food and
Environment, US Rice Producers Association, USA Rice,
Vilmorin, North America (California), Warner Seeds (Texas),
Washington Tree Fruit Research Commission, Wisconsin Agri-
Business Association, Wyoming Ag-Business Association,
Wyoming Wheat Marketing Commission.
Mr. CARDIN. The list includes the American Seed Trade Association,
the National Farmers Union, the Biotechnology Industry Organization,
the National Association of Wheat Growers, the National Corn Growers
Association, the American Soybean Association, numerous universities,
and nearly 100 other farm, agricultural, and research groups. This
agreement again is supported by all these stakeholders that understand
the importance to American farmers, American commercial interests, and
American consumers.
I am deeply grateful to Chairman Corker and my colleagues on the
Foreign Relations Committee who worked hard to advance these treaties
to the Senate floor. My only regret is that I hoped we would have
considered these two worthy, uncontroversial treaties earlier. Both the
Hague Securities Convention and the plant genetic treaty provide
tangible benefits to the United States and its stakeholders. Neither
requires changes to U.S. law. Let me repeat that. Neither of these
treaties would require us to change U.S. law. The Hague convention was
signed by the United States in 2006 and has been awaiting ratification
in this body since 2012. The plant genetics treaty was submitted to the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2008, received a hearing on
November 10, 2009, and was reported by the committee in December 2010.
Almost 6 years later, it still has not been considered by the full
Senate. We can do better.
I am hopeful the Senate will soon act to ratify these two treaties.
However, I fear the long delay in their consideration speaks to a
larger problem. I am dismayed some of my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle do not see the value of treaties and the benefits they
accrue to U.S. citizens and businesses.
As the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I
call attention to my colleagues that we also have eight tax treaties
pending on the floor of the Senate: tax conventions with Poland,
Hungary, and Chile; protocols amending existing tax conventions with
Japan, Switzerland, Spain, and Luxembourg; and a protocol amending the
Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax
Matters. With the exception of the Japan treaty, which was sent to the
Senate relatively recently, each of these treaties has been considered
and reported multiple times by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
in recent years. They reflect the practices and procedures consistent
with the tax treaties and protocols passed by the Senate since 1973.
Since then, 68 tax treaties have been passed by this body by unanimous
consent. Yet, because of the opposition of a single Member, the Senate
has not ratified these vital treaties.
[[Page S4852]]
Like the Hague Securities Convention and the plant genetics treaty,
there are material benefits to U.S. ratification of these tax treaties.
They establish a common framework with facilitating trade and
investment and can reduce the taxes assessed on U.S. companies and
individuals who have interests or work overseas. The seven countries
with pending tax treaties have invested approximately $700 billion in
the United States, with hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs and
businesses tied to these investments. Ratification of these treaties
would provide increased certainty and facilitate further investment in
the United States and its people.
The sole declared opponent of these tax treaties has raised privacy
concerns regarding the collection of financial records. So let me be
absolutely clear. These tax treaties are entirely consistent with the
Fourth Amendment protections ensuring that American citizens are
protected against unreasonable searches and seizures. As stated so
eloquently by Chairman Corker, tax information exchanges with another
country under any tax treaty are subject to stringent controls, are
forbidden from so-called fishing expeditions, and are explicitly
prohibited from information exchange requests for nontax purposes. That
is protected in the treaty. The exchange of information standards in
the pending treaty is in fact already being used in 56 tax treaties
currently in force.
The proposed threshold of these treaties would apply the same
statutory standards to Americans with bank accounts abroad as already
applies to Americans with bank accounts in the United States. We are
not imposing any additional burdens on these accounts that are outside
the United States. It is identical to what we impose on Americans in
the United States. There is no reason people with foreign bank accounts
should be able to hide their money from the IRS in a way that the
average hard-working American cannot.
Continued obstruction and indefinite delay of these eight tax
treaties is an unacceptable state of affairs that does harm both to
U.S. businesses and individuals who invest and work overseas and to
U.S. businesses and citizens whose livelihoods remain linked to
continued foreign investment in the United States. The Senate should
act as soon as possible to give these treaties the long-awaited up-or-
down vote they deserve.
There are other vital treaties that are pending before the Senate
that are critical to American security and law enforcement interests. I
hope the Senate will move forward in an expeditious fashion to ratify
these treaties. In particular, I want to highlight five pending law
enforcement treaties--two extradition treaties with the Dominican
Republic and Chile and three mutual legal assistance treaties with
Jordan, Algeria, and Kazakhstan. The extradition treaties update
century-old treaties with the Dominion Republic and Chile, replacing
outmoded lists of offenses with a modern dual criminality approach, in
which instead of a long treaty list of extraditable offenses, offenders
can be extradited if the offense is a crime in both the United States
and the other country. The treaties incorporate a series of procedural
improvements to streamline and speed up the extradition process.
Mutual legal assistance treaties are agreements between countries for
the purpose of gathering and exchanging information in an effort to
cooperate on law enforcement issues. America can provide some
assistance without these treaties, but ratification makes this process
much clearer and much more streamlined.
Ratification of these enforcement treaties will be of great benefit
to the United States. To give but one example of how beneficial these
treaties are to the United States, it has been estimated that for every
person extradited from the United States to the Dominion Republic, 10
are extradited here to face charges for crimes they have committed
against the laws of the United States. So these treaties are very much
in the U.S. interest.
Of the 15 treaties I have discussed thus far, all should be entirely
uncontroversial and capable of being passed without delay. Indeed,
until very recently, tax and law enforcement treaties were passed
routinely by unanimous consent, but there are other treaties the Senate
has considered in recent years where ratification would also bring
tangible benefits to the United States and its citizens. I want to
highlight two in particular--the Convention on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities and the Law of the Sea Treaty.
The Senate owes a great deal to former Senator Kerry and Senator
Menendez for their work on the disabilities convention. Through
multiple hearings across the 112th and 113th Congresses, it was
established, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the treaties' principles
are firmly based on American values. From the U.S. Constitution, the
treaty borrows principles of equality and the protection of minorities;
from the Declaration of Independence, it borrows the unalienable right
to pursue happiness; and from the Americans with Disabilities Act, the
gold standard for disability rights, the treaty borrows the concept of
reasonable accommodation. U.S. ratification of the disability treaty
would deliver material and palpable benefits to the 58 million
Americans who have one or more disabilities, including 5.5 million
American veterans. Ratification would impose no additional obligations
on the United States but would give the United States a leadership
position on the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities,
from which we could effectively promote human rights and equal rights
for those with disabilities and lend our expertise to other nations as
they work to implement the treaty. Friendly countries would be able to
rely on proven U.S. standards in crafting disability and accommodation
policies that would not only positively affect their citizens but also
U.S. students, tourists, servicemembers, and veterans who travel
abroad.
The disabilities treaty was overwhelmingly supported by veterans and
disabilities groups. Unfortunately, and to the great dismay of so many,
the Senate fell five votes short of ratification of the disabilities
treaty in December of 2012. In July 2014, the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee again advanced the disabilities treaty out of committee. I
was proud to vote in favor, and it is my hope the United States will
ratify this valuable treaty so we can give the United States a say with
how people with disabilities, including our own citizens, are treated
around the world.
It has now been over 2 years since the committee has acted on this,
and I would hope the Senate would act on this in a responsible manner
and that the United States would join with the other nations in support
of the disability community.
The failure to pass the Law of the Sea Treaty has been a failure of
many Congresses. The United States played a critical role in developing
the treaty in the 1970s, and we have the most to gain from being a part
of this treaty. We shaped the construct of the treaty to be very
favorable to the United States, including giving the United States the
only permanent seat on the international council that would oversee and
make decisions about deep seabed mining. Unfortunately, the permanent
seat remains vacant and decisions are being made about seabed mining in
international waters without U.S. participation. The estimated area of
the territorial expansion over which the United States could claim
sovereignty under the continental shelf expansion conventions of the
treaty is an area estimated to be about 291,000 square miles, or
roughly 1.5 times the size of the State of Texas. Though the Senate's
failure to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty is a longstanding one,
recent events have brought the viability and wisdom of U.S. nonparty
status even further into question.
For example--and we talked about this before on the floor of the
Senate--the disappearance of the Arctic sea ice, coupled with increased
access to mineral resources in the Arctic seabed, is influencing the
territorial claims our Arctic neighbors--Canada, Russia, Denmark,
Greenland, Iceland, and Norway--are making, and all of these countries
are making legal claims under the Law of the Sea Treaty. The United
States is the only Arctic nation not staking any expanded claims in the
Arctic, nor are we challenging the actions of our neighbors who may be
encroaching on waters to which we could
[[Page S4853]]
have a claim. The State Department cannot be blamed for not making
claims or challenging our neighbors. It is the Senate that has failed
to give the State Department the ability to rightfully stake claims and
challenge the legality of our competitors' claims--purely out of an
unfounded and ideologically partisan opposition to the United States
being a party to the Law of the Sea Treaty.
The situation in the Arctic is just one reason to reconsider
ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty. Our failure to be a party of
the treaty framework means we lack the ability to fully work with our
allies and partners in the South China Sea region to address the
ongoing maritime security issues. A broad set of stakeholders--ranging
from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to the environmental organizations
and our Nation's military to industry-specific trade groups
representing commercial fishing, freight shipping, and mineral
extractions--all support U.S. accession to the treaty.
I remember the hearing in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
where we had our generals testifying before us that it is in our U.S.
national security interests to be a member of the Law of the Sea and to
ratify that treaty.
In particular, our naval leaders have made it clear that the United
States' participation in the Law of the Sea will help them maintain
navigational rights more effectively and with less risk to the men and
women they command.
I can only hope that the Senate will soon ratify the Law of the Sea
Treaty, which will secure U.S. interests and reaffirm the principles of
freedom of operations and freedom of navigation in international waters
and airspace, in accordance with established principles and practices
of international law.
I must note that for many of the treaties whose benefits I have just
described, there is a disturbing pattern to the continued obstruction
and delaying their consideration. Regardless of how many hearings are
held by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to examine the treaties,
regardless of how many benefits would accrue to the United States, and
no matter how many stakeholders weigh in in favor of ratification, even
the most inoffensive treaties can languish for years without advancing
and sometimes be scuttled by one lone objector whose reasoning has
nothing to do with the facts about the treaty in question but has
everything to do with partisan politics and ideology. Continued delay
on treaty ratification only hinders the interests of the United States
and its citizens.
I welcome the recent movement of the Hague Security Convention and
the plant genetics treaty and the five law enforcement treaties by the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee reported out last week. But I
believe it is time for the Senate to do more--much more--to ratify
additional treaties that deliver tangible, material benefits to the
United States and its citizens.
It is time to ratify these treaties.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rubio). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
MARVA
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, a few weeks ago, I had the privilege of
visiting the Mid-Arkansas River Valley Abilities Workshop, better known
as MARVA, in Russellville, AR, just over the bridge from my hometown of
Dardanelle.
For more than 40 years, MARVA has provided individuals with
developmental disabilities meaningful work in a supportive environment
and given them access to a variety of social services. Those employed
at MARVA produce and sell, for example, top-quality recyclables,
planners, and calendars.
My visit to MARVA deeply moved me. I saw firsthand how important this
organization is to so many Arkansans, and I met and heard from some
truly amazing people, like Ron, who has been at MARVA for 17 years. Ron
said he had dropped out of 3 different colleges and was fired from 10
jobs before he was diagnosed with a mental illness. Ron was actually
told by one former employer: ``You are dumb and have no future.'' Ron
moved back to Arkansas and found his place at MARVA, where he is
currently thriving. In Ron's words:
MARVA has helped me to feel that I can be independent and
encouraged me to feel a sense of worth. I feel that my life
has come from the gutter to glory. I can't imagine any other
life. I don't want to get fired again.
I also met Mike, an Arkansan who has been employed at MARVA for 38
years--38 years. Mike was diagnosed with cerebral palsy at the age of
2. He was lucky enough to have parents who took him to the best schools
and the best physical therapy, but there are still real limitations
from his disability. For Mike, MARVA has been a saving grace. His mom
said it is a safe environment for him to grow as a person, providing
purpose for his life and a network of friends with whom to socialize--
and earn a little money while doing it.
MARVA offers Ron, Mike, and 28 other Arkansans a chance to be part of
a team, a chance to do meaningful work, make friends, and have loving,
understanding coaches and mentors who recognize their limitations. It
offers them integration and a chance to live a full and meaningful
life.
I talk about MARVA today not just because it is an incredible place
with incredible people but because there is a movement afoot in
Congress that could harm or even eliminate places like MARVA.
Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act helps create employment
opportunities for persons with disabilities that prevent them from
finding jobs at market rates. In nearly all cases, these waivers are
used for sheltered workshops like MARVA. These organizations are
nonprofits with a mission to help persons with disabilities, not
companies getting rich from subminimum wage labor.
I recognize that some in the disability rights community oppose
14(c). I met with some good people who devote their lives to serving
the disabled and have this point of view. There are bills in both the
House and the Senate to eliminate 14(c), and, in turn, likely shut down
organizations like MARVA. I am sympathetic to their concerns,
especially in rare isolated cases of abuse. And if there is a choice
between a workshop job and a suitable market job in, say, a retail
store, for many disabled persons the market job would be a better
option. But as the client-workers and their families told me, at MARVA
they don't have this choice. They can't choose between a sheltered
workshop job and a market job. It is this employment or nothing. And
who can argue that the client-workers of MARVA would be better off not
having this opportunity? Would that be progress? Or would that be an
unintentional but tragic return to the failed and limiting policies of
the past?
I encourage all of my colleagues to visit a workshop like MARVA and
talk to the full-time staff and the client-workers, talk to the family
members of the client-workers, and see for yourself how important these
organizations are in the lives of people with disabilities who have
found a place that offers them meaningful work in their community.
MARVA and similar organizations are a true blessing to their client-
workers, their families, customers, and all Arkansans. I am committed
to protecting MARVA and organizations like it from any effort to close
them down. And if you want the simplest reason why, I will close by
reading a Facebook post from Mike's brother:
Whether it's shredding by hand outdated phone books or
making ballpoint pens for area businesses, these people WANT
to work and are fiercely dedicated to doing their jobs with
pride, and they want to work in the environments where they
feel sheltered, safe, and where their needs are met. God
bless MARVA and may all healthy sheltered workshops survive
and keep giving life and a sense of purpose to people like
Mike.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I come to the floor to urge all my
colleagues to stop denying science and to start understanding that GMO
ingredients are just as healthy for American consumers as any other
ingredient.
We all recognize that there are a fair number of consumers--some of
whom we heard from loudly yesterday--who have concerns. So as we
address this issue and as we see the growing interest in knowing more
about ingredients in our food, the more we realize that
[[Page S4854]]
we can't have 50 States--and even the potential of some political
subdivisions--passing different labeling standards. We have to have a
unified labeling standard.
But I think I have been disturbed over the last couple months as we
have debated this issue from the standpoint of a public health issue
and not a consumer issue. I think it is critically important that we
set the record straight on genetically modified ingredients and that we
make sure everyone in our country understands the science of what we
have been doing over almost centuries of work in growing more resilient
and better yielding crops. We wouldn't be able to do that in America
today or across the world without genetics, without actually looking at
applying science to the work we do in agriculture.
As I have said on this floor many times, North Dakota prides itself
in being the top producer of a wide variety of crops, and our diversity
is something I am particularly proud of. This includes conventionally
bred, organic, and genetically modified, or GMO, crops. We grow GMO
sugar beets, corn, soybeans, and canola. I will say that again, and I
will say it proudly. We grow GMO sugar beets, corn, soybeans, and
canola, but we also grow non-GMO products, including many organics.
I think that is what makes American agriculture so resistant and
resilient, and it makes American agriculture great. GMOs increase and
stabilize productivity, and high yields can make a big difference in
the prices we have today. Non-GMO options provide paid premiums to
farmers, and there are a group of consumers willing to pay it. That is
the diversity we see in agriculture today.
We should be encouraging this innovation and doing what we can to
encourage new products, not just for our farmers' benefit but for the
benefit of agricultural biotechnology all across the world and the
benefits that biotechnology provide.
After all, when you look at the story of American agriculture, it is
one of innovation. Some of our greatest accomplishments as Americans
have come from our agricultural research and our innovation. Whether it
is our land grant universities, extension services, co-op
organizations, or Federal research investments, agricultural innovation
has helped to increase production, preserve resources, and literally
save lives.
I want to remind everyone about a person who is a great American
hero. This person is Nobel Peace Prize laureate Norman Borlaug. Borlaug
is thought of as the forefather of modern agricultural biotechnology.
Because of Borlaug's dedication to innovation and making sure we can
feed a growing world, he is known as ``The Man Who Saved a Billion
Lives.''
His wheat breeding work created a wheat that didn't bend and break as
it grew, enabling increased production and revolutionizing farming in
America and across the world. As he saved countless lives, he sparked
the Green Revolution. That is why we know biotechnology isn't just good
for farmers--although it is, especially, during price downturns. It
increases and stabilizes yields and fights against crop pests and
disease.
Agricultural biotechnology is also great for consumers, not just in
stabilizing or reducing prices. It can literally save lives, like the
golden rice can. Just last week, as we prided ourselves on this side by
saying we need to make decisions based on science, over 100 Nobel
laureates wrote to dispute claims involving golden rice and to talk
about how important those innovations were to saving populations from
blindness and from disease.
If we really are concerned about science, let's start talking about
science, and let's start realizing that in no place has there ever been
a study that said these ingredients, GMO inputs, are bad for consumers
or in any way injure our livelihood or our health.
The bottom line is this technology is safe, and we have nothing to
hide. If anyone has heard me talk about GMOs, I frequently say, when
people come in to argue with me: I give them to my grandchildren. There
is no higher endorsement for any woman than being willing to gladly
feed her grandchildren GMO foods, and I realize I wish every grandchild
throughout the world had access to the quality products we grow.
I also have said time and again that the more we fight efforts to
provide this transparency, the more we look like we have something to
hide. That is why I proudly support the Roberts-Stabenow compromise
bill. I don't think GMO labeling is something I am particularly
interested in. It is not something I am going to look for in my label,
but if you want to know, then you should have a right to know.
If consumers want to know the ingredients in their food, let's tell
them. Let's tell the real story of the compromise bill and what that
means for consumer information literally across the country. Today in
America, there is just one piece of legislation, one State that
requires GMO labeling on their packaging, and that is the State of
Vermont. The other States that have enacted this will only implement
their bill if four more States adopt the same kind of provision.
What it means is for all of these other consumers who want to know
what is in their ingredients, they are going to have to wait
generations or they may never have access to that kind of information.
The GMO label, what consumers can know about their food and whether
their food actually contains genetically modified ingredients, will be
nationwide. Instead of that very small group of consumers in Vermont
knowing, the entire country will have access to that information.
For people to suggest that access can't be provided using modern
technology is a fallacy. We all know the information that we receive
about our ingredients, about our life, how many times have we turned to
ourselves and said: ``I don't know the answer to that; Google it.'' It
has become almost a knee-jerk reaction for us to get that instant
information. This is an opportunity not only with this label and with
this packaging to know about genetically modified ingredients. There is
a possibility if you want to know about antibiotics in your food, if
you want to know about whether it is gluten-free or whether it contains
some kind of peanut oil. All of that information would readily be
provided to consumers.
If consumers don't have the ability to scan when they are in the
grocery store, most places, especially major grocery store chains, will
provide that access. We are expanding, in a way that really is unheard
of, access to consumer information. That is why I think all of the
arguments we have been hearing that we somehow are hiding something or
that we are trying to keep this in the dark--what we are trying to say
is this: If we are going to have a label, it should be a national label
and that label should provide the information to all the people of our
country or access to that information for all the people of our
country.
I don't want to leave this debate without reiterating once again that
what this bill does is for the first time to give national access to
every consumer in this country and a way to find out what the
ingredients are in their food, particularly whether their food has been
processed or manufactured with genetically modified ingredients.
As to people who suggest that we are not looking at a bill that
provides transparency, that label is going to be mandatory. It is going
to provide essential information, and it resolves that issue of
transparency. As the time bottom line, what we need to do in this
country is we need to do a better job of educating consumers about what
genetically modified ingredients are, why they are safe, why every
agency and 100 Nobel laureates have told us we have nothing to fear
from genetically modified ingredients. We need to learn the lesson of
Norman Borlaug--the lesson that through technology, through application
of good science, we can feed a very hungry world. We ought not to hide
from that. We ought to be proud of that.
I know this debate is not yet over. I know we will continue to have a
debate, certainly, among consumer groups, and I am more than willing to
engage in that debate and defend what our farmers do, which is to
provide options to all consumers. Whether it is genetically modified
organisms, whether it is organic or non-GMO, we are ready to provide
that kind of input, but we have to educate on the science why these
products are completely safe. I think that is where we have failed.
[[Page S4855]]
I urge everyone to support the Stabenow-Roberts compromise. I think
it achieves that label and achieves that access, and it does this: It
tells every consumer in the entire country that they will have access
to this information instead of the one small State of Vermont.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). The Senator from Arkansas.
Tribute To Patrick Combs
Mr. COTTON. Madam President, I would like to recognize Patrick Combs,
of Hot Springs, AK, as this week's Arkansan of the Week, for teaching
Arkansas students to share his love of music and pushing them to
succeed in everything they do.
Patrick just completed his fourth year as band director for the
entire Fountain Lake School District. As the program's sole instructor,
Patrick teaches instrumental music for all middle school and high
school students and directs both the marching and symphonic bands. To
put that in perspective, the Fountain Lake Middle School and High
School have a combined student body of over 800 students.
Patrick is remarkable not just for teaching so many students,
although I know that is a feat in and of itself. Under his direction,
the Fountain Lake music program has truly soared. Over the last 4 years
the number of Fountain Lake students who earned a place in all-region
bands more than doubled, and the number of students who won competitive
tryouts in the Four States Honor Band and the Arkansas All-Star Band
both more than tripled.
As a group, the Fountain Lake band earned a first division ranking in
concert assessment for all 4 years of Patrick's tenure. In 3 of his 4
years, the band also had the honor of being an Arkansas Sweepstakes
band. Most recently, the Fountain Lake band was one of only two
Arkansas bands selected to participate in this year's National
Independence Day Festival on the Fourth of July here in Washington. I
was able to see the Fountain Lake band while they were in town and
congratulate them on this big achievement. While I, unfortunately,
wasn't able to see the parade in person, all reports indicated their
performance was spectacular. I know I speak for all Arkansans when I
say they truly made the Natural State proud. I am confident their
success was due in no small part to Patrick's leadership, as well as
the hard work of Fountain Lake students.
I am honored to recognize Patrick Combs as this week's Arkansan of
the Week and commend him for his dedication to music education and the
Fountain Lake School District. Arkansas is lucky that a passionate
educator like Patrick calls our State home.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
FCC Accountability
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I rise today to speak about the
importance of keeping independent agencies accountable to Congress and
to the American people. Congress created independent agencies to be
places where expertise in complex areas of the Nation's economy informs
policymaking within limits set by Congress. One such congressional
creation is the Federal Communications Commission.
Congress conferred independence on the FCC so it would be free from
the normal control exercised by the President over the executive
branch. In recent years, the FCC has behaved less like an independent
commission accountable to Congress and more as a de facto arm of the
executive branch, wholly subservient to the President. At the same
time, the FCC has become more partisan than ever before and an
institution that has seized greater regulatory power while
simultaneously shutting down bipartisan dialogue and compromise.
The recent rulemaking proceedings regarding title II common carrier
authority, the massively expanded E-rate and Lifeline programs,
backward-looking set-top box rules, and the agency's power grab over
privacy regulations have all been characterized by a lack of bipartisan
compromise or respect for the limits of the authority delegated by
Congress. Much of the responsibility for this downward trajectory rests
with the current FCC chairman, Tom Wheeler.
For example, during Chairman Wheeler's confirmation process, I asked
him if he would commit to coming to Congress for more direction before
attempting another iteration of net neutrality rules. Mr. Wheeler
unequivocally said that he would do so. However, not only did Mr.
Wheeler not come to Congress for more direction, at the behest of
President Obama, he jammed through the most radical implementation of
net neutrality rules ever--a power grab of stunning proportions--and he
did so on a purely partisan vote.
The number of 3-to-2 party-line votes on Commission meeting items
during Mr. Wheeler's tenure are a clear indication of an FCC Chairman
who embraces partisanship over compromise. In just the first year of
his chairmanship, Mr. Wheeler forced through more items on party-line
votes than the previous four chairs combined. Chairman Wheeler speaks
often of his belief in the importance of competition and market forces.
Hearing that, one might think he might exercise his agency's powers
with a light touch in order to promote the incredible innovation in
which our communication sector is capable. Instead, Chairman Wheeler
seems more focused on waging partisan battles and accumulating more
power while at the same time avoiding accountability to Congress and
the American people.
I have come to the floor to talk about the most recent example of
Chairman Wheeler utilizing questionable legal authority while
simultaneously trying to dodge public accountability. This example
relates to the FCC's rules about disclosure of nonpublic information.
The FCC's own rules prohibit its employees from disclosing nonpublic
information to anyone outside the Commission unless expressly
authorized by the Commission or its rules. Nonpublic information
includes details of upcoming rulemakings or other actions the
Commissioners are still negotiating. These rules are intended to foster
the Commission's ability to have honest and fulsome negotiations among
the Commissioners and staff and to prevent any special interests from
gaining a particular advantage over other stakeholders.
Earlier this year, however, Commissioner Michael O'Rielly wrote a
blog post expressing his concerns that Chairman Wheeler was instead
using these rules to muzzle other Commissioners. Though Commissioner
O'Rielly respected the Commission's rules against disclosing details
without authorization to the press or other stakeholders, he pointed
out that Chairman Wheeler was freely disclosing nonpublic information
whenever he wanted. Commissioner O'Rielly was concerned that this
allowed Chairman Wheeler to frame and influence the public's
understanding of upcoming issues to his advantage by selectively
disclosing information that no other Commissioner is allowed to discuss
publicly. Indeed, the Chairman's staff would later tell my staff that
Commissioner O'Rielly would not be permitted to correct a factual error
stated by Chairman Wheeler if doing so meant discussing nonpublic
information.
As chairman of the Commerce Committee, I sent a letter this past
March asking Chairman Wheeler to explain whether he discloses nonpublic
information to outside groups and how the Commission authorizes the
disclosures.
Madam President, I refer my colleagues to the letters with the
exchange between myself and Chairman Wheeler that can be found at
http://bit.ly/29r76uO.
Chairman Wheeler maintained that as chairman he can unilaterally
authorize disclosures of nonpublic information whenever he wants
without any need for approval by the Commission, despite the clear
prohibition against doing so in the Commission's own rules.
The events surrounding the FCC's March 31 open meeting are a striking
example of how the selective leaking of nonpublic information can be
used to distort an ongoing debate and turn an emerging bipartisan
consensus into a partisan power grab. The open meeting agenda included
an order expanding Lifeline, which is a program that has spent billions
of ratepayer dollars in an effort to improve access to communications
technology for low-income Americans. While the goal of this program is
[[Page S4856]]
important, unfortunately, it has been replete with rampant fraud for
years, which the U.S. Government Accountability Office has recognized
on more than one occasion. A compromise on Lifeline between a
Democratic Commissioner and the two Republican Commissioners was
emerging. This compromise would have included a spending cap to prevent
the program from wasting ratepayer dollars. However, it turns out
Chairman Wheeler was not on board with this compromise.
On the morning of March 31, Chairman Wheeler delayed the open meeting
by several hours, a highly unusual move. During the delay, Politico
published a story about the emerging bipartisan compromise, citing
``sources familiar with the negotiations.'' Disclosure of any
information about ongoing negotiations right before an open meeting is
a direct violation of the FCC's sunshine rules, which protect
Commissioners' deliberations.
What happened next is exactly what you might expect. The Politico
story spurred outside political pressure against the emerging
bipartisan compromise, which subsequently fell apart. Ultimately, the
Lifeline order moved forward on a 3-to-2 party-line vote, without a cap
or other bipartisan reforms, right in line with Chairman Wheeler's
preference. Yet another 3-to-2 party-line vote--forced by the
Chairman--thwarting a commonsense and bipartisan compromise. Just last
week, 12 States, including my home State of South Dakota, sued the FCC
in the Federal appellate court here in Washington, DC, challenging the
regulatory overreach of the FCC's Lifeline order that came out at that
very March 31 open meeting.
In April, I sent another letter asking Chairman Wheeler to explain
the source of his claim of authority to disclose whatever nonpublic
information he wants whenever he wants, which was the assertion he
made. I also asked a direct question: Did you, Chairman Wheeler,
authorize the disclosure of nonpublic information to Politico on the
morning of March 31 in advance of the open meeting? Chairman Wheeler
responded that his position as chief executive of the Commission
empowers him to do anything that streamlines the FCC's work. According
to his interpretation, if the Chairman decides on his own that
releasing nonpublic information will make the FCC operate more
efficiently, he can do it, even though the FCC's rules explicitly
prohibit the disclosure of nonpublic information.
I appreciate the role the Chairman plays in the day-to-day management
of the Commission, but this appears to be a specious attempt to exempt
the Chairman from a very clear rule. Indeed, there is no record the
Commission ever intended for its Chairman to be exempt when the agency
adopted the rule 20 years ago, and the rule very clearly gives the
Commission, not its Chairman, the authority to disclose nonpublic
information.
In responding to my April letter, Chairman Wheeler also ignored the
question of whether he personally authorized the leak to Politico on
the morning of the open meeting. My staff followed up with Mr.
Wheeler's staff several times on this matter, and they emphatically
stated that Chairman Wheeler refuses to answer this question.
Everyone who cares about government accountability should pause to
think about this. Even though Chairman Wheeler claims he has the legal
authority to leak whatever nonpublic information he wants whenever he
wants, he nevertheless has refused to answer this simple question about
whether he indeed authorized the leak on the morning of March 31. Since
Mr. Wheeler could have just said no, if he did not actually authorize
the leak of nonpublic information, that leaves only two possible
conclusions; one, that Chairman Wheeler did authorize the leak but is
not confident in his roundabout interpretation of the rules and fears
admitting to violating them or, two, Chairman Wheeler simply does not
respect the legitimate role of congressional oversight and believes he
is unaccountable to the American people.
I would also note that while Chairman Wheeler refused to answer
whether he authorized the disclosure, he sought to obfuscate and cast
blame by stating it was the Republican Commissioner Ajit Pai who leaked
the public information in advance of the open meeting. This shell game
is unworthy of a chairman of an independent commission.
Indeed, Mr. Wheeler's attempt to cast blame on another Commissioner
only adds emphasis to the overall point I am making; that is, that
Chairman Wheeler seeks to use the rule prohibiting the disclosure of
nonpublic information as both a shield and a sword. On the one hand, he
claims the rule prohibiting the disclosure of nonpublic information
does not apply to him, but on the other hand he seeks to shut down
criticism and debate from another Commissioner by stating the
Commissioner may have violated the rule prohibiting disclosure of
nonpublic information. The FCC's nonpublic information rules were
intended to facilitate and protect internal communication
deliberations. Chairman Wheeler is instead using them to stifle or
manipulate the other Commissioners.
Fortunately, the FCC Office of the Inspector General is now
investigating what happened on March 31. The IG is looking into who
disclosed the nonpublic information about ongoing negotiations among
the Commissioners, including any role Chairman Wheeler had in the leak
to Politico. I look forward to the IG's findings and expect we will
learn the answers to the questions I have posed to Chairman Wheeler,
particularly the one question he has refused to answer so far. Taken
alone, the Lifeline leak may seem to be just a minor transgression that
can be chalked up to business as usual in Washington, DC, but in the
case of current FCC leadership, it is just one example out of many that
demonstrates a disregard for the limits Congress has placed on the
agency's authority.
The regulatory power grabs over title II's common carrier authority
and the FCC's recent privacy rule are further evidence that Chairman
Wheeler shares the Obama administration's propensity for legal
overreach and the intentional circumvention of Congress. In this
environment, congressional oversight is more important than ever as a
critical check on bureaucratic power. Regardless of who sits at the
helm of a commission, such oversight must be pursued, and I am
committed to make sure it does.
Former Secretary Clinton's Use of an Unsecured Email Server
Madam President, this week FBI Director James Comey announced the
results of Hillary Clinton's email use during her time as Secretary of
State. What we discovered was this: As Secretary of State, Hillary
Clinton repeatedly mishandled classified intelligence.
Here is what Director Comey had to say:
Although we do not find clear evidence that Secretary
Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing
the handling of classified information, there is evidence
that they were extremely careless in their handling of very
sensitive, highly classified information.
That is a quote from FBI Director Comey. Let me repeat that quote.
The FBI concluded that President Obama's Secretary of State--our
Nation's chief diplomat and the person who is fourth in line to the
Presidency--displayed gross carelessness when handling information
related to our national security. If Hillary Clinton can't be trusted
to safeguard national security information as Secretary of State, she
cannot be trusted to protect national security information as the
Democratic nominee for President, and she certainly can't be trusted as
our Commander in Chief.
There are some who would like to take the FBI Director's speech as
vindication for Secretary Clinton, since the FBI Director ultimately
did not recommend prosecution, but the FBI Director's statement is no
vindication. It is an indictment. The Secretary betrayed the trust the
American people had placed in her. She repeatedly lied to the American
people about the purpose of the server, what was on the server, and the
threat it posed to our national security. Secretary Clinton repeatedly
claimed there was no classified information on her server, but the FBI
investigation found otherwise.
According to Director Comey, Secretary Clinton sent or received at
least 110 emails in 52 separate email chains containing classified
information--52 separate classified conversations. And of those 52
classified email conversations, 8 contained top secret information, the
highest level of classification,
[[Page S4857]]
and 36 contained secret information. Secretary Clinton knew she was
placing national security information at risk.
The FBI Director said--when discussing the top secret emails
transmitted over the Secretary's unclassified email system--``There is
evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in
Secretary Clinton's position, or in the position of those government
employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should
have known that an unclassified system was no place'' for top-secret
communications.
As a reasonable person, the Secretary unquestionably knew that the
proper place for classified information was on a classified server, but
she decided to use her personal server anyway.
Secretary Clinton has tried to argue that using a private server in
violation of State Department rules did not jeopardize our national
security. Even President Obama, in what was a highly suspect public
comment on an ongoing FBI investigation, said her private server wasn't
a national security threat. But according to the FBI Director, that
certainly wasn't the case. Director Comey explicitly stated that it was
entirely possible that ``hostile actors gained access to Secretary
Clinton's personal e-mail account.'' And he wasn't just referring to
ordinary hackers. The Director noted that Secretary Clinton ``used her
personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including
sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of
sophisticated adversaries'' and that that fact was one that led the FBI
to the conclusion that her email account might have been compromised.
In other words, it is entirely possible that our Nation's enemies
gained access to Secretary Clinton's emails thanks to her decision to
use her personal account.
Despite Secretary Clinton's claim that the servers were protected,
Director Comey went to great lengths to describe how the servers had
substantially less protection than government servers and even had less
protection than common commercial servers like Gmail.
Yesterday, Senator Gardner introduced legislation, which I
cosponsored, that would remove the security clearance of Secretary
Clinton and any of her staff members involved in the mishandling of
classified information and block Secretary Clinton from accessing
classified information in her capacity as a Presidential candidate. I
have to say, unfortunately, that I think that is the right call.
Secretary Clinton has demonstrated that she has no respect for the
security of classified information, and she, like anybody else, should
face the consequences. As the FBI Director noted, most people who had
done what the Secretary did would face consequences for their actions.
Other individuals found by the FBI to have engaged in such reckless
handling of classified information would, at a very minimum, have their
security clearance revoked and would likely face termination. The rules
shouldn't be different for Secretary Clinton because she held a
powerful position. In fact, those in a position of such great trust
should be held to a higher standard, not a lower one. Do we really want
to set the precedent that wielding political power places an individual
above the law? Boy, I sure don't think we want to go there, but that is
exactly what is happening as a result of this decision.
I look forward to hearing what Director Comey has to say in his
testimony today before the House Oversight and Government Reform
Committee. I hope we will hear him discuss the reasoning behind the
decision not to recommend prosecution when the Secretary so clearly
displayed, in the Director's own words, extreme carelessness in
handling classified information.
I also hope the FBI will release the transcript of Secretary
Clinton's FBI interview and other documents requested by Senator
Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. A Secretary
of State mishandling classified information is a grave matter. The
American people deserve to know all the facts, and they deserve the
truth.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Executive Overreach
Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, Senator Thune was just on the floor
talking about Executive overreach. Well, let me tell my colleagues that
2 weeks ago, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a stinging
rebuke and a stinging defeat to the Obama administration and to its
immigration amnesty plan. There have been a string of stinging defeats
for the President's approach of what I believe is an Executive
overreach. The courts agree with me. For years, President Obama has
been acting as though he believes he has unlimited power to do whatever
he wants to do, regardless of what the law of the land says. Now the
courts have finally said: Enough is enough.
In this case, President Obama decided that for political purposes, he
was going to stop enforcing some of the country's immigration laws.
Twenty-six States said that was outrageous and they filed a lawsuit.
It is the President's job to enforce the laws of the United States,
and the law is very clear. The law is clear when it comes to
immigration, and the President deciding to change it basically says he
is willing to ignore the law, because he didn't come to Congress to get
it changed, he decided to do it with regulation alone. The courts have
said it is not the President's call, and they have now blocked the
President's amnesty plan.
During an event in 2013, the President actually seemed to understand
that he was just one part of America's Government. He said: ``The
problem is that I'm the President of the United States, I'm not the
emperor of the United States.'' He went on to say: ``My job is to
execute the laws that are passed.'' He understood at that time that it
was his job--at least he understood it in 2013. So what happened
between then and now?
If the President says, as he did, ``I'm not the emperor,'' why is it
that it seems that almost every action he takes seems to show that he
wants to act as if he is the emperor? Time after time, he has shown
that he considers himself above the law. We know he doesn't like to
deal with Congress--not with Republicans or with Democrats; he likes to
ignore Congress--and he doesn't like having to deal with the courts, so
he tries to pack them full of people who will rule the way he tells
them to rule. We saw that when Harry Reid changed the rules of the
Senate. It seems the President doesn't like to listen to the voters,
either, so he goes ahead and does what he wants to do no matter what
the American people say they want.
This case last month is not the first time a Federal court has said
that President Obama acted above the law or even against the law. Last
June, the Supreme Court struck down a regulation that was a big part of
the Obama administration's War on Coal. The Supreme Court said that the
Washington bureaucrats who wrote this rule never even considered the
overwhelming costs--this is the Supreme Court saying this--never even
considered the overwhelming costs that they were imposing on hard-
working American families. The President never even considered that.
The Court said: ``One would not say that it is even rational''--the
President's actions weren't even rational--``never mind appropriate, to
impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few
dollars in health and environmental benefits.'' The Supreme Court told
President Obama that he is the President of the United States, not the
emperor of the United States.
Then look what happened last October. Another court, a U.S. appeals
court, blocked the Obama administration's new regulation that vastly
expanded the definition of ``waters of the United States.'' The
Environmental Protection Agency wanted to give itself control over all
the waters--all of them, including huge chunks of private property in
this country, including farms and ranches--and do it by taking control
of isolated ponds, prairie potholes, and irrigation ditches--all of
these little areas the government can take control of, and they control
the land. What did the appeals court do? The appeals court stepped in
and stopped the administration's actions because of what it called
``the sheer breadth of the ripple effects caused by the rule.'' This
appeals court told President Obama that he is the President of the
United States, he is not the emperor.
[[Page S4858]]
That is the same thing the Supreme Court told President Obama back in
February. The Supreme Court stopped another EPA rule over carbon
dioxide emissions from existing powerplants--powerplants that have been
there and are functioning. Just like the so-called waters of the United
States rule, the Court said that the administration could not just go
ahead and do whatever it wanted to do. The rule could do so much damage
that the Court said they had to stop the President in his tracks.
The Supreme Court said that it was skeptical anytime a Washington
agency claims to suddenly find broad powers. And that is what has been
happening now--the Washington agency is going back to old laws and
finding new broad powers that have been in law and that have been on
the books and functioning for a long time. The Supreme Court said they
are very skeptical of an administration that does that.
The Court said: ``We expect Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to
assign to an agency decisions of vast economic and political
significance.'' Well, Congress never did that with carbon dioxide. The
Obama administration just made it up, and the Supreme Court told the
President that he is the President of the United States, not the
emperor.
In May, the Supreme Court issued another decision to stop the Obama
administration from taking away people's rights--the rights to use
their own land. This had to do with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
taking control of private land. The Obama administration went so far
overboard that they said people shouldn't even be allowed to challenge
the Obama administration's decisions in court. I mean, can my
colleagues imagine that? The Obama administration went so far overboard
that they said people shouldn't be allowed to challenge the Obama
administration's decisions in court. This President doesn't want
Congress to have any say in what he does, and now he doesn't even want
the courts to have a say in what he does. American families shouldn't
have to fight Washington just to use their own property. They certainly
shouldn't have to fight with one hand tied behind their backs.
Amazingly, this was a unanimous decision against the President by the
Supreme Court. Even the most liberal Justices voted against the
President on this issue, to show how much Executive overreach we are
dealing with. The Supreme Court told the President once again that he
is the President of the United States, not the emperor of the United
States.
It has been one case after another saying the exact same thing.
I wish to give one final example of this string of stinging defeats
for President Obama. Last month, the U.S. district court in Wyoming
shut down President Obama's latest attempt to stop American energy
production. It had to do with regulations on hydraulic fracturing on
land controlled by Washington and by Indian tribes. The judge in this
case said the administration had no authority whatsoever to issue the
regulation in the first place. This was a judge appointed by President
Obama. The judge wrote that ``Congress has not directed the
[administration] to enact regulations governing hydraulic fracturing.''
The judge went on to say: ``Indeed, Congress has expressly removed
federal agency authority to regulate the activity, making its intent
clear.'' The judge said Congress made it clear. The President wanted to
ignore it. The court told President Obama definitely and definitively
that he is the President of the United States, not the emperor of the
United States.
There have been six different court decisions in the past year, and
all of them have been against the President. Even the Justices that he
handpicked for the Supreme Court are refusing to play along with all of
his power grab and his illegal overreach.
The American people are no longer buying the President's excuses and
his promises. Back in January the White House Chief of Staff promised
that the Obama administration--and I was astonished when I saw this on
television, saw a video of it, saw it again, listened to it again. The
White House Chief of Staff promised that the Obama administration is
going to in this final year--this eighth year of his administration--
have a year of audacious Executive action. There is going to be
audacious Executive action in the President's last year in office.
It is time for the President and his staff to rethink their plan.
They should recognize that they do not have the legal support or the
popular support for all of the regulations and all of their illegal
action.
The President is not an emperor, although he may think that he is. It
is time for him to recognize this fact. It is time for the President of
the United States to do the job he was elected to do and to follow and
to obey the law of the land.
Thank you, Madam President.
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. PORTMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Bill
Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I rise again to talk about the heroin
and prescription drug epidemic that has gripped our country and has
affected every single State represented in this body. Sadly, it is a
problem that is getting worse, not better. I say that having been in
Dayton, OH, where sadly we had 15 people overdose in the space of the
Fourth of July weekend in one that city in Ohio. This is happening all
over our country, and it is an issue we have to address.
The Federal Government has an important role to play. There is much
more we can do. This body recognizes that. Back on March 10, the Senate
passed something called the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act--
CARA. CARA was on this floor for 2\1/2\ weeks, and there was some back
and forth about the legislation, but by the end of the process--I think
partly because Members were going home and hearing from their
constituents about it--94 Senators in this body voted yes on it. One
voted no, and it passed 94 to 1. Those kinds of votes almost never
happen around here. It happened because people realize this is a crisis
that we do need to address, and the bill that we came up with actually
made sense because it was based on the best practices from around the
country.
So I have come to the floor every single week we have been in session
since March 10 to talk about this issue, to urge my House colleagues to
act, which they did, and over the past several weeks to urge that the
House and Senate versions be brought together. That happened yesterday.
Finally, from March 10 until now, going back and forth, we have what
is called a conference committee report, meaning the House and Senate
versions have been reconciled. There were compromises made and changes
made, and we have one bill to go back to both the House and Senate for
a vote and to the President for his signature and, most importantly, to
get to our communities to begin to provide more help on prevention and
education, recovery, treatment, helping law enforcement, and stopping
overprescribing of drugs. It is a comprehensive approach to have the
Federal Government be a better partner with State and local governments
and nonprofits to be able to address this issue that unfortunately
millions of families in America are now facing.
I want to thank the Members of the conference committee. On the
Senate side that would be Senators Grassley, Alexander, Hatch,
Sessions, Leahy, Murray, and Wyden. I also want to thank all the House
conferees. They did some good work. Each one of these Members I just
mentioned has a real passion for this issue. They care about this
issue.
I want to thank my coauthor, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode
Island, because he did a pretty good job of talking to the conferees on
his side of the aisle, as some of us did, including me, talking to
conferees on our side of the aisle. Senator Whitehouse and I started
this process 3 years ago. We had five conferences here in Washington,
DC. We brought in experts from all around the country. So we had a real
interest in getting this done, and I commend him and congratulate him
for this result as well.
[[Page S4859]]
I know that those who are in the advocate community--in other words,
people who work in this field every day in prevention and treatment,
law enforcement folks, and health care folks--are also very happy that
this conference report has come together. Senator Whitehouse and I are
very happy that the conference report kept to the substance of the
Senate bill and frankly added some good elements that came out of the
House legislative process. They had 18 separate bills, we had one
comprehensive bill, and we had to bring them all together.
There are now more than 230 groups from all around the country. A lot
of them are national groups, and some are State groups that have come
out in support of this conference report--in other words, supporting
the final CARA product. Yesterday I met with about two dozen of these
groups to talk about the process and how we got to where we are, to
talk about the need to act quickly to get this into law because they
are desperate. If you are a professional in the area of treatment and
recovery, you want this help. You wanted it yesterday. We need it now.
By the way, these are people we consulted with during these 3 years.
They all came and participated in these five conferences. We also
consulted with many others, including the Obama administration. They
testified at these conferences. They also testified at the hearing we
had at the Judiciary Committee. They were supportive of CARA in part
because we took their input. We took everybody's good ideas, not
Republican ideas and Democrat ideas but good ideas. We kept this not
just bipartisan but nonpartisan. It would be nice if we keep it that
way.
I understand this is an election year and that some people may want
to score a few political points. But having gone through this process
in a nonpartisan way, having gotten this great vote out of the Senate
and a strong vote in the House, and now having this conference report
that has the right mix of good House and Senate substantive policies, I
would hope to be able to make a difference in the fight. I would hope
that we would not hear any more talk threatening to block this
conference report at the last minute.
Some of the concerns people are bringing up in the last minute are
concerns that were never raised on the Senate floor. Some conferees did
not sign the conference report because they said they wanted the
mandatory spending that is in the President's budget be a part of the
bill. That was never raised on the Senate floor. It was never raised
even as an amendment in the appropriations process. It just took place
over the past several weeks. So this is new.
It doesn't mean we shouldn't have more spending. In fact, as some of
you know, we had a vote on the floor on more spending. It was about
emergency spending--not mandatory spending, which happens to be offset
with cuts and other entitlement programs or tax increases, but
emergency spending. I believe emergency spending is appropriate because
I believe this is an emergency, and I voted for that emergency
spending, but many of my colleagues did not. It did not pass.
On the mandatory spending side, again, it is interesting because that
was never brought up before. I for one would be for more spending, but
I certainly wouldn't want to block the new spending that we have in
CARA, which is a substantial increase in spending, because I am
concerned about having more spending.
Every day we are losing about 129 Americans. This is why there is a
group out there called the CARA family coalition that came to
Washington recently. There were 129 families representing that one
family who every day loses somebody to heroin and prescription drug
addiction through overdoses. Those families are waiting. Some of them
are here this week because they are interested in seeing what happens.
More Americans are now dying from drug overdoses than car accidents.
It is the No. 1 cause of accidental death. In Akron, OH, 2 days ago,
over a 10-hour span--this is one city, Akron, OH, 2 days ago--15 people
overdosed on heroin. Two more people overdosed later the same day. It
included a woman and her two daughters, all of whom were found
unconscious. It included a 44-year-old man who died of an overdose.
There have been 55 people just in Akron, OH, who have died from heroin
overdoses this year. This means they will set a tragic record this year
in terms of overdose deaths. The problem is getting worse, not better.
On Tuesday in Dayton, OH, I met with law enforcement and treatment
service providers. We announced a new program called the Front Door
Initiative. Sheriff Phil Plummer was there. He told me that in one
weekend in one town--again, in Dayton, OH--15 people died of overdoses.
No one is immune from this. We have lost moms and dads, college
students, grandmothers, celebrities, rich, poor, and people of every
background to this epidemic. It knows no ZIP Code. It is in the inner
city, it is in the suburbs, and it is in the rural areas. In the 117
days that have passed since the Senate passed CARA on March 10,
approximately 14,000 Americans have died of overdoses from prescription
drugs and from heroin--14,000 Americans. It is time to act.
Again, the good news is, we had a meeting yesterday of this
conference committee between the House and Senate to finally pass this
legislation, then to the House and Senate for a final vote, then
getting it to the President, and most importantly out to our
communities.
By the way, the 14,000 is not the whole story, as tragic as that is,
because of course there are millions of other casualties--fellow
Americans who may have lost a job or their entire career, have broken
relationships with their families and friends--and I hear this all the
time back home in Ohio. I heard it over the weekend, when someone came
up to me at a parade and said: I am one of those people who cares about
this issue. Thank you for fighting on it. We have had this issue in my
family, and it broke our family apart.
People say the drugs become everything.
We don't have time for partisan games. This is urgent. I think it is
more urgent than any issue we are dealing with. Nine out of ten of
those who are struggling with addiction are not getting the treatment
they need. I think if this were the case of any other disease, it would
be viewed as a national scandal. It is wrong and it is unacceptable.
Addiction is a disease. One of the tenets of this whole legislation
is to acknowledge that. With all of the specific improvements we have
in terms of grants going out--for treatment, recovery, prevention
education, helping police with Narcan, and so on--in a sense, the
biggest thing for this legislation is to say: Let's get this stigma out
of the way. Let's deal with this as a disease and get people into the
treatment they need to get back on their feet.
Again, a few months ago, I, along with others, worked with the Senate
Appropriations Committee to be sure we did have additional funding to
fully fund CARA, of course, and to get more funding into the pipeline
for treatment, recovery, education, and prevention. When people talk
about the funding issue, let me just be clear, we are increasing
funding. Of course, the CARA bill itself increases funding in the
authorization, but here is what the Appropriations Committees have
done.
The 2015 number was $41 million. This is for the Department of Health
and Human Services, discretionary spending for heroin and opioid abuse.
It went up to $136 million for this year, the year we are in now. That
is a 237-percent increase. Next year, for 2017--when and if we can get
CARA passed this week or next week, this is what would apply--we are
seeing a 93-percent increase from the 237-percent increase. That is
more funding. I wasn't great at math in school, but that is more
funding. In fact, it is a 539-percent increase from 2015.
For those who say we are not taking this seriously enough on the
funding side--of course, I would like to do more, but we have to
acknowledge that a lot has been done. In terms of the overall spending,
not just the HHS spending, we have also seen increases. This would
include Department of Justice and other grantmaking. We have seen an
increase from 41 to 136 to 262 in the Senate appropriations. I am
sorry. This is to add to the House version of the appropriations for
2017. For next year, again in the Senate, we have a big increase that
will start on October
[[Page S4860]]
1, if we are able to pass our appropriations bills--whether it is a CR
or an omnibus or whatever form it takes--this is what the increase
would be, at a minimum, I would hope, because that is what passed out
of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
This week, this is what the House reported passing. So as big as this
increase is in the Senate--again, a 93-percent increase from this
year's increase--it looks like, from what we have seen from reports
from the House Appropriations Committees and in conversations with
them, they are talking about a 393-percent increase in 1 year. Again,
this is the House Appropriations Committee--a 1,500-percent increase
over, again, 2015.
For those who say there is not new spending being dedicated to this,
of course there is. That is good.
With regard to the total discretionary spending, this is not just HHS
but all the different areas, including the Department of Justice and so
on, which has also seen an increase. This is the Senate only. We don't
have the House number yet, but for the Senate, we have gone from 220 to
320 to 470, a 113-percent increase over last year's spending. We are
seeing more spending, and that is good.
By the way, this spending is connected to the CARA legislation. This
increase was increased with the provisions that were in the CARA
legislation to be sure that the two matched up.
Finally, this is the increase we got in the conference committee for
the amount that is authorized--not the actual spending but the amount
that the Senate and the House would authorize for increased spending
for new programs in CARA. Again, the Senate-passed bill, 94 to 1, had a
$78 million-per-year increase. The conference report more than doubled
that to $181 million.
This is what is interesting to me. There are Senators on this floor
who voted for CARA because it was the right thing to do--a nonpartisan
exercise with a lot of bipartisan support, a 94-to-1 vote.
All that has changed since then is we have it more than doubling the
authorized amount of spending in CARA. With regard to the
appropriations process--because we didn't have this appropriations in
place then, the Senate committee had not acted, the subcommittee had
not acted--in those 117 days since CARA was passed, we now see a 46-
percent increase overall in the discretionary spending. With regard to
HHS, which is where most of the treatment money is, we see a 93-percent
increase. For the House version, it looks to be an over 393-percent
increase.
All that has changed since CARA has passed with a 94-to-1 vote were
these big increases in spending. Again, I voted for emergency spending
on the floor. I think it is an emergency. I would go further, but for
those who say they now cannot support this good legislation because of
spending, it makes no sense. There is no way to argue that.
There must be some other reason. I hope it is not politics. Again,
that is what people hate about Washington. If partisanship is going to
slip into this at the end of the process and keep people from getting
the help they need and save lives, that would be a tragedy.
These new spending programs will help, but we also have to point out
that CARA is not just about spending, it is about authorizing better
programs. There are lots of examples of that where we have done that in
this body in other areas. I am the author of the Drug-Free Communities
Act. It authorized spending to create anti-drug coalitions around the
country. It has helped spawn the creation of 2000 coalitions. I founded
one in my hometown of Cincinnati over 20 years ago. Another 2000 have
benefited from that.
That legislation did not have an appropriation--because it was an
authorization, as CARA is--but it set up new programs, as CARA does.
That program to date, the Drug-Free Communities Act, has spent $1.35
billion focused on prevention and education on drugs.
We have more prevention and education programs that I think are even
an improvement in the CARA legislation, but that is an example of what
an authorization bill does. In 2013, the Senate voted to reauthorize a
bill called the Violence Against Women Act. I voted for it. Every
single Democratic Member of Congress voted for it. It passed the Senate
on a bipartisan basis, 78 to 22.
The bill increased authorizations to $655 million annually and made
policy changes, but it did not--and I repeat it did not--include the
spending in the bill. It was an authorization bill. The spending bills
come with the appropriations process. It didn't have mandatory
spending. It didn't have immediate appropriations. It was an
authorization bill. It was an incredibly important issue, violence
against women--a priority. Yet we didn't see some of these same
concerns raised. Nobody voted against the Violence Against Women Act
because it didn't have appropriations attached to it. That just
wouldn't have made sense, as it would not for any other authorization
we pass around here. I know that wasn't an election year, but we voted
for it. Then we fought for the funding as part of the appropriations
process. We were successful in doing that, just as we will be
successful in fighting for these appropriations, as we did this year,
getting a big increase, a 237-percent increase, and as we will next
year--as we see already. Thanks to our advocacy, those of us who were
focused on the issue, we are getting the increases to cover these
changes in CARA.
Of course, all the funding in the world isn't going to make a dent in
this issue if it is not spent the right way, and that is why you have
the authorization bills like CARA because we actually say, not just for
the new spending but even for the existing spending, let's spend it in
a way that is evidence based, where we actually look at what is working
and what is not working in treatment and in recovery.
The number of people who relapse is shockingly high. The success rate
is not what any of us would like it to be. Part of that is because some
treatment and recovery programs work better than others. We want to be
darn sure the tax dollars we are putting against this are being
responsibly spent because we are good stewards of the taxpayers'
dollars and because this crisis needs to be addressed.
Again, this legislation is not just about more money, although it
does authorize more money and that is good. It is also about changing
the way we spend the money so it goes to evidence-based prevention,
treatment, and recovery programs that have been proven to work. That is
why we cannot let a debate about funding jeopardize the critical policy
changes that CARA would make and because CARA would help ensure that
these new resources would be spent on what we know works. That is what
this 3-year process was about. That is what the conferences were about.
That is what all the experts coming to Washington to tell us what works
in the States was about--getting those best practices into this
legislation.
Again, the CARA legislation improves prevention by sponsoring a
national awareness campaign about the dangers of abusing prescription
opioids. Probably four out of five heroin addicts who overdose today
started on prescription drug. That information needs to get out there.
We need to explain this connection to people if we are going to get at
this issue.
The legislation also targets anti-drug coalitions in areas where the
epidemic is worse. So where it is at its worst, there is more funding
targeted to these anti-drug coalitions to focus on prevention and
education. That is key to keep people out of the funnel of addiction,
the grip of addiction. We should all be for that. That is in this
legislation.
It would increase access to treatment by increasing the availability
of naloxone, which is a miracle drug. It can actually reverse an
overdose while it is happening. It will train our first responders to
be able to use Narcan or naloxone more effectively. These provisions
will save lives, particularly when it is connected--when saving a life
is connected to getting somebody into treatment.
The conference agreement would also improve recovery for those who
have been treated for addiction. It will build recovery communities
like the ones at colleges and universities--perhaps at the State of the
Presiding Officer. We have one we are very proud of at Ohio State
University.
These recovery communities will give the peer support that is
necessary to follow through on addiction treatment over the long term.
We know that
[[Page S4861]]
works. That is one of the keys, not just the treatment but the longer
term recovery to keep people heading in the right direction.
I think people in your State, people in Ohio, certainly understand
the urgency of this problem because everywhere I go, whether it is in
the cities, the suburbs, or the rural areas, people ask me about
it. And they ask me why we aren't doing more, why we are not acting on
this.
Two weeks ago in Southwest Ohio, in my hometown of Cincinnati, a 28-
year-old was arrested after a young man in the Cincinnati area who
bought heroin from him was found dead of an overdose. A 17-year-old
teenager was found dead of an overdose. That is what is happening on
our streets today.
A few days ago, a man from Canton, OH, was pulled over in Akron, in
Northeast Ohio, for speeding. He had 13 pounds of heroin on him. By one
measure, that is about $400,000 of heroin--enough for 20,000
injections. If not for that apprehension, we would have had a lot more
distribution of heroin and overdoses and potentially lives lost.
In Madison County, in Central Ohio, police arrested 16 people for
trafficking heroin. At one of the drug houses they went to, there was a
5-year-old child. That is what is happening. According to the sheriff's
office, a high percentage of property crimes in that county are
directly tied to opioid addiction. Sheriff James Sabin says that out of
all the problems facing law enforcement in Central Ohio, heroin is the
No. 1 issue we are dealing with. That is what is happening.
Ohioans know this is happening to their friends, their neighbors, and
their family members. They understand the urgency of this crisis. That
is why all over the Buckeye State people are taking action at the local
level and at the State level. But they want the Federal Government to
be a better partner in helping them do what they know has to be done to
fight this epidemic.
As I said, on Tuesday I was in Dayton. There have been over 400
overdoses just this year in Dayton. By some measure, Dayton, OH, has
been named the top big city in America for overdoses--not something we
are proud of. These 400 overdoses are going to be helped by a new
program that was just launched and announced on Tuesday--I was there
for the announcement--called the Front Door Initiative. It will get
treatment to those who have overdosed. Once they are clean, it will get
them skill training, help them find a job, and teach them how to be
better moms and dads. The notion is that instead of putting people into
prison, get them into treatment. It is a diversion program that is
going to be customized and personalized for the particular person's
problems. Through looking at what works and what doesn't work, we have
found that is an effective way to get people back on track.
This innovation is happening in other places, too, around Ohio.
Sheriff Tharp in Lucas County is doing some very innovative stuff--
again, connecting people whom they arrest with treatment. In my view,
it is going to be more effective, more compassionate, and it will also
save taxpayer dollars.
I thank Sheriff Phil Plummer, the Cornerstone Project, and the entire
Montgomery County Drug-Free Coalition in Dayton, OH, for their daily
fight to get treatment to those who need it and help people get their
lives back on track.
The conference report that has just been voted out will help. It will
help law enforcement agencies like those in Dayton and Lucas County and
other places around Ohio find alternatives to incarceration.
Ohioans are taking action, and they expect Congress to take
appropriate action too. This is a crisis. They want the Federal
Government to be a better partner. They have been patient.
Let me just say respectfully that, in my view, this is not like every
other issue we address here. And we address some very important issues,
as we did yesterday on sanctuary cities, issues that relate to spending
bills, but this is about saving lives and allowing people to achieve
their God-given purpose in life by not getting off track and not being
casualties of this addiction epidemic.
I think this is urgent. And for those who might say ``Well, what hope
is there? How can more money help?'' I will tell you, No. 1, it is
money that will be wisely spent. That is how it will help. Secondly, if
it is well spent, treatment can work and it does work. Recovery can
work and it does work. There are so many stories I can tell because I
have been at over a dozen treatment centers around Ohio and spoken to
hundreds of recovering addicts and heard so many stories.
Let me tell you one about Bethani Temple from Prospect, OH. When she
was 18 years old, her dad died of cancer. To help her cope with her
grief, she tried one of the pain killers he had been prescribed. He had
pain medication for his cancer, and she was grieving, so she thought
she would try one of these pain killers, and she became addicted to
these pain killers. Soon they were too expensive and not as accessible
as something else, which was heroin. Bethani became addicted to heroin.
While she was addicted, she gave birth to a daughter who was dependent
on opioids.
By the way, there has been a 750-percent increase in babies born in
Ohio in the last 12 years who are dependent on opioids. It is tragic.
Bethani's boyfriend got into a car accident while he was high on
heroin and he died. Bethani was eventually arrested. Fortunately, she
was in an area of Ohio where, although she got arrested, they helped
get her into treatment. They diverted her into treatment. She got help.
Bethani was the very first graduate of the Marion Ohio Court family
dependency treatment program. It is a drug court. We had a roundtable
discussion in Marion with Bethani and others and got to see some other
young women who have been able to benefit from that.
Her daughter got treatment, too, by the way. Now they are both
healthy--and not just healthy; Bethani is now a college graduate, she
is now married with two kids, and she is now the coordinator of the
same program that got her back on track and, as she would say, saved
her. She is the coordinator there, and she is helping others get their
lives back on track as she did. She is beating this because she got the
right treatment for her, the right recovery program for her.
Mr. President, this is personal for me. It is personal for all of
us--it should be. I know too many people who have gotten caught up in
this grip of addiction. I know too many families who have gone through
what may be viewed by some as the ultimate grief, which is to have your
child predecease you because that child got involved with prescription
drugs, then heroin, and then overdosed.
Two families I have gotten to know lost their children because when
their children had their wisdom teeth taken out, they were given pain
medication and they got addicted to the pills and then heroin. These
were teenagers who had to have their wisdom teeth taken out. These
families are waiting, but they need help, and we need to give it to
them.
I would urge my colleagues to set the politics aside. This is not a
partisan issue. It hasn't been from the start. This is an issue of
helping the people we represent.
For all those people who voted for the legislation as it came
through--94 to 1--remember, all that has changed is that there is more
money in this bill now than there was before. Remember, in the 117 days
since you voted for this legislation, over 10,000 Americans have died,
including Americans in each of our States. Remember, there is an
election every 2 years. There is always going to be politics. This
needs to come above politics. We need to get this done, and we need to
get it done now.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, the Senate is presently on the verge
of approving a measure that is supposedly a compromise to provide for
GMO labeling. I want to express my thanks and respect for the principal
authors of this legislation, my colleagues Senators Roberts and
Stabenow. They have worked hard to forge this compromise.
Unfortunately, this falls far short of what is necessary to really
inform consumers, provide the essential facts they need to make
informed and educated choices about what they want to eat and to have
their families eat, what they want to put on their dinner table.
[[Page S4862]]
Nothing is more fundamental or important than what we eat. It is
essential to energy and the ability of our children to learn. It is
important to our productivity as adults. People of all ages care about
what they eat, and they care more than ever now because they know how
important it is. They also know about the unwanted features of food
that could impair their health.
Not long ago, we as a body rejected a measure called the DARK Act,
which stood for Deny Americans the Right to Know. Unfortunately, this
legislation will continue to leave consumers in the dark about what
they are eating. This new compromise is as misguided and anti-consumer
as that bill was, even though it may seem better.
The bill also betrays the desires of 90 percent of the American
people who want clear, comprehensive, truthful, accurate information--
labeling they can understand and readily see when they shop in their
supermarkets or grocery stores, labels that tell them whether there has
been genetic engineering.
Not only do 90 percent of the American people want it, but the people
of Connecticut have spoken. My State adopted a law that requires it.
That law will go into effect if 4 other States comprising 20 million
people move ahead with the same legislation. It is not arbitrary. It is
not dictatorial or draconian. It is simple, commonsense, effective
legislation adopted by the legislature and signed by the Governor of my
State.
What probably offends me most about this legislation is that it
overrides the will of the people of Connecticut, their determination
that they want clear, comprehensive labeling on GMO products. When the
Connecticut Legislature adopted its statute--and now as we are
considering ours--the debate has never been about whether GMOs are safe
or unsafe to consume. I will leave to the scientists--readily delegate
to them those judgments about the science of GMOs. Nor is this a debate
about whether we should have warning labels. The labeling on these
packages would not be in any way a warning to consumers; it would be
informational only. The debate here and the objective of this measure
is simply to provide information as dispassionately and clearly and
objectively as possible. That is the goal, and that is what the
legislation I have cosponsored with my colleague Senator Merkley would
achieve. That is what we have sought to do through the amendments we
have offered to correct the deficiencies in this measure. Among those
deficiencies is the lack of an adequate definition of
``bioengineering.'' Right now, that definition fails to include many of
the forms of GMOs that could be adopted.
The deficiencies include the reliance on QR codes, which discriminate
against people who don't have smartphones or are in areas not served by
the Internet or go to shop in stores that don't have that service.
It is also defective in a number of specific provisions, and I will
cite just one more. In the provision that applies to additional
disclosure options, the Secretary of Agriculture is directed by this
legislation that when there is insufficient access to bioengineering
disclosure through electronic or digital disclosure methods, he ``shall
provide additional and comparable options to access the bioengineering
disclosure.'' The Secretary of Agriculture will become responsible and
accountable for the cost, the mechanical process, and all of the
aspects of providing this disclosure when, in fact, electronic or
digital disclosure methods available to manufacturers or retailers are
insufficient. What will be the cost? What will be the obstacles? There
has been no hearing that would indicate those facts.
So what we have here is a failure of drafting and of process. In this
sweeping so-called compromise, the laws of Connecticut will be
decimated. My State will be stripped of robust, grassroots GMO labeling
measures--including in Maine and Vermont--not only applying to food but
also to seeds planted in the ground and information about whether they
have been bioengineered. These deficiencies are fundamental to this
legislation. I repeat, the issue here is not about warning and not
about safety, although those topics are reasonable to debate. It is
simply about the public's right to know.
I have a basic faith in our markets in the United States and in our
free enterprises that consumers will make smart judgments and wise
choices if they have the information that enables them to do it. But
only if they have that information.
My question to the proponents of this bill is this: What do we have
to fear by providing that kind of information that consumers need and
want, and that 15,000 Connecticut citizens have written to me asking to
defend, and that constituents of mine, such as Tara Cook-Littman, have
shown is desperately and dramatically needed? Tara has said:
Anything short of on package, clear labeling shows total
disregard for what it is like to be a mom shopping in a store
with her children. When I'm shopping, I need to get in and
out as fast as I possibly can. And, whether a product
contains GMOs is only one of the many things I am looking for
before making my purchasing decision. My son is allergic to
nuts so I always look at packages to make sure the item is
nut free. I like to know the calories, fat and sugar of an
item before I purchase it. I look at how many ingredients a
product has. All of that information I can get in seconds. I
pick up the item, I scan the box for the information I need
and keep moving. I should be able to do the same for GMOs. I
would never have the time to pull out my phone and scan the
packages or go to a website in order to get the simple
information I am looking for. Assuming I would have the time
or ability shows a total lack of understanding about shopping
in the real world. When shopping for a family of 5, my
shopping cart could end up having over 50 items. Having to
scan or look up items on a website is not feasible.
I agree with Tara, and I agree with anyone who has shopped and has
the same views. In a crowded grocery store at the end of the day or
with a child, especially a young child, navigating these aisles is
challenging enough. The last thing a parent has is spare time to take
out their phone and scan every product before placing it in their cart,
even assuming the store has the Internet service that would enable
someone to do so, and even assuming that person has a smartphone.
This proposal is simply not practical, logical, or fair to consumers.
It is in fact anti-consumer. It is unacceptable as a consumer
protection measure. Let's give States the freedom to protect their own
people, as Connecticut has done. That is the reason I proposed an
amendment that would restore the right of States to adopt such
legislation, and make this legislation a floor rather than a ceiling
that enables States to do more.
I thank my colleagues, Senators Leahy and Sanders, as well as Senator
Tester and others, who have championed this cause, and, most
importantly, Senator Merkley, who has helped to lead this effort. I
believe the concerns we have expressed are urgent and immediate. Even
at this late hour, I urge my colleagues to reject this measure as it
has been drafted now, and adopt these commonsense amendments that will
improve it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Opioid Epidemic
Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I have been coming to the floor every
week for quite some time talking about an epidemic that we all have to
fight through, and that is the epidemic of opiates--drug abuse. This is
prescription--legal--drug abuse. We have come to a crisis in our
country. I think both Democrats and Republicans realize this. This is
not a partisan issue. It doesn't pick sides. It doesn't choose whether
you are rich or poor, what race you may be, what religion you may
practice. It basically attacks everybody.
In 2014, 18,893 people died due to prescription opiate overdose. That
is an average of 51 people every day. We are talking about legal
prescription drugs. These are made by pharmaceutical companies that we
depend on to make products needed for quality of life. They are also
approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Basically, the Food and
Drug Administration is responsible for making sure the products we
consume are safe. Then, they are prescribed to us by the most trusted
person next to our family member, which is our doctor.
So when we think about it, how could something that has been approved
by so many reputable people and institutions do so much harm and then
we not react to it? That is the hard thing I have to imagine. I can't
say: You know what; I don't think it was anybody's intent, but it is
what it is.
[[Page S4863]]
We have a full-blown epidemic. Over 2,000 people have died since
1999. We talk about Zika, and we talk about Ebola. We are concerned
about all these horrific illnesses that can attack a human being, and
we have one right in front of us that is a silent killer, and we are
not doing anything about it.
Sixteen percent more people died in 2014 than died in 2013. We have
to take action to stop the epidemic, and it can only happen right here
in the halls of Congress in the Senate and with our counterparts on the
other side of this great Capitol of ours.
Unfortunately, a major barrier those suffering opioid addicts face is
insufficient access to substance abuse treatment. I spoke to my cousin,
Michael Aloi, who is a Federal magistrate judge. He said: Joe, let me
just tell you the sad scenario. I have to sentence many people for the
wrong they have done and the crimes they have committed. I have never
once had anyone stand and say: Judge, I'm sorry; you can't sentence
them to a jail sentence because we have no more jails--no more jails.
He said: I have never been turned down. We have always found a jail
cell or a bed to imprison somebody. We have never lacked for that. But
so many times I have tried to place a person in treatment whom I know
needed treatment. Their family wanted it, and they wanted to change
their life. And guess what I have been told: I am sorry, but we have no
place to put them.
If you are a parent, the only thing you can do--I know Nebraska is
the same as West Virginia. Isn't it an awful situation where, in
America, you have to hope that your child gets arrested and convicted,
and maybe then they could be sentenced to drug court to maybe get a
chance in life? It is a sad scenario in this great country of ours that
we can't save this generation.
It is of epidemic proportion from this standpoint. I don't think
there is a person who I know of in my State or anyone I have ever met
in my travels in America who doesn't know someone--in their immediate
family, extended family, or close friend--who has not been affected by
drug abuse. It is of epidemic proportion.
I say it is a silent killer because we keep our mouths shut. We are
afraid. If it is our child, we don't want anybody to know. It would be
embarrassing. If it is our mother or father, if it is an aunt or uncle,
brother or sister, we will take care of that. We don't want anybody to
know about it. Guess what. We have a full-blown epidemic that is
killing your brothers, your sisters, your children, your aunts and
uncles and moms and dads, and we say: Why didn't we say something?
So this is what we are dealing with, and this is something we intend
to fight.
I will give an example of how hard it is to get treatment. In 2014,
in my beautiful State of West Virginia, 42,000 West Virginians--
including 4,000 children--sought treatment for illegal drug abuse but
failed to receive it. The largest long-term facility in West Virginia
with more than 100 beds is the Recovery Point of Huntington, one of the
most successful places we have. It is run by recovering addicts. Every
one of them is a recovering addict. They know exactly every excuse,
every type of diversion that you will give them. They have had
everything thrown at them. They know it all. This group has been the
best at having success ratios in putting people back into productive
lives. They only have 100 beds, and they have a 4-month to 6-month
waiting list--unbelievable.
In 2014, about 15,000 West Virginians received some form of drug or
alcohol abuse treatment. That is 15,000 who received it. Guess what.
There was another 60,000 who went untreated--60,000 with no treatment
at all.
Based on my conversation with police departments, I would say that
all of us--all 100 Senators in this room, Democrats and Republicans--
can talk to their law enforcement, and I will assure you that they will
tell you that at least 8 out of 10 of the calls they are called to for
any type of disturbance, any type of criminal activity is caused by
drugs. Almost 80 percent are drug driven. Then we say that we can't
afford it so we don't find any money. We can't find the money to pay
for treatment centers.
I have a bill that is called the LifeBOAT Act. It is bipartisan. We
hope it is bipartisan. We are asking for all the help we can get. Here
is really what it does. It is truly designated to fund treatment
centers. What we are asking for is one penny--one penny--per milligram
of every opiate product produced and distributed in America. One penny
per milligram. That one penny will give us $1.5 to $2 billion a year.
Can you believe that--$1.5 to $2 billion from one penny per milligram?
Imagine the enormity of what we are consuming. When we think of a
country that is less than 5 percent of the world population that
consumes anywhere from 80 to 90 percent of all opioid products produced
in the world, how can we become so addicted? How are we so pain
intolerant that we have to have these powerful, addictive drugs? What
happened to us?
With all that being said, we have to first of all treat addiction as
an illness. I am as guilty as anybody in politics or in political life
or making policy for any period of time--20 years or more. I am as
guilty as they are, thinking, at first: If you are fooling with drugs,
you are committing a crime; we will put you in jail. Guess what. We
have filled the jails, and when they get out, they are no better off
than when we put them in. They haven't been relieved of their
addiction. They haven't been cured of their addiction. They haven't
even been treated for their addiction. We just thought that by throwing
them in a prison or in a jail cell, we would take care of it. We have
come to our senses now and found out addiction is an illness. Any other
illness you might have, you are going to find treatment for. There is
treatment to take care of you if you are ill, whatever it may be.
Sorry, but not for opiates, not for a drug addiction. We can't. We just
don't have the money to do it.
We charge a fee for cigarettes. We know cigarettes are dangerous to
you. It is not healthy for you. It will kill you. We know that. It is
put on the packs when you buy any tobacco products, and you pay a tax
or a fee. Call it anything you want to call it, you pay. Alcohol--when
you buy alcohol, you pay a fee, a tax, or anything else that you want
to put to that. But, by golly, if we talk about: Oh, my goodness, we
need one penny per milligram to start providing treatment for people
who are addicted so we can put them back into productive life--I am not
voting for any taxes. I can't vote for tax increases. I am not voting
for any of these things. Can't you vote for a treatment for your child,
for your grandchild, for your neighbor? Can't you save a society that
we are losing? Can't you see that 8 out of 10 of our crimes are
committed by people who are drug-induced?
If you are concerned about the economy, if you are concerned about
the well-being and welfare of this country, can't you do something
responsible and not worry about going out and defending yourself--yes,
I will be happy to tell you I voted for a penny. You want to call that
a tax? I am pretty austere about that. When I was Governor, I always
said I was very financially responsible, fiscally responsible, socially
compassionate.
This is just common sense. You have to find a way to fund it. That is
what we have asked for. So the LifeBOAT Act is something I am hoping
every one of my colleagues will take a good, hard look at. And don't
look at it as a tax or a fee; look at it as a treatment plan that helps
get Americans straight again. Help us get it back into production.
We talked about the silent killer. This is a silent killer because no
one talks about it. Guess what. Since I have been coming to the floor,
people have been sending me letters. They said: Please, we want you to
read our letter. I want you to know about my son, my child, my
grandchild, my husband, my wife, my mother, my father.
I am going to read Stephanie Sowell's story. Stephanie put her name
to this, and she wanted me to read this for you. She says:
I applaud and thank you for your efforts at helping those
with addiction.
My son, Tommy Sowell, died of an accidental overdose of
heroin mixed with Fentanyl and acetyl fentanyl on February
13, 2016, at the age of 24. I am quite sure he did not know
the drug contained Fentanyl and acetyl fentanyl.
He developed a hernia during 9th grade and had surgery,
after which they prescribed OxyContin.
[[Page S4864]]
Knowing that it was addictive, knowing that it has been
overprescribed and has caused many overdoses.
I now believe this is where the story of his addiction
began. He did not want, nor choose, to be addicted. He held a
high GPA throughout school and graduated from South Harrison
High School. He willingly helped his dad in the hay field
from a young age every year. He loved his family. He wanted
and needed to work and be productive.
He wanted to go to college from a young age but the lure of
the oil & gas field won out with its high pay. However, with
those jobs beginning to close in WV around 2014-2016, he
began to spiral down . . . with no job prospects to speak of
here, but not wanting to leave WV and his family, he instead
turned to more drugs to deal [with and] cope with feeling
lost and unproductive.
His dad and I found him. He died alone, which makes me even
sadder to know.
Tommy was a good boy, a wonderful son, and he lit up our
world with laughter and joy. He was loving, respectful,
kindhearted, and full of life and fun.
I know in my heart he would have overcome this and gone on
to do wonderful things if he'd just had the chance. We are
heartbroken and will be forever heartbroken. Saturday, June
11th, would have been his 25th birthday.
If this letter helps you in any way please feel free to use
it. It would bring a bit of peace to us to know that his
story will help others.
This is a hidden secret. This is basically a hidden killer we are
talking about. When you have Stephanie and the parents and grandparents
willing to speak up and say: Put a face with it. Put a boy or young
girl coming out of a neighborhood, whom we had high hopes for and who
was snuffed out--this is what they want us to share. This is what they
are asking us to take up and do--provide the treatment that can help
save the lives of their children and the lives of a generation of
Americans.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we are on the floor this afternoon with
the issue of GMO foods--genetically modified organisms--before us. I
don't want to talk about GMO foods in that space; I want to talk about
a more specific genetically engineered species.
I would like to speak this afternoon about genetically engineered
salmon. I think it is important to acknowledge that this is separate
from the larger GMO debate we have been engaged in on the floor.
Genetically engineered animals are not crops. They are not something
that grows in a field and stays stationary. A genetically engineered
salmon is something that swims. It moves around. It is something
entirely new. It is a new species--a new species designed specifically
for human consumption.
This is the first time the FDA has ever signed off on a genetically
engineered new species designed for human consumption--the first time.
I happen to think the FDA signoff was wrong, and I am going to continue
to object to that because this species that potentially will be
introduced into our markets, into our homes, and quite possibly into
our ecosystems, contrary to what any environmental assessment may
claim, is new. This is unprecedented.
When we talk about a genetically engineered salmon--we have dubbed it
a Frankenfish in Alaska because it is splicing DNA from one animal, an
ocean pout, with DNA from another fish, a farmed fish, and inserting
that into a Chinook salmon. We are doing a little bit of a science
experiment here that concerns many of us.
Having grown up in the State of Alaska, I know fish. I know the
significance of a strong, healthy fishery. It is our No. 1 employer
throughout the State of Alaska. Not only do we look to the strength of
our fisheries for strong economies and good jobs, it is critical and it
is integral to those who live a subsistence lifestyle. It is so much a
part of who we are as Alaskans. Alaskans identify themselves with their
salmon. Right now, people in Alaska are not necessarily talking about
what is going on here in Washington, DC. They are wondering when the
next run of Pinks is coming in. They are wondering what is happening on
the Yukon and the Kuskokwim with the runs up there. When is the red run
going to come in in full tilt? When is the dip netting going to be
starting? It is all about our fish.
We have been assured that if these genetically engineered salmon
should be allowed out onto the market, that if this production moves
forward, you don't need to worry, Alaska, about any escapement because
we are going to make sure these don't get loose. Nice promise, but we
know in this State that fish can get out of the pens. They escape from
hatcheries. They can be accidentally released from where fish are
grown. We take very seriously the issues that present themselves with
the introduction of a new species that has the potential to wreak
havoc, to do harm to our wild natural stocks.
Again, whether it is escapement or the promise of ``Don't worry,
these fish are going to be sterile; you are not ever going to have to
worry about them interbreeding, breeding with your wild stocks. You are
going to be safe, Alaska. You are going to be OK, Alaska,'' the folks I
represent back home look at this and say ``No, we don't believe we have
the assurances. We don't believe we have the certainty. We don't
believe we have the standards that are necessary to provide for the
protection of our wild stocks.''
So I have made clear throughout the larger debate on GMOs that I have
opposed this bill because contained within this broader debate of
GMOs--we do nothing to make it clear that if genetically engineered
salmon is to go forward as the FDA has said that it will, there needs
to be clear and unequivocal labeling of this GE salmon. Contained
within this broader bill, we do not have the clear requirement for
labeling of GE salmon, while also preempting Alaska's labeling law.
What we have been told is ``Don't worry, if these genetically
engineered salmon are out on the market, those who are marketing these
salmon can voluntarily label them.'' Let me ask you, who do you think
is really going to voluntarily place a label on something that says
``This is not the real thing. This is not your wild Alaska salmon; this
is a genetically engineered species''?
The reality is, we will not see the labeling that I as an Alaskan who
is putting fish on the dinner table for my family would require and
would want. We have been trying to work through this with the chairman
and ranking member of the committee, trying to provide for what we
believe are very sensible, reasonable fixes, and yet we are at a place
where those accommodations have simply not been made.
Let me assure you that Alaskans are very unified on this issue. We
will not accept GE salmon or this Frankenfish being sold to us without
clear labeling. Again, I for one am not going to feed my boys this
fish. I use that term lightly because I am looking at it and this is
not even like a fish. You are taking DNA from an ocean pout. What is an
ocean pout? It is an eel. I usually am here with a big picture of an
ugly eel. I figured you might be tired of looking at that picture by
now, but apparently it is not getting through to people. When we talk
about Frankenfish, this is no joke to Alaskans. It poses a serious
threat to the livelihoods of our fishermen, and that is not something
that I am willing to take a risk on, that I am willing to take a gamble
on.
Our fisheries in the State of Alaska are world-renowned for their
high quality and their sustainability. The Alaska seafood industry
supports more than 63,000 direct jobs and contributes over $4.6 billion
to our State's economy. Nearly one in seven Alaskans is employed in our
commercial seafood industry. It is a major part of the seafood economy.
Commercial fishermen around the State harvested more than 265 million
salmon this past year, including the wild Chinook salmon, Sockeye,
Coho, Chums, and Pinks. It is all coming on right here, right now. I
was in Naknek on Friday. Everyone is waiting for the Sockeye to hit. It
is an incredibly important part of our State's economy, but it is more
than just the economic benefit--the dollars that come to our State, the
jobs it has created--it is the good, healthy stuff. Wild Alaska salmon
has tremendous health benefits. It is a lean protein source of omega-3,
B-6, B-12, niacin. It is good stuff. It is naturally good stuff.
It is so good that there are over 1.5 million people who wrote in to
the FDA and said: We oppose this genetically engineered salmon. They
weighed in. What did the FDA do? They basically went the other way.
They weren't listening. Many of the grocery stores
[[Page S4865]]
we frequent have said: You know what, if you are going to allow this
out here, we are not going to sell this in our stores. They want to
know that there is going to be a label on it. They want to know that
they can tell their customers ``This is wild Alaska sustainable, the
real thing; and this is not.'' A voluntary label does not cut it.
Safeway, Kroger, Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, and Target all announced
they are not going to sell it. Despite this immense opposition, in
November of last year, the FDA approved AquaBounty Technologies'
application for its GE AquAdvantage salmon.
I put ``salmon'' or ``fish'' in quotation marks because what we are
doing is we are taking a transgenic Atlantic salmon egg, which has
genes from this ocean pout, this eel, and combining it with the genes
of a Chinook. The egg is meant to produce a fish that grows to full
size in half the time as a normal Atlantic salmon. Again, they are
ramping this up on steroids, if you will, to cause it to grow twice as
fast.
Under the FDA application, these eggs will be produced in Canada, so
it is not as though we are getting any American jobs there, and then
the smolt--although I don't even really want to use the term ``smolt''
because only part of this fish is real salmon--they are then going to
ship this to Panama, where they will be raised in pens. Again, there
are no U.S. jobs there. The FDA made no mandatory labeling requirement;
instead, they made it voluntary. This bill we have in front of us, the
larger GMO bill, does not create a clear labeling mandate, either, and
that is the concern I have. That is why I fought to secure mandatory
labeling requirements both before the approval of AquaBounty's
application and since its approval.
We have been making good headway on this issue over the time I have
been here in Washington, but unfortunately the bill we have in front of
us today will wipe out that work instead of using the legislative tools
we have at our disposal to effectively and precisely amend this
legislation in order to address the issue of GE salmon.
I have offered up an amendment. It has been sponsored by Senators
Sullivan, Cantwell, Murray, and Merkley. What it would do is require
the FDA to create a new market name for GE salmon in order to remedy
this flaw in the current bill. In other words, give the certainty to
the consumer. If you are shopping in your grocery store, you will know
whether what you buy for your family is the real thing or a genetically
engineered fish.
The amendment is essentially the same language that was adopted by
voice vote during the Agriculture appropriations markup earlier this
year. It is substantially similar to language that was adopted by voice
in each of the previous 2 years. We have had this before us. We have
seen it. You have seen it. Yet it is not included right now.
For 3 years running, the Appropriations Committee has approved the
labeling of GE salmon without debate. I think this amendment shouldn't
be very controversial, but for some reason it apparently is. Apparently
it has caused all kinds of issues, and I do not see why. I have offered
multiple sensible solutions over the course of several months while
this bill was working its way through the process, and I am here today
to again push for consideration of what I believe is truly sensible and
truly reasonable. It has been incorporated and adopted before. It makes
sense for a host of different reasons, and it certainly makes sense for
the people of Alaska.
I am here today, as we talk about the broader GMO debate, to make
sure colleagues understand that my opposition here is to anything that
would mistakenly allow genetically engineered salmon into anyone's
homes mislabeled as salmon. I will continue to demand that the voices
of Alaskans and those who care deeply about this are heard.
With that, I see other colleagues have joined me on the floor. I
thank the Presiding Officer for his attention to this matter, and I
yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). The Senator from Indiana.
Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Bill
Mr. DONNELLY. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the bipartisan
Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, also known as CARA, and the
opioid abuse and heroin use epidemics. As I have said, I believe it
will take all of us working together to address this public health
crisis that is gripping Hoosier families and communities across Indiana
and our country. We all have a role to play to address these
epidemics--officials at the Federal, local, and State levels, as well
as prescribers, pharmacists, law enforcement, first responders, and
parents and families.
This bipartisan CARA legislation would provide States and local
communities with important tools to prevent and treat drug addiction
and support individuals in recovery. It includes several provisions
adapted from my bipartisan legislation that would enhance prescribing
practices and raise public awareness. We were also successful in
getting a provision included that would encourage first responder units
to connect individuals who receive naloxone with treatment and other
necessary services. This bill includes programs that will make a
difference and should be enacted into law. It is also critically
important that we fund these initiatives. CARA is an important step,
but make no mistake, there is work left to do to ensure that our
communities have the resources and funding to implement many of these
important programs. We have a chance to do something meaningful and
bipartisan that will help save lives. For every family and community in
Indiana and across the Nation who has been devastated by the opioid
abuse and heroin use epidemics, we must get legislation to the
President to be signed into law.
Mr. President, I also want to talk about another issue that is
important to Hoosiers. Later today the Senate will vote in favor of
final passage on a bill requiring the labeling of foods that contain
genetically engineered materials. I have worked with colleagues for
months on this issue. I know this is about much more than just words or
symbols on a label; it is about ensuring we have confidence in the food
we eat and feed our children. As a Hoosier, I also know this bill is
about preserving a long and proud Indiana tradition of growing the food
that feeds our communities and provides a safe and reliable food supply
for the world.
The labeling legislation before us is the result of our working
together as Republicans and Democrats to achieve our shared objectives
to provide consumers with access to accurate information about the food
we eat and to do so in a way that does not mislead consumers into
thinking their food is unsafe. When this bill is enacted into law, for
the first time ever consumers across our country will have access to
the information they want, and it will be easy to find. That
information will also be delivered in a way that is fair, objective,
and based on sound science.
Today I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill for
final passage, not because everyone got everything they wanted but
because it is a good compromise that achieves our shared objectives.
Labeling genetically engineered materials will be required so consumers
everywhere will have access to the information. It will provide fair
and objective information without stigmatizing foods that are
completely safe, and it contains provisions based on an amendment that
my good friend Senator Carper from Delaware and I introduced, which
will require clear and direct access to information on bioengineering
through multiple methods of disclosure. Consumers, farmers, and food
producers have been looking to the Senate for leadership. After months
of discussion, we have found a sensible proposal that will bring the
right information into our homes and to grocery stores in a responsible
way.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
TRUST Act
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, anybody who has been watching the news
knows what has happened with the FBI investigation of former Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton. I think that the FBI's press conference
detailing the findings of the FBI's investigation has made it very
clear that Secretary Clinton has proven she cannot be trusted in
protecting this Nation's most sensitive secrets. That is the takeaway
from the FBI Director's press conference just days ago. That is not
opinion; that is the conclusion that can be derived and taken from the
findings of a very intensive FBI investigation.
[[Page S4866]]
There were details in press reports earlier today which indicated
that classified information had perhaps been handled in an extremely
careless way by members of the military, and maybe others, who were
punished; however, FBI Director James Comey said he did not recommend
punishment in the case of Secretary Clinton's mishandling of classified
information, but in the other cases, he pointed out that there had been
adverse consequences. We saw the news reports today that talked about
security and administrative sanctions on those who violated the
policies and laws of handling classified information. That is why
Senator John Cornyn and I have introduced legislation to address this
very serious abuse of handling and mishandling classified information.
The bill we have introduced is called the TRUST Act because it makes
sure that there are consequences for people who handle our classified
and most important secrets in an extremely careless manner. The TRUST
Act provides consequences for anyone who exercises extreme carelessness
in handling classified information. Any clearances that Secretary
Clinton holds ought to be revoked because of her mishandling of these
secrets, and she should be denied access to classified material unless
and until she has a legal right to such access by becoming President-
elect. In addition, those around the Secretary and the people to whom
she emailed classified information--emails that were marked
``classified'' in some cases--ought to lose their security clearances
as well.
Secretary Clinton has consistently misled the American people about
her emails. Just look at the Associated Press report published
yesterday. In a news conference in March of 2015, Secretary Clinton
said: ``I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email.
There is no classified material.'' That is not true.
In an NBC interview on July 16, Secretary Clinton said: ``I never
received or sent any material that was marked classified.'' That is not
true.
During a news conference in March of 2015, Secretary Clinton said:
``I responded right away and provided all of my emails that could
possibly be work related'' to the State Department. That is not true.
In March of 2015, Secretary Clinton said: The server was ``guarded by
the Secret Service, and there were no security breaches.'' As we can
see through the FBI Director's statement, that most likely is also
untrue.
Time and again, Secretary Clinton has not told the truth to the
American people, and there should be consequences related to these
actions, especially when her recklessness relates to the most sensitive
classified information this country has.
Even President Bill Clinton noted the immense harm that results from
dangerous actions like those outlined by the FBI Director. In Executive
Order 12968, President Clinton said: ``The unauthorized disclosure of
information classified in the national interest can cause irreparable
damage to national security and loss of human life.''
Secretary Clinton is an intelligent person. She knew this information
was classified, and some of it was even marked ``classified.'' The FBI
Director himself has said that even if it is not marked ``classified,''
but you know it is classified, you should be aware of it. If you have
the potential to carry forward and disclose classified information,
then you shouldn't send it over an unsecured server, as Secretary
Clinton did hundreds, if not thousands, of times.
The New York Times reported today that based on the words and
comments, which you can parse from the FBI Director's statements just a
couple of days ago, you can basically tell that Clinton's unsecured
server was very likely hacked by foreign actors who ``were far too
skilled to leave evidence of their work.'' That is why Secretary
Clinton's security clearance ought to be revoked, and she should be
denied access to classified material unless and until she has a legal
right to such acts. That is also why those who acted with extreme
carelessness around her--because they know better--should have their
security clearances revoked. So they can't continue to perpetrate this
kind of extreme recklessness, this kind of extreme carelessness, as
identified by the Director of the FBI.
The Clintons are the great escape artists, the Houdinis of American
politics. They push the law to the very edge, and just when they get
caught or trapped, they pull back. It is a double standard the American
people are sick and tired of dealing with, and I hope my colleagues
will support the TRUST Act to protect the integrity of Americans and
American classified information.
North Korea
Mr. President, I also rise to speak about the threat from North Korea
and the role Congress has played in enacting tougher policies to
counter the Kim Jong Un regime.
On January 6, 2016, North Korea conducted its fourth nuclear test,
which is the third such test since President Obama has taken office.
On February 7, North Korea conducted a satellite launch, which is
essentially a test of an intercontinental ballistic missile but just
disguised as something else, but the launch was certainly to test a
missile that would, in their words, be capable of reaching the U.S.
mainland.
In response, on February 10, the Senate came together 96 to nothing
to pass the North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act, a bill I
authored in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee along with Senator
Bob Menendez from New Jersey. Together, our legislation mandated--not
simply authorized but mandated--sanctions against individuals who
contribute to North Korea's nuclear program and proliferation
activities, malicious cyber attacks, censorship of its citizens, and
the regime's continued human rights abuses. The legislation imposed the
first-ever mandatory sanctions on North Korea and the first-ever
mandatory cyber sanctions as well.
This legislation was a recognition that this administration's policy
of strategic patience has been a strategic failure. As the Washington
Post editorial board stated on February 8, just 2 days before our bill
passed on the Senate floor, ``President Obama's policy since 2009 of
strategic patience has failed. The policy has mostly consisted of
ignoring North Korea while mildly cajoling China to pressure the
regime.''
I am pleased to see the administration is now shifting its failed
policies by implementing key portions of the North Korea legislation
that cracks down on the North Korean regime.
On June 1, the Treasury Department designated North Korea as a
jurisdiction of ``primary money laundering concern'' under section 311
of the PATRIOT Act, which will further isolate North Korea from the
international financial system.
Yesterday, Treasury took another important step by designating Kim
Jong Un and a number of his top officials as human rights abusers. This
designation is long overdue and came about only because Congress
mandated it, along with a human rights report that was delivered to
Congress yesterday.
We have known for years that this regime is one of the world's
foremost abusers of human rights. The North Korean regime maintains a
vast network of political prison camps, where as many as 200,000 men,
women, and children are confined to atrocious living conditions and are
tortured, maimed, and killed. I have spoken to defectors. I have had
conversations with a defector from North Korea who served in the
military there and who spoke to me of their torture in these prisons,
of people who were put in jail because of their opposition to the Kim
Jong Un regime, people who were tortured because of their defiance of
Kim Jong Un's leadership.
On February 7, 2014, the United Nations Human Rights Commission
released a groundbreaking report detailing North Korea's horrendous
record on human rights. The Commission found that North Korea's actions
constituted a ``crime against humanity.''
Now, we all are probably asking ourselves why it took so long for the
administration to come to the same conclusion and then finally do
something about it. Nonetheless, this week we finally are, but more
remains to be done to send the strongest message we can to this regime,
which poses a very serious threat to peace and stability throughout
Asia, Eastern Asia, and the United States.
Last month, we learned that North Korea successfully tested a missile
that is capable of reaching U.S. bases
[[Page S4867]]
in Japan and the U.S. territory of Guam. According to open sources, the
DPRK currently fields an estimated 700 short-range ballistic missiles,
200 medium-range ballistic missiles, and 100 intermediate-range
ballistic missiles.
To counter this threat, we need to proactively work with South Korea
to immediately station the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense--or
THAAD--in South Korea. The regime's nuclear stockpile is growing fast.
Most recently, nuclear exports have reported that North Korea may
currently have as many as 20 nuclear warheads and has the potential to
possess as many as 100 warheads within the next 5 years.
Our military leaders have repeatedly stated that North Korea may have
already developed the ability to miniaturize a nuclear warhead, to
mount it onto their own intercontinental ballistic missile called the
KN-08, and to ``shoot it at the homeland.''
Pyongyang is also quickly developing its cyber capabilities as
another dangerous tool of intimidation--an asymmetric threat to the
United States--as demonstrated by the attack on the South Korean
financial and communication systems in March of 2013 or the Sony
Pictures hacking incident in November of 2014.
According to a report that was released last year in 2015 by the
Center for Strategic and International Studies, ``North Korea is
emerging as a significant actor in cyberspace with both its military
and clandestine organizations gaining the ability to conduct cyber
operations.''
According to the Heritage Foundation, ``Contrary to perceptions of
North Korea as a technically backward nation, the regime has a very
robust and active cyber warfare capability.''
The Reconnaissance General Bureau, North Korea's intelligence agency,
oversees 3,000 cyber warriors dedicated to attacking Pyongyang's
enemies. Cyber experts have assessed that North Korea's electronic
warfare capabilities were surpassed only by the United States and
Russia.
Last month, South Korean authorities uncovered a massive North Korean
cyber attack into more than 140,000 computers at 160 South Korean firms
and government agencies. Reports indicate that more than 40,000
defense-related documents were stolen, including the blueprints for
components of the
F-15 fighter jet. Let me say that again. North Korea perpetrated a hack
on South Korea that resulted in them obtaining the blueprints for the
F-15 fighter jet.
Yet, in light of these gross violations, the administration still has
not acted to impose sanctions on North Korean cyber criminals as
required by the law that passed 96 to 0 by this Senate. In fact, the
administration is now nearly 2 months late in producing a report
required under the bill which would name and shame those violators--the
perpetrators of these cyber attacks.
However, the crux of the success of the sanctions efforts rests with
Beijing's compliance--with China. Nearly 90 percent of North Korea's
trade is with China and, at least so far, we have seen only mixed
evidence that Beijing is serious about changing its policies toward
Pyongyang.
While the administration needs to pursue constant and vigorous
diplomatic efforts with Beijing, it should also not hesitate to impose
penalties on Chinese entities as appropriate, if they are found in
violation of the sanctions this Congress has passed.
Finally, we also need to make sure we develop a strong trilateral
alliance between South Korea and Japan, including enhanced defense and
intelligence cooperation, to better deter the North Korean threat. We
must never forget that more than 20 years ago, North Korea pledged to
dismantle its nuclear program, and yet now we see a regime that has no
respect for international agreements or international norms and is on
the cusp of over 100 nuclear warheads. The United States should never
again engage in negotiations with Pyongyang without imposing strict
preconditions that North Korea take immediate steps to halt its nuclear
program, to cease all military provocation, and to make credible steps
to respecting the human rights of the people of North Korea.
If the United States does not pursue increased actions against North
Korea now, we will face a much greater threat in the future, and these
threats will be immensely consequential to the safety and well-being of
the U.S. homeland.
Mr. President, I thank you, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Renewable Electricity Generation
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, we just celebrated Independence Day and
rightfully so. It was a big break with the past, a big break with the
whole history of the United States, up until July 4, 1776. Well, we
have good news. There is another new dawn of independence which has
arrived in the United States, and that independence is growing by the
day.
By ``independence,'' I am talking about how we generate electricity
in the United States. For 100 years, we were dependent upon oil, upon
natural gas, upon coal as our principal source of electricity in our
country, combined with nuclear generation, plus some hydropower. But
now, over the last 10 years, we have seen a true American revolution
which has broken out.
In 2015, in terms of new electrical generation in the United States,
8,600 new megawatts of wind--again, people ask: What is a megawatt?
Well, when we think of a big coal-burning or natural gas-burning or
electrical-generating facility, that 8,600 of new wind megawatts would
be about 8 or 10 new electrical generating plants using coal in our
country.
Last year: 7,500 new megawatts of solar in the United States. Seven
to ten new coal-burning plants never had to be built because, instead,
solar was used as the means of generating electricity in our country.
And the importance of that is that all of those greenhouse gases that
otherwise would have been emitted into the atmosphere from these new
coal-burning facilities and these new gas-burning facilities in the
United States will never happen because those plants never had to be
built.
Let's go back to 2015. In 2015, there was 6,000 new megawatts of
natural gas electrical generation capacity in the United States that
was installed, and all other electrical-generating new capacity in
2015, including coal, was almost nonexistent, although there was some
but a very small amount.
Now, let's go to this little bit of history that I think is important
for Senators and for the American people to hear about. Let me give my
colleagues an idea as to what the profile of electrical generation in
America looked like in 2005. In 2005, 50 percent of all electrical
generation in America came from coal, 20 percent came from nuclear,
which is about the same as it is today; natural gas was 19 percent;
hydropower, 5 percent, and that is about the same as today; oil, 3
percent, and that is pretty much down to zero in the United States
today, but wind and solar combined were less than one-half of 1 percent
of all electrical generation in the United States in 2005. We had gone
through the entire energy history of the United States, and that was
the best we could do--one-half of 1 percent wind and solar.
Again, the tax breaks weren't there for wind and solar. They were
there for natural gas and coal and oil and nuclear, but they were not
there for wind and solar. Then policies in America began to level the
playing field so wind and solar could compete. So, now, by the time we
reach 2015, coal is now down to only 33 percent of all electricity
generated in the United States, natural gas is up from 19 percent, up
to 33 percent from 2005. Again, natural gas emits half of the
greenhouse gases that coal does when it is generating electricity in
our country. Nuclear stays the same at about 20 percent, hydropower is
still 5 or 6 percent, but here is the interesting thing. All of a
sudden, solar plus wind is up to 6 percent of all electrical generation
over the last 10 years. But the interesting story is how fast wind and
solar are now being added to the total mix of electricity in our
country.
Now let's go to 2016, this year. What is on the books for this year
is 14,500 megawatts of solar, 9,000 new megawatts of wind, natural gas
at about 8,800 megawatts, and nothing else coming in. There is no coal
on the books planned for this year in the United States of America. You
can see that solar and wind are on track to produce two to three times
as much new electricity as natural gas, and there is no other
competition.
[[Page S4868]]
This revolution is taking place at a very rapid rate in our country.
In the year 2016, we now have 310,000 jobs in the solar industry, and
we have 88,000 jobs in the wind industry. In other words, we have
400,000 people working in the wind and solar industry in the United
States of America. It is on pace to have 600,000 people working in
those two industries by the year 2020. We are down to 65,000 coal
miners in America as this new set of technologies continues to expand,
continues to lower in price, and we are seeing a dramatic change in
this energy mix.
Let me add that the United States is not alone in this. Last year in
2015, across the whole planet, one-half of all new electrical
generating capacity came from renewable energy--one-half for the whole
planet in new electrical generation capacity.
Something else that is important for people to understand is that
even as we make these incredible investments in the new energy
technologies across the planet, for the last 2 years global energy-
related carbon emissions actually stayed flat while the global economy
grew. That defies conventional economic wisdom that there is a direct
correlation between how much you pollute and how much you can generate
in new gross domestic product. That has now been broken. It is an
anomaly. Gross domestic product continues to go up, and emissions are
flat. That means we are now on a pathway where, as more and more
renewables, more hybrid automobiles, electric automobiles, and more new
technologies come on line, we are going to see a decline in greenhouse
gases even as the global economy continues to grow. How are we going to
accomplish it? Well, we have to have tax policies on the books that
give incentives to these new technologies.
You don't have to worry about the oil industry. They have been taken
care of for 100 years. What we do have to look at, however, is the Koch
brothers and others who have a business stake in oil, gas, and coal and
continue to argue against giving the same kinds of tax breaks to the
renewable energy industry that have always been given to the fossil
fuel industry.
In fact, when we were debating last year whether or not we were going
to have extensions of tax breaks for wind and solar, the Koch brothers
wrote a letter to every Member of the House and Senate saying that
would be destructive to the free market system. They forgot to write
this letter with regard to subsidies for the oil industry, the coal
industry, the natural gas industry, and the nuclear industry. All of a
sudden, when there is a new technology that does not pollute and which
they are not heavily invested in, they decide that the purity of this
system requires that we not have tax breaks for the new energy
technology. How do they handle that? They just make sure that they have
all kinds of interests out there that try to then make the argument, an
economic or climate argument, that those same kinds of tax breaks the
other industries have always received are not justifiable, aren't
needed for the solar and wind industry.
So this is an incredible revolution. Whereas in 2005 only 79 total
new solar megawatts were installed in the country, this year 14,500
megawatts are going to be installed.
This is a delayed revolution. The regulatory policy, the tax policy
did not in fact give a break to the new energy technology, but the
truth is that we are now on a pathway to having a revolution where, by
the year 2030, we could easily have 400,000 megawatts of wind and solar
and other renewables installed in the United States. By the end of next
year, we will have 150,000 megawatts. After 70 years, the nuclear
industry has 100,000 megawatts.
Every time I use that term ``megawatts,'' I know that it can get
confusing, but just understand the bottom line is that wind and solar
are coming as new additions to the grid at an average of 1 to 1.5
percent to the total every single year. So by the year 2030, it could
be between 25 percent and 30 percent of all electrical generation at
the current peak at which it is being deployed in our country.
So that level playing field that we have been working hard to create
and which we have to continue to work hard to create is making a huge
difference. The Clean Power Plan which President Obama has propounded
will drive it more. The 30 States that have renewable electricity
standards as a goal in their States make a difference, but also the
policies we create here for tax breaks for these new industries will
make a huge difference toward meeting our goals.
From my perspective, we have a chance to have America with 100
percent renewable electricity by the year 2050 in our country. We have
a chance to change the whole path of the planet in terms of how they
look at these energy technologies.
No one had these small cell phones in their pockets in 1993--no one.
They were big bricks that cost 50 cents a minute, but we began to have
a revolution, and 7 or 8 years ago everyone decided to have one in
their pocket. It was unimaginable to a preceding generation of
Americans.
How about this: 800 million Africans who did not have wireless
devices in the year 2000 now have them in their pockets. We can deploy
wind and solar to Africa, Asia, South America, and all around the
planet if we make the same kind of investment in developing these new
technologies.
Recently, in Germany, for 1 day the whole country was renewable. In
Portugal, for 4 days the entire country was generating renewable
electricity. I believe that we can and should do 100 percent generation
by the year 2050, and that is why I will be introducing a resolution in
the Senate, expressing the sense of this body that the United States
should commit to generating 100 percent of all of our electricity from
renewables by the year 2050, and I urge my colleagues to support me in
this effort. This will provide massive job creation, reduction in
greenhouse gases, world leadership, and an ability to avoid the worst,
most catastrophic consequences of climate change to our planet.
Last year was the warmest year ever recorded. This year is the
warmest year ever recorded. It keeps getting more and more dangerous,
but the answer, the solution, is within our grasp.
I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Sanctuary Cities and Zika Virus Funding Legislation
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to begin by briefly commending the
efforts of the junior Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Toomey, for his
work and leadership in crafting legislation that the Senate considered
yesterday that would protect families from the dangers of so-called
sanctuary cities.
Sanctuary cities are, frankly, not particularly appropriately named
because these are cities that have made a conscious decision to refuse
to cooperate with the lawful orders of Federal authorities, especially
when it comes to removal of criminal illegal aliens. The bottom line is
that the failure to cooperate with Federal law and Federal officials is
a danger to the very communities that many of our colleagues who
blocked this legislation claim they want to protect.
In other words, these so-called sanctuary city policies--they refuse
to cooperate with the removal of people who demonstrate their
untrustworthiness by committing crime after crime after crime. They are
a threat to the entire community, including legal immigrants and
native-born Americans.
Senator Toomey's legislation would have cut Federal funding to these
cities and counties that refused to follow the rule of law and would
empower local authorities to crack down on those who commit crimes on
our soil.
Unfortunately, once again, our Democratic colleagues filibustered
this commonsense proposal, in addition to another bill that would have
helped protect our communities. It is beginning to appear they are
making a habit out of blocking bills that this country needs.
Let me give another example. Just last week, our Democratic
colleagues were faced with a choice. They had made the point over and
over again that the Zika virus--which is being carried by a mosquito
native to our southern parts of the United States--was at our Nation's
doorstep. They said that in order to combat this threat, we need
additional funding for mosquito eradication, developing clinical trials
for a vaccine, and advising and informing and educating the public on
what
[[Page S4869]]
to do to protect themselves. We know. We saw a picture on the Senate
floor of the devastating impact this virus has on a woman who is
pregnant and her child. Indeed, last week we had a picture of a child
with microcephaly--the shrunken skull and brain--and a description of
the tragic circumstances they will face in that child's short life.
We could avoid all of that if our Senate colleagues would just quit
playing politics. They really had a choice: to protect pregnant women
and their babies from the devastating impact of a birth defect caused
by the Zika virus or to play partisan politics. What did they choose?
Well, it is pretty obvious they chose to play partisan politics.
Every Senate Democrat voted for $1.1 billion in Zika funding. What
did the joint conference committee in the House and Senate produce that
they filibustered? Zika funding for $1.1 billion. In other words, they
voted against the very amount of money that they had previously voted
for.
They need to quit gambling with the health of Americans. That is what
Senator Reid, the Democratic leader, said when he urged us to fund the
President's request for Zika funding. But then they abruptly did an
about-face when presented with a bill at the same funding level that
they themselves had previously voted on. So who is gambling now? Who is
gambling now? Who is going to answer to the mother of a child born with
a devastating birth defect and explain to them why they thought that
politics was more important than actually coming up with prevention and
coming up with a vaccine that actually would stop the threat of these
dangerous and devastating birth defects?
If the Democrats in the Senate want to gamble on the future health of
the next generation, I want no part of it. Zika poses a real and
immediate threat to our country, particularly in places like Texas
where I come from. Ignoring the devastating impact of this virus is
irresponsible and heartless.
We will soon provide another opportunity for our Democratic
colleagues to move forward with a bipartisan, bicameral funding bill
that includes the needed resources to fight Zika here at home at the
funding level that the Democrats in the Senate have previously
supported. Our public health officials need to continue the good work
they are doing to study the virus, contain it, and keep it from
spreading here in the United States, and they need the financial
resources to do it. It is just beyond comprehension why our Senate
colleagues would continue to filibuster this important funding.
Saying that the bill lacks sufficient funding to fight the virus is
just plain ridiculous. That is what they have said. According to
reports from just yesterday, administration officials estimate that
they still have nearly half a billion dollars of unspent Ebola funds
that could be put to use for combating Zika.
So I would invite our Democratic colleagues to reconsider their
previous decision to block this funding and consider the wide-ranging
implications of their ``no'' vote from last week. I urge them to
reconsider so we can get these funds into the hands of those who
protect us and our children.
TRUST Act
On another matter, Mr. President, yesterday I spoke on FBI Director
Comey's announcement regarding Secretary Clinton's use of her personal
email server. He called her and the staff who enabled her to use this
private server to transmit classified information ``extremely
careless.'' He made clear that their actions were egregious in the
sense that they put classified information at risk that our Nation's
enemies would love to have and use against us. In summary, he said they
should have known better, which is pretty self-evident, and he said
they put our country at risk.
Even more devastating, his announcement on Tuesday proved that
Secretary Clinton had been lying to the American people about her
server from day one. From Director Comey's investigation, it is clear
now that she did send and receive classified information, some at the
very highest levels of classification. It is clear now that her server
didn't provide adequate security, leaving sensitive information
vulnerable to our Nation's adversaries. It is evident now that she
didn't give the authorities full access to all of her work-related
emails. Director Comey said the FBI uncovered several thousand more
that she hadn't turned over.
In a word, this is unacceptable. For somebody with so much experience
in government--as First Lady, as a U.S. Senator, and then as Secretary
of State--to gamble with our Nation's most important secrets is
completely irresponsible. Unfortunately, it tends to reinforce the
narrative Secretary Clinton herself has been responsible for writing,
and that narrative is, when it comes to her activities, anything goes.
The rules may apply to you and me, but they certainly don't apply to
her. Unfortunately, she feels like she is above the law, and, as I
said, the rules that apply to others don't apply to her. This is simply
unacceptable.
As Director Comey noted, people who engage in what Secretary Clinton
did--the mishandling of classified information--are often at least held
accountable through some security or administrative sanction, and that
is if they don't get fired or put in prison for their misconduct.
We have to do what we can here to hold her and her staff accountable.
It is part of the oath we take to uphold the Constitution and the laws
of the United States. No less than if we were an FBI agent or a Federal
judge, as Senators we have to take that oath, and it is the right thing
to do.
It is very important that we send a firm message that this sort of
behavior is unacceptable, and hopefully we will deter others from
taking the same risks to our Nation's national security and the lives
of the men and women who serve in our intelligence services if we send
a message that this is not acceptable and there will be a price to be
paid.
In light of the FBI Director's announcement, I have introduced
legislation with the junior Senator from Colorado, Mr. Gardner, to do
just that. This legislation is called the TRUST Act. It would revoke
the security clearance of anyone found to have demonstrated extreme
carelessness in the handling of classified information and would keep
them from receiving a clearance in the future so they couldn't do this
again. It would also clarify existing law so that everyone understands
that extreme carelessness, which the FBI found in the case of Secretary
Clinton and her staff, basically becomes the legal standard whether or
not you think it constituted gross negligence.
There are many people whose legal opinion I respect, such as former
Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who said that extreme carelessness
and gross negligence are basically the same thing.
I heard Mayor Giuliani--former distinguished U.S. prosecutor, former
third person in line at the Justice department--say there is plenty of
evidence with which to prosecute somebody who has done the things and
said the things Secretary Clinton and her staff have. But we understand
that Director Comey has taken that off the table, and now Attorney
General Lynch has said we are going to close the file. But the truth
is, Secretary Clinton and her staff have proven that they are either
unable or disinterested in keeping safe highly sensitive classified
information, and they have gone so far as to cover up this scandal at
every step along the way. I think that should mean at minimum that they
forfeit the privilege of having a security clearance so at least they
cannot do this again.
Yesterday, Director Comey made clear that Secretary Clinton and her
staff should have known better. That seems self-evident with somebody
with long experience in the Federal Government--from First Lady, to
U.S. Senator, to Secretary of State. With the highest level of security
clearance in the Federal Government, she should have known better.
She was reckless and careless in the way she handled this classified
information. Add to that the frightening implications of this sensitive
information getting into the hands of our adversaries, such as the
Russians or Chinese intelligence agencies, and any reasonable person
would come to one conclusion: They have to be held accountable and
there has to be some penalty for putting our Nation's security at risk.
I will continue to call on the Department of Justice to be open and
transparent. Director Comey said that he
[[Page S4870]]
thought that the circumstances of this case, while they didn't rise to
the level sufficient for indictment, that transparency was very
important. That is why he made the really unprecedented announcement
that he did, which frankly far exceeded his authority as the
investigative agency, where he said no reasonable prosecutor would have
sought an indictment in this case.
But I hope the Justice Department responds to the letter which I sent
on today's date wherein I asked him to release any unclassified
information as it relates to this scandal. The American taxpayers
deserve to see all of the investigation--which cost the American
taxpayers millions of dollars--especially in light of the fact that
there will be no criminal prosecution, according to Director Comey's
recommendation and according to the decision of the Justice Department
to close the case yesterday.
I urge Secretary Clinton to ask the Justice Department to release the
FBI reports and any transcript of her 3\1/2\-hour long interview as
well because I think the American people deserve it. I suspect what we
would find is that Secretary Clinton's lawyers said: No matter what you
have done before, don't lie to the FBI in that 3\1/2\-hour interview,
because that lawyer and Secretary Clinton would know that no matter
what you have done or haven't done before, if you actually lie to an
FBI agent, that is an indictable and prosecutable crime in and of
itself. So I have reasonable confidence that she did finally come clean
and tell the truth to the FBI in that interview. Now, the only right
thing to do, in the interests of the sort of transparency Director
Comey talked about--since there can be no prosecution and no
indictment, the only right thing to do in the interests of transparency
and public accountability is for that transcript of the 3\1/2\-hour-
long interview to be released to the American people so they can judge
for themselves. I believe the American people deserve at least that.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
my letter of July 7 to the Honorable Loretta Lynch.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, July 7, 2016.
Hon. Loretta Lynch,
Attorney General, United States Department of Justice,
Washington, DC.
Dear Attorney General Lynch: On July 5, 2016, the Director
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) announced in a
lengthy press conference that the FBI was officially
recommending that ``no charges are appropriate'' in the
investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's
use of a personal email system during her time as Secretary
of State. The Director made this recommendation even though
the FBI found that ``there is evidence of potential
violations of the statutes regarding the handling of
classified information,'' including evidence that ``Secretary
Clinton or her colleagues . . . were extremely careless in
their handling of very sensitive, highly classified
information.'' In doing so, the Director specifically pointed
to seven e-mail chains concerning Top Secret information,
some of which apparently ``bore markings indicating the
presence of classified information.'' These conclusions,
among others, directly contradict many of the public
statements that former-Secretary Clinton and her supporters
have made in defense of her unprecedented conduct.
Nevertheless, yesterday you accepted his recommendation and,
in a terse, two-sentence statement, announced that ``the
thorough, year-long investigation'' was now closed and that
``no charges [would] be brought against any individuals
within the scope of the investigation.''
The Director's lengthy public statement was ``unusual,'' as
he noted, but he asserted that ``the American people deserve
. . . details in a case of intense public interest,'' and
that ``given the importance of the matter, . . . unusual
transparency is in order.'' His public statement, he said,
was an effort to ``assure the American people . . . that this
investigation was done competently, honestly, and
independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought
to bear.'' In contrast, your public announcement contained no
similar disclosures or otherwise provided the American people
with much needed transparency and information about that
investigation.
For more than a year, I also have noted that this case was
incredibly important and highly unusual and that the American
people deserved a fair and impartial investigation. That's
why I called for you to appoint a Special Counsel in this
matter. The need for a Special Counsel, the appointment of
which would give the American people greater transparency and
assurance of independence, was underscored after you decided
to meet privately with Secretary Clinton's husband just days
before the Director's public announcement and the conclusion
of that investigation. I will continue to press for this
appointment because I believe it is the best and most
appropriate way for the American people to have faith in the
administration of justice in this case.
In the meantime, and because the Director and I both agree
about the importance of this matter and the need for unusual
transparency, I call on the Department of Justice to
immediately release the FBI's report and any transcript of
the FBI's three-and-a-half hour interview of former-Secretary
Clinton on July 2. As you know, such interview reports often
become public when a criminal investigation results in a
criminal prosecution. And the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure require the Department of Justice to provide an
interview report directly to a criminal defendant. Of course,
here you have declined to appoint a Special Counsel and the
FBI has decided that ``no reasonable prosecutor would bring
such a case,'' so the American people will not enjoy the same
transparency that they have come to expect from their own
government. But as the Director said, ``only facts matter,''
and the American people deserve the facts underlying former-
Secretary Clinton's FBI interview to evaluate the Department
of Justice's conclusions and the public statements that
former-Secretary Clinton and her supporters have made
regarding her use of a personal email system and her
egregious handling of classified information.
Sincerely,
John Cornyn,
United States Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Unanimous Consent Requests--Executive Calendar
Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, ``judicial emergency'' is an official term
that refers to a vacancy in our court system for a court that carries a
heavy caseload or a vacancy that has remained open for an extended
period of time.
In the United States, we now have dozens of judicial emergencies. Why
are there so many judicial emergencies? Why are there so many vacancies
in courts that have heavy caseloads? Why are there so many long-term
vacancies? Well, the reason is simple. When it comes to confirming
judges, Senate Republicans simply refuse to do their jobs. Their view
seems to be very simple. If government isn't working for them or their
rich friends or their rightwing allies, then they will simply refuse to
let it work for anyone.
Yesterday the Senate confirmed one judge, Brian Martinotti, to sit on
the district court in New Jersey--one judge, one noncontroversial
nominee for a noncontroversial job who had been waiting for a vote for
over a year. The Republicans who control the Senate seem to think that
is reasonable. It is not.
Sixteen district court judges have been investigated, gone through
hearings, been voted out of committee, and are pending on the Senate
floor right now. One circuit court nominee is also on this list for a
vacancy that has remained vacant for more than 6 years. Fourteen States
have judges on this list. About half of these nominees have been
sitting for nearly a year or more.
These courts do an enormous amount of work. Their work is not
political. Democratic and Republican Senators have worked with the
President to select these nominees to fill vacancies on these courts,
and those nominees deserve votes. Right now, there is no indication
that they are going to get votes. And in a few days, the Republicans
who control the Senate are planning to pack up their things and shut
down the Senate for most of the rest of the year. This is ridiculous.
No other workers in America get to walk off the job before the job is
done, and the same should be true for the U.S. Congress. We shouldn't
leave until we do our work.
The Senate can act right now to confirm these 17 nominations, all of
whom have bipartisan support.
Mr. President, I rise today to ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations:
Calendar Nos. 359, 362, 363, 364, 459, 460, 461, 508, 569, 570, 571,
572, 573, 597, 598, 599, and 600; that the Senate proceed to vote
without intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order
listed; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon
the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions
be in order to the nominations; that any related statements be printed
in the
[[Page S4871]]
Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's
action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, as the
Senator knows, we have a process for considering district judges. It is
the prerogative of the majority to set those votes. Frankly, in light
of the process we do have, as the Senator knows, this is not the
appropriate process.
But I do agree with her on one thing: that the Senate ought to do its
job. One of the things we could do, which has received broad
bipartisan, bicameral support, is to fund the efforts to combat the
Zika virus, which creates the devastating birth defects we talked about
a moment ago. While I object to this request, there are things we ought
to be able to do before we break.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, we do not have a process that is working.
The Nation faces a judicial vacancy crisis. Ten percent of the
district court judgeships in this country are empty. We face nearly
twice as many judicial emergencies as President Bush faced in 2008 or
President Clinton faced in 2000. Cases are piling up, and courts are
starved for help. The Supreme Court of the United States sits
paralyzed, unable to deal with some of its most challenging cases. But
the majority whip is going to pack up and go home, leaving 18
judgeships vacant because--well, that is the process?
This isn't a game. There is no scoreboard. You don't get to ignore a
national crisis because you care more about scoring political points
than keeping government functioning.
President Obama's job is to nominate judges to fill vacancies, and
the Republicans' job here is to lead us to confirm those judges to fill
those vacancies. Do your job.
So if you won't confirm all of the pending judicial nominees who have
been voted out of committee and are currently waiting on the Senate
floor, then before you leave town for months, let's at least confirm
the 13 judges on that list who were nominated last year to fill
district court vacancies.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to
executive session to consider the following 13 nominations: Calendar
Nos. 359, 362, 363, 364, 459, 460, 461, 508, 569, 570, 571, 572, and
573; that the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or
debate on the nominations in the order listed; that the motions to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no
intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to
the nominations; that any related statements be printed in the Record;
that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and
the Senate then resume legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, if I am not
mistaken, we are trying to deal with a biotechnology issue when it
comes to our agriculture supply, which was voted out of the Committee
on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, and I know the Senator from
Kansas, the distinguished chairman of the committee, would like to get
to it but for the diversions caused by these sorts of requests which
the Senator knows will be objected to.
If the Senator is really concerned about doing our job and taking
care of our Nation's business, then she ought to join me in voting for
the $1.1 billion in funding for the Zika virus, which is a national
health care emergency, and certainly the pictures I have had here
previously demonstrate the consequences of a failure to deal with this
Zika virus. Unfortunately, this baby has suffered a devastating birth
defect known as microcephaly--literally a shrunken skull and brain--and
is condemned to an uncertain future in life, not to mention the
consequences on the family.
I would implore the Senator from Massachusetts, let's get to work
doing this, which I believe the Senator has already voted for the $1.1
billion in funding. Yet when we brought this up, all we got were
objections and stonewalling from our colleagues on the other side of
the aisle. Frankly, I don't understand it. It is a terrible mistake,
and I don't want one baby in America to suffer this sort of birth
defect because we dithered and did not do our duty when it came to
providing adequate funding to combat the Zika virus.
This is something we should take care of before we break on July 15.
We can fight about judges any other time, but this is a true public
health emergency. And how Senators can come down here and try to hijack
the floor to talk about something else when we are ignoring the very
work before us in dealing with this biotechnology agriculture issue or
dealing with something even more pressing, such as avoiding birth
defects and these sorts of devastating consequences as a result of this
Zika virus, I do not understand.
I do not understand the Senator's priorities, and I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). Objection is heard.
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, this has been going on now for a year and
a half. The Republicans have delayed and delayed and delayed and
delayed until we face dozens of judicial emergencies. There is always
an excuse not to take up even noncontroversial appointments.
We can't get the 17 who were voted out of committee and are currently
pending on the floor, we can't get the 13 who were nominated in 2015 so
how about this deal. There are four district court nominees who have
been waiting around for a year or more. They are from Tennessee, New
Jersey, New York, and California.
When President Reagan was in office, almost no uncontroversial
nominees took longer than 100 days to confirm. Let us at least give
these four nominees who have been waiting nearly a year or more for
their vote. The Senate can do this, it can do it quickly, and we will
be done. There is bipartisan support for every one of them.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to
executive session to consider the following four nominations: Calendar
Nos. 359, 362, 363, and 364; that the Senate proceed to vote without
intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed;
that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the
table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be
in order to the nominations; that any related statements be printed in
the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's
action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we can have
the debate about judges, but I think we ought to first take care of the
business before us that the Senate voted to proceed to, which is to
deal with the legislation to avoid the State-by-State requirement for
labeling our food products, which has been agreed to by the Senator
from Michigan, the ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry, together with the chairman of the committee,
the Senator from Kansas.
We ought to be taking care of that, and we also ought to be taking
care of this. This is urgent. How people can think we need to deal with
these lists of judges and sort of hijack the agenda and distract us
from our work on preventing these sort of birth defects is, frankly, a
misplacement of priorities.
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, it would take no time to confirm these
judges. These are all people who have been examined by the committee,
who have passed out of committee, who are pending on the floor, and who
have bipartisan support. These are judges from Tennessee, New Jersey,
New York, California, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Hawaii, Utah,
Massachusetts, Maryland, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Louisiana, and Indiana.
Fourteen States will be left without vital judges because of the
Republican blockade.
At a certain point, reasonable people have to ask: Why are
Republicans actually doing this? Is it so that if Donald
[[Page S4872]]
Trump is elected President, he will be able to nominate more judges?
What in this world has Donald Trump ever said or done that makes the
majority whip so enthusiastic about his judicial appointments? Is it
Trump's enlightened views on the judiciary? Donald Trump is a guy who
just a few weeks ago race-baited a Federal judge--attacked a judge who
spent years defending America from the terrors of murderers and drug
traffickers. Trump attacked him simply because the judge refuses to
bend the law to suit Trump's personal financial interests.
And where do you think Donald Trump got the idea he can attack the
integrity of Federal judges with impunity? He got it from you--from the
Republicans in the Senate and their decision to turn scores of highly
qualified, nonpartisan judicial appointees into political footballs.
Talk is cheap. If Republicans really do disagree with Donald Trump's
approach to judges, then do something about it. Confirm these highly
qualified noncontroversial judges. Do it now before shutting off the
lights and leaving town.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to address the issue just
raised by the Senator from Massachusetts and responded to by the
Senator from Texas.
The Senator from Massachusetts carefully avoided mentioning the
obvious. This is the same Republican majority that will not fill the
vacancy on the Supreme Court. For the first moment in the history of
the United States--in the history of the United States--we have a
Presidential nominee sent to fill the vacancy of the late Justice
Scalia, and the Republicans in the Senate refuse to give him a hearing
or a vote. That has never--underline the word ``never''--happened in
the history of the United States of America. When we say do your job,
it starts at the highest Court and goes straight down to every Federal
court in America.
I sit on the Judiciary Committee, and what I think is particularly
galling, troubling, and worrisome is that each one of these nominees
has been carefully vetted by the Department of Justice, by the FBI, by
Republican staffers--everyone imaginable--culling through every aspect
of their life to see if they are truly worthy of being a lifetime
appointee to the Federal bench, and they all passed the test. They were
all voted out of committee, and they all languish on the floor of the
Senate for the very reason the Senator mentioned.
The Senator from Texas and many others are lying awake at night
praying for the moment when President Donald Trump can pick Federal
judges in America. Unless Judge Judy is coming out of retirement, I
have no idea where he is going to turn to find judicial talent, but I
will tell you, we have judicial talent, approved by Democrats and
Republicans, languishing on this calendar at great personal expense.
I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for raising this issue.
Zika Virus Funding
Mr. President, I would like to also comment on the Zika virus and the
threat to the United States. You bet it is serious. We have seen the
photographs that have been displayed here of the children who are born
with serious birth defects because of the Zika virus.
It is so serious the President of the United States notified this
Senate in February--February of this year--to act immediately on
providing $1.9 billion--$1.9 billion--to protect as many people as
possible from the spread of this virus and the terrible effects it has.
The President asked for $1.9 billion not only to deal with the
mosquitoes and the infection but also to develop a vaccine so we can
liberate America from the concern of this virus showing up next year
and the year after.
So there was a $1.9 billion request in February. To date--to date--
the Republican leadership in the House and Senate have failed to
produce the $1.9 billion that was suggested by the President.
We had a compromise number of $1.1 billion that was approved by the
Senate with a strong bipartisan vote almost a month ago. I think there
were 87 Senators who voted for it because we all understand it is a
public health emergency. Well, in our bicameral system, the bill then
went over to the House of Representatives. What happened next tells the
story of what is wrong with the Republican-controlled Senate today.
They took our bipartisan bill for $1.1 billion to fight the Zika virus,
they put it in a conference committee, they held a meeting but didn't
invite any Democrats, and they then came up with a bill that provided
$1.1 billion, but listen to how they did it.
They took money away from fighting the Ebola virus in Africa, which
we feared several years ago would spread to the United States and still
is a threat to Africa and to many other people. They took the public
health money to fight the Ebola virus and said: We will transfer it
over, and you can fight the Zika virus.
Apparently, the Republicans believe we can only fight one public
health challenge at a time. We don't have time for Ebola. We are going
to move to Zika. The Centers for Disease Control--the preeminent agency
in the world when it comes to fighting public health disasters--has
warned us don't do this. We are still worried about the spread of Ebola
and the danger of it.
But they didn't stop with that. They didn't stop with taking the
Ebola money and putting it into the Zika virus. They then turned around
and larded the bill up with every political ornament they could think
of that would captivate the hearts of the rightwing. Listen to what
they included in the bill. They included a provision that cut $500
million from the Veterans' Administration to process veterans' claims.
Have you heard of that issue? I sure have back in Illinois. Our
veterans wait way too long to get the disability payments they deserve
for having served our country. The Republicans cut $500 million from
that effort, but they weren't finished. They then turned around and
said: We want to make an exemption in the Clean Water Act so certain
chemicals can be sprayed around water supplies. What has that got to do
with this and why do we need to do it at this moment? It is one thing
they have been longing for. The third thing they turned around and did,
after they cut the money from the VA and after they made this provision
to change what the EPA can regulate and, as I mentioned earlier, took
the money out of Ebola--they then moved on to say: We know that women
across America will be concerned about family planning because of the
threat of the Zika virus so they put language in the bill prohibiting
Planned Parenthood from providing family planning to those who are
concerned about the spread of the Zika virus. They just can't stay away
from Planned Parenthood, and they included it.
And while you might think that was enough to make this the most
controversial political bill to move from the House, they had one more
trick up their sleeve--a provision to allow the display of Confederate
flags in our veterans cemeteries--Confederate flags. Why?
Why would you take an important bill dealing with a public health
crisis and lard it up with all of these miserable provisions that just
excite the hearts of some political rightwingers? They did it because
they were hoping we would stop the funding for the Zika virus. It is
stopped now waiting for a clean bill. They know the President will
never sign this bill as written.
If we would go back to the original bipartisan bill passed in the
Senate, we would certainly get approval for it. That is why, I answer
the Senator from Texas, we wait for the day when we can get back to
bipartisanship on this important public health threat.
I see there are others seeking the floor. The last point I will make
is that we are going to vote in a short period of time on this GMO
legislation. I have a lengthy statement that I will put in the Record
about my position, but I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the
Record an article from the New England Journal of Medicine. This is an
August 20, 2015, article from the New England Journal of Medicine
entitled ``GMOs, Herbicides, and Public Health.'' It makes the point
very directly that there has been no credible scientific evidence that
GMO foods pose any danger to consumers who consume them. But there is a
credible concern about the use of chemicals in the
[[Page S4873]]
production of these GMO products and how they are being larded on these
fields, creating real concern about the ultimate impact on public
health by these agricultural chemicals and the runoff.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
GMOs, Herbicides, and Public Health
(By Philip J. Landrigan, M.D., and Charles Benbrook, Ph.D.)
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are not high on most
physicians' worry lists. If we think at all about
biotechnology, most of us probably focus on direct threats to
human health, such as prospects for converting pathogens to
biologic weapons or the implications of new technologies for
editing the human germline. But while those debates simmer,
the application of biotechnology to agriculture has been
rapid and aggressive. The vast majority of the corn and
soybeans grown in the United States are now genetically
engineered. Foods produced from GM crops have become
ubiquitous. And unlike regulatory bodies in 64 other
countries, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not
require labeling of GM foods.
Two recent developments are dramatically changing the GMO
landscape. First, there have been sharp increases in the
amounts and numbers of chemical herbicides applied to GM
crops, and still further increases--the largest in a
generation--are scheduled to occur in the next few years.
Second, the International Agency for Research on Cancer
(IARC) has classified glyphosate, the herbicide most widely
used on GM crops, as a ``probable human carcinogen'' and
classified a second herbicide, 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid
(2,4-D), as a ``possible human carcinogen.''
The application of genetic engineering to agriculture
builds on the ancient practice of selective breeding. But
unlike traditional selective breeding, genetic engineering
vastly expands the range of traits that can be moved into
plants and enables breeders to import DNA from virtually
anywhere in the biosphere. Depending on the traits selected,
genetically engineered crops can increase yields, thrive when
irrigated with salty water, or produce fruits and vegetables
resistant to mold and rot.
The National Academy of Sciences has twice reviewed the
safety of GM crops--in 2000 and 2004. Those reviews, which
focused almost entirely on the genetic aspects of
biotechnology, concluded that GM crops pose no unique hazards
to human health. They noted that genetic transformation has
the potential to produce unanticipated allergens or toxins
and might alter the nutritional quality of food. Both reports
recommended development of new risk-assessment tools and
postmarketing surveillance. Those recommendations have
largely gone unheeded.
Herbicide resistance is the main characteristic that the
biotechnology industry has chosen to introduce into plants.
Corn and soybeans with genetically engineered tolerance to
glyphosate (Roundup) were first introduced in the mid-1990s.
These ``Roundup-Read ``crops now account for more than 90% of
the corn and soybeans planted in the United States. Their
advantage, especially in the first years after introduction,
is that they greatly simplify weed management. Farmers can
spray herbicide both before and during the growing season,
leaving their crops unharmed.
But widespread adoption of herbicide-resistant crops has
led to overreliance on herbicides and, in particular, on
glyphosate. In the United States, glyphosate use has
increased by a factor of more than 250--from 0.4 million kg
in 1974 to 113 million kg in 2014. Global use has increased
by a factor of more than 10. Not surprisingly, glyphosate-
resistant weeds have emerged and are found today on nearly
100 million acres in 36 states. Fields must now be treated
with multiple herbicides, including 2,4-D, a component of the
Agent Orange defoliant used in the Vietnam War.
The first of the two developments that raise fresh concerns
about the safety of GM crops is a 2014 decision by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to approve Enlist Duo,
a new combination herbicide comprising glyphosate plus 2,4-D.
Enlist Duo was formulated to combat herbicide resistance. It
will be marketed in tandem with newly approved seeds
genetically engineered to resist glyphosate, 2,4-D, and
multiple other herbicides. The EPA anticipates that a 3-to-7-
fold increase in 2,4-D use will result.
In our view, the science and the risk assessment supporting
the Enlist Duo decision are flawed. The science consisted
solely of toxicologic studies commissioned by the herbicide
manufacturers in the 1980s and 1990s and never published, not
an uncommon practice in U.S. pesticide regulation. These
studies predated current knowledge of low-dose, endocrine-
mediated, and epigenetic effects and were not designed to
detect them. The risk assessment gave little consideration to
potential health effects in infants and children, thus
contravening federal pesticide law. It failed to consider
ecologic impact, such as effects on the monarch butterfly and
other pollinators. It considered only pure glyphosate,
despite studies showing that formulated glyphosate that
contains surfactants and adjuvants is more toxic than the
pure compound.
The second new development is the determination by the IARC
in 2015 that glyphosate is a ``probable human carcinogen''
and 2,4-D a ``possible human carcinogen.'' These
classifications were based on comprehensive assessments of
the toxicologic and epidemiologic literature that linked both
herbicides to dose-related increases in malignant tumors at
multiple anatomical sites in animals and linked glyphosate to
an increased incidence of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in humans.
These developments suggest that GM foods and the herbicides
applied to them may pose hazards to human health that were
not examined in previous assessments. We believe that the
time has therefore come to thoroughly reconsider all aspects
of the safety of plant biotechnology. The National Academy of
Sciences has convened a new committee to reassess the social,
economic, environmental, and human health effects of GM
crops. This development is welcome, but the committee's
report is not expected until at least 2016.
In the meantime, we offer two recommendations. First, we
believe the EPA should delay implementation of its decision
to permit use of Enlist Duo. This decision was made in haste.
It was based on poorly designed and outdated studies and on
an incomplete assessment of human exposure and environmental
effects. It would have benefited from deeper consideration of
independently funded studies published in the peer-reviewed
literature. And it preceded the recent IARC determinations on
glyphosate and 2,4-D. Second, the National Toxicology Program
should urgently assess the toxicology of pure glyphosate,
formulated glyphosate, and mixtures of glyphosate and other
herbicides.
Finally, we believe the time has come to revisit the United
States' reluctance to label GM foods. Labeling will deliver
multiple benefits. It is essential for tracking emergence of
novel food allergies and assessing effects of chemical
herbicides applied to GM crops. It would respect the wishes
of a growing number of consumers who insist they have a right
to know what foods they are buying and how they were
produced. And the argument that there is nothing new about
genetic rearrangement misses the point that GM crops are now
the agricultural products most heavily treated with
herbicides and that two of these herbicides may pose risks of
cancer. We hope, in light of this new information, that the
FDA will reconsider labeling of GM foods and couple it with
adequately funded, long-term postmarketing surveillance.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in
the Record an article from the Campbell Soup Company.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From Campbell Soup Company, July 6, 2016]
Campbell Announces Support for Mandatory GMO Labeling
Camden, N.J.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jan. 7, 2016--Campbell Soup
Company (NYSE: CPB) today announced its support for the
enactment of federal legislation to establish a single
mandatory labeling standard for foods derived from
genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
This Smart News Release features multimedia. View the full
release here: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/
20160107006458/en/.
Campbell believes it is necessary for the federal
government to provide a national standard for labeling
requirements to better inform consumers about this issue. The
company will advocate for federal legislation that would
require all foods and beverages regulated by the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) to be clearly and simply labeled for GMOs.
Campbell is also supportive of a national standard for non-
GMO claims made on food packaging.
As a result of its decision to support mandatory national
GMO labeling, Campbell will withdraw from all efforts led by
coalitions and groups opposing such measures.
The company continues to oppose a patchwork of state-by-
state labeling laws, which it believes are incomplete,
impractical and create unnecessary confusion for consumers.
Campbell is optimistic a federal solution can be
established in a reasonable amount of time if all the
interested stakeholders cooperate. However, if that is not
the case, Campbell is prepared to label all of its U.S.
products for the presence of ingredients that were derived
from GMOs, not just those required by pending legislation in
Vermont. The company would seek guidance from the FDA and
approval by USDA.
Campbell continues to recognize that GMOs are safe, as the
science indicates that foods derived from crops grown using
genetically modified seeds are not nutritionally different
from other foods. The company also believes technology will
play a crucial role in feeding the world.
Campbell has been engaged in the conversation about GMO
labeling for several years and has taken action to provide
consumers with more information about how its products are
made, including the presence of GMOs, through efforts like
its website www.whatsinmyfood.com. With 92 percent of
Americans supporting the labeling of GMO foods, Campbell
believes now is the time for the federal government to act
quickly to implement a federal solution.
More information about the rationale behind Campbell's
decision can be found on Campbell's newsroom.
[[Page S4874]]
____
Campbell's--Why We Support Mandatory National GMO Labeling
(By Campbell Team)
Today the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/
08/business/a-new-fact-on-the-foodlabel.html) wrote about
Campbell's decision to support mandatory national labeling of
products that may contain genetically modified organisms
(GMOs).
Campbell's President and CEO Denise Morrison shared the
message below with our employees about the reasons behind our
decision.
Taking a Major Step Forward as We Live Our Purpose
At Campbell, we are unleashing the power of our Purpose,
Real food that matters for life's moments. Our Purpose calls
for us to acknowledge that consumers appreciate what goes
into our food, and why--so they can feel good about the
choices they make, for themselves and their loved ones.
Today, consistent with our Purpose, we announced our
support for mandatory national labeling of products that may
contain genetically modified organisms (GMO) and proposed
that the federal government provide a national standard for
non-GMO claims made on food packaging.
We are operating with a ``Consumer First'' mindset. We put
the consumer at the center of everything we do. That's how
we've built trust for nearly 150 years. We have always
believed that consumers have the right to know what's in
their food. GMO has evolved to be a top consumer food issue
reaching a critical mass of 92% of consumers in favor of
putting it on the label.
In addition, we have declared our intention to set the
standard for transparency in the food industry. We have been
openly discussing our ingredients, including those derived
from GMO crops, through our WhatsinmyFood.com website. We are
supporting digital disclosure through the Grocery
Manufacturers Association's (GMA) SmartLabelTM
program. We have announced the removal of artificial colors
and flavors from our products. However, our support of
mandatory federal GMO labeling sets a new bar for
transparency.
There is currently no federal regulation requiring labeling
that informs consumers about the presence of GMOs in their
food. In the absence of federal action, many states--from
California to Maine--have attempted to address this issue.
Campbell has opposed this state-by-state patchwork approach,
and has worked with GMA to defeat several state ballot
initiatives. Put simply, although we believe that consumers
have the right to know what's in their food, we also believe
that a state-by-state piecemeal approach is incomplete,
impractical and costly to implement for food makers. More
importantly, it's confusing to consumers.
Most recently, Vermont passed legislation that will require
food companies including Campbell to label products regulated
by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that may contain
ingredients made from GMO crops. However, this legislation
does not include products with meat or poultry, because they
are regulated by United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA). Under Vermont law, SpaghettiO's original variety,
guided by the FDA, will be labeled for the presence of GMOs,
but SpaghettiO's meatballs, guided by the USDA, will not. Yet
these two varieties sit next to each other on a store shelf,
which is bound to create consumer confusion.
Campbell has been actively involved in trying to resolve
this issue since 2011. We've worked with GMA, legislators and
regulators to forge a national voluntary solution. We've
engaged a variety of stakeholders, from lawmakers to
activists. I've personally made multiple trips to Capitol
Hill to meet with elected officials. Despite these efforts,
Congress has not been able to resolve this issue. We now
believe that proposing a mandatory national solution is
necessary. Printing a clear and simple statement on the label
is the best solution for consumers and for Campbell.
I want to stress that we're in no way disputing the science
behind GMOs or their safety. The overwhelming weight of
scientific evidence indicates that GMOs are safe and that
foods derived from crops using genetically modified seeds are
not nutritionally different from other foods. In America,
many farmers who grow canola, corn, soybean and sugar beets
choose to use genetically modified seeds and have done so for
nearly twenty years. More than 90% of these four crops in
America are currently grown using GMO seeds. It takes an
average of thirteen years to get a GMO seed approved by the
government for safety. Ingredients derived from these crops
are in many of our products. We also believe that GMOs and
other technologies will play a crucial role in feeding the
world.
We will continue to be a member of GMA and will participate
in food industry initiatives that align with our Purpose and
business goals. However, as a result of the change in our
position on GMO labeling, Campbell is withdrawing from all
efforts led by groups opposing mandatory GMO labeling
legislation, including those led by GMA.
The New York Times reported on our decision, and we issued
a press release. I encourage you to read both. We recognize
that this announcement may spark discussion. It's difficult
to predict the exact nature of the ensuing commentary, but I
suspect it will be a mixed bag. What I do know is that our
decision was guided by our Purpose; rooted in our consumer-
first mindset; and driven by our commitment to transparency--
to be open and honest about our food. I truly believe it is
the right thing to do for consumers and for our business.
Best,
Denise Morrison,
President and CEO.
Mr. DURBIN. Campbell Soup Company has decided they are going to face
this issue squarely, honestly, and waste no time. It is a company that
I trust. I can't imagine how many cans of Campbell's soup we have
consumed in my household throughout my life.
They said: It is time to be honest with consumers. We will tell them.
We will tell them pointblank on the label so they can read whether or
not there are GMO products contained in the soup. Then they can make
the decision as to whether they want to buy it.
I wish that were the outcome of this entire debate, but it is not.
The third point I want to make is it is mindless for us to allow
individual States like Vermont to decide the labeling standards for
national companies. It makes no sense. We cannot allow it to occur.
The last point I will make is this: One of the provisions in this
bill I think is embarrassing, and it is a provision which I cannot
support. We give three options to food companies when it comes to
labeling for GMOs. First, declare right on the label, just as Campbell
Soup Company does, if GMO products are included. Second, use a symbol
created by the Department of Agriculture which we can educate the
public on that can really signal as to whether this product has GMO
products. The third is the one that troubles me--something called a YRL
or URL. I may have that designation wrong, but it is that kind of
scrambled screen you see that you can't read but some computers can
read. What these food companies want to do is not tell you as a
consumer whether the food has GMOs or not. As you go through the
grocery store, they want you to hold your cell phone up to that box of
macaroni and cheese to see if it has GMO in it or not by reading all
that is written on your cell phone. That is a bad joke.
I just went shopping with my two 4\1/2\-year-old grandkids. I cannot
imagine walking through that store, trying to keep them from raiding
different displays, and using my cell phone on box after box of
macaroni and cheese. That, to me, is the ``secret decoder ring''
approach to this, and I think it is an embarrassment to consumers to
ask them to go through that. So I will be voting in opposition to the
GMO bill when it comes before us later in the day.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, the Presiding Officer and I are fairly new
to this Chamber. I know Senate rules prevent me from engaging anyone
who happens to be in the gallery, so I will not do that. But I have to
admit, watching what has gone on here for the last 15 or 20 minutes, I
can't help but think at least one or two are saying: What on Earth is
going on down on that Senate floor? We have heard arguments embedded in
arguments.
The issue we have before us today is on the biotechnology labeling
vote. We have heard about judges. Look, everybody says we are in
gridlock here. There are obviously instances where we disagree. Let's
set those aside and address legislation where we do agree we have
pressing issues, and we have two of those before the Senate today.
The one immediately before us is on biotechnology labeling, and I am
going to get to that in a minute. The other has to do with funding
Zika. It has to do with trying to understand why some 38 of my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted for $1.1 billion in
Zika funding, and now it is back before us. It is one vote away from
going to the President's desk, and now they are all voting against it.
Collectively, the Members who voted for the $1.1 billion and now vote
against it represent States that have 671 Zika cases reported to date.
It looks as if we are going to be here a little bit tonight, and I will
get into the details and share the roll call vote, but today I want to
talk about biotechnology.
I want to start by thanking Senator Roberts and Senator Stabenow for
the work they did in reaching a bipartisan solution to this
controversial issue. We voted on cloture yesterday, and we had a
majority of over 60--65 to be exact--
[[Page S4875]]
Members vote. What cloture means is to get on the bill. Now we are on
the bill. What does this bill do?
What it is trying to do is avoid the confusion and the cost when a
State implements a law that becomes de facto Federal law of the land
and increases the cost of food prices to consumers. This is what we are
proposing to avoid in the language we have before us that I hope we
vote on and I hope we focus on. This is only one choice of one State--
the State of Vermont. There are several dozen States that plan to have
their own variance, and I will talk about the absurd exemptions and
exceptions later on.
The bottom line: Complexity creates cost--cost to the American
consumer. In Vermont alone, the Vermont law will increase the annual
cost of food per family--in Vermont alone--by about $2,000 a year.
There are people struggling to pay for the food they have right now.
There are people trying to decide, do they pay to heat their home or
eat? Now we are talking about raising food costs, for some of the
poorest people, by $2,000 a year.
Complexity equates to cost. This provides clarity. I am going to talk
a little bit about that, but I do appreciate Senator Roberts and
Senator Stabenow for getting those of us who are willing to work
together, who are willing to say to people at either end of the
spectrum: Guys, we are going to come up with a compromise and solve
this problem. We have that opportunity before us now, and I hope we
will get to an affirmative vote later today.
As I said earlier, the state-by-state patchwork is unsustainable.
Right now, we are talking about what Vermont decided to do. What about
California? What about my State of North Carolina and all the other
ones? Some people say: Well, you are preempting State law. When a State
law affects interstate commerce across the Nation--because if I am a
Campbell Soup Company or a Kellogg's or a small mom-and-pop shop trying
to distribute in Vermont--if I don't get the labeling exactly right, I
could be subject to millions of dollars of fines just because I have a
jar or a can or a box on a shelf that isn't consistent with their
labels.
I live in Charlotte, NC. Charlotte is right on the border of North
Carolina and South Carolina. If you have a truck carrying cans of
Campbell's soup, it has to be labeled one way in North Carolina and
another in South Carolina. Does that make sense? It adds cost. It
doesn't add value. That is why we are trying to prevent this patchwork
of laws that could go on the books.
I want to talk a little bit about biotechnology for a minute because
Senator Durbin said something that I think is very important. I sit on
the Agriculture Committee. I asked all the heads of the FDA, the EPA,
and the U.S. Department of Agriculture the same question in the same
committee hearing several months ago. I said: Do you have any
scientific data whatsoever--let's go to the FDA first, Food and Drug
Administration--that would suggest that food containing biotechnology
represent any threat to health? The FDA leader, appointed by the Obama
administration, said: None whatsoever. Then I moved to the EPA, the
Environmental Protection Agency. I asked precisely the same question. I
got precisely the same answer. Then I went to the U.S. Department of
Agriculture. I asked precisely the same question and got precisely the
same answer.
When we walk the halls here, people say: Thom, I know. I know they
are safe. But for some reason we have lost the argument. Ladies and
gentlemen, the reason we can't lose the argument on agricultural
biotech--what some people call GMO--is that our Nation and our world's
food supply rely on it. Over ninety percent of all corn grown in Iowa
is grown as a result of biotech--not some sort of Frankencorn, but corn
that is heat resistant, corn that is moisture resistant, fungus
resistant.
If we were to roll back 30 or 40 years of progress in agriculture
biotech and take it out of our food supply chain, we could literally be
in a position where people will starve--maybe not in the United States
but all the nations we export to--because we simply cannot produce the
world's food supply if we go back 10, 20, or 30 years. So it is a very
important part of our food supply, it is a safe food, it is an
environmentally sound food, and it is one that we just have to
understand.
Having said that, I firmly believe that everybody has the right to
know what is in their food. That is why I love the compromise bill that
Senator Roberts and Senator Stabenow have before us today. It is pretty
simple. Again, I know I can't interact with the gallery, so I will not.
But my guess is that most of the people in the gallery over the age of
about 12 have a smartphone. One or two may have flip phones--and there
is an alternative that I will talk about--but most probably have
smartphones. As a matter of fact, 207 million people in the United
States have smartphones. I know Senator Durbin is not familiar with it,
but many of them come with what is called a QR code reader. I will give
those watching from home a chance to actually scan it while hearing me
talk live.
I remember--I think it was President Bush back in the 1990s who went
through a shopping line and was astounded because he saw a bar code
reader. He said: Wow, that is new technology. It had been around for a
while. Guess what, folks. QR codes have been around a while. As a
matter of fact, yesterday when the distinguished gentleman from Oregon
spoke, he had a QR code up on the screen. I said: Heck, I want to see
what that is. So I clicked on the QR code on the Campbell's can. It
brought up on Wikipedia the history of the New York Yankees. But it
proves the point that you can go directly from that QR code to the
Internet and get the information you need in real time.
What is the other advantage of QR codes? You can board an airplane
with them, you can get information about your fuel, you can get medical
services. It is everywhere. It is ubiquitous. It is prevalent.
Everywhere you go, you see them. When I go to the store, because my
wife is pretty strict on how much money I can spend, I will scan a QR
code to see if I can find a comparative shop, and maybe I need to go
down the street to buy that same product. In other words, it is an
integral part of our lives. For somebody to say it is new, weird,
different, hard to use--it only takes one button, one click on your
phone, to actually get to the rich information on the Internet. That is
what this bill is about.
So what if that QR code is on the product--a can of soup, a bag of
flour, or any product you buy in the grocery store that is subject to
this law. You go to your phone, you hit QR code reader which is on your
smartphone, and it would immediately bring you to a website. This is
what this proposed law requires. It immediately brings you to a
website, in the cases I have done it, in 2 or 3 seconds. The minute you
get to the site, you get all kinds of information. You get nutritional
information, caloric value, and all kinds of things you need to know
about what is in your food. Right on the page you can click down, and
you can see whether it has any agriculture biotech content. Then you
can even draw down further and find out what that means. It is in this
bill. It can be done. Small businesses use this. Political people use
this. Everybody uses this as a way to rapidly get to the Internet.
I don't know about you all, but I think this Internet thing is going
to take off. I think it is going to be here for a while. So I think we
are going to be increasingly comfortable with this sort of way to get
the richest information available on the food we are going to eat. For
those who say this is some sort of weird code or outdated, I don't know
about you all, but that is not the world I live in. I think it is a
very effective way to get it.
Let's assume you are a small business and you don't have the ability
to create a QR code. Frankly, I would tell that small business to do it
because that creates a competitive advantage. That makes you look as
big as Campbell Soup Company and lets you compete. It is easy to put up
a website. Most of us have them or know how to get them up pretty
easily. I can put one up in 2 or 3 hours and then have a QR code to go
to it. But let's assume they don't want to do it. It is a mom-and-pop
shop, and they just don't like QR code readers. You can have a 1-800
number if you satisfy certain thresholds: For more product information,
call this number. And they have a statutory obligation to disclose to
you the
[[Page S4876]]
contents of the food and whether or not it has any agriculture biotech
products in it. If you don't want to do a 1-800 number, you can also do
a simple Web address. Key in thomscornerstore.com, or whatever, and get
to the same information.
The fact is, this bill does that. It fully discloses and creates a
statutory requirement that says the food manufacturer must disclose the
content of their food, the nutritional information, biotech content, et
cetera.
It is mandatory. There were disagreements on our side because we had
Members on our side of the aisle who said they didn't like
``mandatory.'' We decided in the interest of compromise to accept the
mandatory requirement. It takes 2 years before the rules are made and
about 3 years before most businesses will have to be fully phased in.
Quite honestly, most manufacturers are going to do it because they
understand, as I do, the advantage of quick access to having a consumer
get to their Web presence, and there are other things they can do once
they get there.
We know that the QR code, the URLs, and the 1-800 numbers work. We
know that everybody has the right to know what is in their food. This
law mandates that this happens. It eliminates the absurd exceptions and
exemptions. For anybody who wants to do this, I know this code works.
If you are at home right now and you see this code, you should be able
to take your QR code scanner and go up to your TV, like I did
yesterday, and go to this website and see in real time what I just
demonstrated on the prior slide.
Why do we need to do this? Why do we need a Federal consistent
framework for doing this? Why is it the Federal Government's
responsibility to get involved in this? Going back to the first slide,
I don't want families in Vermont to pay an additional $2,000 a year for
their food. I don't want families in North Carolina to pay an
additional $1,100 a year for the same food they bought last year only
because of these state mandated labeling requirements.
Let me give you a couple of examples of what I am talking about in
the Vermont law. Imagine if this were multiplied by 2-dozen or 3-dozen
other States. Frozen pepperoni pizza is exempt from the Vermont law.
Frozen cheese pizza has to be labeled. Vegetable beef soup is exempt
from the Vermont law. Vegetable soup has to be labeled. Multiply that
by dozens and dozens of other States. Think about all of these absurd
exceptions and exemptions that can occur if we have 50 statehouses
trying to create a patchwork of laws.
For an American family, the Vermont law will add an additional cost
of about $1,200 a year to the grocery bill. Imagine if we had 24 or 36
different States that we had to interpret, the cost would go up. The
food is no more nutritious. It just costs more. That is why we need a
Federal standard.
To my friends on the other side of the aisle and a handful on this
side of the aisle, folks, this is just common sense. Anybody should be
able to figure this out on 8 hours of sleep. This is not a difficult
decision. We need to solve this problem now. Then we need to get on to
Zika, which I will come back and talk about a little bit later on, and
then we can get to all the other myriad of things we need to get done
here.
When I came here in January of last year, I was accustomed to getting
things done in the North Carolina House. This is an opportunity to get
something done that makes sense, that removes the threat of raising
food costs and not producing one iota of positive difference in health
outcomes. I hope my friends on both sides of the aisle recognize that
this is an opportunity where we can prove to the people in this gallery
and the people in this Nation that we can actually get things done.
This is a compromise. This is something my friends on the right do
not necessarily like and I know some of my friends on the left don't
like, but it is right. It is necessary now so we can protect the people
who don't know that, if this bill doesn't get passed, they are going to
be paying more for food for no more value.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Zika Virus Funding
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I am not supportive of the bill we will be
voting on shortly relative to the labeling of GMOs, but I do admit the
Senator is right in that this was an example of a group of Democrats
and Republicans working on a solution that may end up getting the
support of a supermajority of this body. That is the difference between
what happened on the process of developing a GMO bill and the process
of developing our response to the Zika epidemic.
Everybody knows what happened here. We had a bipartisan compromise
that passed the Senate. It went to a conference committee. Democrats
were shut out of the conference committee. I am a member of that
conference committee. There was no negotiation between Republicans and
Democrats. Republicans on the conference committee threw out the
bipartisan compromise that was negotiated here in the Senate in order
to address the concerns of very conservative Members of the House
Republican caucus, and the bill got loaded up with all of the things
that Senator Durbin mentioned. At the top of the list was a ban on
funding for Planned Parenthood, which Republicans on the conference
committee knew would poison the well. They knew that by putting in a
ban on funding for Planned Parenthood, they would make it impossible to
pass the Zika supplemental request.
We don't need to engage in hyperbole or histrionics. That is what
happened. What happened is the Republicans decided to put a bill on the
floor of the Senate that couldn't pass, knowing exactly what could pass
because weeks earlier we had formed a compromise that was thrown out
the window. It is a little unpleasant to be lectured to about why
Democrats are unwilling to support the Zika bill that is in front of us
because Republicans know exactly why we can't support it. It is because
the compromise that we all worked on got thrown out and all sorts of
political poison pills got added to it that everyone in the conference
knew would mean it wouldn't pass the Senate.
Opioid Epidemic
Mr. President, I want to talk about another public health crisis that
is confronting this country, and that is the overdose crisis that is
plaguing every single State that we hail from. Here is the picture of
overdoses in my State over the course of the last 4 years. It is a
harrowing chart in that, if you go back to 2012, we had just under 400
drug overdose deaths that year. We are on pace in 2016 to more than
double that number. Our projected number of overdose deaths is 832.
If you look deeper into this chart, it is fentanyl and heroin that
are driving these numbers. In fact, our cocaine overdoses have remained
relatively stable. It is fentanyl and heroin that are skyrocketing. You
can put this chart up for almost every other State in the country and
see the same phenomenon. Here it is broken down by town. There is
almost no town in Connecticut that hasn't been visited by this
epidemic. This small town here is one that you probably know. That is
New Haven, CT. On June 23, a few weeks ago, city officials in New Haven
declared a public health emergency after 17 individuals overdosed and 3
people died from fentanyl in less than 24 hours. Some of the patients
needed as many as five doses of Narcan to revive them. The public
health authorities and law enforcement in the city effectively ran out
of Narcan overnight because of this batch of straight, pure fentanyl
that killed 3 people and sent 17 others to the hospital. That is just
one night in one town.
Two years ago, the United States Congress authorized $4 billion in
emergency funding to combat the Ebola virus--$4 billion for a virus
that had less than 10 confirmed cases in the United States. In
Connecticut, we are going to have 830 people die from opioid overdose
this year. We are a small State. We represent 1 percent of the Nation's
population. We are going to have 830 people die from overdoses this
year, and this Congress hasn't appropriated one dime of emergency
funding.
You can't help but think there is a double standard here--that
perhaps the reason we are not allocating emergency funding for this
epidemic, which is killing dozens of people every week in my State, is
because of the nature of the epidemic. It is rooted in addiction, and
we still have a stigma about addiction in which we blame the addict.
Marvin and Laura Beninson came into my office, and they told me the
[[Page S4877]]
story of their beautiful, bright young daughter Victoria, who began
slurring her words at Easter dinner. Victoria was a wonderful young
woman. They knew something was wrong that Easter. When she left the
house, they went into her room, and they found needles and little
packets of a substance, and they said: Thus began our battle with
heroin addiction.
This is the father talking now. He said:
My daughter has been through detox and six treatment
centers. She has stolen and hocked all of my wife's jewelry
while we were on vacation, stolen $3,000 to 4,000 from my
oldest daughter's bank account while she was in the Army,
written thousands of dollars of bad checks from her friend's
check book and been arrested for shop lifting.
The truth is that addiction is a disease just like cancer
and there is no choice once you have it. It certainly was our
daughter's choice to take heroin but it wasn't her choice to
become addicted.
Addiction is a disease, and it can be treated medically, just like
every other disease. There may be an element of choice in taking that
first dose, but after that there is a medical solution. Yet, for some
reason, we allocate $4 billion to combat Ebola and not a dime to combat
the epidemic of opioid abuse.
The funding that we are asking for--and my colleague Senator Shaheen
put a vote before this body to appropriate $600 million in emergency
funding--would go to SAMHSA for treatment. It would go to education
programs, to prescription drug monitoring programs, and $230 million of
it would go to justice assistance grants to make sure we are catching
the bad guys who are selling this kind of Fentanyl that is killing
people in New Haven.
Every day that we wait, this epidemic becomes worse and more people
perish. We need to come together and appropriate emergency funding to
take on this epidemic. We need to do it soon, but we need to do other
things as well. Deeply buried into our Medicaid reimbursement laws is a
discriminatory prohibition on Medicaid funding being used for long-term
substance abuse and mental health treatment beds. The Presiding Officer
and I are trying to repeal this provision as it relates to the
treatment of people with mental illness, but it also relates to people
who are struggling with substance abuse.
Medicaid dollars cannot be used for long-term treatment beds for
individuals with substance abuse and mental illness. It is one of the
few instances in our reimbursement policy at the Federal level in which
we specifically prohibit reimbursement for a treatment that has been
prescribed by a medical professional. Again, this seems rooted in this
decades-old stigma about people with mental illness and substance
abuse--that they should just get over it, they should just cure
themselves, and they should make a different choice. So there is not a
need for these long-term beds.
The second thing we need to do, in addition to appropriating
emergency funding to take care of this immediate crisis, is to repeal
the prohibition on Medicaid dollars going to long-term treatment beds.
Not everybody needs long-term treatment but many do. Many are comorbid
with a substance abuse disorder and a mental illness. Yet you get
kicked out of many treatment centers within a handful of days. This is
a discriminatory provision in our law, and it is leading in parts of
this epidemic because once they show up in the emergency room, there is
no place to put them.
Third, we need to build on what the administration announced recently
and pass the TREAT Act. The TREAT Act would allow for more patients to
get prescription naloxone--buprenorphine--for treatment of their
addiction. It is an effective drug, but as of now doctors can only see
a relative handful of patients before they hit a statutory cap. We have
examples in Connecticut of individuals traveling on 12 buses for 12
hours to find a prescriber who still had room under the cap in order to
prescribe buprenorphine.
The lengths you have to go to get medical treatment for addiction are
more evidence of this discriminatory treatment and this stigma that
remains in the law. There is no cap when it comes to the number of
patients a cancer doctor or an orthopedic surgeon can have, but there
is a cap on the number of patients addiction doctors can have.
We have to pass the TREAT Act as well. These addictions can be
treated.
I sat down with a group of former heroin users, individuals in
recovery, in Bristol, CT, back in March. I spent an entire day in March
living the life of the epidemic. I visited emergency rooms, first
responders, and people in recovery.
Greg told me his story. He injured his back in his line of work as an
arborist. He works with trees, and he injured his back. He was
prescribed prescription painkillers for his herniated disk. You have
heard this story before. He got hooked on the prescription painkillers
and continued to see doctors so he could get as many prescriptions as
possible--until he ran out. When he couldn't get any more prescription
drugs, he turned to heroin and became an addict. He looked and looked
and looked for treatment but couldn't find it. Finally, he ran into
Courtney Labonte, who runs a Web site called ctsuboxone.com. She found
a treatment provider who could get him on medication therapy. Today he
is in recovery and doing better. He has made the decision to change his
life, and he has the resources to do it. There are millions of people
who can tell that story as well, but not enough.
Without this funding and the repeal of the discriminatory Medicaid
rule and without passage of the TREAT Act, we are denying medical
treatment to the thousands of people in my State--including the 800
people who will die this year from overdosing--who are grappling with
addiction. I hope that before we break, we will find the courage and
common sense to pass these measures and at least get some emergency
funding appropriated.
I thank the body for its time.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Remembering Elie Wiesel
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the life of a
cherished friend and a champion of freedom in Auschwitz, Elie Wiesel.
In Auschwitz and Buchenwald, Elie traveled far beyond the limits of
human suffering, descending deep into an abyss of agony and pain that
surpassed the torment of hell itself. Yet Elie survived this hell, and
he lived to tell his story.
Through his solemn witness, he worked tirelessly to ensure that the
world would never forget the horrors of the Holocaust. With Elie's
passing, we have lost a true hero and a luminary of Holocaust
literature. Now that Elie is gone, we must remember--now more than
ever--his solemn charge to all mankind: Never forget. Never forget the
Holocaust that it may never happen again.
Elie was the living conscience of a generation. He knew perhaps
better than anyone the depths of human depravity. Having suffered as
few ever have, he spoke on matters of human nature with a moral
authority unmatched by his contemporaries.
I was blessed to know Elie and even more fortunate to call him a
friend. I first met Elie when I was asked to serve with him on the
board of trustees for the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. Elie's warmth
was immediate, his spirit contagious. That he remained compassionate
and kind even after the atrocities of Auschwitz is a testimony to his
character and the resiliency of his spirit.
I remember speaking with Elie when he came to watch Prime Minister
Netanyahu address a joint session of Congress. I surprised Elie that
day when I showed him my mezuzah, which I have worn around my neck
every day for 40 years. I carry this mezuzah as a symbol of my respect
and love for the Jewish people and the nation of Israel. The mezuzah
represents the Lord's watchful presence in our lives. Elie was
delighted that I, a gentile, would wear this religious symbol. I wanted
to show Elie my mezuzah as if to say: I am still listening; I am still
remembering; I am still fighting the incessant tides of anti-Semitism
that threaten Jews across the globe.
Through his writing, Elie gave a voice to the millions of Jews whose
voices had been stifled and silenced during the genocide. Of course,
Elie's account is but one story; there are 6 million more. Although we
can never begin to fathom the suffering of each individual Holocaust
victim, Elie used the power of his pen to make their suffering more
tangible to all of us.
[[Page S4878]]
``Night'' was the foundation for Elie's other works. I strongly
encourage all of my colleagues to read Elie's somber account of life in
a Nazi death camp. One of Elie's most poignant verses stays with me to
this day:
Never shall I forget that night, the first night in camp,
that turned my life into one long night seven times
sealed.
Never shall I forget that smoke.
Never shall I forget the small faces of the children whose
bodies I saw transformed into smoke under a silent sky.
Never shall I forget those flames that consumed my faith
forever.
Never shall I forget the nocturnal silence that deprived me
for all eternity of the desire to live.
Never shall I forget those moments that murdered my God and
my soul and turned my dreams to ashes.
Never shall I forget those things, even were I condemned to
live as long as God Himself.
Never.
How did Elie ever find hope after witnessing such unspeakable
atrocities? He found hope in the promise of a Jewish nation. He found
hope in the belief that Israel matters, that Israel is both a state and
a state of being. Although many disagreed with his view, Elie remained
steadfast in his support for Israel. After being recognized for the
Nobel Peace Prize, Elie pleaded before world leaders who had grown
apathetic in their own support. He said:
If you could remember what I remembered, you would
understand Israel is the only nation in the world whose
existence is threatened. Should Israel lose but one war, it
would mean her end, and ours as well. But I have faith. . . .
Without it no action would be possible. And action is the
only remedy to indifference, the most insidious danger of
all.
Elie warned us that neutrality only helps the oppressor, never the
victim. He also taught us that we must take sides. Perhaps most
importantly, Elie told us to never forget. There is a quiet elegance
and fierce determination in this plea. Oftentimes, people try to put a
positive spin on this by saying ``always remember,'' but Elie eschewed
this more uplifting phrase because he wasn't concerned with helping
people feel better about the Holocaust, he was concerned with helping
them understand the true horror of the genocide to ensure that it would
never happen again. He wanted all who listened, all who read, and all
who prayed to understand that hate is a virus and it is a virus that
spreads quickly. For Elie, it was not enough to merely remember those
who died; he wanted us to never forget how they suffered.
Today we can honor Elie Wiesel and his legacy by remembering always
his humble plea: Never forget.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BOOZMAN. 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. BOOZMAN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business
for 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Honoring Our Armed Forces
Sergeant Sylvester Bruce Cline
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, the men and women who wear our uniform
are selfless heroes who embody the American spirit, courage, honor, and
patriotism. They are defenders of our freedom.
I am here to honor and pay my respects to one of America's finest:
Arkansas Army National Guard SGT Sylvester Bruce Cline.
Sergeant Cline graduated from Humphrey High School, where he was a
basketball standout. He continued his education at Arkansas Baptist
College and the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff.
In 2002, Sergeant Cline enlisted in the Arkansas National Guard. In
more than a decade of service, he demonstrated his dedication,
perseverance, and commitment to excellence in defense of our country.
Sergeant Cline was a veteran of a combat deployment to Iraq with the
39th Infantry Brigade in 2008. For his service, he was awarded the Iraq
Campaign Medal, a Global War on Terror Service Medal, as well as other
awards and decorations. Sergeant Cline served in the Arkansas Army
National Guard's Company A, 39th Brigade Support Battalion, 39th
Infantry Brigade Combat Team. His mom called him ``Mr. Mom'' for his
devotion to his children and entire family, which truly was his
greatest passion.
On June 14, 2015, Sergeant Cline died during an annual training
exercise with his unit at Fort Chaffee, AK.
I ask my colleagues to keep his family--his children, mother and
father, sisters, brother, extended family, and friends--in their
thoughts and prayers during these difficult times, and I humbly offer
my appreciation and gratitude for his service to the United States of
America.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Postpartum Depression
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I wish to take a few moments this
afternoon to shed some light and speak about the issue of postpartum
depression. As a physician himself, the Presiding Officer is aware of
the reality many new, young mothers face when they deal with issues
relating to postpartum depression, but I think what is perhaps unknown
is the incidence of postpartum depression here in the United States.
The fact is that one in seven mothers nationwide will suffer from
postpartum depression. In my State of Alaska, the numbers are even more
troubling. In Alaska, one in three new mothers will deal with the
difficulty of postpartum depression.
About a month ago--it has been a little bit more than that by now--I
sat down with a local Anchorage reporter who was working on a series
looking at the impacts of postpartum depression. I will just call it
PPD. She put together a four-part televised series that focused on
seven very strong, very passionate women from the Anchorage community
who came forward to share their stories. It was an interesting
interview because the reporter wanted to ask me about some legislation
I have been involved with here in the Senate. But it gave me an
opportunity to reflect back on the time when I was a new mother with a
beautiful, handsome little boy and the responsibilities of being a mom
literally overnight. Coming from a family of six, you figure you know
how to deal with children, but until you walk out of that hospital and
you have that responsibility, it is not something you come prepared for
or with a guidebook for. It is kind of trial by error every day.
I recalled the reality of the responsibilities I faced as a new
mother. I recalled some of the angst and concern I had about whether I
was doing things right. Here I was supposed to be happy and joyous and
excited about this beautiful bundle of baby boy I had and instead I was
tired and fatigued and stressed. I was stressed. Was I doing everything
right? I wasn't sure.
While I did not deal or suffer the anxiety that comes with postpartum
depression, as a new mother filled with just my own level of concern, I
did feel the symptoms that I think many women feel and share. Yet you
don't want to talk about it because you are supposed to be excited and
happy and not in a state that is described as anything less than
joyful. So I think, unfortunately, many women don't share their
concerns, don't express their feelings. Instead, they deal with it and
sometimes deal with it in ways that can be tragic.
So I have been inspired. I have been very encouraged by the stories I
have shared with and heard from women and other advocates who are
fighting to raise awareness of the issue of PPD.
Today I wish to share the story of one woman who lost her daughter to
postpartum depression. I met this woman shortly after I had filmed this
interview. She works in Anchorage as well as Wasilla as a child and
adolescent psychiatrist. She has been absolutely passionate about
providing care and support to children and adolescents in an effort to
reduce and prevent suicide. So this is her life's work. She began to
advocate for PPD after her own daughter, Brittany, suffered and
ultimately lost her life to PPD. Brittany was 25 years old.
Brittany was a beautiful, passionate, lively, bright young woman. She
was born close to here, in Fairfax, VA, in 1989. She excelled in
school. She graduated with an International Baccalaureate degree at 16
from Mount Vernon High School. She loved animals. She dreamt of being a
sports veterinarian one day. She continued to
[[Page S4879]]
excel academically while taking preveterinarian courses through the
University of Pittsburgh and later online through North Carolina State
University.
One of Brittany's big goals was to race in the Iditarod, one of my
favorite sporting events--certainly my favorite Alaskan event. She
owned, she raced, and she showed several Siberian huskies. She worked
as a dog handler for Karen Ramstead. She was part of Karen's
preparation for the Iditarod. So she was into her dogs. She was into
really her life. But as much as she loved the Iditarod, as much as she
loved what she was doing, she considered motherhood to be her greatest
achievement.
But, very sadly, she began to struggle with PPD after the complicated
delivery that resulted in her newborn son spending a week in the
neonatal intensive care unit. She dealt with some very powerful
emotions, some very violent emotions. She sought treatment from her
physicians for her PPD, but she was in a situation where her cries were
unanswered because she was dealing with physicians who were unable or
perhaps ill-equipped to help her.
It was about the time of her son's first birthday when Brittany lost
her battle with PPD. As sad and as tragic as that was for all in
Brittany's family, it was another woman outside the family--another
woman musher--who really moved forward in working for and advocating
for Brittany. It was DeeDee Janrowe who raced the Iditarod in
Brittany's honor. She took forward that cause, that crusade.
Again, Brittany was a bright, motivated, loving young woman who was
struck down early in life because she didn't have access to the
treatment she needed. Unfortunately, her story is just one of many. PPD
impacts women in every race, every income, and all backgrounds.
All too often, women who have PPD feel helpless. They feel
overwhelmed. They are certainly confused. They feel like they haven't
done something right. They haven't properly bonded with their baby or
they are ill-prepared, ill-equipped for parenthood. They just can't
understand or figure out what may have gone wrong. The assumption out
there is you have this beautiful baby, you should be joyful; why aren't
you? And so because that expectation is different than what you are
feeling, there is a hesitation to bring it up. There is a hesitation to
speak about it.
Again, I will repeat our statistics. Across the country, one in seven
mothers will suffer from PPD and in Alaska, one in three women, twice
the national average. There are some nonprofit organizations that are
seeking to raise awareness and to help women connect with treatment for
PPD, but often they are located in the populous areas of the State, but
think about my State, which is so extraordinarily rural, where most of
our communities are not connected by roads. What about the women who
are unable to receive a proper screening, diagnosis, or treatment early
on?
Raising awareness of this issue is something we are trying to do.
That is why I have been supporting legislation like the Bringing
Postpartum Depression Out of the Shadows Act. I wish to thank the
occupant of the chair, Senator Cassidy, along with Senators Alexander,
Murray, and Murphy, for including PPD in the Mental Health Reform Act.
I cosponsored both pieces of legislation because I think we need to do
more to ensure we are ensuring proper screening and treatment for PPD.
I want to support the efforts to improve culturally competent programs
that will help educate physicians, especially our primary care
providers, on the proper detection and treatment. We recognize this
will not only benefit the women who are suffering but also improve the
health and the well-being of their children and their families as a
whole.
With so many moms across my State and across the Nation who are
facing postpartum depression, I think it is important, it is worthwhile
that we do what we can to raise the issue, raise the awareness, put it
at the forefront, openly discuss it, educate, and help improve our
understanding of this illness. I thank the Chair for the opportunity to
raise this issue before the body today.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Wasteful Spending
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I return to the floor now for the 47th week
for the 47th edition of the ``Waste of the Week.'' I highlight
documented examples of waste, fraud, and abuse of hard-earned
taxpayers' dollars that come to the Federal Government and that the
public has every right to expect us to spend wisely, effectively, and
efficiently.
Nonpartisan agencies like the Government Accountability Office and
inspectors general are the watchdogs that examine how various agencies
spend money and then report areas where they think expenditure doesn't
live up to the promises that have been made, in terms of what it would
accomplish, or question whether it ever should have been provided in
the first place.
Some of the examples I have provided over these 47 weeks have been
labeled simply as ridiculous. I raised those because it grabs the
attention of the American public, saying: How in the world could the
Federal Government allow something like that to happen with my tax
dollars? I get up every Monday morning and go to work and I work hard
for those dollars and I have a mortgage to pay and I have bills to pay.
I have gasoline I have to put in my car to get to work and back. Then I
hear something on the floor of the U.S. Senate, from the Senator from
Indiana, that is a documented expenditure that falls clearly within the
category of simply a ridiculous decision--waste, fraud, or abuse.
So whether it has been Federal grants to perform massages on
rabbits--yes, massages on rabbits--to see whether a massage makes them
feel better after a strenuous workout, I think any one of us could
basically say you don't need to spend several hundred thousand dollars
to prove that is something that works, or whether it is solar-fried
burgers--I think 7,000 or so--that fly over a mirrored number of acres
in a desert in California that are reflecting sunlight to a boiler,
which has not proved to be cost-effective, and in the meantime it
creates so much heat it has caused the cables that are necessary to
produce the heat to be fried and also birds that fly over this solar
field. I am surprised the environmentalists are not on top of that.
Then there are the gambling monkeys, to see whether the monkeys were
willing to take a greater risk and continue gambling if they had a
reward for it--like, in their case, for food. I could have proven that
with my dog that will eat anything I put in front of him, no matter how
much I put down there.
We are talking about several hundreds of thousands, if not millions,
of dollars. Those are ludicrous. They are designed to catch people's
attention so they will pay more attention to some of the examples of
egregious wastes of money, designed for, perhaps, a good motive or the
right purpose, but exposed, it is something that falls within that
category of waste.
In one of my very first ``Waste of the Week'' speeches, I talked
about the issue of double dipping in Social Security disability funds
and unemployment insurance. To receive clearance to receive Social
Security and disability payments, you have to prove you can't work; you
are disabled, you can't work. But to receive unemployment insurance,
you have to be working and then be told you can no longer keep your
job, and in that interim period of time until you get a new job, we are
going to pay you insurance benefits. What the General Accounting Office
found out was that people were getting checks for doing both. Look, you
can do one or the other but not both. That was no small change. That
was $6 billion. I think it is $5.7 billion of documented waste every
year.
Well, here we are at No. 47, and I would like to highlight yet
another serious and very concerning example of waste: improper payments
of taxpayer money through Medicare. All of us agree Medicare is an
important program for millions of Americans, and we need to do what we
can to preserve these important health care benefits for those who
depend on them and need them, but an essential part of preserving these
benefits is protecting Medicare from waste, fraud, and abuse.
Throughout its history, we have read, and it has been determined by
inspectors general and by the Government
[[Page S4880]]
Accountability Office, Medicare has been plagued by improper payments
which are payments that are not justified can occur because of fraud or
bureaucratic mismanagement. These improper payments not only threaten
the solvency of Medicare, they leave millions of seniors vulnerable
because when these improper payments are the result of fraud and abuse,
they can jeopardize the health and well-being of Medicare beneficiaries
for this reason: The reason is, Medicare is going broke. It is
careening toward insolvency.
The Medicare trustees have said we are only 12 short years away from
insolvency under Medicare Part A. When you determine waste, fraud, and
abuse, on a year-after-year-after-year basis in the billions and tens
of billions of dollars, these are dollars not available to keep that
program solvent. That is going to have a devastating effect on the
ability for us to provide the Medicare services people of a certain age
need.
How many taxpayers' dollars am I talking about today? Well, in fiscal
year 2015 alone, just in that year, the last year where the audits have
been done, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, which
administers Medicare, improperly paid out $59 billion for health
services--in one single year, $59 billion of improper payments,
representing nearly 10 percent of the total amount Medicare spent that
year.
As I said, just last month the Medicare trustees said Medicare Part A
would be insolvent by 2028. Think about how much that 1 year of $59
billion can do to help keep the program solvent. All of this is why it
is all the more necessary for Congress, the administration, and the
health care agencies to work in unison to solve this crisis of Medicare
solvency.
There is a group known as the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, and I
commend whoever put that idea in play. It needs to be advanced
significantly, but the idea with the strike force was it could root out
the bad actors and bring them to justice. As an example, recently the
strike force uncovered a ring of over 300 people--from physicians and
pharmacists to nurses and government officials--who have allegedly
conspired to defraud Medicare out of $900 million.
How did they do it? Well, some of the examples in this fraud ring
include the billing of Medicare for procedures the providers claim took
place after the patient passed away. They were submitting Medicare
claims for dead patients and receiving significant payments. Other
providers billed Medicare for home health care, which is reserved for
bedridden seniors, for services that were not even provided to the
patients in need. It was fraud, in terms of people submitting many
bills to CMS and receiving payments when the services were not
provided.
In Detroit, a so-called medical clinic billed Medicare for tens of
millions of dollars, when in fact the clinic was determined to be a
front for a narcotics diversion scheme. The clinic operators and
recruiters targeted poor drug addicts who needed help and offered those
addicts narcotics so clinics could then bill for Medicare services that
were not provided. This was tens of millions of dollars. These are just
examples of what the IGs found in terms of looking at Medicare
payments. That is why I continue to come down every week to urge my
colleagues in the Senate, in the House of Representatives, and the
administration to take the necessary steps to tighten the screws on bad
actors in Medicare, in agencies across the realm of this government,
not only because they are gambling with the health of some of America's
most vulnerable patients but also because we have such precious little
time to work to save this program from insolvency.
Our goal should be--in fact, it must be--to protect seniors, to
promote good government practices, and achieve real savings by
addressing these issues now.
With that, I am adding another major amount of waste, fraud, and
abuse for an ever-growing total. This week it is $59 billion for
Medicare improper payments, bringing the total all the way to $234-plus
billion in waste, fraud, and abuse of hard-earned taxpayer dollars.
We wonder why the public has lost confidence and faith in their
elected representatives and their institutions of government, when we
see this kind of bureaucratic mess, when we see this kind of waste of
hard-earned tax dollars, the fraud that is involved that is not
detected and the abuse and terrible decision making by people who,
respectfully, work for government agencies but don't exercise the kind
of judgment the American taxpayer expects from them in terms of dealing
with the money they send to Washington.
Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator Florida.
Zika Virus Funding
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont, who is
next, for yielding me just a couple minutes.
I want to be brief and to the point. Congress is 1 week away from
recessing before the conventions. We have yet to appropriate
significant funds to fight Zika. At this point, quite frankly, I don't
care whose fault it is anymore--Republicans or Democrats. This whole
partisan argument that is going on around this issue is inexcusable.
Every single day now we have massive numbers of Zika cases being
reported in my home State. Every day new records are being set. Just
today a new case was found in a county that hadn't had a case yet.
Forty-five out of fifty States in this country now have a Zika case. We
have yet to see a local transmission, but it is coming, and I don't
know, for the life of me, how anyone in this Chamber can go back home a
week from now and say: We are going to be on recess for 6 weeks, in the
peak of the summer, in the peak of mosquito season, in the peak of
travel season, and we have appropriated nothing for the Zika virus.
This makes no sense to me.
Do you want to know why Congress's approval rating is at 1, 2, or 3
percent, if that? It is because on an issue of public health we cannot
find a way forward. My hope is that in the days to come, we will have
an understanding that allows us to move forward. I am not just talking
to the Senate, I am also talking to the House. Let's appropriate money
and move forward and deal with this issue appropriately, with the
urgency it deserves, or everyone is going to have to answer to their
constituents as to why this public health crisis has blossomed and
bloomed and we did nothing about it.
I truly hope, in the hours and days leading up to our recess, we will
find a rapid and quick way forward so we can address this and fix it
and give our people the help they need in the short term and ultimately
move toward the money we need to research for a vaccine so this issue
can be prevented and this disease can be prevented from spreading in
the future.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise to speak in very strong opposition
to the Roberts-Stabenow bill concerning the labeling of genetically
modified organisms, GMOs, and to discuss an amendment of mine that I
hope will get to the floor as soon as possible.
The simple truth is, people have the right to know what is in the
food they eat, and when parents go to the store and purchase food, they
have the right to know what is in the food their kids are going to be
eating. That is why 64 countries all over the world, including the
European Union, Japan, Australia, Brazil, Russia, and China, require
labeling of foods containing genetically modified organisms, GMOs. That
is why my own State of Vermont, Maine, Connecticut, and Alaska have
adopted laws to label foods containing GMOs. That is why the major
environmental groups in this country, including the Natural Resources
Defense Council, the Sierra Club, the League of Conservation Voters,
the Environmental Working Group, Center for Food Safety, Food & Water
Watch, and others have all come out in opposition to the Roberts-
Stabenow bill.
It is no secret my own State of Vermont has led the way in requiring
companies to label their products. Last Friday, Vermont became the
first State in the Nation to require GMO labeling, and several other
States have undertaken similar efforts. Passage of Vermont's law was a
triumph for consumers, for ordinary Americans, over the powerful
interests of companies like Monsanto and other multinational food
industry corporations.
[[Page S4881]]
Unfortunately, the victory in Vermont appears to be a hollow victory.
The major agribusiness and biotech companies disagree with the right of
consumers to know what is in their food, and not only do they disagree,
they have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in lobbying and in
campaign contributions to overturn the GMO right-to-know legislation
that States have already passed and that other States are on the verge
of passing. They have also spent many millions more to pass Federal
legislation like what we are considering today, which would deny States
the right to go forward in this area.
Let's be clear. This is just another shameful example of how big-
money interests are using their influence to enact policies that are
contrary to what the vast majority of the American people want and what
they support. These companies are spending millions and tens of
millions and hundreds of millions of dollars to make certain that their
interests prevail against what ordinary Americans feel very strongly
about.
The Grocery Manufacturers Association, which sued and lost in trying
to stop Vermont's law, has 34 lobbyists working on this issue alone.
They spent $8.5 million lobbying in 2015. In 2016, the Grocery
Manufacturers Association has already spent $1.5 million in total
lobbying. Monsanto has spent $2 million in 2016 lobbying Congress. The
Environmental Working Group has calculated that food and biotech
companies and trade associations have spent nearly $200 million to
oppose State GMO labeling initiatives like Vermont's legislation. When
combined with Washington lobbying expenditures that note GMO labeling
as a purpose, the total amount spent by labeling opponents is close to
$400 million--$400 million in order to prevent the people of our
country knowing what is in the food they eat.
This particular piece of corporate-backed legislation we are
considering right now will create a confusing, misleading, and
unenforceable national standard for labeling GMOs. This bill will
preempt my State's law--the law in the State of Vermont--roll back the
progress we have made, and is a huge setback to consumers' right to
know what is in their food.
I would say to my Republican colleagues who so often tell us about
the need to get the Federal Government out of the lives of the people,
who talk about States' rights, what this legislation does is preempt a
law passed in the State of Vermont, which thousands of our people were
involved in passing, which the State legislature held numerous hearings
on, where the State law was sued and yet was sustained by a court.
We have gone through all of that in the State of Vermont. We have
Maine passing similar legislation, Connecticut passing legislation,
Alaska passing legislation. Yet many of my friends who are great
States' righters, who know how important the role of States is, are
prepared to overturn all of the work done in these four States.
What is specifically bad above and beyond the preemption aspects of
this legislation? Instead of a uniform labeling standard like Vermont's
law, the language in this bill allows text symbols or an electronic QR
code to be used. This is intentionally confusing to consumers, and the
information may be entirely inaccessible if the consumer does not have
access to the Internet. The QR code is not required to have text next
to it to make it clear that the code provides additional information
about GMOs. It can merely say ``Scan here for more food information.''
That makes no sense. People may not even know to scan it to learn more
about GMOs specifically.
You can imagine how ridiculous this will be in the real world. A mom
goes to a store with two kids who are running around, and she is
supposed to take out her cell phone and scan a label in a store that
may or may not have a good Internet connection. This is not an effort
to provide information; this is an effort to deny information to
consumers.
Reading information right on the label takes a matter of seconds. Why
would we require families and shoppers to take considerable time when
under Vermont's law they only need a moment to look at a label? Right
now we have labels that tell us the amount of calories and give us
other information on what is in a product. We look at it and we make a
judgment as to whether this is a product we wish to purchase, and that
is clearly what should be the case with products that contain GMOs.
There is also an argument to be made that this bill is discriminatory
in its impact. Putting the onus on the consumer, making it necessary
for that consumer to have a smartphone and Internet access, prohibits
those without that access. Not everybody in America owns a cell phone.
Many low-income people and working people do not own a cell phone.
Yesterday's New York Times noted in an editorial that ``the biggest
problem with the Senate bill is that--instead of requiring a simple
label, as the Vermont law does--it would allow food companies to put
the information in electronic codes that consumers would have to scan
with smartphones or at scanners installed by grocery stores.''
According to the New York Times, ``The only reason to do this would be
to make the information less accessible to the public.''
Less accessible to the public. The New York Times has it exactly
right.
Further, this bill allows the U.S. Department of Agriculture to rule
on what percentage of GMO material is present in a particular food
before it gets labeled, in contrast to Vermont's and the European
Union's standards, both of which require products with more than nine-
tenths of 1 percent GMO to be labeled.
The Roberts-Stabenow bill also contains a huge loophole in the
labeling requirement, stating that there is no labeling requirement for
GMO foods that could have occurred ``through conventional breeding or
found in nature.'' Essentially, if the genetic engineering done by a
company could have occurred in nature, there is no requirement to label
it, which would prevent GMO corn, beet sugar, and soy oils from being
labeled. The FDA has confirmed this loophole, stating that as the
language is currently written, ``many of the foods from [genetically
engineered] sources will not be subject'' to labeling requirements.
Under this bill, consumers will be left in the dark for at least
another 2 years, maybe longer. Once USDA has published its regulations,
there is no mandatory timeline for companies to comply. In other words,
we are pushing this issue further and further into the future.
Perhaps the real giveaway as to why this is not a serious piece of
legislation is that, most shockingly, this bill imposes no Federal
penalties whatsoever for violating the so-called labeling requirement,
making the law essentially meaningless. In other words, you have a
confusing law that will not be utilized by most people, but then on top
of all of that, if a company does not obey the law, there is no penalty
whatsoever. So that will give a great incentive for companies to
continue to do nothing.
In other words, this bill is weak, it is full of loopholes, and it
has no requirement to comply.
In addition to the bill's many flaws, the bill most significantly is
not necessary. In fact, many large companies, such as Campbell's,
Frito-Lay, Kellogg's, and ConAgra, have begun to label their products
nationally in anticipation of Vermont's law. For example, here is a
label that appears on M&Ms. Everybody knows M&Ms. They are manufactured
by Mars, one of the major candy companies in the world. Here it is,
five words: ``partially produced with genetic engineering.'' That is
it. It is right here on the label. This is what you will see if you
pick up a package of M&Ms today. It is out there. It is on the label.
People can make their determination as to whether they want to buy the
product. Other major companies are already doing that. Campbell's is
doing it, Frito-Lay is doing it, Kellogg's is doing it, and ConAgra is
doing it. In other words, many of the major companies are already
complying with the law. We do not need to go beyond that. Guess what.
These companies that began to label these products did it and the sky
didn't fall. I guess people are still buying M&Ms, other candies, and
the other products manufactured by these companies.
In addition to a consumer's right to know, it is important to note
that when we talk about GMOs, it is not just the question of the
manipulation
[[Page S4882]]
of genetic material, it is about the chemicals necessary to make these
crops productive.
The Environmental Working Group has exposed that GMOs have not
decreased pesticide and herbicide use as promised. In fact, the use of
toxic chemicals to grow food has only increased. Herbicide use has
increased exponentially and glyphosate use specifically has increased
by 3,000 percent since the 1990s.
In the State of Vermont, Monsanto, Dow, and Syngenta promised our
farmers that GMO corn would allow them to reduce the amount of
chemicals needed for their crop production. Instead, herbicide and
chemical fertilizer use on Vermont dairy farms has almost doubled from
2002 to 2012 just to keep up with the need for more pesticides and
herbicides to get enough corn to feed the dairy cows.
This is troubling not only because it is extremely expensive for
farmers to keep up with the seed and pesticide needs, it is also very
dangerous because eight of the active ingredients in use have been
linked to birth defects, developmental defects, and contaminated
drinking water.
In addition to these concerns, I also want to appeal to my colleagues
who have come to the Senate floor to speak in support of States'
rights. As I said earlier, make no mistake about it--this is
significantly a States' rights issue, and this bill is an assault on
States' rights. This bill would preempt Vermont's laws, Connecticut's
laws, and Maine's laws.
According to the Center for Food Safety, this bill would preempt more
than 100 State and municipal food and seed laws. The center notes
specifically that Virginia's seed law allows farmers to have the
critical information they need to make informed choices about which
seed is the most appropriate for them to purchase and plant.
I will name just a few of the other State laws that would be
preempted. It would override Alaska's labeling law, which requires that
genetically engineered fish be labeled. The Roberts-Stabenow bill would
also preempt a Florida statute that requires a permit for the release
of exotic organisms and includes genetically modified organisms. The
Roberts-Stabenow bill would preempt a Michigan statute that created an
invasive species advisory council. It would preempt a Missouri statute
that authorizes the State entomologist to determine whether something
is not only a plant pest but also whether the pest is of such a harmful
nature that its introduction to or dissemination within the State
should be prevented. It would also preempt a South Carolina regulation
that defines plant pests.
In other words, I find it interesting that this legislation has the
support of the vast majority of Republicans who day after day tell us
how they want to get the Federal Government out of people's lives, but
this legislation preempts dozens of State laws all over this country
that were passed by State legislatures and signed by the Governors of
those States. These are just a few of the laws; there are dozens more
that would be nullified under the Roberts-Stabenow bill.
The amendment I intend to offer, which I hope my colleagues will all
support, would make Vermont's law the national standard. For those who
have argued that companies would be unable to comply with a 50-State
patchwork of GMO regulation, my amendment would alleviate that concern.
Specifically, Vermont's law--unlike the bill before the Senate--
enjoyed a full hearing and amendment process. It was much discussed in
the Vermont State Legislature. Vermont's law was years in the making,
and legislators heard hours of testimony from dozens of stakeholders,
including organic farmers and environmental organizations. The Roberts-
Stabenow language has had none of this scrutiny and was brought to the
floor by a procedural means without one hearing or one committee
markup.
Unlike the Roberts-Stabenow bill, Vermont's law requires clear, on-
package labeling instead of allowing a confusing QR code. Under
Vermont's law and this amendment, consumers can glance quickly at a
product and be able to determine the GMO contents with no need of a
smartphone or Internet connection.
Once again, and very importantly, many major food companies are
already complying with Vermont's law. Pick up a package of M&Ms, and
there it is right now on the label, five words: ``partially produced
with genetic engineering.'' Mars, which manufactures M&Ms, has done it,
and it is not a problem. Other companies are already doing the same
thing.
What makes sense is to build on what Vermont has done, not come up
with an unenforceable, confusing, weak piece of legislation paid for by
the large food corporations in this country.
This amendment making Vermont the national standard will also prevent
the gaping loopholes in the Roberts-Stabenow language that will prevent
labeling of the most common GMO foods. Unlike the Roberts-Stabenow
language, this amendment defines ``food'' and ``genetic engineering''
in a way that would require labeling of foods derived from GMOs, such
as starches, oils made from GMOs, sugar derived from GMO sugar beets,
or high-fructose corn syrup. None of these types of products will
require labeling under the Roberts-Stabenow language.
Also, my amendment sets a specific percentage of GMOs in food to
trigger the labeling requirement--nine-tenths of 1 percent, which is
consistent with Vermont's law and European Union standards. Under the
Roberts-Stabenow language, this determination will be left up to the
USDA, which could require 10 percent before labeling or 51 percent. We
just don't know at this point.
My amendment also contains a legitimate enforcement provision
consistent with Vermont's law. My amendment sets consistent penalties
for improper labeling and provides for consumers to be able to sue to
ensure enforcement.
The issue of labeling of our food is not controversial. It is
something the American people want. It is something that common sense
dictates. The overwhelming majority of Americans favor GMO labeling,
nearly 9 out of 10.
People have a right to know what is in the food they eat. Instead,
the needs of consumers, the needs of the American people have been
completely disregarded in this legislation at the behest of major
corporate interests and campaign donors. Congress must stand up to the
demands of Monsanto and other multinational food industry corporations
and reject the Roberts-Stabenow piece of legislation.
My amendment would provide a meaningful alternative to the confusing
and ineffective measure we are considering, and I ask that colleagues
support my amendment.
With that, I reserve----
Mr. LEAHY. Before the Senator yields the floor, he talked about what
Vermont did. Isn't it a fact that the Senate didn't hold one single
hearing or have one single witness come before they set this bill; is
that correct?
Mr. SANDERS. My colleague from Vermont is absolutely correct. In
Vermont, there was a lot of discussion, and there were a number of
hearings, but not here in the U.S. Senate.
Mr. LEAHY. In fact, the Vermont Legislature, is it not a fact, had at
least 50 hearings with at least 130 witnesses?
Mr. SANDERS. My colleague from Vermont makes a very, very important
point. In Vermont, this issue was seriously discussed. Over 50 hearings
were held, with different points of view and objections being raised.
I would ask my colleague, just to confirm with me: How many hearings
on this important and controversial bill were held here in the Senate?
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would answer my friend and colleague from
Vermont--especially, as a member of the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry, I am well aware of this--that there was not
one single hearing, not one single witness.
Unlike Vermont, with 50 hearings and 130 witnesses who expressed
every single view, over 2 years of time and debate, we didn't have 2
minutes of debate and discussion. Vermont did 2 years.
Mr. SANDERS. So here is what we have. I thank my friend from Vermont
for raising this issue. On the one hand, we have a State--the State of
Vermont--which addressed this issue in a serious way, listening to all
points of view, having the legislature go over this in a thorough
manner. Then, here
[[Page S4883]]
we have the Senate, after many, many millions of dollars in lobbying
efforts and campaign contributions, overriding the work of the State of
Vermont and not having one hearing--not one hearing with consumers,
environmental groups, farm organizations--and rushing it through in the
last week or two before we adjourn for summer break.
I thank the Senator from Vermont for raising that enormously
important issue.
With that, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today as the Senate considers
legislation on an issue that is critically important to our Nation's
food supply. From our producers in the fields to our families
purchasing food in the aisles of the grocery stores, without the Senate
action we are considering today, this country will be hit with a
wrecking ball that will disrupt the entire food chain. We need to act
now to pass our amendment to S. 764.
This is a bipartisan--a bipartisan--approach that provides a
permanent solution to the patchwork of biotechnology labeling laws that
will wreak havoc on the flow of interstate commerce of agriculture and
food products in our Nation's marketplace. That is what this is exactly
about--the marketplace. It is not about safety. It is not about health
or nutrition. It is about marketing. Science has proven again and again
that the use of agriculture biotechnology is 100-percent safe.
The Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Tillis, provided on the floor
just a moment ago that, in fact, the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry last year heard from the three Federal agencies
tasked with regulating agriculture biotechnology--the USDA's Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service, the Environmental Protection Agency,
and the Food and Drug Administration. Their work is based on sound
science and is the gold standard for our policymaking, including this
policy we are debating today--one of the most important food and
agriculture decisions in recent decades. Many people say this issue is
the biggest issue for agriculture in 20 years. I agree.
At our hearing, the Federal Government expert witnesses highlighted
the steps their agencies have already taken to ensure that agriculture
biotechnology is safe--safe for other plants, safe for the environment,
and safe for our food supply. It was clear that our regulatory system
ensures biotechnology crops are among the most tested in the history of
agriculture. At the conclusion of the hearing, virtually all of the
members of the Agriculture Committee were in agreement. Not one
disagreed. Thus, it is clear that what we are facing today is not a
safety or a health issue, despite claims by a couple of my colleagues
on the Senate Floor. It is a market issue.
This is really a conversation about a few States dictating to every
State the way food moves from farmers to consumers. This patchwork
approach of mandates adds costs to national food prices. In fact,
requiring changes in the production or on-package labeling of most of
the Nation's food supply for a single State would impact citizens in
each of our home States.
A recent study on the impact of an on-package label estimates that
the cost to consumers could total as much as $82 billion annually--$82
billion--approximately $1,050 per hard-working American family. Let me
repeat that. That is $1,050 per hardworking American family. Now is not
the time for Congress to make food more expensive for anybody to eat or
produce--not the consumer and certainly not the farmer.
Today's farmers are being asked to produce more safe and affordable
food to meet the growing demands at home and around a very troubled and
hungry world. At the same time, they are facing increased challenges to
production, including limited land and water resources, uncertain
weather patterns, and pest and disease issues.
Agricultural biotechnology has become a valuable tool in ensuring the
success of the American farmer in meeting the challenge of increasing
yield in a more efficient, safe, and responsible manner. In fact,
thanks to modern agriculture technology, we have seen a 48-percent
increase in corn yields. That is good for the farmer, that is good for
the consumer, and that is good for a troubled and hungry world. There
has been a 36-percent increase in soybean yields in the last 20 years.
That is the value of agricultural biotechnology.
Now, I have also heard--and I do understand the concern--from some of
my colleagues about consumers and available information about our food.
Some consumers want to know more about ingredients. This is a good
thing. Consumers should take an interest in their food, where it comes
from, and the farmers and ranchers that produce their food.
This legislation puts forward policies that will help consumers find
information--almost guaranteed. It does so without jeopardizing the
technology upon which our farmers rely. More importantly, the
legislation before us provides an immediate and comprehensive solution
to the unworkable State-by-State patchwork of labeling laws. State
consumer protection laws and anything beyond the wrecking ball that we
see related to biotechnology labeling mandates are codified as exempt
from preemption. We ensure that the solution to the State patchwork--
one thing we can all agree upon--is effective.
The amendment focuses on human food that may or may not be
bioengineered. We do not set up any new offices at the Department of
Agriculture, and we minimize any impact on other agencies. Instead, we
direct the Secretary to establish a uniform national disclosure
standard through rulemaking. It sets national uniformity that allows
for the free flow of interstate commerce, a power granted to Congress
in the U.S. Constitution.
Let me point this out. The commerce clause in article I, section 8,
clause No. 3, provides that ``the Congress shall have Power . . . To
regulate commerce with foreign Nations and among the several States and
with the Indian Tribes.'' But note ``among the several states''--more
than several States today.
This labeling uniformity is based on science and allows the value
chain--from farmer to processor to shipper to retailer to consumer--to
continue as the free market intended. To accomplish national
uniformity, we crafted a mandatory disclosure requirement. We are
talking about mandatory disclosure, not just labeling. The Senate
bipartisan agreement is mandatory disclosure with several options--text
on package, a symbol, or an electronic link to a Web site that Senator
Tillis so aptly demonstrated. The legislation is clear that the link
cannot include any text on the package that could be used to denigrate
biotechnology. It will simply say: ``Scan here for more food
information.''
We also allow for Web sites or telephone numbers to satisfy the
requirement for small food manufacturers, and we completely exempt very
small food manufacturers and restaurants from having to comply.
The disclosure requirement applies to food subject to the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act labeling requirements as well as some meat
and poultry products. We do not include alcohol, as those items are
subject to labeling requirements under a different authority at the
U.S. Treasury. In this respect, alcohol is similar to other food that
is labeled under a different authority than the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act.
The scope of this agreement includes human food, not animal feed. The
language prohibits the Secretary from considering any food product
derived from an animal to be bioengineered based only upon the animal
eating bioengineered feed.
It is important, as with any Federal legislation on this topic, for
Congress to consider scientific fact and unintended consequences. We
include a safety statement. The agreement ensures that the regulations
will treat bioengineered food the same as its nonbioengineered
counterpart. We agree that these products have been found safe through
the Federal regulatory review process.
I want to emphasize this, and I want my colleagues to understand
this. This legislation has the support of more than 1,000
organizations--large and small--representing the entire food chain, and
that number continues to grow every day. Never before in the history of
the Senate Agriculture Committee--and, I would venture of any
[[Page S4884]]
committee--have we seen such a coalition of constituents all united
behind such an effort. Their message is clear: It is time for us to
act. It is time for us to provide certainty in the marketplace. It is
time for us to pass this amendment.
I appreciate the bipartisan support of those on the committee who
joined me by voting to approve our committee bill, those who supported
a solution in March, and those who voted to consider this agreement. We
have again made significant changes to address the concerns of the
ranking member and others. Now, we all must carry this across the
finish line. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan approach
and protect the safest, most abundant, and affordable food supply in
the world.
Now, I want to say something else. I want to talk about the men and
women whom the Agriculture Committee represents and whom everyone on
the Agriculture Committee should champion and protect. I am going to
describe that person to my colleagues on the floor, with reverence to
Paul Harvey.
And on the 8th day, God looked down on his planned paradise
and said, ``I need a caretaker.'' So God made a farmer.
God said, ``I need somebody willing to get up before dawn,
milk cows, work all day in the fields, milk cows again, eat
supper and then go to town and stay past midnight at a
meeting of the school board.'' So God made a farmer.
``I need somebody with arms strong enough to rustle a calf
and yet gentle enough to deliver his own grandchild. Somebody
to call hogs, tame cantankerous machinery, come home hungry,
have to wait on lunch until his wife's done feeding visiting
ladies and then tell the ladies to be sure and come back real
soon--and mean it.'' So God made a farmer.
God said, ``I need somebody willing to sit up all night
with a newborn colt. And watch it die. Then dry his eyes and
say, `Maybe next year.' I need somebody who can shape an ax
handle from a persimmon sprout, shoe a horse with a hunk of
car tire, who can make harness out of haywire, feed sacks and
shoe scraps. And who, planting time and harvest season, will
finish his forty-hour week by Tuesday noon, then, pain'n from
`tractor back,' put in another seventy-two hours.'' So God
made a farmer.
God had to have somebody willing to ride the ruts at double
speed to get the hay in ahead of the rain clouds and yet stop
in mid-field and race to help when he sees the first smoke
from a neighbor's place. So God made a farmer.
God said, ``I need somebody strong enough to clear trees
and heave bails, yet gentle enough to tame lambs and wean
pigs and tend the pink-combed pullets, who will stop his
mower for an hour to splint the broken leg of a meadow lark.
It had to be somebody who'd plow deep and straight and not
cut corners. Somebody to seed, weed, feed, breed and rake and
disc and plow and plant and tie the fleece and strain the
milk and replenish the self-feeder and finish a hard week's
work with a five-mile drive to church.''
``Somebody who'd bale a family together with the soft
strong bonds of sharing, who would laugh and then sigh, and
then reply, with smiling eyes, when his son says he wants to
spend his life `doing what dad does.' '' So God made a
farmer.
It is our responsibility to protect that farmer, and to protect what
he does to feed this Nation and a troubled world with the best quality
food at the lowest price in the history of the world. So let us protect
that farmer.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I am pleased that it looks like we are
going to be voting this afternoon on a measure that would, for the
first time, give American families access to GMO information about the
food they buy.
As my colleague from Kansas prepares to leave the Chamber, I just
want to express my thanks to him, to his staff, to Senator Debbie
Stabenow of Michigan and her staff, and a lot of others, including
members of my own staff, and the administration--especially Tom
Vilsack, the Secretary of Agriculture--for the work that they and many
others have done to bring us to this point in this important debate.
I was with the Aspen Institute seminar visit to Tanzania about a year
ago. We got into a discussion with a lot of young African leaders and
scholars, and a number of Democratic and Republican House Members and
Senate Members.
The debate ended up going into an area I never expected it to go. We
ended up talking about drought in Africa. We ended up talking about
what is going on with climate change that exacerbates their problems
with raising crops. We talked about how it might be possible for them
to use genetically modified seeds to better endure and survive drought
and to enable them to maybe raise some crops that would be healthier
for their constituents. We ended up in an interesting debate on sound
science with respect to sea level rise and climate change.
The message from our Democrats who happened to be present at that
seminar was this: Our Republican friends should be guided by sound
science when it comes to climate change and sea level rise. Delaware is
the lowest lying State in the country. We are especially mindful of
this issue.
Republicans, after we had reminded them of the need to rely on good
science with respect to climate change and sea level rise, had this
rejoinder for us Democrats. They said: Well, maybe if we were to agree
to that, you guys--Democrats present--should agree to be guided by good
science with respect to genetically modified organisms.
As it turns out, close to 98 or 99 percent of scientists around the
world believe that climate change is real, sea level rise is real, and
we human beings are directly contributing to that. I am told that 98 or
99 percent of the scientists on the other side of the issue with
respect to genetically modified organisms have concluded--again, we
have had recently, just in the last several weeks, additional
confirmation of this--that most of the scientists in the world who
follow this think we ought to be guided by sound science with respect
to genetically modified organisms, and that food is safe for us to eat.
I don't know if this is the home stretch yet. I hope, as we come down
on the debate on this important issue of genetically modified organisms
and the safety of our food, that we will keep in mind the debate that
took place almost a year ago on the other side of the world.
I have said to my colleagues around here any number of times that
people ask me what is one of the proudest things that I have done in my
life. I have discussed this issue. I don't know if the Presiding
Officer remembers it. I am proudest of all of raising two--actually,
three--boys who are now all grown up and off into the world on their
own. My wife and I wanted to make sure they grew up healthy, sound, and
strong. They had nutritious food to eat. As Governor of Delaware and
chairman of the National Governors Association, I felt we did well, and
I want to make sure that kids--not just my own kids but young people
all over the world--and not so young people have the benefit of eating
healthy and nutritious food.
I understand the calls from parents who want to know more about the
food they are putting on their tables in this country and other
countries as well. I believe the Stabenow-Roberts compromise for GMO
labeling will help all consumers make more informed choices no matter
where they live in America.
Part of our job in Congress is to ensure that our Federal regulations
set forth a reasonable framework for American businesses, too, so they
can grow and thrive. A week ago, our country's first human labeling law
took effect in one State, Vermont, but that law regulates only food
being sold within that State's lines.
Again, I call myself a recovering Governor, but as a former Governor,
I know a patchwork approach to regulations that apply to interstate
commerce is very problematic. Businesses want and need certain
predictability. For food businesses, large and small, waiting for each
State to produce its own labeling laws, its own rules, would create a
haphazard and totally unmanageable regulatory landscape.
I believe it is absolutely critical that we act on the Federal level
to create labeling requirements that give consumers the information
they need and deserve without creating a logistical nightmare that
would stifle American businesses. The question is, Can we have both or
are they mutually exclusive of one another? I think we can have both.
Under the Stabenow-Roberts compromise, in the next 2 years, all foods
that contain GMOs will be labeled with a QR code that sends consumers
directly to the producer's Web site and outlines clear information
about what is in the product that consumers are about to buy or
considering buying. That means consumers in the dozens of
[[Page S4885]]
States that haven't yet acted to require GMO labeling will have better
information about their food, no matter where they buy it.
Sometimes a little common sense goes a long way, and this is a
commonsense solution to an issue our constituents asked us to address.
Not only am I pleased by the agreement that we have reached, but I am
also pleased by the way that we got here. My wife says I am an eternal
optimist--maybe too optimistic some days, but I hope the bipartisan
work we have done to get here, led by Senator Stabenow and Senator
Roberts, reminds our constituents that they, too, can be optimistic
about the ability of Congress to get things done.
This comes on the heels of the bipartisan work done on the Toxic
Substances Control Act, where Democrats and Republicans worked together
with the administration to pass one of the best environmental laws that
we have done maybe in decades in this country.
Finally, I would like to address some of the critics of this
compromise who assert that we didn't go far enough to protect Americans
from GMOs. We talk often about the overwhelming scientific data that
proves our climate is changing at a troubling rate and that humans are
the primary drivers of that. On GMOs, the scientific data is also
overwhelming.
I mentioned earlier in my remarks that at a seminar at the African
institute in Tanzania last year, both the Democrats and the Republicans
exchanged ideas that both of us should be guided by sound science on
GMOs or sea level rise climate change.
More recently, in May of this year, the National Academy of Sciences
released an independent report that determined genetically engineered
crops are just as safe to eat as conventional crops. I will say it
again. In May of this year, the National Academy of Sciences released
an independent report that determined genetically engineered crops are
just as safe to eat as conventional crops.
More recently, more than 100 Nobel laureates sent a letter to
Greenpeace, the United Nations, and governments around the world. What
did the 100 Nobel laureates have to say? They urged all the folks that
they wrote to end opposition to GMOs.
I think our Federal Government should take a reasonable, principled,
and science-based approach to addressing the issue of GMO labeling.
That is exactly what this bipartisan bill seeks to do. I believe that
is what it does.
I thank our colleagues, Senators Roberts and Stabenow, and their
staff for working so hard with ours and others to achieve a compromise
that I think is a win for consumers, companies, and farmers. It shows
the country that Congress can work together across the aisle to get
things done.
Mr. President, I want to change gears here for a moment if I could.
Mr. ROBERTS. Will the Senator yield prior to his statement on another
subject?
Mr. CARPER. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Senator. This has been a long process--well
over a year. We had the committee hearing within the Agriculture
Committee months ago with the EPA, FDA, and many witnesses declaring
that agricultural biotechnology is safe. Note I changed the name
because GMO has become a pejorative. It is hard to fix that, but that
is what it is--agricultural biotechnology. We went to work and passed a
bill, 14 to 6. Then we tried to change the bill so that the minority
could possibly vote for it. Unfortunately, we were not able to get the
required number of votes for cloture.
Back then, it would have been very appropriate, it seems to me, for
anybody interested to bring their amendment to the floor. Senator
Merkley is here. We offered--at least through staff--he tells me he
didn't get the message, but I was for all amendments at that particular
time. We didn't even get cloture.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. ROBERTS. I do not have the time. The Senator from Delaware has
yielded to me. I will finish my statement in just a minute, if I can.
Here we are with the July 1 deadline having been met, and here we are
with the Vermont labeling law becoming, in effect, the national law. I
know there are some for that. There was one Senator from the other side
of the aisle, and that was the Senator from Delaware, who went to work
to get a reasonable bill. This is a well-crafted compromise. If it is a
well-crafted compromise between the ranking member and the chairman
with appropriate people like the Senator himself working hard to get
support for that, we should go ahead and get this done. I appreciate
the willingness of the Senator to work in a bipartisan fashion, and I
thank him again.
Mr. CARPER. Reclaiming my time--boy, I am glad I yielded. Thank you
so much for those words and for the opportunity to participate in this
process.
Isis
Mr. President, I want to change gears to talk about another battle
going on in another part of the world, and it is a battle to degrade
and destroy ISIS. Recently on the Senate floor, I heard a couple of our
colleagues in the majority, I believe, claim that the President, the
current administration, is not doing enough to fight ISIS. However, I
say to my friends--and they are my friends, they know that--that the
majority are forgetting some of the key facts, and I just want to
revisit that.
The truth is, they are taking the fight to ISIS, and we are making
serious progress in the battle to degrade and destroy them. As I like
to say, it is not time to spike the football. We are not in the end
zone. Maybe we are in the red zone, but progress is being made. I want
to talk a little bit about that today.
I want to start by directing my attention to this map. For folks who
are trying to figure out what this map says, it says that this is Iraq,
a big part of this area here is Iraq. Right down here is Iraq. Right
here is Baghdad. That is Syria over here. We have Turkey up here, and
Iran is over here on the other side of Iraq.
A couple of years ago, these folks in ISIS decided they were going to
establish their own caliphate, if you will, a country. That would be a
theocracy guided by their perverted view of Islam, not the view held by
most Muslims in the world.
Islam is one of the great religions of the world. The more I learn
about it, I am struck by the similarities between the faiths. I am
Protestant. I am not sure what our Presiding Officer is, but we are
here and are people of different faiths. Whatever your faith happens to
be, almost any faith in the world--I don't care if you are Protestant,
Catholic, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist; even Confucius used to embody
and embrace the Golden Rule to treat other people the way you want to
be treated. There is a section in the New Testament, Matthew 25, where
we read about the least of us: When I was hungry, did you feed me? When
I was thirsty, did you give me a drink? When I was naked, did you
clothe me? When I was a stranger in your land, did you take me in? When
I was sick and in prison, did you come and see me? There is a passage
in the Koran that is actually very similar to what we have in the
Bible, the New Testament.
Nonetheless, the folks who have this perverted view of Islam launched
an effort about 2 years ago in this area that we see here--I am going
to call this a salmon-colored area, and the area that is more of a
green color is the area that ISIS seized control of 2 years ago, and
there are other pockets around these two countries, Syria and Iraq.
That is what they took over--rolled right over the Iraqis. A lot of the
Iraqi military units fled and left, and the leaders did too.
We had a fight on our hands. The bad guys got within 20, 25 miles of
Baghdad, and they got no further. The President of our country has
helped lead the way to put together a 60-nation coalition. Some are
Arab; some are Protestant or Catholic--mixed religions. A lot of
different religions represent the coalition. Some are democracies; some
are not. Some have a King or a Queen. It is an interesting group and a
diverse group. But 60-some nations were put together.
I mentioned before that I spent a fair number of years of my life as
a naval flight officer, 5 years in a hot war in Southeast Asia during
the Vietnam war and another 18 years beyond that right up until the end
of the Cold War. I had the opportunity to participate in
[[Page S4886]]
missions that involved U.S. naval assets aircraft like the P-3
aircraft, which I was a flight crew member of. I worked with
submarines, U.S. naval submarines with the U.S. naval ships, and it is
not always easy to do that. Communications are difficult. Conditions
are difficult. When we tried to introduce and work with units from
other branches of other countries' military units, other naval units,
it was even more difficult.
Imagine trying to put together a coalition and 60 different nations
speaking different languages with different modes of operation,
different aircraft, different ships, different artillery and trying to
get us all to pull in the same direction to take on this battle. It has
taken a while.
You know what is happening now? Here is what has happened. The land
that ISIS took over 2 years ago has been cut by almost half--47
percent, almost half. While the area of Syria controlled by ISIS is a
lot smaller than the land in Iraq, 20 percent of that land has been
recaptured from ISIS.
Last year, Iraqi counterterrorism forces, backed by U.S. air support,
scored key victories in Ramadi to the west of Baghdad, 30, 40 miles to
the west of Baghdad. And then a place called Tikrit--we remember Tikrit
because it is the birthplace where Saddam Hussein grew up. In the last
couple of weeks, there was some more good news. Fallujah, which is
right here--these three cities, Fallujah, Ramadi, and Tikrit, make up
what is called the Sunni Triangle. It is where a lot of Sunnis in Iraq
live. It was once controlled by ISIS, and they have now fallen to the
alliance, our forces.
As we speak, Kurdish, Iraqi, Syrian democratic forces backed by U.S.
Special Forces are training and making preparations to retake other key
ISIS strongholds. Here is Baghdad. You go to the north, northwest, up
here next to the areas controlled by the Kurds, which are part of Iraq
but controlled by the Kurds, and over here--almost due west from Mosul,
over here to Raqqa, which is the spiritual capital of ISIS. Those are
where the fights are headed next.
For weeks American airpower has conducted scores of airstrikes on
these two ISIS strongholds, Mosul and Raqqa, in order to clear the way
for our Iraqi and Syrian partners on the ground. We are using F-15 and
F-16 aircraft--in some cases, carrier-based and out of the Persian
Gulf. We are using drones and A-10s. We are using B-52s, which are
being staged in a variety of places, including Qatar and as far away as
a couple of thousand miles, I am told, to conduct precision strikes all
over the planet to target ISIS.
All in all, the United States and our allies have taken about 25,000
ISIS fighters off the battlefield and killed more than 120 key ISIS
leaders since the beginning of this conflict. Recent reports indicate
that coalition allied forces kill an ISIS leader every 3 days on
average. Last week, coalition airstrikes killed the ISIS deputy
minister of war and ISIL military commander in Mosul.
We haven't done it by ourselves. We have done this with a lot of
partners. As I said earlier there are 60 in all. Our President, his
administration, and our military folks have built an anti-ISIS
coalition that consists of 60 countries, including some you expect to
hear, such as the United Kingdom, Canada, France, and Germany, but,
frankly, a lot you would not expect to hear about. The coalition also
consists of some of Iraq's and Syria's Arab neighbors, such as Saudi
Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, and Egypt, just for starters.
As a result of these partnerships, we have not only taken territory
away from ISIS, but we have also cut off its main sources of supplies,
its reinforcements, and its funding.
In recent weeks, anti-ISIS forces have surrounded a place called
Manbij, Syria, which is up here, just north of Raqqa, and cut off the
route through Turkey that ISIS previously used to smuggle oil, money,
and move fighters. As of June 29, less than a month ago--maybe a couple
of weeks ago--about 300 airstrikes against the Islamic State's oil
network in Iraq and Syria conducted over the last 2 years have cut the
terrorist group's oil revenues by at least half. It is estimated that
ISIS now collects about $15 million each month, down from $30 million
and $42 million each month at its peak. Cash reserves held by ISIS have
also been hit hard. Over the past year, coalition airstrikes have
destroyed $500 million and $800 million in ISIS funds--cold cash. Our
partnership has helped to keep ISIS from getting reinforcement from
outside of Iraq and Syria too.
The flow of foreign recruits has been dramatically reduced from a
high of about 2,000 a month in 2014--coming from all around the world
to joining the ISIS team--to 200 a month in June. It went from 2,000 to
200 over the course of the last year. About a year or so ago in the
United States, we had 10 Americans per month leave the United States to
join the ISIS folks. Last month there was about one--one per month.
This has happened because people all around--and certainly people in
the United States--are learning the truth about ISIS. They don't want
any part of it.
In cyber space, over 125,000 pro-ISIS Twitter handles have been taken
offline. For every pro-ISIS Twitter handle, there are now six anti-ISIS
handles challenging ISIS's twisted ideology and criticizing its
actions. That is a real game changer.
At home, the FBI is cracking down on recruits as well. Over the past
2 years, the FBI has arrested nearly 100 individuals on ISIS-related
charges.
Just because we have made clear progress on these fronts, it does not
mean there is not more work to be done, because there is. There is a
lot more work that needs to be done, and it is not going to be done by
us. It is a shared partnership and the United States helps in a lot of
ways, but this is not our responsibility alone.
The recent ISIS-related attacks in Turkey, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and
Bangladesh show that ISIS still has the ability to mobilize its
followers to carry out attacks on soft targets. The terror attack in
Orlando last month serves as a reminder that disturbed and mentally
imbalanced young Americans are susceptible to the twisted propaganda of
ISIS.
In November, before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs Committee, renowned counterterrorism expert Peter Bergen told
the committee that ``every American who's been killed by a jihadi
terrorist in this country since 9/11 has been killed by an American
citizen or resident.'' Think about that. Every person who has been
killed by a jihadi terrorist in this country--in America--since 9/11
has been killed by an American citizen or legal resident. Think about
it. The threat doesn't come from Syrian refugees or those who travel
here as tourists or on the visa waiver programs. The greatest threat to
our country now comes from within--from American citizens and legal
residents.
When these young Americans carry out attacks in ISIS's name, much
like the Orlando killer appears to have done, they help to project the
image that ISIS is all-powerful and ever present.
We need to do a better job of countering ISIS's narrative here in the
United States. Right now, ISIS portrays a winner's message, or at least
they sought to, even though the results on the battlefield are
beginning to show otherwise.
We need to make sure the truth is told about ISIS and all the defeats
they are beginning to absorb. They are cowards, not heroes. They are
oppressors and killers of Muslims. They imprison and enslave women.
They are not protectors of Islam.
As we help the Sunni Arab world free itself from the horror and
oppression of ISIS, we must also ensure that the truth about ISIS gets
out in order to undermine ISIS's recruitment propaganda. Congress can
strengthen our ability to fight the ISIS narrative by empowering the
Department of Homeland Security to build partnerships here at home.
The Senate Homeland Security Committee passed legislation that I had
worked on, along with others, that empowers the Department of Homeland
Security to build partnerships with the Muslim community here and with
faith leaders, civic groups, and other nonprofits. These partnerships
will help to develop local solutions for countering ISIS messages and
to stop the recruitment of young Americans.
I will say in conclusion that the battle to defeat ISIS is far from
over, but I think we are on the right track. We
[[Page S4887]]
need to make it clear every day that ISIS is not the winning team they
present themselves to be. They might have been 2 years ago, maybe even
a year ago, but not today. In fact, they are well on their way to
becoming a losing team, and if we keep working hard and pulling
together in the same direction with our coalition partners, they will
be a losing team. All of us, Democrats and Republicans, have a role to
play in making that clear to all Americans, especially those who are
susceptible to ISIS's silent song. I hope my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle will keep that in mind as we go forward.
I hope we can also work together without the partisanship of this
election cycle to come up with constructive ways to help enhance the
ability of this administration and our military men and women to join
with the other 60 or so nations to finally defeat ISIS.
With that, as I look around the floor, I believe one of my colleagues
from Oklahoma is poised to address us, and I will yield for the
Senator.
I thank the Presiding Officer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
National Security
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, this has been a week really dealing with
a lot of national security issues, both security here in our country
and security around the world. It is a moment when we turn around and
look at what is happening internationally. We think about ISIS and
terrorism being confined to Syria and Iraq, and we face it here. We
lose track that there are countries around the world dealing with this
threat as well. What do we do about this, and where does it go from
here?
Let me recount the past couple of days. On Wednesday, two suicide
bombers carried out an attack in Yemen. On Tuesday, an Indonesian
suicide bomber, believed to be a supporter of the Islamic State,
attacked a city there, killing himself and wounding a police officer
and other security personnel. On Monday, there were three separate
attacks in Saudi Arabia. On Sunday, there was a massive bomb explosion
carried out in Baghdad that killed over 250 people--one bomb. Later
that same day, there was another one, also in Iraq, that killed five
people. On Friday of last week, in Bangladesh, our Nation watched in
horror as gunmen stormed a restaurant in the diplomatic zone and killed
20. They took those long-term hostages, pledging their allegiance to
ISIS.
We forgot what else happened on Friday. Those things happened around
the world, but on Friday of last week, many people may not know that
the FBI picked up a man named Mohamed Jalloh in Virginia. He was
plotting to carry out a Fort Hood-style attack. He is a Virginia
National Guardsman who purchased weapons. He had self-radicalized after
watching Anwar al-Awlaki's videos. He pledged to ISIS and planned to
carry out a large-scale attack in Virginia. The FBI learned about it
and intercepted him before he could actually carry out his attack.
This is a week about national security. There is a lot going on
around the world, and we face a lot of threats.
This week has also concluded the security issue of the United States
dealing with drug policy. Behind the scenes, in the Senate, there is a
long-term argument that is happening right now about whether we are
going to have a drug war or a political war. We have a bill that deals
with opioids. We are trying to help local law enforcement engage in
this opioid conference, but our Democratic colleagues have held that
bill up and won't allow it to move through the conference process.
While we should be dealing with the fast-moving opioid crisis, we are
actually dealing with the gridlock in the Senate.
This is a bill that already overwhelmingly passed in a bipartisan
method when it came through originally. It has only been strengthened
since that time, and it now goes to conference. We want to be able to
finish the conference report so we can continue to fight the drug war
here in the United States, but instead we can't fight the drug war
because of the political war going on behind the scenes. It is a
national security issue.
This is a national security issue. This week we dealt with
immigration policy and what should be the simplest, most baseline area
of immigration: Should individuals that have been convicted of a
felony--even a violent felony--be deported out of the United States if
they are here illegally? The argument from the other side of the aisle
is this: We should not force communities to deport individuals who have
been convicted of violent felonies.
This week a year ago, specifically July 1, 2015, a young lady named
Kate Steinle was walking down a pier in San Francisco with her dad. A
gentleman walked up to her with a gun and shot and killed her on the
pier. There was no connection or altercation. He just walked up and
shot her. This man, who was in the country illegally, had already been
convicted of seven felonies and had been deported five times.
The San Francisco Police Department was forced to release him and did
not give him to the Federal authorities because San Francisco is a
sanctuary city. They believe that even if you have been convicted of
violent felonies before--if you are in the United States illegally--you
should not be turned over to Federal authorities.
This body had a debate on that. This body's debate was this: Do we
agree that there should be places in the United States where violent,
multicount felons should be kept and protected in communities here even
though they are here illegally? Republicans overwhelmingly voted that
sanctuary cities should lose some of our Federal support. There should
be an incentive to say that if someone in your community is a violent
felon--these are rapists, individuals who have been convicted of
domestic violence, individuals who have been convicted of DUI. Not
every person in the country who is here illegally is a violent felon,
but for those who are, can't we find the common ground to say that
those individuals should be convicted and deported? This body
apparently doesn't believe that.
What should have been the most baseline argument about our domestic
and national security can't get through this body because we can't
agree on the simplest things. It is not all immigration policy. This is
just: Should you deport people convicted of a violent felony? Should
there be communities in the country where violent felons are protected
and kept in the United States even if they are here illegally? If we
can't agree on that simple policy, how in the world are we going to
agree on any immigration policy?
It has been a week about national security but also the threat of
ISIS and the movement of terrorism around the world. We have gridlock
here--dealing with basic immigration policy and national security,
basic drug policy, and dealing with an opioid conference. It has also
been a week dealing with national security in a very unusual way. It
can be spun politically, but it is really a national security issue.
The Director of the FBI completed an investigation over a holiday
weekend and interviewed former Secretary of State Clinton on the
Saturday of the Fourth of July weekend. He then came out after the day
of the Fourth of July and said there is a lot of evidence of breaking
the rules, there is a lot of evidence of being sloppy and careless,
there is a lot of evidence of what he called extremely careless
handling of sensitive, highly classified information, but would not
recommend a prosecution.
Now, why do I bring this up in a national security conversation?
Because it does connect to our national security. It is not just a
political issue.
The first calls that I received after that statement came out from
Director Comey were from people who have classified clearances. They
work in the intelligence community, they work in the U.S. military,
they work on our military installations, they are contractors, and they
have gone through the extensive process of getting clearance. Those
individuals started contacting me with one statement; that is, if I had
done what the Secretary of State did--which is to take classified
information out of the government computer, move it to my home
computer, store it at home--I would have been fired and I would have
lost my security clearance. In fact, I had an individual contact me who
worked at one of my military installations and who recounted to me a
story from just last year. Someone who worked at that particular
installation had brought their
[[Page S4888]]
phone into work and had plugged it into the government computer so they
could listen to music. That person was roundly fired because it put
secure information at risk.
This is a national security issue. It is the issue of what is the
standard for how we are going to protect our Nation's secrets and
whether there is a standard anymore. In a day when we face threats from
around the world, in a day when we face threats from all over different
regions and from Americans even here who are being self-radicalized, we
should at least have the standard that classified information means
classified information, and any individual, regardless of their last
name, would be held to account. No one in America is above the law--at
least that is what we used to say.
The challenge we face now as a nation, with all of the threats, with
all of the issues that we face, is, will we just argue about political
things here and will political people get special favors, or will we
take seriously the national security threats we face from terrorism
abroad, from terrorists who are planning attacks here in the United
States, from the opioid and heroin crisis we face, the immigration
crisis we face? Will we take these things seriously?
I would call this body out to say we cannot continue to just do
politics here and not work toward resolutions on things that matter to
the American people in the most basic things we face. This is a time we
should continue to do the right thing. The American people need to not
only see their government working, they need to know their government
is actually doing something to protect the Nation--our borders, the
drug wars, our national secrets, and our security dealing with radical
Islamic terrorism from around the world. Let's confront these issues,
not just debate them. Let's deal with them, and let's resolve them.
Let's remind the American people that we can get things done to fulfill
our basic constitutional responsibility and that we can carry out the
law, regardless of a person's last name.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Working Together in the Senate
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, let me pick up from where the
distinguished Senator from Oklahoma ended. This Senate and the House
are capable of doing some awfully good bipartisan work that helps the
American people, and we do a lot of it.
The Senator from Louisiana--the Presiding Officer today--has been
working with the Senator from Connecticut, a Democrat. They have
different political persuasions, and they have us very close to passing
a very important mental health bill in the Senate--one that passed the
House yesterday. They have worked hard on that. We are going to get
that done this year. I would like to do it next week, but if not, we
should be able to do it in September.
Earlier today, I went to the National Education Association annual
convention, where there were 10,000 teachers from all over the country,
and they gave the Friend of the NEA Award to Senator Murray of
Washington State and to me. Thirty years ago, when I was Governor of
Tennessee, I would have gotten the ``public enemy of the NEA'' award.
But what they like and what teachers and Governors and chief State
school officers and parents like was that last year we came together
and fixed No Child Left Behind. We stopped Washington from telling
schools so much about what to do and restored that responsibility where
it ought to be--with teachers and parents and Governors and
legislators. We have been thanked for that because it affects 50
million children and 3\1/2\ million teachers and 100,000 public
schools. We did our job.
So there is mental health, there is fixing No Child Left Behind, and
we are working on something called 21st century cures. The House of
Representatives has passed it. Again, the Senator from Louisiana has
been working on an important part of it having to do with electronic
medical records as an example. This has the opportunity to be by far
the most important legislation we pass this year, and we will pass it
because it is part of Speaker Ryan's agenda; the majority leader,
Senator McConnell, wants to pass it; and the President of the United
States is interested in it because of his focus on precision medicine
and the Vice President's focus on Cancer Moonshot. There is funding for
the BRAIN Initiative, which has to do with Alzheimer's. These are
breathtaking discoveries which we are on the verge of in America and
which would affect millions of people--research for that and then
moving them through the regulatory and investment process and into the
medicine cabinets.
I saw a Forbes poll the other day that showed that 82 percent of the
American people would like for Congress to do more on biomedical
research. They agree on that. We are doing that.
So there are three things: fixing No Child Left Behind, mental
health, and 21st century cures. Then we get to opioids and we get to
Zika. So what has happened here? This reminds me of the Hatfields and
the McCoys in the mountains of Kentucky and Tennessee. They fought so
long, they forgot what they were fighting about. They just killed each
other because that is what their grandfathers did.
We have two issues here of intense interest to the American people,
and we are on the verge of a significant step to help. The first is
Zika. The Zika virus is terrifying young women in our country. They are
postponing their pregnancies. They are afraid to have babies. They are
afraid their babies will be born with deformities because we have found
that if women have the Zika virus, some women have babies who have
deformities when they are born. There will be a vaccine for that by
2018, perhaps. That is part of the 21st century cures initiative I was
just talking about--more money for the National Institutes of Health to
speed that along. But between now and then, we need to take every step
we need to take to help keep the Zika virus from infecting as many
people as we can.
This is a very simple disease. It is carried by a mosquito, and if a
mosquito bites you, you get the Zika virus. For many people, it makes
no difference, but for pregnant women, it could be a problem. It is
July, and the mosquitoes are out, and it is time to eradicate the
mosquitoes. The Centers for Disease Control asked us for money, and so
we passed $1.1 billion here, money for Zika. We are ready to pass $1.1
billion. Because of a small provision the House of Representatives put
in that has to do with who is a Medicaid provider in Puerto Rico--there
are many Medicaid providers in Puerto Rico who can go about this
business in July and August and September to deal with trying to keep
the mosquitoes away. Our friends on the other side of the aisle won't
let us pass the bill.
Now, let's stop and think about this. This is the Hatfields and
McCoys at its worst. This is not the same spirit we had when fixing No
Child Left Behind. It is not the same spirit we had working with the
President and Speaker Ryan and Senator McConnell on 21st century cures.
It is not the same spirit Senator Murphy and Senator Cassidy have shown
in taking grave differences over mental health and putting them in in a
way that we will get some advances on that this year. There is no
excuse whatsoever for delaying the spending of $1.1 billion to help
pregnant women and other families avoid the Zika virus this summer. We
don't need mosquito control in the winter; we need it in the summer.
And we need to pass it now because we leave and go away on our recess
and come back in September.
There may be a provision in the bill that some of us would have
written a different way. Maybe some of us would like some more money.
But the provision that is offensive to some people is a very small
provision. There are Medicaid providers all over Puerto Rico who can
deal with this part of the money, and there is no excuse for not
approving the $1.1 billion that we are ready to spend for Zika, period,
and it is wrong for the Democrats to block that. It is wrong as it can
be, and it is not in the right spirit.
I think I have a reputation here for trying to get results. I would
say to my friends on the other side of the aisle: Please stop and think
about this. This is the Hatfields and McCoys example that the American
people really don't like. We are on the verge of doing something that
would help a lot of Americans, especially young women, and we ought to
do it. We ought to do it today or next week, and we surely
[[Page S4889]]
should not go home without having done it.
The other thing we are on the verge of doing well is helping deal
with opioids. Again, we are in a Hatfields-and-McCoys situation,
apparently. I hope we avoid it, but we may be, and I would like to
avoid that as well. We have talked a lot about the opioids abuse. I
know what happens in Tennessee. Opioid overdose is killing more people
every year than car wrecks or gunshots--car wrecks or gunshots. I had a
roundtable in Knoxville several months ago. It was filled with people--
judges, parents, doctors, hospital managers. Everybody is overwhelmed
with this. They want some help in doing it. We can't fix it from here,
but we can support those on the frontlines, and we are doing it. We are
making some changes.
We have come back to Secretary Burwell and the President and said:
Change the provision on the pain management survey that hospitals are
telling us encourage doctors to overprescribe opioids. Well, at first
they didn't listen, but to the President's credit and to Secretary
Burwell's credit, they did it; they listened and they did it at the
urging of Congress.
They have increased the level of prescriptions that treatment doctors
can prescribe. That was something Senator Paul, Senator Markey, and
Democrats and Republicans in the House wanted to do. We might do more
of it, but that was the TREAT Act.
Then we came up with a bipartisan opioid bill in the Senate and in
the House. It has contributions from half the Democrats and many of the
Republicans. In the House, it passed 400 to 1. In the Senate, it passed
94 to 1. Pardon me, it was 400 to 5 in the House and 94 to 1 here. It
has more than 200 groups across the country who say opioid abuse is an
epidemic and a crisis, so let's fix it. So we have taken a substantial
step to fix it.
Yesterday we approved a merger of what the House did and the Senate
did, and both will come to the House and next week to the Senate for
approval.
One would think that something that had passed the Senate 94 to 1,
when it comes back for approval, would pass again 94 to 1. One would
think that something as urgent as dealing with opioid drug abuse--an
epidemic, as I said, that is killing more people every year in my State
than gunshots, killing more people every year in my State than car
wrecks--one would think we would want to do something about it,
particularly when we have worked hard and we have a very good package.
Two hundred of the advocacy groups in this country who work on opioid
abuse like what we have done.
So what is the problem? Well, our friends on the other side say you
need to fund it. We are funding it, and they helped fund it. Over the
last 3 years, count the last two Congresses where the money was already
appropriated, in other words, it is there to spend; count the amount of
money the Senate Appropriations Committee has approved, we have
increased funding for opioids already by 542 percent. For those working
on their math, that is five times more than we were doing 2\1/2\ years
ago. Then the House of Representatives came along today and said: We
want to go even further than that. That is in the regular
appropriations process. That is how we do our business here.
For example, last year, as I mentioned, we fixed No Child Left
Behind. The President called it a Christmas miracle. Everybody is happy
about it. It doesn't spend a penny. It reformed the education law. We
spend the money in the appropriations process.
Every year we pass a Defense authorization bill. It reforms
everything that has to do with keeping us safe in the country, but we
don't spend a penny. That is in the appropriations process.
We have an energy bill we are going to conference on. It doesn't
spend a penny. That is in the appropriations process.
So we are spending money on opioids. We are spending money on
opioids. A five times increase over 2\1/2\ years, in addition to policy
that 200 groups support and that passed the Senate 94 to 1. Now, some
say there should be more. I agree. I would like to spend even more for
opioids. I would like to see a more significant amount of money for
State grants to help with opioids because that is where the bottom line
is, but there are a lot of discussions going on about doing that. There
is some discussion about doing that in the 21st century cures bill,
perhaps. We talked about it and even voted on it last year. Republicans
put through a bill in our so-called reconciliation process in which all
but five Republicans in the Senate and House voted for $750 million
each year for 2 years for opioids. That is $750 million each year for
opioids. That is $1.5 billion the Republicans voted for. The President
vetoed it because it also repealed ObamaCare. We thought we were
getting two good things--repeal ObamaCare and support opioids. Of
course, the President disagreed with that. This isn't all on Democrats
or Republicans because we have also voted for more money for opioids.
But let's get out of this Hatfields-and-McCoys posture in this last
week or 10 days before the convention starts when we are dealing with
the lives of so many Americans. Every Senator who talked yesterday at
the conference report had some story of someone from his or her State
who had died from an opioid abuse--several from one family in several
cases. Everyone has that story. Then how can we dare go home next week
without having passed a policy that everyone who understands the
subject says will help, in terms of prevention and State grants and
treatment and a variety of other things, and when we have increased
funding by five times over 2\1/2\ years--how can we dare go home
without having passed that?
Can we continue to talk about even more funding? Yes, I am ready to
do that. I would like to do it. I would like to find a way to do it,
but that doesn't mean we stop doing what we can do now. So I am on the
floor today--and let me just remind my friends on the other side of the
aisle, this opioids conference is not a Republican bill. It is filled
with Democratic priorities.
Mr. Whitehouse is the lead sponsor, the Senator from Rhode Island. He
is passionate about it. There are 44 Democratic Senators who voted for
his version of it. Senator Warren is the lead sponsor for the Reducing
Unused Medication Act. It is in the package. Senator Durbin led an
amendment regarding the opioid action plan at the FDA that is included.
Senator Shaheen and nine other Democratic Senators led the National All
Schedules Prescription Electronic Reauthorization which is included.
Congressman Sarbanes has a bill on expanding access through cold
prescribing. Senator Casey introduced a plan of safe care improvement
that was included. Senators Brown, King, and Manchin are cosponsors of
a Healthy Babies Act that was included. Senators Brown, King, Casey,
and Feinstein were coauthors in another provision. We all put this
together. We all care about it. The people we work for all need our
help. We should pass it. We should pass it.
To come up with a lame excuse that we are not funding it when, in
fact, we are--five times more over 2\1/2\ years--that is not the kind
of thing that will gain respect for the U.S. Senate.
I am here today as someone who spends most of his time trying to get
results in this body, and often achieves results. I do that only
because of relationships with Democratic Members as well as Republican
Members. I told the National Education Association today to give Patty
Murray a big hand for being the friend of the NEA on fixing No Child
Left Behind because it would not have happened without her.
I would say that when we pass the opioids conference, give a big hand
to Senators Durbin and Shaheen and Congressman Sarbanes and especially
Senator Whitehouse, Senator Casey, and Senator Warren because they all
made major contributions to this, they voted for the funding over the
last 2 years, and I am sure they will this year, which will go up at
least five times--five times.
So let's put the Hatfields and McCoys back in Kentucky and Tennessee.
Let's say young women all over the country are terrified by the Zika
virus. Let's spend $1.1 billion or make it available for the Centers
for Disease Control now to help. Let's take this opioids conference
report we are on the verge of passing that we are all for, and let's do
it and go home. And let's add to the fixing No Child Left Behind, the
21st century cures progress, the mental health progress, our work on
opioids abuse, and our work on Zika. That
[[Page S4890]]
would be what the American people would expect of us, and I hope that
by the end of next week, we find a way to do it.
I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The Senator from West Virginia.
Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Bill
Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. President, for recognizing me, and I want
to thank the chairman of the HELP Committee, the Senator from
Tennessee, who has in the Senate made a very passionate argument on why
we should be passing the bill that contains the Zika funding but also
for the opioid and heroin abuse overdose issue that we have in this
country.
He did mention the Hatfields and McCoys more than a few times in
reference to Tennessee and Kentucky, and I will throw West Virginia in
there because we have a good history of Hatfields and McCoys. We
understand a feud, and I don't like to see a feud over these issues
either. This is about health care, women and babies, and these are
families who are torn apart by this scourge of opioid and heroin abuse.
I would like to talk about the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery
Act, known as CARA, and strongly urge my colleagues to lay down the
feud and have common sense. I am going to talk about why this is so
very important.
This is a comprehensive step forward. It has been worked on for
years. This is not a fly-by-night bill. This is a very comprehensive
bill, a national response to the drug epidemic that we see like a fire
rushing across America. It expands prevention and education efforts and
promotes resources for treatment and recovery. I say often there is no
one solution to this problem. There is a spectrum of solutions, and
CARA addresses a spectrum of solutions. It helps law enforcement
respond, provides resources for treatment, alternatives to
incarceration. I know many Senators have been to see and visit drug
court programs that have had successful graduations. They have gotten
people back on their feet. They operate in West Virginia and many other
States.
I was very pleased to see many elements of the Senate-passed bill
included in the final conference report. Members on both sides of the
aisle and the Senator from Tennessee talked about many of those Members
who have worked hard to create the realities of those living with and
impacted by addiction. The bill is just a commonsense response so let's
have a commonsense vote in response to the commonsense bill.
For me, my personal passion has been the ability to craft several
provisions that are included in this conference bill, one that would
provide for safer, more effective pain management services to our
veterans. Too many of our veterans are having opioid abuse and opioid
overdoses in conjunction with care at the VA.
Another provision from Senator Kaine from Virginia would coprescribe
naloxone, a drug that would reverse the effects of opioid overdose with
prescription opioids. Another provision would increase access to
important followup services. Again, it is another bipartisan amendment
to prevent overprescribing. There is also a provision that would
improve acute pain-prescribing practices. You have acute pain which is
different than having constant pain. What are the prescribing protocols
for that? We have too many stories of addiction that started with
patients taking painkillers after suffering a minor injury or a minor
surgery. Also, there are provisions that would allow doctors to
partially fill certain opioid prescriptions. Senator Warren from
Massachusetts and I worked together on this. This helps to limit the
availability of unused painkillers.
Lastly, a provision I worked on with my colleague from West Virginia
on the House side, Congressman Jenkins, would protect babies who are
born exposed to opioids during pregnancy and get them the specialized
care they need. We see it in Lily's Place in Huntington, and we need to
have this across the country.
In March, we stood together and passed this bill 94 to 1, with broad
bipartisan support. CARA has had broad bipartisan support in the House
as well, but not one single Democrat signed the conference report. What
changed? What happened? I don't know. Out of the blue, after they had
already voted for this, they demanded a new mandatory funding--which
means a different type of funding out of the Appropriations Committee
was not added to this bill in conference. Some apparently believe that
without this funding, CARA is not worth passing. I strongly disagree
for the reasons I am going to line out. This is not the view of the
over 200 treatment organizations that are in favor of this conference
report--groups such as the Addiction Policy Forum, the American
Psychological Association, the National Association of Counties, the
National Association of Addiction and Treatment Providers. These groups
are calling for quick action on this conference report. They wrote a
letter stating ``the report is truly a comprehensive response to the
opioid epidemic which includes critical policy changes and new
resources.''
The letter continues, ``As you know, 129 Americans die each day as a
result of a drug overdose and this epidemic affects the public health
and safety in every community across the country,'' not to mention the
devastation, and I have seen it in my own communities, to families all
across this Nation. ``This bill is the critical response we need.''
As a member of the Appropriations Committee, we all worked hard to
ensure our States have the resources they need to win this fight, and I
will not stop in this fight. The appropriations bills we have passed in
committee provide substantial new resources. Under these bills, total
funding to address heroin and opioid abuse will more than double the
2015 levels.
You can see on this chart that in 2015 it was $220 million. In 2016,
we had a 46-percent increase to $321 million. In the bill that came out
of the Senate Appropriations Committee that had bipartisan support,
there was a 46-percent increase to $470 million. Those are significant
resources that can help and will help in the treatment and gets money
to our providers and to States for block grants.
Let's look at HHS discretionary appropriations that we passed in the
appropriations bill that passed bipartisan. In 2015, we appropriated
$41 million. In 2016, we increased that funding to $136 million, a 237-
percent increase. This problem has been escalating across our country,
and you can see it reflected in the dollars we are spending; in 2017,
$262 million, which is a 93-percent increase. These are significant. It
goes to problems that help with research, treatment, and community
health centers. This is a very significant rise.
Our last chart shows what is in the conference report we are now
considering. It goes out of the Senate at 78 million more dollars. The
conference report comes back with $181 million, a 132-percent
increase. Again, the urgency of what we are seeing is reflected in the
real dollars we are willing to spend, so don't listen to the argument
that no money is being spent. It couldn't be further from the truth.
This is what has been decided and agreed upon in the Appropriations
Committee in a bipartisan way to deal with this very difficult problem.
I think that 94 Members of this body already voted for this $78
million. Why in the world would we continue this feud that has been
created and is bubbling up in a political fashion and turn our backs on
a 132-percent increase in this conference report?
As I have shared on the floor several times before, this problem is
particularly hard-hitting in the State of West Virginia, the State I
represent. Unfortunately, West Virginia leads the Nation in drug-
related overdose deaths--more than twice the national average. I
mentioned that 129 Americans die every day. That means there are people
dying in West Virginia in larger numbers per capita than in any other
State in the Union. It also means we shouldn't be taking the time for
partisan politics and delay the passage of a much needed piece of
legislation.
I say this all the time because I believe it to be true. I hope it is
not. I believe we are in danger of losing an entire generation to this
scourge if we don't act with force, together, and make sure that we not
only fund our programs but that we do the comprehensive approach to it
that we see in this CARA bill.
[[Page S4891]]
I was on the floor yesterday talking about how we had witnessed
Senate Democrats playing politics with critical funding for Zika, and
now we are seeing a repeat. I hope we do not go through the same
scenario. Let's not play political games with a veteran depending on
the VA's ability to help them treat their opioid addiction or the
newborn born dependent on opioids or the addict who is willing to seek
treatment and needs the help CARA will provide. They do not deserve to
be held hostage to a political situation.
I will proudly support the passage of the CARA conference report, and
I encourage all of my colleagues to do the same.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, one of the great privileges I have serving
in the U.S. Senate is standing up every day on behalf of Montana
agriculture. In fact, across the great State of Montana, signs of our
State's strong agricultural heritage are at virtually every turn, from
wheat and sugar beet fields, to grazing cattle and sheep. It is truly
impossible to miss the expansiveness of our State's No. 1 economic
driver, and that is agriculture.
Agriculture is more than just an economic driver of our State, it is
a way of life for thousands of Montana families. It provides for a
safe, reliable, and affordable food supply not only for our Nation but
for the world. It supports tens of thousands of jobs throughout the
State. Let me say that again. It supports tens of thousands of jobs in
the State of Montana.
Over the past several weeks and months, I have heard directly from
stakeholders in Montana--from the Montana Farm Bureau, the Montana
Grain Growers Association, the Montana Sugar Beet Growers, the Montana
Retailers Association, the Montana Chamber of Commerce, as well as
researchers at Montana State University, my alma mater, a land-grant
university. All demonstrated how their livelihoods would be negatively
impacted if a single State on the east coast could be allowed to have
such wide-raging impacts on jobs in Montana, as well as the price we
pay at the grocery store.
I believe that a State like Vermont and the junior Senator from
Vermont should not dictate the laws that govern our food and affect the
prices Montanans pay at the checkout line.
Defenders of Vermont's fringe law and the ideology behind it ignore
hardships on agricultural jobs. They ignore hardships on family
incomes. They ignore scientific consensus. They ignore the existing
transparency tools and the new ones created by this bipartisan
compromise legislation.
Montanans were clear that Congress needed to act. While this bill is
by no means perfect, its passage is important to prevent increased
costs for businesses and higher prices at the checkout stands for
families.
I have to say that I am outraged that the defenders of Vermont's law
ignore these hardships. In eastern Montana, sugar beets are grown using
biotech, and they are an economic driver for the State, and they are
the source of thousands of jobs. The sugar beet industry contributes
about $70 million a year to the Montana economy, as well as sugar
factories in Billings and Sidney.
As Shane Strecker, the director of the Southern Montana Sugar Beet
Growers, put it, ``Without biotechnology, the hundreds of jobs
Montana's sugar beet industry supports would not exist.''
Make no mistake--this Vermont law is an attack on Montana's way of
life, it is an attack on Montana's farm and ranch operations, and I am
not going to stand for it. I will stand up for Montana and continue to
fight to ensure that Montana's agricultural products are not unfairly
and arbitrarily discriminated against. As always, I am proud to stand
with Montana farmers, to stand with Montana ranchers, to stand with
Montana agriculture, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Wyoming's Budget
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the tough
situation my home State of Wyoming finds itself in and to urge my
colleagues to take a page from Wyoming's book.
Last week, Wyoming's Governor proposed cutting $248 million from the
State budget because Wyoming has seen a reduction in revenue. To my
friends from urban States, $248 million might not sound like a lot of
money, but that amounts to 8 percent of Wyoming's budget.
The downturn in energy development--particularly coal--reduced
Wyoming's revenue last January, when the legislature met, and they had
to make cuts. Then new figures came out after the legislature was over
requiring the Governor to make cuts to meet the new level of revenue
that there is, which is requiring him to make additional cuts of 8
percent.
Around here, we don't make cuts; we reduce the amount of increase a
program gets and we call that a cut.
The Governor had a very clever way of prioritizing. He asked every
agency to give him a list of the things they are doing and suggest
where they would take a 1-percent cut, a 5-percent cut, and a 10-
percent cut. Then all he had to do was compare the lists. If it wound
up on all three lists, it wasn't that important. If it was only on the
1-percent list, maybe there was some value to that program.
That is the chart Wyoming is using to make their 8 percent cuts. That
doesn't leave easy cuts for the Governor to make, but the Governor--
while he acknowledged that he didn't like to cut, he did what he is
supposed to do, and that is to lead the State.
Unfortunately, the Federal Government has failed to do the same. We
all agreed to the Budget Control Act in 2011, which called for average
annual cuts that wound up--the one time we have done it--being 7
percent to 9 percent. But you have to remember that is from an
increased baseline, not a total cut, and it happened in the fourth
quarter of the year because we didn't get the spending bills done in
time, which is the norm around here. But if you have to take a 2-
percent cut in the last quarter of the year, you are making an 8-
percent cut of the money that you have left. That is not far off from
what Wyoming faces, and we have a lot more money and a lot more
programs to work with to find those cuts at the Federal level. In fact,
we have 260 programs that I keep talking about that have expired that
we spend $293.5 billion on. I talked about that enough a year ago that
we got that down to $256 billion, but now we are spending $310 billion
on expired programs.
Wyoming's annual budget is $1.5 billion, compared to the Federal
discretionary budget--those are the program we get to make decisions
on--of $1,100 billion. Wyoming has about 8,500 State employees,
compared to about 2.7 million Federal civilian employees. If Wyoming
can find a way to cut its budget, the Federal Government should be able
to do the same. But instead of leading the way, people in this body and
the House and the administration acted like the sky was falling after
they agreed to the Budget Control Act. As a result, while Wyoming stays
on firm financial footing, the United States has gone from owing $14
trillion--that is $14,000 billion--in 2014 to owing $19 trillion--
$19,000 billion--today, and we are on track to owe $29 billion by 2026.
Here is where one of the difficulties comes in. We are at $19
trillion and on our way to $20 trillion. If you were paying 1 percent
interest on $20 trillion, that would be $200 billion a year. We are
actually paying a little bit more than that already, but the norm for
the Federal Government is 5 percent. If that $200 billion in interest
becomes five times that amount, it becomes $1,000 billion in interest.
I just mentioned that we only get to make decisions on $1,100 billion--
actually, it is $1,070 billion. So if interest rates increase and we
pay $1,000 billion in interest, we would have $70 billion left to fund
the military, education, commerce, roads, everything that the Federal
Government does right now.
We have to reverse that course and address the Federal Government's
insatiable appetite for spending, which is leading to America's mammoth
national debt. I have several ideas on how we can make reasonable but
real progress on our debt.
First, we need to take a page from Wyoming's playbook. My home State
has acknowledged how much money it has and is making targeted cuts to
live within its means.
[[Page S4892]]
Unlike the Federal Government, they aren't trying to make the cuts
hurt politically so they can get pressure from people to spend more and
more. Let me explain. When we had the government shutdown because the
spending bills weren't done a few years ago, the Administration shut
down the national parks, which, incidentally, raise money for the
Federal Government.
In Jackson Hole where the Tetons are, the federal government actually
put up barriers so that people couldn't use the parking lot to take
pictures. They also put up signs that said you can't park along the
road. I had to ask the Park Service where they got the money to put up
the barriers and I had to ask them why they put up the barriers to
begin with.
They said: Well, we didn't want people putting their garbage there
because there would be nobody to pick up the garbage.
I said: That is easy. Remove the garbage cans. There is no cost to
that, and nobody will have to pick up any garbage.
But that's not the way the Federal Government does things. They don't
look for the easy solution; they look for the most painful one. They
even barricaded off the World War II Memorial here during the 2013
shutdown.
We furloughed a bunch of people during that time, but when they came
back to work, we paid them for the time they were off. It really cost a
lot to try to save a little bit of money and not get our work done on
time.
We should learn to cut the worst first, not the best first, because
if you cut the best, you have people complaining and they get the money
reinstituted.
Governor Mead is making smart cuts. He is proposing smaller cuts for
the department of corrections because that agency already saw its
budget cut severely in March. The Department of Family Services faces a
smaller cut because it serves as the State's safety net. And the Public
Defender's Office isn't expected to see any cuts because they are
already strapped for resources.
The Federal Government should be doing the same thing and cutting the
worst first. I would argue that we should focus on identifying and
eliminating the wasteful spending that occurs here in DC before we look
to important programs and services in our home States, but this isn't
something we should guess at. Like Wyoming, we should require all
government departments and agencies to list what they do best and what
they do worst, although I have never seen anyone admit to anything they
do worst. So I would suggest we do the prioritization system like
Wyoming went through where every agency has to list all the programs
they do and suggest which ones they would cut at 1 percent, which ones
they would cut at 5 percent, and which ones they would cut at 10
percent. That way we could tell which programs agencies felt were
really the most valuable to fund and force agencies to make the easier
cuts first instead of cutting the programs we need the most. That way,
we can maintain what we do well and cut what we don't. We need to
prioritize how we spend taxpayers' dollars, just like Wyoming.
Second, we need to implement my penny plan, which cuts overall
spending by 1 percent--that is one cent out of every dollar we spend--
and cap future spending so that government lives within its means. If
we did that, within 5 years we could balance the budget.
Wyoming is finding a way to cut 8 percent. Why can't this body agree
to cut 1 percent each year until our revenue is the same or less than
expenditures? I am pretty sure after the first year people would say:
You know, that wasn't too bad; we can live with that. And I think they
would suggest we do two cents instead of one cent and get this done
faster so that the next generation has hope for the same kind of
country we have enjoyed.
Lastly, Congress needs to thoroughly consider and review its
spending. The Wyoming Legislature considers its spending bills on time
because they have created incentives to encourage it, and they use a 2-
year spending cycle that provides more certainty and predictability
than an annual cycle. Congress should follow Wyoming's lead by forcing
timely consideration of regular appropriations bills--spending bills--
and locking in that funding for 2 years instead of 1. A biennial
process would also allow more time to review the details of proposed
spending, eliminate duplication and waste and ensure the elimination of
the worst first.
Mr. President, I would like to make one point to differentiate the
problem Wyoming faces from the problem we face here. Wyoming is facing
spending cuts because of declining revenues from oil, gas, and coal,
which provide 70 percent of the State's budget. Those reductions are
due to direct actions this administration has taken to make it harder
to drill for oil and gas and to mine for coal.
But at the Federal level, we don't have a revenue problem, we have a
spending problem. This year alone, we have seen attempts to increase
spending by tens of billions of dollars without offsets. We cannot
spend our way to prosperity. We definitely need to look at expired
programs.
I sit up nights worrying about our Nation's $19 trillion debt and how
it will affect our children and grandchildren. We have run out of money
and are living on what we borrow from other countries. If we don't get
serious about cutting spending soon, the programs people enjoy and rely
on won't just shrink, they will disappear entirely--again, think about
my example of what happens if we go to 5 percent interest for this
country.
It is long past time for us to apply reasonable constraints on our
spending, and if we need a blueprint of how to do it, we should look to
my home State of Wyoming.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. 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. McCONNELL. Mr. President, for all Members of the Senate, let me
sum up where we are. There are three votes left to be cast. It is
cleared on this side of the aisle to have all three of those votes
momentarily. If there are objections to the consent request I am about
to offer, the three votes would occur at 10:20 tonight. But whether we
do it now or we do it then, there are three votes to finish the bill.
This bill is a product of a negotiation between the top Republican
and the top Democrat on the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry which will protect middle-class families from unnecessary and
unfair higher food prices, while also ensuring access to more
information about the food we all purchase.
Chairman Roberts said this bipartisan bill will benefit consumers by
greatly increasing the amount of food information at their fingertips,
while avoiding devastating increases in the price of food.
The ranking Democrat on the committee, Senator Stabenow, noted that
it will prevent a confusing patchwork of 50 different labeling
requirements in 50 different States, and it recognizes the scientific
consensus that biotechnology is safe.
It is the result of bipartisan work to address an issue that could
negatively harm consumers and producers.
The amendments being bandied about threaten to derail this process,
and the end result will be a tax on food for middle-class families.
So here is the deal, Mr. President. We need to pass it today. We need
the House to take it up and pass it, and we need them to send it to the
President to sign it. So the end game is clear. The only issue before
the Senate at the moment is whether we do it in the near future or at
10:20 tonight.
Bearing that in mind, as I have said, we are prepared to vote on the
Sanders alternative to the Roberts-Stabenow compromise language and to
finish up this bill now rather than waiting until time expires at 10:20
tonight.
A bipartisan majority voted to end debate on the bill. Everyone has
had an opportunity to be heard. It is time to finish this bill.
Under the regular order, there would be no further amendments on the
bill. Under the consent agreement I am about to offer, the opponents
would be able to vote on the Sanders alternative.
Therefore, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
notwithstanding
[[Page S4893]]
rule XXII, there be 20 minutes of postcloture time left, equally
divided between the two leaders or their designees; further, that
Senator Sanders or his designee be allowed to offer amendment No. 4948
to the motion to concur with further amendment; finally, that following
the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate vote on the Sanders
amendment, with a 60-affirmative-vote threshold needed for adoption;
and that following disposition of the Sanders amendment, the remaining
amendment be withdrawn and the Senate vote on the motion to concur in
the House amendment with further amendment with no further intervening
action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the issue
before this body is whether there is going to be an opportunity for
amendments to be considered and voted upon.
We have heard today that we have three Republican amendments--three
Republican amendments that address a prohibition on Federal labeling,
that address criminal penalties, that address salmon. We also have
three Democratic amendments we would like to have votes on.
Once upon a time--it now starts to seem like a fairy tale--this
Senate was known as a great deliberative body. Well, a great
deliberative body entertains ideas, discusses them, and votes on them.
So in support and honor of the tradition of the Senate to put
amendments forward and have them debated and voted upon, we are
offering an alternative. I would ask the majority leader to modify his
request and to do so in the following fashion: I ask unanimous consent
that the following amendments be the only amendments in order to the
motion to concur with respect to S. 764 with an amendment: Sanders No.
4948, Leahy No. 4966, Merkley No. 4969, Sasse No. 4972, Paul No. 4947,
and Murkowski No. 4954; that there be 1 hour for debate, to run
concurrently, prior to votes in relation to the amendments in the order
listed; that all amendments be subject to a 60-vote threshold required
for adoption; and that upon disposition of the amendments, all
postcloture time be yielded back with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator so modify his request?
The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, it is my understanding the Senator has
made a unanimous consent request for six amendments. Is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, as I go
over each of these amendments, each one would undo the carefully
crafted compromise that has been put together by the distinguished
ranking member, Senator Stabenow, and me, so I must object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The objection is to the
modification.
Is there objection to the original request?
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I believe everybody has objected. If
not, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objections heard in duplicate.
Mr. DURBIN. 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. HOEVEN. 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. HOEVEN. Mr. President, every now and then we have a chance to
support a bipartisan bill that tackles a tough issue in the face of
stiff, stiff opposition. The biotechnology bill before us today is just
such legislation, and I come to the floor to speak in support of its
passage.
This measure will avoid a patchwork of State labeling regulations,
and in doing so will save families thousands of dollars a year, protect
American jobs, and provide consumers with accurate, transparent
information about their food. This bipartisan solution is a product of
the hard work of Ag Committee Chairman Pat Roberts and Ranking Member
Debbie Stabenow, who have shown real leadership in putting this bill
together and are now working to get it passed.
Specifically, the Roberts-Stabenow biotechnology disclosure bill
accomplishes three important objectives: First, it protects consumers
by immediately ending the problem of having a patchwork of inconsistent
State GMO labeling programs that would increase prices; second, it
ensures farmers and ranchers can continue to provide Americans with an
affordable, reliable, and safe food supply; third, it creates a uniform
national disclosure system that will provide consumers with more
information about their food products.
This bill will ensure that the Vermont GMO labeling law, which went
into effect last week, July 1, does not end up costing American
families billions of dollars when they fill up their grocery carts.
Food companies are already having to choose between one of three bad
options for complying with the Vermont law and laws from additional
States that may follow Vermont's lead: First, order new packaging for
products going to each individual State with a labeling law; second,
reformulate products so that no labeling is required; or third, stop
selling to States with mandatory labeling laws. All of these options
will increase the cost of food and could result in job losses in the ag
economy.
For millions of Americans, the GMO or bioengineered food labeling
program created by Vermont will impact the affordability of food
without improving its safety. Testimony provided by the USDA, FDA, and
EPA to the Senate Ag Committee last fall made clear that foods produced
with the benefits of biotechnology are safe. Just last week, 107 Nobel
laureates signed a joint letter to Greenpeace urging it to stop
campaigning against biotechnology and GMOs, stating that ``Opposition
[to GMO's] based on emotion and dogma contradicted by data must be
stopped.''
The real risk is that if we don't address Vermont's GMO law, real
families will have a tougher time making ends meet. In fact, if food
companies have to apply Vermont's standards to all products nationwide,
it will result in an estimated increase of over $1,050 a year per
household. For families having a tough time paying bills, this is in
essence a regressive tax, and it will hurt the poor more than those
with substantial means.
From a jobs perspective, the story isn't any better. It has been
calculated that if Vermont's law is applied nationwide, it will cost
over $80 billion a year to switch products over to non-GMO supplies.
Those billions of dollars a year in additional cost will hurt an ag and
food industry that creates over 17 million jobs nationwide. In my State
of North Dakota alone, 94,000 jobs and 38 percent of our State's
economy rely on the ag and food economy.
This is a bad time to be making it more expensive to do business in
the ag sector. Earlier this year, economists at the Federal Reserve
Bank of Kansas City testified that net farm income in 2015 is more than
50 percent less than it was in 2013, and it is expected to go down
again in 2016. A State patchwork of food labeling laws will only make
this situation worse, as many farmers who rely on biotech crops to
increase productivity will be deprived of a critical tool. I know how
hard farmers work and how much they put on the line every year when
they have to take out an operating loan for crops that may or may not
materialize. We shouldn't ask them to feed the Nation with one hand
tied behind their backs by taking away biotechnology.
More than just overcoming the problems associated with having a
patchwork of State regulations, I think it is important for Americans
to know that this legislation ensures consumers have consistent,
accurate information about the bioengineered content of their food.
This measure creates greater transparency for consumers by putting in
place a new national bioengineered food disclosure standard that will
ensure products labeled as having been produced with biotechnology meet
a uniform, national standard.
As I mentioned, foods produced with the aid of bioengineering are,
according to the FDA, EPA, and USDA, safe.
[[Page S4894]]
However, many consumers do want to know if the food they are buying is
produced using biotechnology, which is why this legislation provides a
national bioengineered food labeling standard.
Many of us who sit on the Ag Committee would have preferred a
voluntary labeling standard. After all, as has been demonstrated by
scientific experts, whether a food contains bioengineered material is
not a food safety issue. Yet there are many perspectives on this issue,
and in the true spirit of compromise, Senator Roberts and Senator
Stabenow deserve a great deal of credit for coming up with a
legislative solution.
This bill's national bioengineered food labeling standard will ensure
that a consumer who buys a food product with text, symbol, or
electronic link indicating bioengineered content in, say, North Dakota,
for example, is purchasing a product that is held to the same
disclosure standards as foods sold in another State--for example, New
York or California. Meanwhile, this bill will provide regulatory
flexibility to ensure farmers and ranchers can continue to produce
affordable and reliable food for the Nation.
We need a solution, and this bill delivers that solution. It helps
keep our Nation's food affordable, it supports jobs, and it provides
consumers consistent information about bioengineered foods. I urge my
colleagues to support this commonsense measure.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
MILCON-VA and Zika Virus Funding Bill
Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for once again
reinforcing why it is so important for us to get this compromise bill--
this bipartisan bill on agriculture biotech--to the President's desk so
we can move on to take on other matters, and that is one of the matters
I want to talk about now.
Again, I know that when we come into this Chamber and are on C-SPAN,
sometimes for people who are watching or may be in the gallery, it is
hard to understand some of what we are talking about. What I am talking
about is a bill that I hope we vote on next week. It is a bill that in
two separate measures went to the House with strong bipartisan support.
Now it is coming back in what we call a conference report, and we are
one vote away from potentially sending this bill to the President's
desk. It has two parts. I am going to speak predominantly on the second
part, but the first part has to do with funding our veterans.
I come from the State of North Carolina. We have a population of 10
million. Ten percent of our State--nearly 1 million of our citizens--
are veterans. We are very proud of our military tradition, and we are
certainly proud of those who have decided to call North Carolina their
home after their military service. As a matter of fact, I think
everybody in the Senate--Democrats and Republicans--has veterans as a
priority. I firmly believe that. That, I guess, is one of the reasons I
am stunned that we have reached an impasse in moving forward and
providing appropriations that will let us increase funding to veterans.
The bill that we seem not to be able to get consensus on--although we
had consensus when we first sent it out of this Chamber--provides
critical funding for veterans housing, for their disability
compensation, for suicide hotlines, for treatment for PTSD, and for
opioid addiction treatment. For all the promises that we are not
keeping today, we can help fulfill those promises by providing the
desperately needed funding the VA needs.
But instead of working to get this funding done, we are at an impasse
now, and I simply don't understand it. To me, some of them may be
genuine disagreements with the policy, but in some respects it feels a
little bit like scoring political points, and I don't get it.
What I really want to talk about tonight is the other provision of
the bill, and that has to do with something that is desperately needed
in our Nation. It is funding--and taking seriously--the threat of the
Zika virus.
Zika is here. We are in mosquito season. I went hiking this weekend,
and I know mosquitoes are out in North Carolina. In fact, they are all
over the Nation. We need to work quickly to get a vaccine. We need it
desperately. We are told by the CDC we could be 18 months away from
having a vaccine for Zika. What we need to do is make sure we are
funding research efforts so that we can win the fight against Zika. But
I will tell you, we can't do this without providing financial support.
As I said before, the Senate passed a bill earlier this year, and we
sent it to the House. Now it is back in the Senate, and it is one vote
away from going to the President's desk. The bill spends over $1
billion to fight Zika in all of its forms, and my Democratic friends
voted for this bill earlier in the spring at the same funding level we
talked about. There is discussion about spending more, but it seems
illogical that we would spend nothing at all. That seems to be the
position that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are taking
right now.
We stand ready as Republicans in the majority to provide this
funding, but it appears as though, because we have reached this
political impasse, we could put Americans' health and safety at risk.
Again, we have a rollcall vote from earlier this year where most of
us--virtually all of us--voted for $1.1 billion in funding. I will talk
a little later about what that funding was directed toward. We have
Members who voted with us on that bill who are not willing to vote now
to send this to the President's desk.
I am going to submit for the record the list of people who voted for
this bill the last time it was on the floor and are now voting against
it. I am not going to spend time today with limited time to go through
each of the Members. But it doesn't make sense to me when you have
cases reported--5 cases in Colorado--yet we have someone opposing the
bill. There are 24 cases in Pennsylvania, and before they supported it,
and now they are opposing it. There are 27 cases in Virginia, 26 cases
in Maryland, 52 cases in California, and 198 cases in New York, for a
total of 671 cases that have been reported to date in the United
States. Most of these are travel related, but we have the threat of
sexual transmission. Now that we are in the height of mosquito season,
we have the real threat of mosquitoes infecting American citizens, and
the threat is real. Without going through the whole list, Florida is
another example, with 162 cases reported already. It would seem to me
that the Senators from Florida would want to get this funding to the
President's desk so we can start solving the problem.
Again, Members who now oppose this funding voted for it just a couple
of months ago. Again, if you add up the numbers, that is 671 cases
solely in the States where Members now are opposing the bill, and the
cases are growing. We now seem to be engaged in this political divide,
which really is the Senate at its worst, and we are better than that.
I know there are a lot of reasons that have been put forth to oppose
it in this version where they weren't against it before. There were
some that said it is because we are not funding or we are preventing
funding for certain organizations. It is not true. The funding can flow
through Medicaid to any organization which provides health services
that would be relevant to the disease.
The way you control the population of the mosquitoes that can
potentially carry the disease is to kill them--to kill them where they
breed. Right now we think, temporarily, for this mosquito season we
should do whatever we can to make sure that we kill the potential
source of the disease that is transmitted through these mosquitoes. It
can be done. It can be done with chemicals the World Health
Organization says is safe in so many other jurisdictions. All we are
saying is during this mosquito season, before we get a vaccine, we use
this chemical--this compound--that can kill Zika mosquitoes and prevent
them from transmitting the disease. That doesn't seem like an
unreasonable thing to do. For 180 days, allow us to try to dramatically
reduce the threat to the population. These are commonsense policies.
The fact that we are having this discussion, the fact that we can't
get it, the fact that time is running out and we have to get it done
next week is ridiculous. We are well into the mosquito season. There is
probably not anybody listening to this or in this Chamber right now
that has not been bitten by a mosquito already this year.
[[Page S4895]]
Let's do what we have to do to keep America safe. Let's stop the
partisan politics. Let's get this bill to the President's desk, and
then let's move on to the many other things the American people expect
us to tackle while we remain in session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I yield my hour assigned to me to the
Democratic leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
The assistant Democratic leader.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, eventually this evening, we will be voting
on GMO labeling. As I mentioned earlier, this is the most politically
contentious and divisive issue I can ever remember. I have been in
Congress for a few years. Whenever this comes up in our caucus, it is
going to be a heated argument. It evokes so many emotions, not just
among the members of our caucus but certainly with the American people.
It gets down to some basic questions.
If you are dealing with a food product that has bioengineered
contents or genetically modified content, there are several questions
we need to ask. The first question is, Should the consumer know this?
Well, 92 percent of Americans believe, yes, they have a right to know
if there is GMO content in the food they eat. That is what the polls
show--92 percent. That is an overwhelming number when you have lived
with polls as long as most of us have.
Then you ask a question, delving into it: Is that because GMO
modified food is dangerous to a consumer?
I think the answer is very clear that the scientific analyses of GMO
food have not reached that conclusion. They believe--the National
Academy of Sciences and others--that GMO food by itself is not
dangerous to consumers. That is the scientific evidence. Nevertheless,
there is this strong public opinion that people want to know whether
GMOs are part of the food that they are consuming.
I have done some research on this, and I am sure every Member has
tried to look at this very carefully. The one article that has stuck
with me through the entire debate was published in the New England
Journal of Medicine in August of 2015 last year. It was about a year
ago when two doctors, Dr. Philip Landrigan and Dr. Charles Benbrook,
published this article in what I think is highly regarded as a
nonpolitical professional medical journal, the New England Journal of
Medicine.
They go through an analysis of GMO in foods. They acknowledge at the
outset what I have already said--that there is no scientific evidence
of danger if there is GMO content in your food. Then they take it to a
different level--an important level, as far as I am concerned. Is there
any difference in the way GMO products or plants are grown? The answer
is yes, and it was designed to be different. This was inspired
initially by Monsanto, a company that has a major presence in my State.
It was designed to create a seed corn that they made and sold that was
resistant to an herbicide--that is a weedkiller--Roundup or glyphosate.
They were selling the seed corn, which obviously is a source of profit
for them and then encouraging the farmers who bought it to use this
weedkiller or herbicide in their fields, saying this herbicide would
not hurt the corn crop, just the weeds.
These two doctors of the New England Journal of Medicine then
proceeded to analyze what happened next. What happened was that over
time, there were weeds that were becoming more and more resistant to
Roundup--stronger, thicker, bigger weeds. To put it a different way,
Mother Nature was not cooperating with Monsanto. Weeds were appearing
that they didn't anticipate. So they decided to apply even more of this
herbicide, this weedkiller called Roundup, to see if that controlled
the problem, and it didn't. They had to add another weedkiller--another
herbicide--2,4-D, which has a long history in the United States, and
then they started combining the two, hoping to stop the weeds with this
new combination.
The net result, which these two doctors published in this article of
the New England Journal of Medicine, was a dramatic increase in this
glyphosate--this Roundup, that was being applied across the world.
Roundup-ready crops now account for more than 90 percent of corn and
soybeans planted in the United States. They go on to say:
But widespread adoption of herbicide-resistant crops has
led to overreliance on herbicides and, in particular, on
glyphosate.
In the United States, glyphosate use has increased by a
factor of more than 250--from 0.4 million kg in 1974 to 113
million kg in 2014. Global use has increased by a factor of
more than 10. Not surprisingly, glyphosate-resistant weeds
have emerged and are found today on nearly 100 million acres
in 36 states. Fields must now be treated with multiple
herbicides, including 2,4-D, a component of the Agent Orange
defoliant used in the Vietnam War.
The EPA anticipates that a 3-to-7-fold increase in 2,4-D use will be
the result of these Roundup resistant weeds. Is that important? I think
it is very important. It is important because we know that if you apply
large quantities of chemicals to our agricultural fields, you may
produce and harvest a big crop, but there is an environmental risk. How
much of a risk depends on the chemicals being provided, being used by
the farmers.
If GMO foods on your table are not a concern to your family because
of scientific analysis, there is another question. Is the method that
is being used to grow these Roundup-resistant crops, these GMO crops,
an environmental danger to anyone? These two doctors came to a
conclusion that it is--a determination in 2015 that glyphosate is a
probable human carcinogen and 2,4-D is a possible human carcinogen.
Because of the link between these chemicals and cancer, these two
doctors have concluded that labeling is important so consumers know
that they are consuming products that on the table are no danger but
that may have called for the use of more chemicals leading to more
environmental danger. They conclude that there should be labeling. It
is a different approach, but it is one that I think is valid, and it
comes from a totally nonpolitical source--the New England Journal of
Medicine.
The question then comes, if we are going to have labeling, what kind
of labeling? I mentioned earlier today--and I want to repeat it--that
my hat is off to the Campbell Soup Company. They have been around a
long time. They put out information in a press release in January of
this year announcing that they supported the enactment of Federal
legislation to establish a single mandatory labeling standard for foods
derived from genetically modified organisms.
They went on to say that Campbell's believes it is necessary for the
Federal Government to provide a national standard for labeling
requirements to better inform consumers. I agree.
They go on to say that the notion of every State setting a labeling
standard is madness. It would be impossible for major food
manufacturers to keep up with the variety of different labeling
requirements, and it isn't practical in a nation like ours for us to
really accommodate that kind of labeling requirement.
Campbell's has stepped forward and said we don't believe that GMOs in
our product are any danger to consumers, and we are prepared to declare
on our product, in clear words, whether or not they contain genetically
modified organisms. I think this is a responsible corporate answer to a
vexing problem we faced for years.
I salute Campbell's for trusting consumers and trusting their ability
to convince consumers the food they are selling is wholesome. I wish
the food industry had followed the Campbell's motto, but the bill we
have before us does not. It provides three different opportunities to
disclose on food products--mandatory--whether or not they contain
genetically modified organisms. One is a simple declaration: GMO, non-
GMO. The second is using something that will be developed by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture and that consumers will come to learn--a
signal or some sort of a sign or symbol as to whether GMO is included.
It is the third approach that troubles me the most. I have said this
over and over to the people in the food industry across America who
support this approach. I call this the secret decoder ring approach.
What it means is, if you are a consumer walking into a store buying
groceries for your family, you will be facing what is known as a QR. I
am learning as it goes on what this
[[Page S4896]]
means. It is one of those little boxes with squiggles in it, which
makes no sense to you as you look at it, but it can be read by a
computer. That reading would then signal whether or not you receive
additional information. I think that is deceptive. I think it is
unnecessary, and I think Campbell's has the right approach.
The QR codes would literally have consumers who want to know--and 92
percent do want to know--about the GMOs in their food either use their
cell phones on the products they are about to buy in the grocery store
or turn to some reader in the grocery store that will give them a page
or two of information about the contents. I really believe that is an
attempt to obfuscate the situation. I think most consumers will rightly
assume that if there is not a clear declaration on the product which
shows that it is non-GMO, that it contains GMOs.
I think the food industry is taking an approach which can't be
defended with a straight face. Can you really expect a busy consumer--a
mother with children in her shopping cart to pull out her cell phone
and stop at every can of soup to try to get a reading and then read her
cell phone to see if there is a page or two of information about that
product? That isn't fair to consumers, and that is why major consumer
organizations oppose this bill. It is one of the major reasons I oppose
the bill as well.
If there were a declaration, such as a symbol, or straight
acknowledgement of wording as to whether the product contains GMOs or
is non-GMO, which every seasoned consumer would come to understand, I
think that is an honest approach. I don't think it is reasonable or
honest to expect a consumer to have to scan a QR code and then have to
read their cell phone to determine what is in the product.
Let me conclude by saying I salute those who have taken up this
battle. Many have taken this up for many different reasons. It has been
a vexing and contentious issue for a long period of time. I do not
support State labeling. We have to avoid that. I do support honest
disclosures on food products so American consumers who rightly believe
they have a right to know have a way of finding that information in a
way that is reasonable.
I also want to add that it is my understanding that there is a 2-year
delay in terms of imposing this requirement. I don't know why 2 years
would be necessary. It would seem to me that if Campbell's can move on
this more quickly, the rest of the food industry should be able to do
so as well.
I thank the Senator from Oregon, who has been working hard on this
issue.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, it is my understanding that either
directly or indirectly, the Senator from Oregon controls the time, but
he has agreed to yield up to 10 minutes to me to make some comments. I
wish to confirm that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I do not control the time. I was prepared
to speak, but when my colleague requested to go first, I asked if he
might keep his comments to a reasonable period.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I had the nature of the courtesy slightly
wrong, but nevertheless the principle remains, and I appreciate the
cooperation of my colleague. I will keep my comments to 10 minutes,
especially if the Presiding Officer is kind enough to inform me when
the 10 minutes has expired.
Opioid Epidemic
Mr. President, I wish to speak about an epidemic that every one of us
knows is raging across every one of our States and is absolutely the
case in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and that is the heroin and
opioid epidemic. This is excruciating to so many families. I think at
this point we all know people who have been victims of this epidemic. I
certainly do. We have to do all we can about this issue.
I have the privilege of being the chairman of a health subcommittee
on the Finance Committee. In that capacity, I have tried to learn what
I can about this epidemic. I have traveled all across Pennsylvania
hosting roundtable discussions, field hearings, and getting as much
input as I can. What I have learned is that there are at least three
things that we could be doing here in Congress to at least help address
this terrible epidemic of opioid and prescription drug abuse. None of
them is a silver bullet that will end this epidemic, but it can help,
and we need to do what we can to help. No. 1, we can reduce the
diversion of these powerful prescription narcotics, and there are ways
we can do that. No. 2, we can deal with overprescribing because that is
a problem. No. 3, we can improve access to and the quality of treatment
for people who are already addicted. We have an opportunity to make
progress on all three of these really important areas if we will just
approve the conference report on the Comprehensive Addiction and
Recovery Act. We know it as CARA, the Comprehensive Addiction and
Recovery Act, which we will be voting on soon. Let me quickly run
through how this bill helps in all three of these areas.
No. 1, I mentioned reducing the diversion of powerful narcotics. The
Government Accountability Office estimated that in a single year,
170,000 Medicare beneficiaries were doctor shopping. That is to say
they were going to multiple doctors getting multiple prescriptions,
getting them all filled at multiple pharmacies, and ending up with a
commercial-scale quantity of these powerful, addictive narcotics. And
170,000 is a tiny percentage of Medicare beneficiaries, but it is a big
number.
When Medicaid and commercial insurers discovered there were people on
their plans doctor shopping, they came up with a device to stop it. It
is called lock-in. What they do is, when they discover a person is
doctor shopping, they require that person to get their prescription
from a single doctor and a single pharmacy so they can't continue the
abuse.
This tool does not exist in Medicare. I sat down with Senator Brown,
Senator Portman, and Senator Kaine and wrote a bill that would give
Medicare the power that Medicaid and private insurers already use that
would allow Medicare to lock in a patient to a single prescriber and a
single pharmacy when they discover doctor shopping.
This has broad bipartisan support. The President called for this
legislation in his budget. The Pew Charitable Trusts, law enforcement
officers, doctors, and seniors groups all support this legislation. It
will help stop fraud, help coordinate care, reduce costs, but most
importantly, it will safe lives. It will reduce the diversion of
addictive narcotics onto the streets, and that is something we can do.
This bill that Senators Brown, Portman, Kaine, and I wrote is in
CARA. It is in this legislation. It is a good thing.
No. 2, I mentioned reducing overprescribing. The Centers for Disease
Control has found that we are, in fact, overprescribing opioids for
many medical conditions, and doctors don't always know this when they
are seeing a patient. They don't know that maybe there is another
doctor who is maybe providing similar or equivalent prescriptions.
There is an electronic database system that would allow physicians to
know what a patient has already been prescribed so they wouldn't create
an excessive or inappropriate prescription. It is a called prescription
drug monitoring program, or PDMP, and it will provide that information,
such as the patient's history.
Senator Shaheen was the lead on the bill. Senator Collins and I
joined her on this legislation in order to provide assistance to States
to make sure their prescription drug monitoring programs are
interoperable across State lines. This is a tool that will help reduce
the overprescription and end up making sure we have better care and
diminish the incidence of these narcotics getting into the wrong hands.
Finally, I mentioned that we need to improve access to and the
quality of treatment. The CARA bill does that in a number of ways. It
will establish a demonstration program for evidence-based treatment
programs. It will help connect individuals battling addiction with
services. It expands access to naloxone, or Narcan, which is a drug
that immediately reverses the effects of the overdose and saves lives.
CARA will help law enforcement set up heroin
[[Page S4897]]
task forces, and it will increase opioid drug disposal sites.
There is a lot here. This is very constructive. The bill has enormous
and broad bipartisan support. CARA passed in the Senate 94 to 1. It
passed in the House 400 to 5. The conference report we will be
considering is substantively the same as the bill that passed the
Senate. In fact, it is broader and does more to help deal with this
terrible problem. It has the support of all kinds of public health
groups. It has Democratic and Republican ideas. It is exactly the kind
of thing that we should come together and get done.
I urge my colleagues not to play politics with this one. I know this
is the political season and there is a temptation. It has happened with
other pieces of legislation. But this is too important. There is broad
bipartisan support. It is constructive. It won't end the epidemic, but
it will save individual lives and help us make progress for the people
we represent.
I hope that very soon we will approve this conference report and get
it over to the House so they can approve it and get it to the
President's desk. I am sure the President will sign it. That is exactly
what we need to do.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield 2 hours to the junior Senator from
Oregon, Senator Jeff Merkley.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, tonight in this Chamber, we are
discussing an issue that is of concern to millions of Americans. It is
an issue that goes to the heart of one of the most important concerns
to a family, and that is the food that we eat as adults or parents and
that we provide to our children. The real heart of the question is,
Does a citizen have a right to know what is in the food they are
putting into their own mouths or putting on the dinner table for their
children?
The simple point that I will argue day and night is that a citizen
does have that right. It is the right to have information about an
issue related to your family's health and related to the environment.
How can you, as a consumer, make responsible choices related to both
the health of your family and the health of the environment if you do
not have the information at the point you are purchasing a product?
That is why we have all kinds of information disclosure rules in
America. For example, let's say you are considering buying fish in the
supermarket. If the fish is farm-raised, it has to say on the package
that it is farm-raised. Why is that rule in place? Well, that rule is
in place because people buying the fish often care a lot about whether
it is a wild fish or a farm-raised fish. They care in part because it
may differ in the quality of the food they are putting in their body
and because the way that farmed fish are raised may raise concerns
about the environment and they may want to exercise a choice of only
buying wild fish. That is why it is on the label.
Why do we put the number of calories on the label? This is an issue
citizens care about. Folks often wonder how much that food is going to
add to their weight or how much they may need to exercise.
By the way, folks also want to know how much sugar is in a product,
how much fat is in a product, how much unsaturated fat, and whether
there are peanuts in a product. We answer these questions because
consumers care about these issues. It is related to the consumers'
health, and that is the key. The consumer has a right to know. Tonight
we are addressing a specific issue, which is the right to know whether
the ingredients in the food we are eating are genetically modified, has
gene splicing occurred to change the makeup of the food we are eating.
Just a little while ago, the Senator from Illinois was sharing a
study with this body from the New England Journal of Medicine in which
two doctors looked very carefully at this question and they came away
with a simple conclusion: It is reasonable, they found, for citizens to
be concerned about the impact of consuming GMO ingredients, and
therefore it is reasonable for citizens to be able to have this
information on the package and they supported labeling.
I know from other studies I have examined, that in areas where
glyphosate, a weedkiller, is applied, which is very much tied to
glyphosate resistance to genetically modified crops--crops such as
sugar beets and soybeans and corn--we have results that show the
glyphosate actually ends up in samples of the rainwater because it is
dispersed in a spray. We have results that show it ends up in the urine
of people who live in these areas, and we know various international
bodies have said glyphosate is a probable carcinogen. So if it is
showing up in urine, as a parent, you might have concern about a
probable carcinogen showing up in that fashion and what impact it might
have on your health.
There are those here who say we can't find an established cancer
cluster that is directly related so we are comfortable making the
decision for the men and women and children of America. We are
comfortable denying the right to know. That is why this bill is labeled
the DARK Act: Deny Americans the Right to Know.
I am going to go through how it is that this act that is before us
tonight--which has been presented as a mandatory labeling bill and is
nothing of the such. In fact, it is an effort to guarantee that
citizens do not get a label they can use.
So let's talk about these various loopholes in this bill--these
Monsanto loopholes. Monsanto loophole No. 1. One may wonder why I call
it a Monsanto loophole. Well, first, Monsanto is the biggest producer
of Roundup. That is the commercial name for glyphosate. They sell it
across the country, and they sell it along with their seed for GMO
soybeans and GMO sugar beets and GMO corn. So they sell the plants to
be raised that are tolerant to this weedkiller, glyphosate, and then
they sell the glyphosate itself, and that has resulted in a massive
increase in the amount of weedkiller applied across America.
That has a variety of impacts that people are concerned about related
to the environment. It has an impact because we start to see the
emergence of superweeds--which are weeds that because they are exposed
so often and there are random mutations, they start to become resistant
to glyphosate so you have to apply more of it than you did before--or,
as pointed out in this article my colleague from Illinois was reading
from a little while ago, you have to start applying a different
weedkiller because of the emerging superweeds resistant to the
weedkiller Roundup.
Also, we have the evolution of superbugs. Now, what is a superbug?
The corn has been modified so then not only is it resistant to
glyphosate or the weedkiller, but it also produces a pesticide inside
the cells called Bt corn. I think many citizens would want to know more
about that. They would be a little bit concerned that there is a
genetic code inside every cell of the corn plant that is designed to
generate a pesticide within the cell of the corn. And then if they
looked into it a little further, they would find out the insect this is
attempting to kill is also starting to evolve to be resistant to this
pesticide. So not only are they concerned about does this pesticide get
generated inside the corn kernel, since the DNA grower of this
pesticide is now inside every cell, but what about the evolution of
superbugs--bugs which now, because they are resistant to the pesticide
inside the corn, are in a cornfield and the farmer has to start to
apply other pesticides to the corn as well.
What happens when this pesticide runs off the cornfield? What happens
when the weedkiller, glyphosate--Roundup--runs off the cornfield or the
sugar beet field? This runoff puts a lot of weedkiller into our creeks
and into our streams and into our rivers, and that has an impact on the
biology of the streams. So a key concern is the issue of the impact of
this type of farming surrounding these particular genetic modifications
and its impact on our environment.
In addition, we have another impact where it is heavily applied. It
has killed the milkweed, and the milkweed has been the primary food for
monarch butterflies so we see a huge crash in the Midwest population of
the monarch butterfly. Well, that is reasonable for people to be
concerned about.
[[Page S4898]]
Just this weekend, I was talking to some friends and we were all
relating that when we were kids, we saw monarch butterflies all the
time, and this is in Oregon. Now, the population hasn't crashed equally
everywhere, but it certainly has diminished greatly, even in my State
of Oregon. We were noting that our kids are not even sure what a
monarch butterfly looks like. That is how much of the population has
decreased.
In a very short period of time, we have had a profound impact on the
environment. That is a reasonable concern for individuals.
Here we have a bill that says we are going to label products as GMO
in order to address the citizens' concern, except the bill doesn't
actually do that, and it has some serious loopholes that serve Monsanto
and its various crops very well. So let's look at the first Monsanto
loophole; that is, that the definition exempts most of the Monsanto GMO
crop. Let's address that a little bit.
What does the bill actually say? Well, it starts with a definition of
bioengineering that is not used anywhere else in the world. I will just
read it: ``The term `bioengineering,' and any similar term, as
determined by the Secretary with respect to a food, refers to food:
that contains genetic material''--those key words, ``contains genetic
material''--``that has been modified through in vitro recombinant
techniques.''
And I will go to the second loophole in a moment. So it says ``that
contains genetic material.''
Isn't that clever because, you see, here is the way it works. When
you take genetically modified corn and you make high-fructose corn
syrup, the genetic material is stripped out. So what this definition
does is it says that GMO high-fructose corn syrup used in products
throughout America is magically no longer considered GMO in the
definition in this bill. Furthermore, the same thing with sugar beets.
GMO sugar beets produce GMO sugar, except that under this definition,
once again, the genetic material is stripped out so the sugar is
magically not a GMO ingredient. How about soybeans? The same issue.
Soybean oil does not contain genetic material. So this definition, used
nowhere else in the world, was written specifically targeted to exempt
the three big Monsanto GMO crops and the things that are made from
them.
We have looked across the country and many people--many scientists,
many groups--have pointed out this shortcoming. The Food and Drug
Administration gave technical advice and made it very clear that this
definition fails the test of covering these products--high-fructose
corn syrup and soybean oil--but here is what another person from
outside government said: ``This definition leaves out a large number of
foods derived from GMOs such as corn and soybean oil, sugar beet sugar,
and HFCS''--high-fructose corn syrup. ``That is because, although these
products are derived from or are GMOs, the level of DNA in the products
is very low and it is generally not sufficient to be detected in DNA
based assays.''
So here is what happens then. If we were to look at definitions
around the world--everywhere in the world--corn oil from GMO corn would
be a GMO ingredient. That would be true whether you are talking about
the two dozen-plus countries in the European Union or you go south to
Brazil or you go around the world to China, but under this definition
in the USA, magically, this GMO corn oil is no longer a GMO ingredient.
Soybean oil is covered if it comes from GMO soybeans in the European
countries--in Brazil, in China, all around world--but not in the United
States.
Sugar from sugar beets, GMO sugar beets. It is a GMO ingredient in
every undertaking around the world to provide labels, except in the
United States of America under this bill.
So this is a massive GMO loophole. That is not the only Monsanto
loophole in this bill. Let's go to the second one. The second one is
there is no requirement for a GMO label. You say: Wait, wait, wait. We
have heard from the proponents that this is a GMO labeling bill--a
mandatory GMO labeling bill. Let me say it again. There is no
requirement in this bill to put a GMO label on your product. This is
the no label required, no GMO label required bill. So it is a little
bit of false advertising or actually a lot of false advertising to call
this a mandatory GMO labeling bill.
What the bill says is, there are a couple of options that exist today
that people can use voluntarily. Let me show my colleagues an example
of that. This is a Mars product. It is the omnipresent Mars peanut
M&Ms, one of my particular favorites. Mars has said we want to make
sure our consumers know what is in the product so they list all of the
traditional things--the serving size and the calories and the total
fat, cholesterol, the protein, and the sodium. But our consumers also
want to know if there are GMO ingredients so they answer the question:
``Partially produced with genetic engineering.'' It is a GMO product.
Now, we don't know from this label which ingredient is the one they are
referring to, but to the consumer, that tells them the first important
thing they want to know, and the consumer can look into the details
elsewhere if they want to explore it more thoroughly.
That is integrity. That is honesty. That is responsiveness to
consumer concerns. Why do I say responsiveness to consumer concerns?
Here is why: Because across the country there have been surveys of
whether individuals want to have a simple label on their product. The
answer is, rounding off slightly, 9 out of 10 Americans want a simple
label on the product.
Here is something else that is kind of intriguing. This number is
essentially the same whether you are a Republican or a Democrat or an
Independent. Think: Here we are in a campaign year--a campaign year
where the differences between Americans are highlighted with great
emotion, great passion, and great determination that one side is right
and the other side is wrong. But here we have an issue where Democrats
and Republicans and Independents all agree they want a simple label on
the package. It is kind of exciting. It is kind of exciting to have
something that Americans completely agree on. Wouldn't it be wonderful
to have Congress say: Finally, we found something we can all agree on,
and we are going to honor the desire of our citizens of every political
stripe to have a simple consumer label on the package.
Well, I would love to state that this Senate, these 100 Members of
the Senate, actually are honoring the perspective of their Republican,
Democratic, and Independent citizens and that they are determined to
make sure that any bill written honors this desire for a simple on-
label indication of whether there are GMO ingredients. I would love to
tell you that is the case. Wouldn't that be complimentary of this
Chamber of 100 Members, this Chamber that I have been so honored to
serve in and affectionate toward since I was an intern here 40 years
ago?
But something destructive has happened in America. This Chamber seems
to no longer care about the opinions of consumers and Americans. They
seem to care about one thing: Is there a powerful special interest that
I need to toe the line for, that I need to be obedient to, that I need
to make sure will help me when the next election comes up?
So we have that powerful special interest that doesn't want American
citizens to know what is in the food products, and that is Monsanto and
friends--powerful special interests versus 90 percent of American
citizens. Powerful special interests, 90 percent of American citizens,
and this Chamber tonight is prepared to vote for that powerful special
interest instead of the American people.
That is not the way it is supposed to be in our country. In fact, the
first three words of our Constitution sum it up: ``We the people.'' The
whole idea was that, contrary to Europe where there was this powerful,
elite class and monarchies and Kings and Queens who made decisions for
the people, here we were going to have a system of government that was
responsive to the people. Well, if we are going to be responsive to the
people tonight, we will vote down this Monsanto DARK Act, the Deny
Americans the Right to Know Act. Unfortunately, I am sorry to say--I am
sorry to feed the cynicism across the country--that tonight, instead,
you are going to see a majority vote with Monsanto and against the
people. Our Founders wrote those three words, ``We the people,'' in
supersized font. They put them in really big font so you can
[[Page S4899]]
read that part of the Constitution from across the room. You have to
get very close up to read the rest. They put those three words in
supersized font to remind all of us, the citizens, the legislators, the
President, years and years later, decades later, centuries later, that
is what our Constitution is all about.
Jefferson summed this up. He said: We can only claim to be a republic
to the extent that the decisions we make as a government reflect the
will of the people. He said that will happen only if the people, each
member of the citizenry, have an equal voice. What he was basically
conveying in a powerful way is that in order to have a ``we the
people'' government, you can run a test. This Jefferson test--he
referred to it as the ``mother principle'' of our republic--was that we
were only a republic if our decisions reflected the will of the people,
and that would only happen if people, each member of the citizenry,
have an equal voice.
But today citizens no longer have an equal voice because of a couple
of court decisions that have created disproportionate voices, giving
multimillionaires and billionaires a very powerful, loud voice and
giving ordinary people a very tiny, quiet voice.
The first of these decisions was Buckley v. Valeo, 40 years ago. The
second was Citizens United. These two decisions turn our Constitution
on its head. They change it from ``We the people,'' and they take the
word ``people,'' and they pluck it out of our Constitution, and they
change it to the word ``powerful''--``We the powerful.'' That is what
those two corporate decisions do because they allow the very wealthy
and they allow powerful corporations to spend unlimited sums in
campaigns in America, and that spending corrupts this body so that when
this body is making a choice between that powerful special interests
and the people, it chooses the powerful special interests. That vote--
that type of vote--is being held tonight. You are going to see Members
of this body voting with that powerful special interest rather than the
people.
So let's return to this Monsanto loophole No. 2. Essentially, if this
bill were a true labeling bill it would do this: This is a poster of a
Campbell's label. Now Campbell's, like Mars, values its integrity with
its customers, so it put a simple label on its soup that states
``Partially produced with genetic engineering.'' Then it says ``For
more information about G.M.O. ingredients, visit [our Web site].'' And
it lists the Web site. Well, that is pretty cool. They are going the
extra step. They are not only saying, yes, there are GMO ingredients,
but we will give you all the details on our Web site. The customer at
the store, at the point of sale, immediately has an answer to the
question, and they know where to go for immediate information.
Mars, Campbell's, and so many other big companies--those that value
honesty and integrity with their customers--are answering the questions
of customers even though at this point it is not required by law.
Let's go back again to that Mars label on Peanut M&Ms: ``Partially
produced with genetic engineering.'' Campbell's says ``Partially
produced with genetic engineering.'' They chose the same phrase even
though there is no law that lays it out.
Why can't we have a bill that says that if there are GMO ingredients
you will put below your ingredients list ``Partially produced with
genetic engineering.'' Why can't we have that? That would be an honest
labeling bill.
This is being done voluntarily right now. Under this bill that is
coming up, it can still be done voluntarily. But the proponents of this
bill aren't saying it is a voluntary labeling bill; they are saying
this is a mandatory labeling bill. This is simply not true. This is a
voluntary option.
Another option is to put a symbol on the package--a symbol to be
chosen by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. That would be
a reasonable way to go. What if we said you either need to put in this
phrase and maybe a Web site to go to for more information or you can
put in a symbol? Brazil uses a symbol. They use a T in a triangle. Why
do they use a T? Because T means transgenetic, which means one gene has
been plucked out and inserted into another. It is another way of saying
bioengineering. We can use Brazil's approach--a T with a triangle. It
is easy to see at the bottom. We can take a B for bioengineering and
put it in a circle or we can proceed to put the letters GMO in a
rectangle. It doesn't really matter what the symbol is, as long as it
has some connection, and an ordinary consumer knows the answer to the
question if a symbol is there that means it is partially produced with
genetic engineering.
So a requirement for a phrase or a symbol--that would be a labeling
bill. But they are voluntary now, and they are voluntary in this bill.
What is required if you don't voluntarily put this phrase or
voluntarily put a symbol? Here is what is required.
All right. I wonder if anyone in this Chamber can look at this
computer code, this box, and tell me if there are GMO ingredients in
this product. Well, humans are not very good at reading computer boxes,
so I think I can safely say that no one here can look at this box and
tell me if there are GMO ingredients. It says to ``scan here for more
food information.'' What type of information would that be? There is no
connection to GMOs. It is just any old food information. It could be
information about the entire product line of this company. What food do
they produce? It could be information about the details of what type of
tomato puree it has or about what type of wheat flour or how much there
is in it. Or maybe it is a repetition of the other list of how much
sugar is there or how much glucose or how much salt or how many
calories or so on and so forth--everything that might go into the
ingredients. No one can look at this code and know that has anything to
do with saying that this is a GMO product. And that is the idea.
So I proposed an amendment. The amendment simply says that instead of
saying ``Scan here for more food information,'' it says ``Scan here for
more GMO food information'' or, alternatively, it could be ``Scan here
for more information on GMO ingredients of this product.'' But see,
that would actually be a label. That would be a GMO label. That would
actually be honestly labeling the product, and Monsanto is determined
that the products not be labeled.
So perhaps we are wondering, what do we do with this code? Just scan
it. Well, most Americans have never scanned something with a
smartphone. You can get an app and you can put it on your phone and you
can take a picture of this, and it can take you to a Web site. That is
what they are talking about. OK. That is an obstacle course. It is an
obstacle course because you have to have your phone with you. You have
to have wireless service in the grocery store. You would have to have a
digital plan on your phone. Most importantly, you would have to be
willing to take the enormous amount of time that it takes.
If what is on the package is ``Partially produced with genetic
engineering,'' I flip it over, and I see it in one second. I know the
answer. I can compare five products in 5 seconds. That is functional
for a consumer shopping in a grocery store. Maybe you have 20 things on
your list. You spend 5 seconds reviewing products on GMO ingredients.
That is 100 seconds.
Here you would probably have to spend one-half an hour to go to five
different Web sites and scroll through all the information to try to
find the answer--that is, if you had a smartphone and you had an app
for reading this and you wanted to spend your digital time doing that.
No shopper--no shopper--is going to make use of this in ordinary
shopping in a grocery store to make decisions. That is the whole idea.
Set up an obstacle course to ensure that shoppers never find out that
there are GMO ingredients, not in any fashion that helps them at the
point of sale.
Some say, of course, that people don't have to have a smartphone. We
will ask stores to set up a scanner. Well, I found this interesting
because when there wasn't a price on a product that I was shopping for
one Christmas, I asked somebody who worked in the store--I said: Hey,
what is the price of this product?
And they said: Oh, well, there is a scanner here in the store
somewhere, and you can scan the code on this, and you can find out
about the price.
They weren't sure where the scanner was, and they went and checked
and found out where the scanner was. They
[[Page S4900]]
helped me find the scanner, and the scanner didn't work. They said: We
think there is another scanner in the store somewhere. And they checked
that out, and it was on the far side of the store--all of which shows
you the ridiculousness of this whole scanning option, this whole
obstacle course being set up.
What really bothers me the most is that the Members here are
presenting this as a mandatory GMO labeling bill when they know darn
well it doesn't require a GMO label. That really bothers me. It is
deception of the public.
(Mr. ROBERTS assumed the Chair.)
That is not the only problem with this bill. Monsanto was very
thorough in the number of loopholes they included. Here is of the third
one. The bill prohibits basic enforcement of its own provisions. I know
you are thinking it cannot be true that, unlike every other labeling
requirement we have which has penalties if you don't participate in it
according to the rules, this law has no penalties. Well, I am sorry to
say that is the case. There are no penalties in this bill. Isn't that
amazing? Even if you ignore this bill completely, the U.S. Department
of Agriculture doesn't have the power to tell you not to sell your food
in the grocery stores. It doesn't have the power to tell you to recall
your products from the grocery stores. It doesn't have the power to
levy a fine on you, no. Here is the only thing that comes close to
being a penalty in this bill. It says the U.S. Department of
Agriculture can audit to determine whether you are complying, and they
can release the results of that audit to the public.
So if you choose to not proceed in any way to adhere to this law, you
get an audit, and the Department, after a long period of time, says:
Well, OK, we are telling the public we audited you and you are not
compliant with the law. And you say: Oh, my goodness. That really
worries me.
Of course, it wouldn't worry you at all. No civil fine, no impact on
the distribution of your products, no recall of your product, no teeth.
This is like the old man whose teeth have all fallen out, and all they
can do is gum the food. That is what this law is like. They can just
kind of gum a little bit, which doesn't worry anyone.
It is kind of amazing the three levels of complete protection
Monsanto incorporated into this bill--the three levels of completely
betraying the American public, those 9 out of 10 Americans who want a
very simple, a very simple label on their food products. Let me put it
another way on this enforcement provision. This bill would create the
first and only food label without a fine for violators--the first and
only food label without a fine for violators.
We have had other food label requirements. I mentioned one that if
you have farmed fish, you have to put a label on it that it has been
farmed rather than wild caught, and you sell it in a grocery store.
We can look at another that is called COOL, C-O-O-L, country-of-
origin labeling. COOL is something that has disappeared from the
American lawbooks. It has disappeared because of a trade agreement
called WTO, the World Trade Organization, something the United States
signed up to. In this World Trade Organization, someone can complain
that your requirements for disclosure inhibit the entry of their
products into the market. So various countries complained that labeling
meat, chicken, or pork and beef, specifically--labeling them would
unfairly prejudice people against buying their out-of-country beef or
their out-of-country pork. I will tell you something. I want to live in
a country where an American citizen who wants to support American
ranchers can make that decision when they buy their beef, when they buy
their steak, when they buy their pork chops. That should be the right
of every consumer to choose to buy a product grown in America by red,
white, and blue American ranchers.
But we signed a trade agreement that gave away our sovereignty on
this issue to an international tribunal, an international tribunal that
has no stake in the future of America. It has no stake in our vision,
our ``we the people'' Republic. We gave away our sovereignty and that
court said: No, that discriminates. They didn't see it as the consumer
right to choose, as simply information that would be provided, no. They
said that discriminates and therefore we are striking down the American
law.
Our law, our COOL law--it wasn't struck down by a vote on the floor
of the Senate, it wasn't struck down by some amendment slipped into a
last-minute bill over in the House, it wasn't struck down because a
coalition of American ranchers wanted to strike it down, it was struck
down by a court that had no foundation in America, but we were
controlled by it because we gave away our sovereignty.
By the way, that is something we should be very concerned about when
thinking about the Trans-Pacific Partnership because that can have an
impact as well on the flow of goods, and I might just take a while to
address that, but right now what I wanted to convey is before the WTO
court struck down our country-of-origin labeling law, there were teeth
in that law, teeth that we put in the law, teeth that were put into the
law on the floor of the Senate and on the floor of the House. It
provided a fine if you didn't comply. You had to label where the meat
was grown. That was great because it meant that people followed the
law. But in this case do we have the same fine structure that was in
country-of-origin labeling or that affects other provisions like, for
example, labeling fish as wild? No, we don't.
We even require labeling as to whether juice is fresh squeezed or
reconstituted. Why is that? Because the consumer wants to know, and it
is their right to know. In fact, this belief that the consumer right to
know about the food they put in their mouth is so powerful--so
powerful--that the advocates for this bill put forward the idea that
this actually provides that information, that it actually labels it
when it doesn't, when it doesn't say it is a GMO product, but it is a
kind of testimony as to how powerful that consumer concern is. So there
we are with these three fundamental loopholes in this bill that serve
Monsanto very well.
You can see now why this is simply a repackaged version of the
earlier DARK Act, the Deny Americans the Right to Know Act. That is why
some have called this the DARK Act 2.0, because it is simply a
rehashing of what we saw previously.
This is representational. It is a quote from a letter to Senators
from a group of 76 pro-organic organizations and farmer groups. They
are writing specifically about this act we have before us tonight, the
DARK Act 2.0, that we will be voting on tonight--this act that tonight
we will be voting on that takes away the power of States to put the
type of label on the package that consumers want across this entire
country.
This is what they said: ``We oppose the bill because it is actually a
non-labeling bill under the guise of a mandatory labeling bill.''
Well, who are these organizations? Let's just give them their
opportunity to be recognized.
The Center for Food Safety, Food & Water Watch, the Abundance
Cooperative Market, the Beyond Pesticides, the BioSafety Alliance, the
Cedar Circle Farm & Education Center, the Central Park West CSA,
Citizens for GMO Labeling, Crop CSA, Crush Wine & Spirits, Dr.
Bronner's, the East New York Farms, the Empire State Consumer Project,
the Family Farm Defenders, Farm Aid, Food Democracy Now, Foundation
Earth, Friends of the Earth, Genesis Farm, the GMO Action Alliance, GMO
Free NY, GMO Free USA, GMO Inside, Good Earth Natural Foods, iEatGreen,
the Institute for Responsible Technology, the International Center for
Technology Assessment, Katchkie Farm, the Institute for Responsible
Technology, the International Center for Technology Assessment, the
Institute for Responsible Technology, the Keep the Soil in Organic
Coalition, Diesel Lane Farm, Kezialain Farm, the LIC Brewery, Maine
Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association, the Midwest Organic &
Sustainable Education Service, Miskell's Premium Organics, Moms Across
America, the National Family Farm Coalition, the National Organic
Coalition, Nature's Path, the Nine Mile Market, the Non-GMO Project.
I am reading all these names to convey how, within just a few days,
just a short period of time in which this bill has been brought to this
floor in a fashion that completely bypassed committee process in the
U.S. Senate, how many have responded. I am only partway through this
list so we will give
[[Page S4901]]
respect and voice to all of these organizations: Nutiva, the Northeast
Organic Dairy Producers Alliance, the Northeast Organic Farming
Association, the Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York, the
Northeast Organic Farming Association of New Hampshire, the Northeast
Organic Farming Association of Vermont, NYC H2O, Oregon Right to Know,
the Organic Consumers Association, the Organic Farmers' Agency for
Relationship Marketing, the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association,
Our Family Farms, PCC Natural Markets, the Pesticide Action Network
North America, Presence Marketing, Regeneration Vermont, the Riverside-
Salem United Church of Christ/Disciples of Christ, Rodale Institute,
the Rural Advancement Foundation International, Rural Vermont, the
Sierra Club, Slow Food California, Slow Food Hudson Valley, Slow Food
North Shore, Slow Food USA, Soil Not Oil Coalition, Sunnyside CSA, the
Cornucopia Institute, the Organic & Non-GMO Report, the U.S. Public
Interest Research Group, Vermont Public Interest Research Group,
Vermont Right to Know GMOs Coalition, and Wood Prairie Farm.
Now, if this bill had gone to committee, there would have been people
coming to testify pro and against this all-new definition put here on
the Senate floor with no review. They would have analyzed it. They
would have educated Members of the Senate about why this new definition
was included in the bill. Senators would have been able to ask
questions directly of the sponsors, such as, when did you decide to use
a definition that excludes the major products from GMO Monsanto crops
in America? When did you decide to do that? They could have asked the
question: Why did you decide to do it?
Doesn't this mislead the public--pretending to cover GMO products but
slipping in a definition that excludes the big three in America--the
GMO soybeans, the GMO corn, and the GMO sugar beets? Isn't that a
little misleading? They could have asked that question if there had
been a committee hearing on this definition. And, in fact, they could
have explored it further and asked: Why not use one of the definitions
from the 64 countries around the world that have a mandatory GMO
labeling bill that actually covers what most people consider to be GMO
products?
In fact, here is an interesting point about the definition included
in this bill. This definition speaks about recombinant DNA--genetic
modification through recombinant DNA--but there is a new technique
called CRISPR that changes the genetic code with a completely different
technology. Why isn't that included, or would it be included? That is a
reasonable thing to ask. What about other new techniques for modifying
genetic code? Someone might have asked: Why not include those future
techniques rather than excluding them?
In fact, if this definition had been examined in committee, we could
have asked another question about something I referred to earlier,
which was a second loophole in the definition. But before we talk about
that, remember that we looked at the first part of this, which said
that it has to contain genetic material. I have already explained how
it is that the major products--the oil, high-fructose corn syrup, sugar
from genetically modified plants--don't actually contain genetic
materials. That is a big loophole.
If this bill had been in committee, my sincere colleagues exploring
this could have asked about this second piece of the definition that
says that it only refers to a food as ``bioengineered'' if the
modification could not otherwise be obtained through conventional
breeding or found in nature. Well, that is very interesting. Why is
that in the bill? Is that designed to allow a genetically modified
plant, under this provision, to be considered nongenetically modified
because it might possibly have been obtained through conventional
breeding or is found in nature? I don't know why this was included
because there has never been a hearing on this definition.
So here we are, violating a major premise that Americans believe--
Americans who are Republicans, who are Democrats, who are Independents.
That major premise is that they have a right to know what is in the
food they put into their mouths. And this says: Well, you know what, we
are not going to define it as GMO, even if it is genetically modified,
if it could possibly be found in nature.
I would love to know exactly what executive came up with this phrase
and what product they are trying to protect, but we don't know because
no one will tell us. I would be interested in having Senator Roberts,
who leads the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, come
and tell us where this phrase came from, who suggested it, and why it
was suggested.
I will tell you what it makes me think of. I talked earlier about the
fact that with the massive application of glyphosate weedkiller across
America--in a moment, I will show you how much of an increase there has
been--with that massive application on millions of acres across this
country, so many weeds have been exposed that, slowly, genetic
mutations in the weeds that make the weeds naturally resistant to
glyphosate have, in fact, started to spread because those are the weeds
that can reproduce because they are not killed by the glyphosate. So we
have this growth in superweeds, essentially through natural selection
driven by this massive application of weedkiller. Can one say,
therefore, that we now have resistance to glyphosate found in nature?
We find it in the weeds. The weeds haven't been genetically modified;
they have been modified through the driving force of millions of tons
of weedkiller applied across America. The natural mutations that occur
in nature have slowly started to spread as those weeds survive and
reproduce. So is this another way of saying that the GMO crops--the
Monsanto big three--are not actually GMO because they are resistant to
glyphosate and can be found in nature? It sure sounds like that is what
is going on here.
There is something interesting here as well. This first loophole,
which says ``contains genetic material'' only provides a free pass for
the derivatives of the big three crops. By that, I mean the soybean oil
that comes from GMO soybean, the sugar that comes from GMO sugar, and
the high-fructose syrup that comes from GMO corn. But this second
loophole here could be a way of saying that even the GMO corn itself,
if you were to eat it as corn on the cob, wouldn't be GMO because it is
resistant to glyphosate and is found in nature. I am not sure if that
is what drove this because there was no committee hearing; there was no
explanation; there was no investigation; there was no testing of what
is here.
I made reference to the fact that the massive application of
glyphosate is, in fact, changing what is happening in America and
producing superweeds, but I thought it would be useful to show how much
that has changed.
This chart shows a couple of things. First, let's look at the
increased use of glyphosate--and that is Monsanto's Roundup product. It
was introduced around 1994 here, and we are talking about 7.4 million,
I believe that was--I want to read the notes to be sure I have it
right. It is pounds or tons. I thought it was 7.4 million tons. I may
be wrong. I may have to come back and correct that. But you can see
that as the distribution of GMO seed for sugar beets and corn and
soybeans spread across America, the application of this weedkiller
increased enormously, until in 2012 we are up to 158.9 million--and I
believe that is tons, but I will have to check. It is a massive amount
of weedkiller being sprayed all across America.
This note is from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They say:
The wide-scale adoption of herbicide-resistant corn and soy
crops has drastically changed the agricultural landscape.
This resistance enables broad and non-targeted application of
herbicides that indiscriminately kills vegetation growing
around farm fields and in nearby habitat, including Milkweed.
That is a statement from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service dated
April 25, 2015.
And we see here this massive increase in the application of
weedkiller. That certainly supports what the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service is saying. When they are referring to the fact that the spray
affects nearby habitat, that reflects that this spray drifts in the
wind and it affects weeds off the field, and one of the things it
affects is milkweed. Milkweed is the foundational support plant, the
[[Page S4902]]
foundational food for the monarch butterfly. So we see a massive
decrease in the monarch butterfly populations. A high here in 1997. In
1997 there was very little glyphosate being applied, and then there was
a massive increase, and by the time we get out here--and we don't have
2013, 2014, 2015, but if we did have it, we would see high bars as
well--we see the monarch population crashing. Sometimes we use the word
``decimation,'' meaning one-tenth of a population, but this is in the
more broad use of the term because it is far more than a reduction to
one-tenth. It is more reduction than that. It is a smaller fraction
from this high in 1997 on down to 2015. So that certainly is the case.
Mr. President, I think this would be a good moment to take a pause
and reserve the remainder of my time.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
A Tale of Two Cities
Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise briefly to offer a tale of two
cities. My comments are in a deep and disturbed reaction to the police
shootings of Alton Sterling in Louisiana and Philando Castile in
Minnesota. The videos of these shootings--one of an African-American
father of five selling CDs outside a convenience store and one of a
beloved African-American school cafeteria supervisor stopped for a
broken taillight--are shocking. All people of good will have to ask--in
the words that President Obama uttered an hour or so ago: ``What if
this happened to somebody in your family?''
The first city is the world of America's police officers. Our law
enforcement officers are heroes. While we are told in the Scriptures
that the greatest love is to lay one's life down for a friend, police
officers risk their lives every day not just for friends but for people
they have never even met.
As a mayor and Governor, I came face to face with the danger of
police work and went to too many funerals for local and State law
enforcement officials who gave up their lives in service to their
fellow citizens. Just in February of this year, Prince William County
police officer Ashley Guindin was shot and killed on her first day
working her beat after service as a Marine reservist and veteran.
Police work is hard and dangerous, and we have to be grateful for those
who do it.
But here is one glimmer of hope. For a police officer, the threat of
death by gun violence is being dramatically reduced even as our
Nation's population grows and even as the number of weapons grows. The
death of police officers by gun violence hit its peak in the early
1970s. In 1973, 156 police officers in this country were shot and
killed. In the first decade of the 2000s, that number had been reduced
to an average of 57 police officers killed by gunfire every year. In
2014, 49 police officers were killed by gunfire. Last year, the number
of police officers killed by gunfire had come down to 42. This year,
police deaths by gunfire are at the same level as 2015.
We know that one police death by gunfire is too many, and police die
in traffic accidents and by other work-related causes that also need
our attention and resolution. But the experience of our Nation in the
last 40 years--and this is what should give us hope--is this: We have
made our police safer from death by gunshot. We have shown we can
tackle a problem and begin to solve it, and that should give us hope
that we can bring down the number of police killed by gunfire even
more.
The second city is the world of people, especially young African-
American males shot by the police. In 2015, according to painstaking
research undertaken by the Guardian newspaper, 1,010 people were shot
and killed by the police in the United States. Young African-American
males were five times more likely to be killed by police than White
males of the same age. This data suggests that 102 unarmed African-
American males were killed by police in 2015. This number was also five
times the rate of unarmed Whites killed by police.
How does this number compare to past years? It is nearly impossible
to know. While deaths of law enforcement officers have been carefully
tracked for decades, the deaths of individuals killed by the police in
this country have only recently been counted. At least since the early
1990s, there have been legal reporting requirements at the Federal
level for such deaths, but actual data collection was weak, and it has
not been until the last 2 years that there has been an effort driven by
journalists and citizens to systematically collect this data. Even now,
there are questions about whether current data is actually
comprehensive.
How did our Nation bring down the number of police killed by gunfire
even as the Nation grew and even as the number of firearms in this
country increased? Because we cared about it. Because we kept records
and resolved to do better, and police departments trained to reduce
risks and society supported those efforts with budgets and emotional
commitment.
How will our Nation bring down the number of people--especially
African-American males, especially young African-American males,
especially unarmed African American males--killed by police? We will
decide that we must care about it. Again, in the words that President
Obama said an hour or so ago, because we will decide that ``this is not
just a black issue, it's an American issue.'' We must decide that we
care about it. We must decide that we will keep rigorous records and
resolve to do better, and provide better police training and support
those efforts with our budgets and with our emotional commitment.
If we have brought down the rate of police deaths by gunfire, we can
bring down the rate of people killed by the police. But we cannot do it
unless we care and unless we act.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, inquiry: We are not in a quorum call; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time under
cloture to the Democratic leader.
With that, 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. NELSON. 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. NELSON. Mr. President, I want to say a word on behalf of Senator
Merkley. He has a very reasonable compromise on this GMO bill. I wish
we would get a chance to vote on it because that is what the Senate is
supposed to do--debate and to express our opinions and then vote. A
bill that is a compromise, that was put together with great intentions,
and yet one that did not go through the regular order, as hard as the
negotiations were, and all the good intent--it is just a shame that the
Senate is sitting here until--the parliamentary rules allow us to run a
certain number of hours, which is going to occur somewhere around 10:30
tonight, to proceed to the voting on this bill.
The only expression of those of us who would like Senator Merkley to
have a vote is that we got to vote on a motion to table an amendment
that is unrelated, and it all has to do with the parliamentary
procedure. It is a shame that we can't have the substance of a real
debate on a real issue facing the country.
Zika Virus Funding
Mr. President, as the Senate is biding its time, I can tell you we
are not biding our time in Florida on two subjects, the first of which
is that in these closing days of the Senate before we recess for the
rest of the summer because of the political conventions--we had another
11 cases of the Zika virus yesterday in Florida. There are now well
over 250 cases in Florida, and in Florida there are somewhere around 40
pregnant women who are infected with the Zika virus. You know what that
means because you have seen the horrible pictures of the babies. When
the Zika virus infects a pregnant female, it attacks the growing fetus
and stunts the growth of the brain and the head. We are starting to see
that now in about six babies born in the United States with
microcephaly, three of
[[Page S4903]]
whom died at childbirth. You can imagine the tragedies for those
families in which this is occurring.
It could all be done if we would go ahead and develop the vaccine.
There is a lot of promising research and development on a vaccine, but
that means we need to get money through the National Institutes of
Health, NIH, to continue the research. We have a Zika bill for
supposedly $1.1 billion that was passed last week in the House, but it
is not a serious bill. It has all of these poison pills in it. It has
all of these political messages. It is totally partisan. In fact, one
of the things it does to fund the so-called Zika bill from the House is
to take money from the Medicaid Program in Puerto Rico--the very place
that needs it the most right now because 3.5 million American citizens
on that island are now at risk of being infected when that mosquito
bites or by sexual transmission.
Another part of the bill doesn't allow birth control through Planned
Parenthood. Well, isn't that inimical to the very reason that you want
to stop the pregnancy so that you don't have this tragedy? Yet the
House bill is eliminating those funds.
This is what I hope, and this is what I did this morning. I wrote to
the majority leader, Senator McConnell, and asked him if he would take
up the Zika bill that we passed in the Senate. It was bipartisan. It
was overwhelmingly supported. It was not the $1.9 billion the President
requested, but it was $1.1 billion. Take that up, send it out of here
to the House so that before Congress adjourns at the end of next week,
we would have a chance of having this money be there over the summer to
continue the assistance to local governments for mosquito control, to
continue the research and development of a vaccine, and to help with
the medical counseling that is going on and is necessary not just in
Florida, not just in Puerto Rico, but Zika is now in more than 30
States in the Union. I wanted to talk about that one thing, which is,
in fact, an emergency.
Central Everglades Planning Project
Mr. President, I want to tell you about another emergency, and I want
everyone to see these photographs. This blue-green algae is surrounding
these docks. You can see how it has collected. The brown that you see
mixed in with the blue and green is rotting algae.
This photo shows a wave coming up on shore in Stuart, FL. This is the
St. Lucie River. You can see how much algae is in the river. What is
algae? Algae is a plant. It is a plant that is in water. Algae grows
like this. Instead of being naturally balanced in the water column, it
grows like this when it is fed a lot of fertilizer.
Where is that fertilizer coming from? Right now it is coming from the
excess nutrient-laden water that is being dumped out of Lake Okeechobee
by the Corps of Engineers because the water has gotten too high in Lake
Okeechobee, which is a huge lake. This water pressure is now
threatening the integrity of the dike around the entire lake where
thousands and thousands of people live. In order to relieve that
pressure immediately, the Corps of Engineers has opened the floodgates.
It has allowed that nutrient-rich water to flow out to the east into
the St. Lucie River, which eventually empties into the Atlantic in
Stuart, FL, and to the west of Lake Okeechobee and into the
Caloosahatchee River, which goes out into Fort Myers. This is obviously
a sick river.
What happens when you get too many nutrients in the water? It causes
the algae to grow. In order for the algae to grow--it is a plant--it
sucks up the oxygen in the water and nothing can live. The fish can't
breathe, and it becomes a dead river. That is a dead river. Not only is
it dead, but all of the algae has floated to the surface, and now it
has all of that brown rot.
Can you imagine what that smells like? Well, as a Florida boy, to me
it smells like rotting algae. If you have any kind of a respiratory
situation or if you have allergies, go over there and take a deep
breath on that dock and all of a sudden you will be coughing, wheezing,
and sneezing. There are a lot of environmental medical health effects
as well.
What do we need to do? Well, here again, I have written to the two
leaders as to what we should do, and I have written to the President
about what we ought to do. Ultimately, you don't solve a problem like
this until you get a reversal of over three-quarters of a century of
diking and draining, and that is called the Everglades Restoration
Plan. It has been going on for 20 years, and it is going to go on for
another 20 years, but in the meantime, especially when we have
emergencies like this, we need to tinker around with that plan.
First of all, we need to get to the Water Resources Development Act,
or WRDA, that we thought was going to come up in July and has the
bipartisan support of the leaders on the environmental committee,
Senator Inhofe and Senator Boxer. It is ready to go. We need to get it
on the floor and pass it.
The WRDA bill has the Corps of Engineers authorized plan to continue
the Everglades restoration with what is called the Central Everglades
Planning Project, which includes four or five projects over a number of
years, so you don't have to dump the water to the east and west out of
Lake Okeechobee and create situations like this.
There is something else that we can do. We can hold as much water as
possible north of the lake in the Kissimmee River basin during the time
of the rains that are going to fill up Lake Okeechobee anyway; don't
allow the water to go south into the lake.
There is something else that the Corps of Engineers can do. They can
send more water south by raising the level of the canals to the south
just as they did a few months ago during an emergency. This is
obviously an emergency, and they need to do that.
There is one more thing that can be done. A couple of years ago, the
people of Florida voted to amend the Florida constitution to provide
for a dedicated source of funding that is already there--it is real
estate taxes--and use that money for the acquisition of endangered
lands and lands that are needed to preserve the environment. Thus,
there is a ready source of funding for the State of Florida if they
would appropriate the money to start purchasing lands south of the lake
that would become storage areas in a flow way going south and cleansing
areas as the water moves south into the river of grass otherwise known
as the Florida Everglades.
There are many things that have to be done all together, but what we
could do here right now--before we adjourn next week--is bring up the
WRDA bill. It is ready to go. It is bipartisan, and it will also
include the projects that will start the process of alleviating this
problem so that no river in America would have to experience what the
St. Lucie River and the Caloosahatchee on the west side of Florida are
experiencing now. Lord knows that I hope we can suddenly have a miracle
around here and get this bipartisan legislation up and moving.
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. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Shootings in Minneapolis and Baton Rouge
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, it seems as though every time we turn
around, we have a situation where some individual in the African-
American community is shot while in the custody of police, and many in
America, myself included, are mourning the death of Alton Sterling and
Philando Castile, the individuals who were shot in Minneapolis and
Baton Rouge.
The ubiquity of video cameras today has shown the rest of the country
what African-Americans have always known: That with shocking and
horrifying regularity, African-American men and boys are the victims of
police--the very people who are charged with keeping all of us safe.
I don't know what it is like to be fearful for my life during a
traffic stop by law enforcement. Unacceptably, however, that is the
everyday reality of Black Americans in our Nation. While I will never
know this experience firsthand, I stand with communities of color and
demand that those who swear to uphold our laws to protect and serve all
in America do so equally and that they are held accountable when they
don't.
[[Page S4904]]
We must also realize that this is not just a police problem; it is an
American problem. We need to come to terms with our Nation's long
history of racism and the many ways that racism continues to permeate
nearly every aspect of our society.
Our country has made enormous progress from the worst days of Jim
Crow. We elected an African-American President to two terms, but there
is an enormous difference between progress and success, and that
difference is measured in Black lives cut short, the resegregation of
our schools, health disparities, housing patterns, dropout rates, and
incarceration rates.
We will not end the scourge of racism until we understand that racism
is not just Bull Connor, firehoses, and dogs. We will never solve the
problem if we don't admit we have one.
I was thinking about the situation back in the 1980s when I was
working with a friend from across the street. He was actually the
brother of the woman who lived across the street. He had come up to DC
for a while and was helping me install some windows.
We needed to go to a hardware store but didn't know exactly where the
store was, so when we pulled up next to the sheriff's car, I asked my
friend to roll down his window and ask the sheriff for directions to
the hardware store. He looked over at the sheriff, and he turned back
straight ahead. He just looked straight ahead and didn't say a word.
Then I looked over and I saw the two sheriffs, and I saw the gun
mounted between them at an upward angle. It was a shotgun or a rifle.
But, as I looked to the right past him, I saw the absolute fear on his
face. There was absolutely no way he was going to roll down his window
and ask the sheriff--the sheriff in the car next to ours--for
directions. To me it was just a casual interaction among folks getting
a little bit of help, which was to him a potential life-threatening
situation.
Nobody in our society should live in fear of our public safety
officials. Of course, I celebrate that the vast majority of our public
safety officials treat everyone equally, but we need for 100 percent of
our public safety teams to treat everyone equally. That small fraction
that doesn't is responsible for an enormous number of lives cut short,
and that is unacceptable, and we have to change that. We have to talk
about it, and we have to wrestle with it.
So, once again, it seems like this is the case every week or so. We
have another death that seems like it should have been possible to
avoid, and sometimes these deaths are very clearly ones of intentional
infliction. We have to work hard together to change this.
Mr. President, I thought it would be worthwhile to consider a little
bit about the organics provision in the bill we are considering
tonight. Now, there are several organics labeling provisions, and the
sponsors of the bill said this is very wonderful stuff. I know that we
only have one organic farmer that I am aware of in the Senate, and that
individual is the Senator from Montana, Jon Tester. I have heard him
speak to this issue. I know that he feels that the bill does not do for
organics anything that the organic community doesn't already have. That
is my understanding of his perspective.
So it is important to call attention to the fact that many organic
organizations across the country, despite the language that has been
placed in this bill, are strongly opposed to it. They believe that if
you are going to put out a bill that is a mandatory GMO labeling bill,
it has to actually have mandatory GMO labeling in it. So let me read
this from Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food
Safety. Andrew says:
Organic organizations, farmers and companies rightly fear
that this bill could change important regulations governing
the federal organic program including those prohibiting the
use of genetic engineering in organic. They also refuse to be
part of a sham labeling bill that blatantly discriminates
against low-income, rural, elderly and a disproportionately
high number of minority Americans.
Then let me read this as well:
Organic organizations, farmer groups and companies around
the nation representing millions of organic consumers and
thousands of organic farmers have voiced their opposition to
the discriminatory and deeply-flawed GMO labeling bill being
offered. Thirty-six major organic groups have signed on to a
letter sent by a national coalition of consumer, food safety,
farm, environmental, and religious groups to all members of
the Senate earlier this week. The groups condemn the so-
called compromise bill which could be devastating to the
organic standard.
Organic groups that have signed on to this letter include the
following: Beyond Pesticides, Consumers Union, Center for Food Safety,
Dr. Bronner's, Equal Exchange, Farm Aid, Food and Water Watch, Genesis
Farm, Good Earth Natural Foods, Katchkie Farm, Keep the Soil in Organic
Coalition, Kezialain Farm, Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners
Association, Midwest Organic & Sustainable Education Service, Miskell's
Premium Organics, the National Grocers Coop, the National Organic
Coalition, Nature's Path, the Northeast Organic Dairy Producers
Alliance, the Northeast Organic Farming Association, the Northeast
Organic Farming Association of New Hampshire, the Northeast Organic
Farming Association of New York, the Northeast Organic Farming
Association of Vermont, Nutiva, Ohio Ecological Food and Farm
Association, Organically Grown Company, Organic Consumers Association,
Organic Seed Alliance, Organic Farmers Agency for Relationship
Marketing, Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association, Our Family
Farms, PCC Family Farms, PCC Natural Markets, Rural Advancement
Foundation International, the Organic & Non-GMO Report, Sunnyside CSA,
and Wood Prairie Family Farm.
So these are organic organizations, farmer groups, and companies from
around the Nation that are representing millions of organic consumers
and thousands of organic farmers who are voicing their opposition to
the bill that we are considering in this Chamber tonight.
So I thought that was worth noting.
It is very important because one of the items that the proponents of
this bill have said is that they have put some wonderful stuff in there
for organic farmers. If there is wonderful stuff, why are the organic
farmers saying that this bill could change important regulations
governing the Federal organic program, including those prohibiting the
use of genetic engineering or organic?
That is right. You heard that it is actually possible that this bill
would enable those growing GMO crops to label their crops organic--how
completely absurd. What hall of mirrors have we entered into with the
twisted definitions in this bill that GMO crops could be labeled
organic because of this bill?
Now, let me turn to why we are here on the floor waiting for these 30
hours to run out. We attempted to strike a deal earlier today simply to
have amendments voted on. In fact, get this: We agreed to vote on every
single Republican amendment--every single one. We asked for the ability
to vote on some Democratic amendments as well.
Now, that is what the Senate used to do. This body was known as a
deliberative body because people were actually here arguing with each
other, debating with each other, offering amendments, debating the
amendments, voting on the amendments, voting on the bills--almost
always by simple majority. That is why this was a deliberative body.
The Members brought the power of their life experiences into this room.
They brought their intellect, their knowledge, their reading, and their
wisdom into this room. They brought the stories of their constituents,
the experiences from the front line in America into this room. They
debated, and they argued, and they voted.
That Senate is the opposite of what we are experiencing here at this
moment--a Senate where the majority leader refuses to allow any
amendments on these bills to be debated or to be voted on.
Now, the unanimous consent proposal that I put forward a couple of
hours ago said there are three Republican amendments that have been
filed. Let's vote on all of them. One of them is from my colleague who
is sitting in the chair, and that amendment puts a prohibition on
Federal labeling. Now, I tell my colleague that if that was up, I would
be voting against it, and I would be happy to explain why. He would be
happy to explain why it is a good amendment, and that is called a
debate. That is called a discussion. The vote is a decision in which we
are all bringing our best insights to bear. But, unfortunately, we are
not debating the amendment of my colleague on a prohibition on Federal
labeling because the
[[Page S4905]]
majority leader refused to allow him to bring it up. He rejected the
unanimous consent request that would allow the amendment of my
colleague who is sitting in the chair to be considered.
We agreed that the amendment of my colleague from Kentucky, Senator
Paul, could be considered. His amendment seeks to clarify and make sure
that there are no criminal penalties in this labeling law. Well, I
would be happy to vote for that amendment, because there are no
criminal penalties and there shouldn't be any, and if we want to put an
exclamation point behind that through this particular amendment from my
colleague, I would be fine with that. If he were allowed to bring up
that amendment, maybe he would show some other aspects of it on the
floor--some other ways that reverberate and some other ways that I
don't actually recognize when I read his amendment.
But he can't fill us in on the details of what his amendment would do
because he is not allowed to bring it up. Even though he is a
Republican, he is not allowed to bring it up, even though the Chamber
is governed by a Republican majority. His own leader refuses to allow
him to have his amendment brought up and debated. In fact, we agreed
for another Republican amendment, the Murkowski amendment, on the
labeling of genetically engineered salmon to be brought up and
debated--an issue we have wrestled with here before. We have probably
all heard most of the pros and cons. But perhaps in the formulation of
this amendment, there are some new aspects that would have been brought
to bear that would have influenced us to support it or to oppose it.
But this Republican amendment can't be brought up because the
Republican leader rejected a unanimous consent request that would have
allowed all of these amendments to be brought up. In fact, there were
only three Republican amendments, and we agreed to hear all of them
and, in exchange, we asked for three Democratic amendments.
I see that my colleague Senator Blumenthal has arrived to speak. I
think I will come back and explain what those Democratic amendments
were a bit from now.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Shootings in Louisiana and Minnesota
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Merkley,
for his very powerful arguments for improving this law. I wish to speak
about the GMO labeling act. But before I do so, I wish to speak
separately about concerns that are on the hearts and minds of every
American today after the shootings that we have seen in Louisiana and
Minnesota. These are incidents that weigh on our hearts and our minds
as we watched--literally watched--the videos that have been played
again and again and again on TV around the Nation.
I echo President Obama's eloquently expressed concerns shared by many
Americans after the recent tragic shootings in Louisiana and Minnesota.
My heart breaks for the families and communities. I agree with
President Obama that acknowledging we must do better in no way
contradicts our respect for law enforcement.
As a former prosecutor, a U.S. attorney, and attorney general of my
State for 20 years, I worked with law enforcement officials closely for
more than two decades. I worked with them with great admiration for
their courage and professionalism. I understand and appreciate the
challenges they face every day, their selflessness in the line of duty,
and their commitment to keeping our communities safe, often at great
sacrifice to themselves.
Tragedies like the deaths of Philando Castile and Alton Sterling
threaten to undermine trust and understanding between law enforcement
and the communities they serve. That is why I fought to pass the Death
in Custody Reporting Act--bipartisan legislation which requires States
to report to the U.S. Department of Justice information regarding
individuals who die every year while in police custody or during the
course of an arrest. I have also supported funding to help local law
enforcement agencies cooperate and collaborate more closely with
communities and build trust by purchasing and using body-worn cameras,
which have been shown to reduce citizen complaints by as much as 88
percent.
We have much more to do in effectively assuring justice for
communities of color. We must have an honest conversation about the
role of race in society, not just in the disparities in the criminal
justice system but in our economy, our media, and our communities.
Words alone are insufficient. We must act. I will continue to work with
my colleagues in Washington, across the country, and Connecticut to
bring Americans together and make our society more just for all.
As a separate part of the record, if there is no objection, Mr.
President, I would like to continue our discussion about the GMO
labeling bill. I regret very sincerely the absence of an opportunity to
offer these amendments that might improve this bill and enable us to
provide the American people with what they need and deserve--the best
possible legislative product this body can provide, a legislative
product that matches the desires of 90 percent of Americans to know
more about what they are eating, the 15,000 Connecticut people who have
corresponded with me, and the many individuals, activists, and
advocates who tell me they believe they have a right to know what is in
their food when it comes to GMOs.
The science is beyond my advocacy, but the consumer protection issue
is one all of us are experts on. We all know we need better and more
information, and so to make access to that information more difficult
and cumbersome and even costly for Americans flies in the face of what
we regard as free and open and fair markets and free enterprise. It is
more than just about the doctrines of deceptive and misleading
marketing which the good guys in the world of business certainly want
to avoid. It is about providing more information, as much accurate
information as possible, because consumers have a right and a need to
know. Throwing roadblocks in the way of that right doesn't do justice
for them. They deserve better.
So I will continue this fight. We are near an hour now where we will
vote. I greatly respect the dedication of my colleagues who have worked
hard on this measure. My very distinguished and able friend from
Michigan Senator Stabenow is now with us. She and I are in agreement,
my guess is, 99 percent of the time, and I respect as well our
colleague Senator Roberts, chairman of the Agriculture Committee, but
the issue here is supremely important to the health and well-being of
Americans--not just today, not just children and families at this
moment but for years and decades to come. While the science may be
debated, the consumer protection issue is beyond doubt. Let's open
information to the American consumers, make it more available, not less
so; remove the obstacles, not create more hurdles; reduce the costs,
not raise the expense; and provide the access that Americans need to
full and fair information about GMOs that may be in their food.
Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Thank you, Mr. President.
I couldn't agree more with my friend from Connecticut. I think
probably 99 percent of the time we are voting the same way. There are
good people on both sides of this discussion. There is a lot of
emotion, and I think this issue around information and GMO labeling is
really a proxy fight in many ways for those who support biotechnology,
those who don't, and those who want to debate pesticides and other
important issues that don't relate to labeling but have come into this
situation.
I think what we need to focus on is the fact that, A, people have a
right to know information, how do we make sure it is done effectively,
and at the same time we certainly don't want costs to be going up as
was indicated. I know if we have 50 different labeling laws in 50
different States, that means the cost of putting those labels on and
manufacturing and to grocers and so on, it is going to go up and not
down, which is why there was great concern in the House when the bill
was passed there a year ago.
So the question for us is, How do we make sure costs don't go up? How
do we ensure we have a right to know? And how do we make sure we
believe in the science and respect the science?
[[Page S4906]]
The FDA has said very clearly, in rejecting petitions to label under
human health and safety laws, petition after petition, they have said
the science does not show risk to human health.
So looking at the National Academy of Sciences and the FDA and
others, both world medical groups as well as those in this country, it
is clear this is not a health and safety issue, but it is an
information issue, and I believe it needs to be addressed, which is why
the FDA, which handles the information and marketing, is the place
where this belongs because the FDA does not believe it is in their
jurisdiction related to science around food safety.
So we know if we go back a moment--let me just say, before talking
about labeling, I believe in supporting all sorts of agriculture. When
I chaired the Agriculture Committee and we started working on the 5-
year farm bill a number of years ago--it is hard to believe we are
halfway through it right now--but I said it was very important that we
support all parts of agriculture and not pit one group against the
other, which is one of my concerns right now in this whole debate,
pitting one side against the other, because we didn't do that in the
farm bill. We created great increases in organic research, organic
checkoff and marketing as well as traditional production agriculture.
We did some very exciting creative things for local food hubs and urban
agriculture that had not been done before. We said we were going to
support all of agriculture.
I believe, from a consumer standpoint, if we give choices, then
consumers will decide. We know also that the fastest growing sector of
the food sector is organic, which is non-GMO, by the way, and one of
the things we do is strengthen that label and make it clear for the
public to know they are purchasing organic and a non-GMO product.
We came out of the farm bill with all parts of agriculture working
together and we won a good farm bill. I think probably one of, if not
the most, progressive farm bills we have had, supporting all parts of
agriculture because we weren't pitting one group against the other,
which, unfortunately, that is what this debate has become right now.
When the House almost exactly a year ago passed a bill to preempt
States--I know Vermont passed a State law. When the House voted to
indicate there shouldn't be 50 different States with 50 different
labeling laws and passed a preemption, they included only voluntary
labeling, and consumers called that the DARK Act because it wasn't a
required mandatory labeling of information and transparency. So the
House bill, with the voluntary process, came here and I opposed it. I
opposed it at every turn and indicated we had to have a mandatory
system of information and of labeling for consumers that should be done
in a way that does not stigmatize biotechnology, and it should be done
in a way that does not set up more costs for consumers by 50 different
States with different labeling laws adding costs for grocery
manufacturers and grocers and so on, which is what would happen if we
had 50 different laws.
I went through this at one time back years ago when we were debating
fuel economy standards when California passed its own fuel economy
standard for automobiles. As other States looked at that, they were
trying to push the Federal Government--rightly so--and the industry
said: We can't have 50 different standards for fuel economy. So we
said: OK. You are right, but that means you have to have a national
standard on fuel economy, and that is where we ended up.
So the people of Vermont, first of all, should feel very good that
what they have done has created this situation to get us to a national
labeling program, but here's what happens if we do nothing right now.
We have a couple of choices. One is that Vermont has a GMO label. We
have two other States that are waiting to see if States around them
pass labeling laws that at some point may come into this, but that is
basically who is getting information. We talked about everyone should
have information. Right there. Those are the folks who have labeling
laws.
There were attempts on the west coast to pass labeling laws, and
those were not successful so this is what we have.
Now what we are proposing is that everybody will have information,
people in my home State of Michigan, people across the country,
everybody will get information and there will have to be a mandatory
label. We give three choices on food that contain GMOs, not voluntary
but a mandatory labeling system. So what do we do and how is it
different than what happened in the House?
Well, first of all, as I have indicated, a national mandatory
labeling requirement, and I will talk more about that in a moment.
Secondly, in Vermont and at the State level, meat, eggs, cheese, and
dairy are exempt--totally exempt. So someone called it the Vermont meat
loophole. So we said: You know what. That is not acceptable. So we
added 25,000 more food products under this law that we would be voting
on tonight. On this bill, 25,000 more food products will be labeled for
people to know whether they are getting GMO ingredients.
Next, the organic label. I have to say the organic trade organization
was extremely effective in the efforts in passing the farm bill. They
came to me with four different items they were interested in
including. It was tough to get all four of those. I didn't think we
actually could get them in negotiations. After our tough negotiations,
I appreciate that we actually were able to achieve all four requests of
the Organic Trade Association.
Even though they would prefer to have one kind of label, like
Vermont, they understand this was a very big step forward for the
organic community. It was a step forward to get mandatory requirement
and accountability. And I very much respect and appreciate the fact
that when they were able to achieve all four items they felt were
critical for organic farmers, they indicated they were very supportive
of that and what we are doing here.
Then we made sure that State and Federal consumer laws were
protected, so that the label is preempted, having a label, but
enforcing penalties if there is fraud or misinformation or something
else related to the label--those enforcement mechanisms are maintained.
So that is where the enforcement comes from.
The only way we are like the House is that we prevent a patchwork of
50 different labeling laws. But everything else we have done builds on
and strengthens the public's right to know as it relates to GMO
ingredients.
One of the big debates: OK, there are three different options.
Vermont has words on the package, and we have some companies now that
are doing that. They are going to indicate--regardless of what we do,
they want the definition settled and they want a national policy, but
based on consumer demand, they are going to proceed to have words on
the package. I believe we will see more and more of that happening in
the marketplace, companies responding to consumer demand.
The other option we give is a label, an on-pack symbol. We don't
specifically say ``GMO'' in a circle, but something like that.
The third option we give is an electronic label. Some people say QR
code, which actually came from the auto industry and stands for quick
response code--when they were tracking labels and checking parts and
other parts of the system, which actually has worked very well. But the
fact is that some kind of electronic label--and technology is changing
every day. Apps are changing every day. So there will probably be other
options that are talked about other than a QR code.
But the reality is, just as a number of groups right now that care
about food and the environment have their own apps that give consumers
information, this is the other option. You would be able to take your
phone--by the way, according to Nielsen, 82 percent of the public has a
smartphone--82 percent, not 10 percent--and we are expecting that to be
more like 90 percent very shortly. You are able to scan, and
immediately it will come up on the front--immediately, not hidden
somewhere, not two or three clicks to get there, but you will
immediately get information, yes or no, on whether there are GMOs. In
fact, when you see whatever the code is, you are probably going to have
a pretty good hint by that as well.
So why do that? Well, some in the food industry would say there is a
desire to make sure that when people are
[[Page S4907]]
given information about genetically engineered or genetically modified
foods, that they actually get information such as ``The National
Academy of Sciences says this is safe for human consumption.'' That is
the reason.
I think there is another reason for this, and the reason it has been
suggested in other forms is so that people really do get more
information about their food. The reality is that the No. 1 question
people ask is about food allergies. It is very difficult to find that
out right now. Going forward, I think we can create an effective, user-
friendly electronic label that will give people ``yes'' or ``no'' on
not just GMOs but on food allergies.
The next question was about antibiotics in meat. There are multiple
questions people have that need to be answered, not just one. There are
multiple things people are interested in.
Despite the emotions around this debate, I think probably in the
future we are going to see effective uses of our technology to give us
more information in a user-friendly way.
The other thing we do is say that the USDA has to review
accessibility of broadband, accessibility of the technology before this
starts, that they have to do that right away. They are required to and
are given the authority to be able to put additional scanners in
stores, so that if somebody doesn't have a phone, they can take the
can, put it up to the scanner, and it will give them information about
food allergies or GMOs or whatever. The first thing that comes up has
to be GMOs.
The USDA is required to look at accessibility because there are
legitimate issues around accessibility that need to be addressed, and
that is one of the things they are given the authority to address, and
we need to make sure that continues to be addressed.
But the final thing I will say about this is that companies,
consumers, stores, grocery stores will drive this. Once we say this is
it--we have companies right now saying: Great. Three options. We are
doing this one because that is what our customers want.
We have stores, great stores like Whole Foods, that say: You know
what, you can have three options, but we are only going to allow an on-
pack symbol or words in our store.
That is going to drive the marketplace. The marketplace is going to
be driven by those who are involved--by consumers, by the companies, by
others who make sure they are giving people the information the way
they want it.
Let me say just a couple of other things. I mentioned 25,000
additional food products in the stores. Anything that is a GMO product,
package, frozen, that includes some meat in it--we are going to be
adding to the information consumers will have access to. I will give an
example. Right now, fettuccine Alfredo is labeled in Vermont, but if
you put chicken in it, it is not labeled. To go on, if you have a
vegetable soup, it is labeled, but if it is beef vegetable soup, it is
not. If there is even beef broth in it, it is not. I don't know how
that makes sense, and yet that is the law under Vermont. I think people
should be asking for more than what is going on in Vermont. Cheese
pizza is labeled in Vermont, but if you put pepperoni on it, it is not,
even though it still has GMO ingredients. So 25,000 additional products
will be labeled because people have a right to know.
Let me finally indicate again that we have strengthened the ``USDA
Organic'' label. This is no small thing. This is very important. The
public needs to know, has the right to know, that USDA Organic also
means non-GMO and that that is a choice you have right now, to be able
to make sure you are getting the products that have the kinds of
ingredients you want.
Again, I appreciate the emotionalism. In all honesty, I have to say
this debate has gone in a lot of directions. A lot of things have been
said that I certainly don't agree with. I question a lot of the things
that have been said in terms of a factual nature. I also think we have
gone into a lot of other tangents on things, debating other kinds of
things and using the debate about the label as a proxy for a broader
debate about biotechnology in the public. I appreciate and I respect
that debate. Even though I disagree with things that are said, I
respect that; that is why we are here.
I also will say in conclusion that we have a responsibility to
govern, and governing means that you have to come together and work
together. If we are going to get things done, it has to be bipartisan,
or it doesn't get done. That is just a fact.
So if we are going to do something that is meaningful, that makes
sure all of the country has the opportunity to have information and a
national standard and the maximum amount of products labeled and that
will protect the organic label in all of the country--by the way, the
organic protections we have are not in the Vermont law. So if we are
going to make sure all the provisions I talked about are not just
available in some places but everyplace, that means we have to come
together and work together. That means rough-and-tumble negotiations,
tough negotiations. These are some of the toughest negotiations I have
ever been in, and we have to be willing to have some give-and-take.
In the climate we are in today, I know it is a lot easier to go to
your corner and point fingers at the other side and to develop
conspiracy theories and to create situations and say things that,
frankly, are extremely disparaging about people's motives and so on,
and that is unfortunate. But we also know that we are people of good
will; that is why we get things done. We may disagree on this one
particular issue, but we are a group who gets things done when we work
together, when we respect all opinions, when we fight as hard as we can
to get as much as we can for what we believe in and then stand together
to be able to move forward.
Debating is great. It is not enough. People expect us to actually get
things done. And contrary to what was done in the House, we have a
mandatory national labeling system with 25,000 additional products than
what is currently being labeled in Vermont or proposed in other States.
We strengthen the organic label. We protect consumer laws to be able to
enforce when there is fraud or there are other mislabeling issues. And
at the same time, we make sure that citizens across the country, not
just in one part of the country, are getting their right to know in a
way that provides accurate information.
I thank everyone. I thank my partner, Senator Roberts. I appreciate
the debate on all sides. I hope we are going to be coming to a
conclusion shortly so that we can move on and actually implement and
share information for consumers about how to access very important
information not only about GMO ingredients and labeling, but I believe
there are other important pieces of information for consumers to have
as well. I think we should be looking for ways to make sure consumers
get all of the kinds of information they are interested in as it
relates to their food.
Thanks again for everyone's hard work and patience this evening as we
have held everyone later this evening.
I would finally say one thing, if I might, and that is that I have
worked in the last 24 hours to do everything I can to help my friends
on the other side of this issue be able to get the votes they are
interested in as it relates to amendments. Unfortunately, there was not
agreement on how to do that. There was an offering two different times
on amendments, to have an amendment vote on an important amendment, and
folks opposed to the bill did not feel they wanted to do that, that
that was enough. I respect that, but we now are at a point where we
really need to come to a close and move forward on this important bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Defense Appropriations Bill
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, this evening, both sides will have an
opportunity to take the next step and begin debate on the fiscal year
2017 Defense appropriations bill.
President Obama's announcement yesterday about our troops in
Afghanistan only underscores the Senate's need to take up and pass the
Defense appropriations bill right now. Although I support a high level
of force to train and equip the Afghan forces and conduct
counterterrorism operations, the President's announcement reminds us of
the need for this bill.
The President made a commitment to our allies, and Senate Democrats
[[Page S4908]]
must join us in meeting our commitment to the force. The training to
prepare forces for deployment to Afghanistan, the weapons they will
carry, the spare parts and fuel consumed in training, and operations
and the ammunition needed to execute their missions, not to mention
their basic pay, is funded through this bill.
Our all-volunteer force does not shrink from this commitment, and
this Senate shouldn't fail our duty to provide for them. This funding
is for current operations, for combat readiness, and for the commitment
announced just yesterday by President Obama.
Last month, the Secretary of Defense made a long-term commitment,
stating that ``the United States will remain the most powerful military
and main underwriter of security in the [Asia Pacific] region for
decades to come.'' He made that commitment knowing our allies and the
Chinese were listening to analyze our Nation's intentions and our
plans. These promises cannot be upheld if we fail to fund the weapons
systems, munitions, training, and personnel required to balance against
China's plans to expand its sphere of influence in the region.
We have a near-term and long-term need to pass this bill, and
commitments like these made by the administration cannot be met--cannot
be met--if our Democratic friends block this critical funding.
I would remind everyone that at a time when we face an array of
terror threats around the globe, we cannot afford to put politics above
support for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines or our efforts
to move the appropriations process forward. So I was troubled by a
letter I received earlier today from Democratic leaders implying they
might actually block this bipartisan bill and, with it, critical
funding to provide for our warriors and provide for our national
defense.
They called for regular order, but I will remind my colleagues this
bill is the epitome--the epitome--of regular order. The Senate passed
the authorizing legislation--the National Defense Authorization Act.
The bipartisan bill respects the budget caps in place. And it was
reported out of the Committee on Appropriations with the support of
every single Democrat and every single Republican on the committee.
As the top Democrat on the Defense Subcommittee himself has said,
``This defense bill takes a responsible approach to protecting our
country--honoring the bipartisan budget deal in place,'' and the senior
Democrat on the committee said of this bill that she is ``happy to
support'' the bill.
There is no excuse to filibuster this bill. Everybody in the
committee supported it. It is consistent with the budget agreement
reached last year. So I would urge all my colleagues to support moving
forward to debate this important legislation they say they are in favor
of.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are as patriotic as the Republicans. We
support our military just as much as the Republicans do. We are led by
a number of stalwart people, not the least of which is the ranking
member on the Committee on Armed Services, Jack Reed. Jack Reed is a
West Point graduate, a man who everyone respects--Democrats and
Republicans--and he is a man of integrity. He is going to vote against
moving forward on this bill. Barbara Mikulski, the matriarch of the
Senate, someone who is respected worldwide for her integrity and the
work she has done in the Senate, will vote no.
We need a strong defense, and we acknowledge that, but we also
understand that a strong defense is more than the Pentagon. The
Pentagon would tell you that. They do not like the OCO funding that is
being talked about, whispered about. To have a strong defense means
more than the Pentagon, I repeat. It means making sure the Department
of Homeland Security is well financed. We want to make sure the Drug
Enforcement Administration is strong and well financed. We want to make
sure the FBI is an agency that we take good care of. There are a lot of
other entities we are concerned about.
The Republican leader, I am stunned, is concerned because we sent him
a letter yesterday; four Democratic leaders sent him a letter. We
simply said that it is important we not be given a little dance step on
this matter. We all know what they are trying to do here. We have a
defense bill, it is an appropriations bill, and once that is done, the
appropriations process will be wiped out, and we will be at the mercy
of the Republicans in some form or fashion. With the defense bill done,
everything else will be pushed away someplace else.
I want to read just a few things. Time doesn't run out until 10:22,
and I understand that, but I want to read a few things from the letter
we wrote to the Republican leader. The letter was sent by me, Durbin,
Schumer, and Murray. Here is what we said, among other things:
Without strong, public assurance that you are committed to
honoring the core tenets of the bipartisan compromise--
including fair funding, parity, and a rejection of poison
pill riders--through the completion of the full
appropriations process, we will no longer be able to support
proceeding to new appropriations bills.
For example, the House has passed a Defense Appropriations
Bill that uses a budget gimmick to hand out extra taxpayer
dollars for the Pentagon, with no equivalent support for
domestic security and other initiatives important to the
middle class. Similarly, during consideration of the fiscal
year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, Senator McCain
offered an amendment to authorize an additional $18 billion
in overseas contingency operations--
This is the gimmick--
funding only for the Pentagon, a clear violation of the
parity principle. Senators Reed of Rhode Island and Mikulski
offered a competing amendment to increase OCO funding by $18
billion and provide a matching $18 billion to invest in
security at home by providing funding for law enforcement and
the Department of Homeland Security, invest in job creating
infrastructure and scientific research, and address national
emergencies like Zika, opioids, and access to clean drinking
water. However, the amendment fell on a largely party-line
vote.
The willingness of Republicans to consider the McCain
amendment and to reject the Reed-Mikulski amendment, combined
with the reported desire of Senate Republicans to offer an
OCO amendment to the Defense appropriations bill sends a
deeply troubling signal about your willingness to appropriate
by the parity principle. Further, this unbalanced approach
does not truly keep Americans safe or protect our interests
abroad. Without sufficient funding for the vital national
security work done by local law enforcement agencies,
enforcement of sanctions and cutting off terrorist financing,
and counterterrorism, we hinder a coherent national security
policy.
And here is the last paragraph of this letter.
We urge you to publicly give your word that all
appropriations bills considered in both chambers and sent to
the President for his signature will comply with the
principle of fair funding, parity, and a rejection of poison
pill riders. If you cannot give us such assurance, we will be
forced to oppose proceeding to future appropriations bills
until you agree to keep your promises and honor our
agreement.
This is signed by Reed, Durbin, Schumer, and Murray.
So Mr. President, we really want to do the appropriations bills. We
have had a little trouble, as you know. We have had this situation with
the veterans bill. It brings back a Zika bill that has been formulated
not here. We passed a very good Zika bill. It wasn't as much money as I
wanted--$1.1 billion in emergency funding. It passed here by 89 votes.
What do we get back from the House? What do we get back from the House?
They whack Planned Parenthood. They have to do that. That is the only
thing they can get out of the House Republicans. They cut $500 million
from veterans, and that money is to be used for processing claims. We
really need help with those. There is $500 million they take from
ObamaCare, money from Ebola. And, of course, they have to do something
about the EPA. You have to do something there or let's do something
with the Clean Water Act.
So that is all in this bill. What we sent to the House you wouldn't
recognize in what we have back here. The Zika mosquitoes are still out
floating around. And then, to make this bill even more strange--what we
got back from the House--they stuck in a provision that said we can fly
the Confederate flag in veterans cemeteries. How about that.
So is there any reason we should be suspect about what is going on
around here? Of course we are. And unless we hear something publicly
from the Republican leader today, just as I indicated, that he publicly
give his word that all appropriations bills considered
[[Page S4909]]
in both Chambers and sent to the President for his signature will
comply with what we have talked about--fair funding, parity, and a
rejection of poison pill riders--if we don't get that assurance, we are
going to have move to go to a different plane, and it is just unfair to
do anything else.
All we need is the one example of what we have just been through--
Zika funding--which has all the craziness I just talked about. So if we
want to talk about political games, this is a picture-perfect example
of what happened on the veterans bill, and we are concerned the same
thing would happen on what we are doing right now.
So I am going to recommend to all my Senators that, until we have a
public assurance from the Republican leader, we should vote no on this
cloture vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). The majority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, one thing my good friend the Democratic
leader always used to remind me of when he was the majority leader is
the majority leader always gets the last word. So I will take advantage
of that tonight.
For anyone who may still be watching C-SPAN 2 at this late hour, let
me suggest the Democratic Party ought to be renamed the ``dysfunction
party.'' When they were in the majority they didn't function and when
they are in the minority they do not function.
Let's just take a look at the last couple of weeks. A Zika MILCON
bill goes through here with every Democrat supporting it, and then all
of a sudden they do not like it. A CARA bill goes through here with not
a single Democrat opposing it, and then they refuse to sign the
conference report. And now what the Democratic leader is saying is that
the Republican Senate needs to guarantee what the democratic House will
do as a condition for passing a bill through the Senate that every
single Democrat on the Committee on Appropriations supported. It came
out of committee unanimously.
This is the definition of dysfunction. So, apparently, what we will
witness here shortly is our Democratic friends, all of whom on the
committee supported the bill, preventing us from taking it up because
they want us to get a guarantee from the House as to what the House
result will be. That is not the way it works. The way you pass a law is
the Senate passes a bill, the House passes a bill, and you negotiate
with each other and with the administration.
So the hour is late and the die seems to be cast. It is my
understanding that when I yield the floor, we will be going to a vote;
is that correct, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 7 minutes remaining postcloture.
Mr. McCONNELL. It is my understanding, Mr. President, that Senator
Merkley----
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. I don't know how long the Democratic leader wants to
go on with this, but let me remind him of what he always reminded me--
that I will have the last word.
Mr. REID. I have no doubt that is the case.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that when we finish our remarks,
Senator Merkley be recognized for up to 2 minutes to make a motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The minority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I do have to say this. To call the
Democratic Party the party of disunity--look at what is going on with
my Republican colleagues. Look at what is going on. They are the party
of Trump. So don't call us dysfunctional.
The example given by my friend the Republican leader that we
supported the bill dealing with Zika--we sure did. We had 98 votes. I
mentioned that in my remarks. Of course we did, because it was
emergency funding. It wasn't as much money as we wanted, but we
accepted it because of the work done by Senators Murray and Blunt. But
what have we gotten back from the House? It isn't even in the same
category of the world. It is something totally different.
So I say to my friend the Republican leader and to all of his
colleagues: Please don't try this--that the Democratic Party is the
party of disunity--when you are being led by Donald Trump.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I see the ranking member of the
Appropriations Committee on the floor. I would recount to everyone that
I said to her weeks and weeks ago that we will devote as much time as
it takes to try to get back to a regular process and move appropriation
bills across the floor. So we have devoted an enormous amount of time
to try to get the appropriations process functioning again here in the
Senate.
I don't understand why the Democratic leadership refuses to honor
what I think are the wishes of the majority of the Democrats on the
committee who have been supporting these bills--most of which have come
out of committee on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis and this
particular defense bill, unanimously. They don't even want to go to it
and let the Senate function.
But I know the hour is late. That is the final observation I intend
to make tonight.
I understand Senator Merkley is going to make a motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, we have had a lively debate over this
bill. I have argued today that it is deeply flawed in several key ways.
This was emphasized in an editorial in the New York Times this morning.
It said:
The biggest problem with the Senate bill is that--instead
of requiring a simple label, as the Vermont law does--it
would allow food companies to put the information in
electronic codes that consumers would have to scan with
smartphones or at scanners installed at grocery stores. The
only reason to do this would be to make the information less
accessible.
Another problem is that the bill might not cover some kinds
of genetic engineering. The Food and Drug Administration
warned that the bill ``would result in a somewhat narrow
scope of coverage''--for example, food that includes oil made
from genetically engineered soybeans might not need to be
labeled.
We have amendments to fix these things. If one really believes in a
mandatory GMO labeling bill, these amendments would be allowed to come
up and be debated. We offered to agree for every Republican amendment
filed to be debated and voted on. We asked, simply, for three
amendments on the Democratic side, in balance to all the Republican
amendments being considered, and that was objected to by the majority
leader.
So let me just close by saying that I will offer a motion to take
away the roadblock to amendments put in place, and that is McConnell
amendment No. 4936. I will move to table that amendment so that
amendments--Republican amendments, Democratic amendments, six
amendments, three on each side--can be considered so we can truly
debate and fix the problems that are in this bill.
I also want to close by thanking my colleague from Michigan, who has
done an incredible effort. She will be so relieved to have this bill
completed. We have debated many, many times. Really, there is so much
we agree on--a single national standard that will work across this
country, a single national GMO standard. She has made the case that we
are achieving that. I responded: Not quite, and we need to still fix
the bill. That is the type of debate we should have on the floor of the
Senate, and it is why we should allow amendments.
Amendment No. 4936
Mr. President, I move to table McConnell amendment No. 4936, and ask
for the yeas and nays, so that we could consider amendments such as
those presented by my Republican colleagues and my Democratic
colleagues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Indiana (Mr. Coats), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
Graham), the
[[Page S4910]]
Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee) and
the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer)
and the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced---yeas 31, nays 62, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 122 Leg.]
YEAS--31
Blumenthal
Booker
Cantwell
Cardin
Durbin
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Hirono
Kaine
King
Leahy
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Paul
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Sullivan
Tester
Udall
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--62
Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blunt
Boozman
Brown
Burr
Capito
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Flake
Franken
Gardner
Grassley
Hatch
Heitkamp
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kirk
Klobuchar
Lankford
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Moran
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Warner
Wicker
NOT VOTING--7
Boxer
Coats
Coons
Graham
Heller
Lee
Vitter
The motion was rejected.
Change of Vote
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 122, I voted nay. It
was my intention to vote yea. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I
be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome of
the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
Vote on Amendment No. 4936
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
4936.
The amendment (No. 4936) was rejected.
Vote on Motion to Concur with Amendment No. 4935
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question now
occurs on agreeing to the motion to concur in the House amendment to S.
764 with amendment No. 4935.
The yeas and nays have been previously ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Indiana (Mr. Coats), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
Graham), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), the Senator from Utah
(Mr. Lee) and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer)
and the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced---yeas 63, nays 30, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 123 Leg.]
YEAS--63
Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blunt
Boozman
Brown
Burr
Capito
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Franken
Gardner
Grassley
Hatch
Heitkamp
Hirono
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kaine
Kirk
Klobuchar
Lankford
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Moran
Nelson
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Scott
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Warner
Wicker
NAYS--30
Blumenthal
Booker
Cantwell
Cardin
Collins
Durbin
Flake
Gillibrand
Heinrich
King
Leahy
Markey
Merkley
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Paul
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Sessions
Sullivan
Tester
Udall
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--7
Boxer
Coats
Coons
Graham
Heller
Lee
Vitter
The motion was agreed to.
____________________